• 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

So 70% of you are insane... Pretty shocked by these poll results

Better to get it over with now than have another lockout when the new CBA expires

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Dead on. Anyone who doesn't realize this has blinders on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So 70% of you are insane... Pretty shocked by these poll results

So instead of adding anything worthwile, you're just insulting other people?

Most of the according to you insane people gave great reasons why they have voted yes.

Like others said the season could be toast so at least make it worth it. Midget needs to go so do some of his stupid expansion franchises.

Sent from my BlackBerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is we cannot assume a new commissioner won't just pick up where uncle gary left off

Thats the key right here. The owners locked out the players, not Gary. Who is to say that the owners won't lockout the players again?

I know people like to point at Gary and say he caused a lost season and 3 lockouts in the last 3 CBA negotiations. The fact of the matter is that the owners did this, not Gary. The ownership will need to change hands first. Even then, the new head of the owners will still be doing what the ownership recommends.

We need uniters in these positions though, so I will agree that Fehr and Bettman are not uniters. They both do need to be fired, but i don't agree that will be best for the NHL as a whole. The next people could be worse.

number9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure the next guy will do what some owners want but it could be a fresh start. Whos to say the players are against sticking it to him? He is by far the most hated person in hockey.

Hell I Think even Stern could do a better job than him. Fehr has despite late starts to the negotiations done nothing wrong, he provided solutions.

What we need are two sides that aren't trying to screw over the other side and this is exactly why the first owner proposal IS a such a big deal.

Lose this and another season so the midget can get fired to me is worth it.

Sent from my BlackBerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 70% of you are insane... Pretty shocked by these poll results

I voted yes, but the voices in my head have explained to me that I am not insane.

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).

This is filled with inaccuracies, he had plenty of options, a lockout should be a last resort, not a bargaining chip. He could have made more realistic proposals over the summer, he could have sat down with Fehr and a mediator to negotiate a deal, He could have had the players continue playing under the old CBA while he negotiated, and set a deadline, i.e. if we dont have a cba by December we cancel the winter classic and all preceeding it, so a mid-season lock-out, then the league wouldn't be losing revenue. He could have gotten a group of players, the owners, and fehr together and hashed out a rough deal of what everyone would be semi-happy with. To say the lockout is all the owners is pure ignorance, yes the players may be partially at fault for not negotiating better, blah blah blah but the main fact stands that Bettman is the one stopping THEM fromplaying NHL hockey right now, and it is all by his choice. I have said it before and will say it again, all owners are not on Bettmans side, they knew he had his 8 votes, so in order to seem strong to the pa they all voted yes to the lockout, but it was Bettmans idea, not the owners, most of the owners would love for the nhl to be in full throtle right now.

55fan and frankgrimes like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes, but the voices in my head have explained to me that I am not insane.

This is filled with inaccuracies, he had plenty of options, a lockout should be a last resort, not a bargaining chip. He could have made more realistic proposals over the summer, he could have sat down with Fehr and a mediator to negotiate a deal, He could have had the players continue playing under the old CBA while he negotiated, and set a deadline, i.e. if we dont have a cba by December we cancel the winter classic and all preceeding it, so a mid-season lock-out, then the league wouldn't be losing revenue. He could have gotten a group of players, the owners, and fehr together and hashed out a rough deal of what everyone would be semi-happy with. To say the lockout is all the owners is pure ignorance, yes the players may be partially at fault for not negotiating better, blah blah blah but the main fact stands that Bettman is the one stopping THEM fromplaying NHL hockey right now, and it is all by his choice. I have said it before and will say it again, all owners are not on Bettmans side, they knew he had his 8 votes, so in order to seem strong to the pa they all voted yes to the lockout, but it was Bettmans idea, not the owners, most of the owners would love for the nhl to be in full throtle right now.

23 owners could have voted against announcing that they are unified in locking the players (and fans) out and that wouldn't have been enough to overrule Bettman

Thats the key right here. The owners locked out the players, not Gary. Who is to say that the owners won't lockout the players again?

I know people like to point at Gary and say he caused a lost season and 3 lockouts in the last 3 CBA negotiations. The fact of the matter is that the owners did this, not Gary. The ownership will need to change hands first. Even then, the new head of the owners will still be doing what the ownership recommends.

We need uniters in these positions though, so I will agree that Fehr and Bettman are not uniters. They both do need to be fired, but i don't agree that will be best for the NHL as a whole. The next people could be worse.

You haven't been following closely, have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Option one:

Daniel Sedin for commissioner.

Henrik Sedin for NHLPA leader.

Option two:

Henrik Sedin for commissioner.

Daniel Sedin for NHLPA leader.

If they can't work out a deal, no one can.

number9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a rather significant stretch to say "The season is toast anyway". No chance there won't be hockey by November at the latest with the way I'm feeling this all play out. I'll hop on the Bettman hate train and admit I was wrong if it does go a full season though (not to say he's blameless of course but the other side shares just as much of it this time around).

Edited by T-Ruff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

it is a failure. but the owners are just as much to blame as bettman

Z Winged Dangler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a rather significant stretch to say "The season is toast anyway". No chance there won't be hockey by November at the latest with the way I'm feeling this all play out. I'll hop on the Bettman hate train and admit I was wrong if it does go a full season though (not to say he's blameless of course but the other side shares just as much of it this time around).

The sides haven't even begun discussing the main issues and there's going to be hockey in approximately two weeks?

Best case scenario in my mind is Winter Classic. Even that I think is a long shot since there's been no progress whatsoever to date. How can anyone be optimistic about Bettman getting a deal done? His track record says completely otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 owners could have voted against announcing that they are unified in locking the players (and fans) out and that wouldn't have been enough to overrule Bettman

I don't want to seem rude, just thought I'd mention 23 owners CAN overturn Bettman, 22 cannot overrule him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes, but the voices in my head have explained to me that I am not insane.

This is filled with inaccuracies, he had plenty of options, a lockout should be a last resort, not a bargaining chip. He could have made more realistic proposals over the summer, he could have sat down with Fehr and a mediator to negotiate a deal, He could have had the players continue playing under the old CBA while he negotiated, and set a deadline, i.e. if we dont have a cba by December we cancel the winter classic and all preceeding it, so a mid-season lock-out, then the league wouldn't be losing revenue. He could have gotten a group of players, the owners, and fehr together and hashed out a rough deal of what everyone would be semi-happy with. To say the lockout is all the owners is pure ignorance, yes the players may be partially at fault for not negotiating better, blah blah blah but the main fact stands that Bettman is the one stopping THEM fromplaying NHL hockey right now, and it is all by his choice. I have said it before and will say it again, all owners are not on Bettmans side, they knew he had his 8 votes, so in order to seem strong to the pa they all voted yes to the lockout, but it was Bettmans idea, not the owners, most of the owners would love for the nhl to be in full throtle right now.

How can my statements of what I'd prefer be filled with inaccuracies? I didn't even suggest any opinions I don't think...which also can't be considered inaccurate. You seemed ot have just gone off about all the other options Bettman could have taken rather than going to a lockout....most of which I agree could have been done, some of which I disagree with, but none of that is the point, none of it was the topic of what I'd prefer to see.

So, what was it that I stated inaccurately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can my statements of what I'd prefer be filled with inaccuracies? I didn't even suggest any opinions I don't think...which also can't be considered inaccurate. You seemed ot have just gone off about all the other options Bettman could have taken rather than going to a lockout....most of which I agree could have been done, some of which I disagree with, but none of that is the point, none of it was the topic of what I'd prefer to see.

So, what was it that I stated inaccurately?

I must apologize, I quoted the wrong person on my thread, although it truly is not the owners choice, Bettman decided to use the lockout as a negotiating tactic three times. Nonetheless this was the post I meant to quote

Thats the key right here. The owners locked out the players, not Gary. Who is to say that the owners won't lockout the players again?

I know people like to point at Gary and say he caused a lost season and 3 lockouts in the last 3 CBA negotiations. The fact of the matter is that the owners did this, not Gary. The ownership will need to change hands first. Even then, the new head of the owners will still be doing what the ownership recommends.

We need uniters in these positions though, so I will agree that Fehr and Bettman are not uniters. They both do need to be fired, but i don't agree that will be best for the NHL as a whole. The next people could be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must apologize, I quoted the wrong person on my thread, although it truly is not the owners choice, Bettman decided to use the lockout as a negotiating tactic three times. Nonetheless this was the post I meant to quote

Well, I'm not sure if it was Bettman's choice or not, might be, might not, I don't know. I would assume he woudl have addressed the board of govenors and suggested this as an approach (worked for them last time as an example) and then the board would endorse such approach. In the end, Bettman wouldn't need an majority to endorse, but I truly don't know whether it is him pushing this tactic or not.

Also, the stupdity of needing something like 75% to overrule him is just that, stupidity. I'm not sure if it matters though. Who knows if more than 50% would be against the lockout right now? You could point to them overruling back in 1994, but that was almost 20 years ago, different economics....different people in a lot of cases as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a rather significant stretch to say "The season is toast anyway". No chance there won't be hockey by November at the latest with the way I'm feeling this all play out.

I'd say it is not that much of a stretch at all to think the whole season might be lost. I am not sure where on earth you got your "feeling" from. Both sides have pretty much stated they are not moving off of their stance more than slightly and would be willing to lose as much time as it takes. This somehow in your mind translates to "we'll be playing hockey in a couple weeks, guaranteed"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it is not that much of a stretch at all to think the whole season might be lost. I am not sure where on earth you got your "feeling" from. Both sides have pretty much stated they are not moving off of their stance more than slightly and would be willing to lose as much time as it takes. This somehow in your mind translates to "we'll be playing hockey in a couple weeks, guaranteed"?

Good grief... talk about bias. Clearly he is "feeling" the way he does based on all of the news on the topic... not a supernatural, emotional inclination like you tried to paint his opinion as with your quotation marks.

I happen to also hold the opinion that we will not lose a whole season and I am quite surprised by the amount of people that think we will. Anyone want to make some bets to see who's "feeling" is right? ;)

Rick D and T-Ruff like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I thought it would get rid of that ****** bag once and for all, it might almost be worth it. But I want a guarantee, written in concrete, that he will never darken the doors of an NHL arena ever again, and that whoever succeeds him will have half a brain enough to know that lockouts are detrimental to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief... talk about bias. Clearly he is "feeling" the way he does based on all of the news on the topic... not a supernatural, emotional inclination like you tried to paint his opinion as with your quotation marks.

I happen to also hold the opinion that we will not lose a whole season and I am quite surprised by the amount of people that think we will. Anyone want to make some bets to see who's "feeling" is right? ;)

LOL

What kind of bias exactly? There has been no idication that the season will start by November at the very latest, which is what he said.

I am willing to bet you that the season won't start in two weeks at the very latest.

Edited by sleepwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407490

This article states the NHL/Bettman have caved, offered the so desired 50/50 revenue split, a full 82 game season, adding 1 game every 5 weeks, so we may not see an end to Bettmans reign anytime soon, but possibly an end to the lockout this week... fingers crossed, here's to hoping :champs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

What kind of bias exactly? There has been no idication that the season will start by November at the very latest, which is what he said.

I am willing to bet you that the season won't start in two weeks at the very latest.

www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407490

This article states the NHL/Bettman have caved, offered the so desired 50/50 revenue split, a full 82 game season, adding 1 game every 5 weeks, so we may not see an end to Bettmans reign anytime soon, but possibly an end to the lockout this week... fingers crossed, here's to hoping :champs:

sleepwalker... I will bet you ONE MILLION dollars! :shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407490

This article states the NHL/Bettman have caved, offered the so desired 50/50 revenue split, a full 82 game season, adding 1 game every 5 weeks, so we may not see an end to Bettmans reign anytime soon, but possibly an end to the lockout this week... fingers crossed, here's to hoping :champs:

I'm not sure which ending i prefer lol

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