• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
stevkrause

Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Rate this topic

Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?   103 members have voted

  1. 1. Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

    • yes
      58
    • no
      35

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

188 posts in this topic

I think we're going to lose it anyway. Might as well get something in return for it.

Exactly. Couldn't agree more.

I think this season is gone, may as well get the lockout fanatic removed as some consolation.

Edited by GoWings1905
haroldsnepsts likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

both sides are making demands, otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess

the players demand that there be no salary rollbacks. the owners demand that they get higher percentage of league revenue.

?

The owners are demanding a higher percentage of revenue and salary rollbacks and the players are saying no. How is that a demand on the players part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

The owners are demanding a higher percentage of revenue and salary rollbacks and the players are saying no. How is that a demand on the players part?

you are right in that the owners are demanding salary rollbacks. but the players are demanding that there be no salary rollbacks and refuse to negotiate economic issues until that demand is met.

You can argue who's demands are more reasonable but to say that the players aren't demanding anything is false imo. the fact is both sides have demands that right now aren't being met by either side and is why we are at a stalemate with these economic issues

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure a commissioner will cater to the owners but there are ni excuses for 3 of 3 and tons of failed teams, some even can't make it with revenue sharing, fans want to see superteams instead of forced parity crap.

The midget just isn't the right guy for the job we need a guy like Gretzky someone the owners, players and fans respect.

It is also the fault of the owners to let Bettman gain power and agreeing to keep some VERY questionable franchises in stupid places.

The PA provided solutions and options, the NHL declined so this lockout is their fault and no, I don't blame the PA for calling out these gamblers if I sign a contract I expect and have the right to get it honored. I am starting to wonder how some of them are thinking of their new teams now.

The only thing you can blame the PA for is waiting too long other than that' this is an owners lockout forced by an atrocious midget.

Tldr sacrifice whatever it takes to get him fired and relocate some teams in irder to get more support and even more revenue instead of wasting it on teams that just aren't hockey markets.

Sent from my BlackBerry

This fan doesn't want to see superteams. It would get awfully boring watching the same teams win every year, even if that includes Detroit. Baseball got real tedious when the Yanks won in 96, 98, 99, and 2000. Or look at the superteams in the NBA, they don't seem to be creating any more excitement for the fans. Sort of reminds me of the Harlem Globetrotters playing the Washington Generals. How exciting!

Obviously this is just my opinion, but I actually liked the fact that Phoenix, LA, NJ, and the Rangers were the final four last year. Something different than the norm is good as far as I'm concerned.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This fan doesn't want to see superteams. It would get awfully boring watching the same teams win every year, even if that includes Detroit. Baseball got real tedious when the Yanks won in 96, 98, 99, and 2000. Or look at the superteams in the NBA, they don't seem to be creating any more excitement for the fans. Sort of reminds me of the Harlem Globetrotters playing the Washington Generals. How exciting!

Obviously this is just my opinion, but I actually liked the fact that Phoenix, LA, NJ, and the Rangers were the final four last year. Something different than the norm is good as far as I'm concerned.

I have to disagree. Dynasties tend to create more interest for the casual fans because it gives them a team to root against. This past nba finals with the heat had some of the highest tv ratings for the nba finals ever.

As a casual fan of all the other sports except hockey, I find it way more enjoyable to watch the playoffs in which there is a villain

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are right in that the owners are demanding salary rollbacks. but the players are demanding that there be no salary rollbacks and refuse to negotiate economic issues until that demand is met.

You can argue who's demands are more reasonable but to say that the players aren't demanding anything is false imo. the fact is both sides have demands that right now aren't being met by either side and is why we are at a stalemate with these economic issues

The difference is it's the owners who want change, not the players. Just because the CBA is over doesn't mean you have to change it. The last CBA actually was pretty successful. Yet, the owners want to renegotiate a new one. They're DEMANDING to go back to negotiating table and will lockout the season until that demand is met.

The players POSITION is that they do not want to negotiate salary roll backs. They're not demanding anything from the owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is it's the owners who want change, not the players. Just because the CBA is over doesn't mean you have to change it. The last CBA actually was pretty successful. Yet, the owners want to renegotiate a new one. They're DEMANDING to go back to negotiating table and will lockout the season until that demand is met.

The players POSITION is that they do not want to negotiate salary roll backs. They're not demanding anything from the owners.

i guess we just have a different view on demand

to me, when someone (the players) doesn't want to do something(negotiate) until the other person( owners) does something (take rollbacks off the table), i look at that as being a demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess we just have a different view on demand

to me, when someone (the players) doesn't want to do something(negotiate) until the other person( owners) does something (take rollbacks off the table), i look at that as being a demand.

A demand is followed by a response. Owners demanded roll backs, players said no. Players responded to a demand, that is all. They initiated none of this. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A demand is followed by a response. Owners demanded roll backs, players said no. Players responded to a demand, that is all. They initiated none of this. Simple.

meh. i don't agree but whatever.

the bigger issue here is that neither the players nor the owners refuse to budge and we have already lost 2 weeks worth of games with more likely getting cancelled this week.

was watching a hockey central video on sportsnet.ca today and one of the guys on there said that fehr had a proposal drawn up and ready to go a while back in which it leaned more towards the owners demands, but the players said no to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh. i don't agree but whatever.

the bigger issue here is that neither the players nor the owners refuse to budge and we have already lost 2 weeks worth of games with more likely getting cancelled this week.

was watching a hockey central video on sportsnet.ca today and one of the guys on there said that fehr had a proposal drawn up and ready to go a while back in which it leaned more towards the owners demands, but the players said no to it.

So you are telling me, we could have been watching hockey right now? Boo to the players for turning it down :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are telling me, we could have been watching hockey right now? Boo to the players for turning it down :(

Bettman would have turned it do

meh. i don't agree but whatever.

the bigger issue here is that neither the players nor the owners refuse to budge and we have already lost 2 weeks worth of games with more likely getting cancelled this week.

was watching a hockey central video on sportsnet.ca today and one of the guys on there said that fehr had a proposal drawn up and ready to go a while back in which it leaned more towards the owners demands, but the players said no to it.

It doesn't matter how much it leaned towards the owners demands Bettman would have rejected it had the players said yes to it wanting to squeeze some more out of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how much it leaned towards the owners demands Bettman would have rejected it had the players said yes to it wanting to squeeze some more out of them.

i wasn't aware that you had the details of this proposal? please enlighten me.

for anyone that wants to watch the video follow this link and then click on the video titled "would a mediator help cba talks?"

for whatever reason it won't let me link the video directly to this site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't sacrifice a full season to ensure that Bettman was canned. Hell, even if that did happen, the owners could hire in someone even worse. Right now, Bettman is a serious problem, but Fehr is a big problem as well. Maybe not as big as Bettman, but still a sizable one. What we need are two sides that get along and are eager to work together to make the sport better. So far, I am not convinced that either Bettman or Fehr are interested in doing this. You can say I am turned off by the way that both sides are not willing to budge at all on the money issue.

At this point though, I wouldn't sacrifice another season just to see these two greedy asshats get canned.

Rick D likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am absolutely shocked at the poll results thus far. I could care less about Bettman. Sure, he's not very likeable, I can't stand the guy, but he really has little impact on me. I'd sign him to a 20 year contract if it meant I could start watching NHL hockey again tomorrow.

Would be nice to see a new person come in, but I'd be willing to bet that we would all start to form some hatred for that person as well....maybe a little less so though. I'm not sure it would have a signficant impact on lockouts vs. no lockouts though as that is really the owners decision. I know some will reference the fact that there needs to be 22 votes to overturn vs. what you would expect (15), but I'd bet you'd still seem the signficant power from a signficant vew owners.

What I'd be more interested in seeing is a replacement of the chairman of the Board (i.e. get rid of Jacobs).

T-Ruff likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of people that voted yes is outrageous.

Didn't you get the memo?

Bettman is entirely at fault for the lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of people that voted yes is outrageous.

it just shows you how well the PA has played the pr battle

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it just shows you how well the PA has played the pr battle

I'm basing it more on the sum total of his career than any PR attempts by Fehr.

3 CBA negotiations. 3 lockouts.

1st major North American pro sport to lose a season due to a labor dispute. Other leagues have similar issues and problems but have managed to solve them without losing an entire season.

1,780 games lost to lockout under his watch and counting. That is by far more than any of the big pro sports.

How is that not a failure? The NHL commissioner is not just a shill for ownership, part of his job is to protect the integrity and public confidence in the league. The commissioners of other leagues have to deal with owners just like Bettman does.

7 years after losing an entire season to implement a hard cap, with an increase in revenue of 50% since the last CBA, there's no way there should be a lockout right now. Bettman and his hardliners want too much too fast. And unlike in 1995, the owners aren't going to be able to overrule him and salvage the season.

stevkrause and Rick D like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm soooo in for losing another season to get rid of Bettman! Honestly I don't care how long it goes, just as long as he's gone, because I don't know how much longer I can watch hockey with him as commish anyway.

As mentioned in another discussion, I think the main goal, players and even some of the owners, is to get rid of the guy. With only 8 owners (well 7 now, since the league owns Phoenix) needing to agree with Bettman to get what he wants, the guy has way to much control. It's time to move on.

And unlike in 1995, the owners aren't going to be able to overrule him and salvage the season.

That's why I think Fehr has been brought in by the players and some of the owners, is to take him down.

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