• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Salviaman

Report: Gary Bettman makes $7.5M

Rate this topic

67 posts in this topic

$7.5 million dollars? To do what, exactly? Sit in an office with his thumbs up his ass? Can someone point to me what it is he does to earn this paycheck? I know what our guys do to earn their money.....how about we have some forensic accountants pour over Bettman's financials to see where this money is coming from and where it's going.

He's doing pretty well for having his thumbs up his ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, here we all thought Ericsson's contract was bad.

Ericsson's contract is bad. Bettman was hired to increase the popularity and range of the NHL, and it has always been his job to increase profits and revenue. He has excelled at that.

Sure that is what he's making this year but whats his cap hit?

Have you SEEN his hairline?

55fan and WingZNut13 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another complaint about bashing Bettman...How original...

If you're not interested in commenting, don't. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others shouldn't either.

Another complaint about someone complaining abut people complaining about Bettman... How original...

If you're not interested in commenting, don't. Just because you like it, it doesn't mean others should as well.

See how that works?

Bettman has done a wondrous job as commissioner. The players are making bank and the owners are making bank and the ratings just keep going up up and up.

He tried expanding the NHL south like he should have and it has failed in two places while places like Tampa Bay, Nashville, Dallas and the California teams are thriving. Canada has another team now as well. Who the hell cares if hockey failed in Atlanta? Who cares if it is failing in Phoenix? How do those two teams personally affect you, given that the NHL is trying to expand it's demographic? If you run a league and aren't trying to globalize, then you are a terrible league commissionaire. Football expanded north, soccer expanded West, and hockey is expanding south. Deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that I may be supporting Doucheman's over-priced salary is why I tend to second guess buying NHL products anymore.

Edited by Shoreline
hudler99 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another complaint about someone complaining abut people complaining about Bettman... How original...

If you're not interested in commenting, don't. Just because you like it, it doesn't mean others should as well.

See how that works?

Bettman has done a wondrous job as commissioner. The players are making bank and the owners are making bank and the ratings just keep going up up and up.

He tried expanding the NHL south like he should have and it has failed in two places while places like Tampa Bay, Nashville, Dallas and the California teams are thriving. Canada has another team now as well. Who the hell cares if hockey failed in Atlanta? Who cares if it is failing in Phoenix? How do those two teams personally affect you, given that the NHL is trying to expand it's demographic? If you run a league and aren't trying to globalize, then you are a terrible league commissionaire. Football expanded north, soccer expanded West, and hockey is expanding south. Deal with it.

It's cute how people would rather neg you than express why they think your post is worthy of being negged, or even wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's cute how people would rather neg you than express why they think your post is worthy of being negged, or even wrong.

I never understood why any poster would think someone is owed an explanation for a neg.. isn't it self-explanatory? The only difference is, perhaps in the neg part they are avoiding a rather pointless argument.

Anyhow, I lol'd at the boo montage.

55fan and hudler99 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood why any poster would think someone is owed an explanation for a neg.. isn't it self-explanatory? The only difference is, perhaps in the neg part they are avoiding a rather pointless argument.

Anyhow, I lol'd at the boo montage.

I didn't say for anyone to explain a neg rep. I said for people to stop being cowards and actually rebut Konnan in some capacity.

Bettman has done a wondrous job as commissioner. The players are making bank and the owners are making bank and the ratings just keep going up up and up.

Go ahead. Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say for anyone to explain a neg rep. I said for people to stop being cowards and actually rebut Konnan in some capacity.

I'm not quite sure if this is a troll or if you accidentally implied the irony of cowardice all while posting anonymously on an internet message board.

Really, who cares?

Edited by Shoreline
haroldsnepsts and ECWingsfan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure if this is a troll or if you accidentally implied the irony of cowardice all while posting anonymously on an internet message board.

Really, who cares?

I think there is a difference between discussing issues on a message board and neg repping someone because you disagree with them.

Bettman still has not provided fans with a television deal that does not insult our intelligence.

Explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bettman is a ******, but he's doing a fair job.

Agree. I don't think many people like him or agree with many of his decisions, but he has done a good job.

Bettman still has not provided fans with a television deal that does not insult our intelligence.

Would you rather have one game a week on ESPN2, or three games a week on NBC/NBC Sports (Versus)? I don't have cable (so the deal doesn't directly affect me), but I know which one I would choose. One nationally televised game a week would be an insult to our intelligence IMO.

It's certainly cool to hate Bettman, but I would like someone here who doesn't think he deserves $7.5m to argue how Bettman has failed the NHL in increasing revenues, awareness, etc.

Doc Holliday likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're worried about what Bettmans making? CEOs bankrupt this country and their businesses while making tens or hundreds of millions of dollars while their employees made 5 figures.

Bettman has made the BoG more money, players more money, and made the product more exciting and more available to it's fans than any other sports league. He makes less than some of the top players and little more than 10x what the lower tier players make. IMO he's earned it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're worried about what Bettmans making? CEOs bankrupt this country and their businesses while making tens or hundreds of millions of dollars while their employees made 5 figures.

Bettman has made the BoG more money, players more money, and made the product more exciting and more available to it's fans than any other sports league. He makes less than some of the top players and little more than 10x what the lower tier players make. IMO he's earned it too.

I find it interesting with the CEO analogy given Doucheman's role as Commissioner can easily be called CEO. While his standards for keeping the league as a whole profitable are respectable, his approach to the cities he allows the NHL to place teams at with little to no respect for the rule of law or citizens of those governed by the area on the hook for an extremely cost-intensive building, and his approach to fans, are reprehensible at best. It's rather easy to understand the role he plays, however, as a fan, I know, but don't give a f***, about the fact that his role as effective CEO of the NHL is to make the league profitable and appease a BOG. Despite understanding the position he's in, I'm not one of them, I'm a fan. Others are allowed to give him a pat on the back for one sole reason, I on the other hand, think he can go f*** himself. Rather than take it that seriously like a few specific posters are doing, I choose to have fun with it. If that doesn't get approval from a few specific posters (not part of a response to you btw sfp), oh well for those posters then, huh? Tough s***.

Edited by Shoreline
55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would like to know is what's wrong with irrationally hating Gary Bettman. People here irrationally hate lots of players, including he-who-shall-not-be-named, for lots of reasons......does anyone get sand in their genitals over that?

It seems counterproductive to me to go into a thread about someone you know lots of people don't like (for whatever reason), and then dictate to those people what they should or should not say about them. If I want to say "Gary Bettman blows syphilis-infected donkeys for spare change under City Hall"....well, then I'm going to do that. You don't need to worry yourself about why I think he does that, or why I think he should do that.....just laugh if you think it's funny, ignore it if you think it's not.

I don't care how much good he may or may not be doing for the league, I don't like him. He's smarmy, he's douchey, and he looks like he eats puppies for dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain.

He has not attempted to negotiate a contract of League games, covering a full season, by a national network via free TV (i.e. not having to pay a premium to view them). Until this coming season, he has seemed content to let coverage begin on New Year's Day. That's three months exposure lost.

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would like to know is what's wrong with irrationally hating Gary Bettman. People here irrationally hate lots of players, including he-who-shall-not-be-named, for lots of reasons......does anyone get sand in their genitals over that?

Who said it is wrong to irrationally hate Bettman?

It seems counterproductive to me to go into a thread about someone you know lots of people don't like (for whatever reason), and then dictate to those people what they should or should not say about them. If I want to say "Gary Bettman blows syphilis-infected donkeys for spare change under City Hall"....well, then I'm going to do that. You don't need to worry yourself about why I think he does that, or why I think he should do that.....just laugh if you think it's funny, ignore it if you think it's not.

Difference between what you are talking about and what I did. I never said for people to not insult him. I said it is sad people are going to neg rep a respected community member for valid points about someone, instead of providing some insight as to why they think he is wrong.

Perhaps it is that people just hate the guy so much it is acceptable to them to neg rep someone for speaking positively about that person. If so, I'll say no more.

I don't care how much good he may or may not be doing for the league, I don't like him. He's smarmy, he's douchey, and he looks like he eats puppies for dinner.

Well nobody got on you for doing that (even though that isn't what you did), so I'm not sure what your point is.

Cusimano: how does that insult our intelligence? Versus has a hell of a lot of exposure for the league and that goes on year round. Not to mention Versus televises games late in the season based on the playoff race.

Edited by Doc Holliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how lauded Bettman is now for helming increased revenue since the lockout, as if that was the year he took over.

But Gary was there for the lockout too, and for over a decade leading up to it. In case I need to remind anyone, Bettman was the commissioner residing over the first major N. American professional league to lose an entire year because of a labor dispute. The Only. Ever. Oh, and he lost another 1/2 year on top of it earlier. Beautiful.

I'll admit Gary may have learned a thing or two following the lockout, after 12 years of ineptitude, but that in no way pardons the 12 years of ineptitude. It was during Gary's reign the NHL went from a hot commodity in the early 90s to 12th on ESPN, behind poker, bowling, college sports, lawn darts and rock hucking.

Not addressing the clutch and grabbing until 2005 was a costly, costly mistake. Bettman is also guilty of focusing on new customers before existing customers, which confounds me, as it just seems marketing 101 to always focus first and never alienate your existing customers.

I guess you can love Bettman for moderate success over the past 5 years, but I have not forgotten the first dozen years and have long felt Bettman's level of 'success' is set awfully low.

Edited by egroen
55fan and Electrophile like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems many of Bettman's defenders are younger, and I guess you can't help but give Bettman a 'passable' grade since the lockout, and if that is your scope, it does seem ridiculous for this guy to be so hated.

But if you are a bit older, you remember that condescending prick as the one who lost 1 1/2 years of hockey and ESPN. It's really not all irrational reasons this guy is booed everywhere he goes.

Electrophile and 55fan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems many of Bettman's defenders are younger, and I guess you can't help but give Bettman a 'passable' grade since the lockout, and if that is your scope, it does seem ridiculous for this guy to be so hated.

But if you are a bit older, you remember that condescending prick as the one who lost 1 1/2 years of hockey and ESPN. It's really not all irrational reasons this guy is booed everywhere he goes.

Would ESPN have treated hockey any differently regardless of commissioner?

Hockey was never in their best interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you simply do not remember the early-90s.

I was still in diapers when the 90s started. (it would help if you gave an example of the best ESPN gave the NHL in terms of exposure, money, and broadcasting)

I suppose my impression of ESPN doesn't help when their offer to a league that continues to grow (and get ratings in games it never had on ESPN) is still a slap in the face.

Edited by Doc Holliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0