• 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'd go for it because Gary Bettman has stunded the growth of this game. The NHL had so much going for it in terms of the future and now that's killed.

Granted, Bettman was Commissioner when the NHL "had so much going for it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know why anyone gives credit to Gary Bettman for the game growing.

It has always been big in Canada, and Gary takes away the Jets and Nordiques in the mid 90's when Canada's dollar was struggling. Colorado is a successful organization and a team belongs there, but Phoenix has not made a cent profit since they moved there.

The sunbelt expansion is, was, and will always be remembered as a failure. Most of those teams are the reason that there is a lockout because they make no money.

The Canadian dollar is on par with the US dollar now and the US economy is not at it's best unfortunately so maybe it's time for teams like the Coyotes and Panthers to move for the good of the league.

At the end of the day, the only reason that the salary cap has to go down with a 50/50 split is because of the bottom 5 or so teams in the NHL that are basically bankrupt. Move the Coyotes, Panthers and Devils to Seattle, Quebec and Markham and the cap doesn't move with a 50/50 split by the end of a season when the NHL goes from 3.3 billion profit to 4 billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure am glad you're not the Commissioner. I can't imagine how many people who love hockey would never be exposed to it because of where they were born or grew up. What an elitist attitude. "You're from Texas/Florida/California, you don't deserve exposure to hockey."

It's not elitist - it's realist. They can put an NHL team anywhere they want as long as they can support themselves, not go into bankruptcy, get bought by the NHL, and not get revenue sharing. I have no respect for any team that takes revenue sharing. If you want a team, pay for it yourself. I support the Wings, not the Coyotes, Panthers, Preds, etc.

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still elitist, but good try,

---

Lets use your logic and talk about the teams that have been losing money (looks to be about 18 of them according to Forbes.) Screw all the teams that aren't able to make money. "They can put an NHL team anywhere they want as long as they can support themselves" So, goodbye to:

Phoenix, Florida, Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, which would make you happy. However, you also lose St. Louis, Winnipeg, NYI, Buffalo, Tampa Bay, New Jersey, San Jose, Anaheim (don't you live in the CA area? Would suck to lose your opportunity to go see games, no?) Washington, and the Cup Champion LA Kings. Man, what a great league with lots of exposure that would be./s

Revenue sharing is something built in to the league. All of the major sports league incorporate it. Most of the teams I listed would take advantage of it if they were able. However, there are restrictions that prevent some teams from utilizing the program, which would help them at least break even. Not every team can be the Wings or the Leafs with so much tradition that you have a built in fanbase, no matter how the team performs. It takes time, and lean seasons sometimes, to build up the tradition.

But, what do I know? I'm just one of the fans that could have given a crap about hockey growing up, due to no teams even remotely close to me, but became a rabid fan once hockey became available to me.

hillbillywingsfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still elitist, but good try,

---

Lets use your logic and talk about the teams that have been losing money (looks to be about 18 of them according to Forbes.) Screw all the teams that aren't able to make money. "They can put an NHL team anywhere they want as long as they can support themselves" So, goodbye to:

Phoenix, Florida, Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, which would make you happy. However, you also lose St. Louis, Winnipeg, NYI, Buffalo, Tampa Bay, New Jersey, San Jose, Anaheim (don't you live in the CA area? Would suck to lose your opportunity to go see games, no?) Washington, and the Cup Champion LA Kings. Man, what a great league with lots of exposure that would be./s

Revenue sharing is something built in to the league. All of the major sports league incorporate it. Most of the teams I listed would take advantage of it if they were able. However, there are restrictions that prevent some teams from utilizing the program, which would help them at least break even. Not every team can be the Wings or the Leafs with so much tradition that you have a built in fanbase, no matter how the team performs. It takes time, and lean seasons sometimes, to build up the tradition.

But, what do I know? I'm just one of the fans that could have given a crap about hockey growing up, due to no teams even remotely close to me, but became a rabid fan once hockey became available to me.

Winnipeg can support itself... It was the teams first year, it actually did very well for a first year team taking over Atlanta Thrashers, it will make money in the coming years... do not include it on your list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be ok with losing the season. Prospects get another year of development and we get to pass up a season of probable awfulness.

I want to watch hockey... it's the only sport I watch besides professional paper, rock, scissors.

kipwinger likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still elitist, but good try,

---

Lets use your logic and talk about the teams that have been losing money (looks to be about 18 of them according to Forbes.) Screw all the teams that aren't able to make money. "They can put an NHL team anywhere they want as long as they can support themselves" So, goodbye to:

Phoenix, Florida, Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, which would make you happy. However, you also lose St. Louis, Winnipeg, NYI, Buffalo, Tampa Bay, New Jersey, San Jose, Anaheim (don't you live in the CA area? Would suck to lose your opportunity to go see games, no?) Washington, and the Cup Champion LA Kings. Man, what a great league with lots of exposure that would be./s

Revenue sharing is something built in to the league. All of the major sports league incorporate it. Most of the teams I listed would take advantage of it if they were able. However, there are restrictions that prevent some teams from utilizing the program, which would help them at least break even. Not every team can be the Wings or the Leafs with so much tradition that you have a built in fanbase, no matter how the team performs. It takes time, and lean seasons sometimes, to build up the tradition.

But, what do I know? I'm just one of the fans that could have given a crap about hockey growing up, due to no teams even remotely close to me, but became a rabid fan once hockey became available to me.

Nobody loses a team that is self-sufficient. The Wings didn't make money for decades; they're still here. I've been a hockey fan probably longer than you've been alive. I don't care if the game grows. It was better before it didn't They should have stopped with the 1970 expansion. The league started in 1926. Revenue sharing didn't occur until over-expansion and teams couldn't generate revenue. That's 79 years of good hockey and growth even without Sidney Crosby; I fail to see how revenue sharing is built in. And no, I'm not in the Cali area anymore, but if I were, I'd still hold the same opinion. And just because "everyone else does it," doesn't mean it's the good or right thing to do.

Rick D likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody loses a team that is self-sufficient. The Wings didn't make money for decades; they're still here. I've been a hockey fan probably longer than you've been alive. I don't care if the game grows. It was better before it didn't They should have stopped with the 1970 expansion. The league started in 1926. Revenue sharing didn't occur until over-expansion and teams couldn't generate revenue. That's 79 years of good hockey and growth even without Sidney Crosby; I fail to see how revenue sharing is built in. And no, I'm not in the Cali area anymore, but if I were, I'd still hold the same opinion. And just because "everyone else does it," doesn't mean it's the good or right thing to do.

Exactly, franchises often self implode by buying into market areas where they cannot succeed, without proper research and development you are bound to bankrupt your company if you do not invest wisely. Why should the NHL be any different? It is after all just a nationwide franchise, problem is they expanded beyond their means. Instead of trying to slowly grow the game across the country they tried rapid expansion, which could ultimately spell their doom if they do not fix the underlying issues with these teams in non-hockey markets. Hockey is a Canadian sport because all across Canada you get snow and ice every year, you will never find that in the desert, so you should never find a hockey rink in the desert either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Athletes are athletes, there are hundreds of them overall they are not much different than football players or soccer players.

The NHL has lost a lot more games due to work stoppages than any other league.

The biggest difference between the NHL and other sports leagues is that the other ones aren't run by Bettman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me personally the outcome doesn't matter, the smallest "major league" in NA has been shut down more often than all others right now, fact.

I wish people would stop bringing up the TV contract, growing the game and why RS is needed so mickey mouse clubs or wellfare clubs can get beat us in the first playoff round, screw that!

I am a fan of the Detroit Red Wings, if teams like Dallas, Anaheim, Ottawa and whatever can't support themselves too bad, either spend less, relocate or fold. There is absolutely no reason to ask owners of well run franchises such as DRW to help them out with their own money. You don't see family companies getting help in order to defend themselves against soulless, greedy global players...but in PRO sports it should be that way? Give me a break, I'd rather see a 15 team league without the stupid CBA, RS and a free market it would be may more competitive, exciting and UFA, Trade Dead Line would actually mean something again, not just the first days.

As a fan I don't gain anything from TV contracts so why should I care about them? Especially in the age of the internet I'd rather pay 200 $ for quality livestreams and be done with it, I don't need ESPN, NBC you name them to watch hockey.

Bettman is a moron if he truly believes, this growing the game crap.

Think about a league built up with the Original 6 + Vancouver, Pittsburgh, Philly, Buffalo, Washington, Edmonton

sure some teams could be argued about but in the end the NHL would be left with crap and I'd bet my house, the new league would gain the fans.

The way to grow a game is done by creating the good ones and the bad ones, just look at the WCW or former WWF after they've introduced the New World Order as the "bad" ones ratings took off like a rocket. So why the f*** can't the NHL have superteams again? Just because some teams don't want to spend, well how about not forcing them to spend for once?!

Yes, this is a rant but seriously the midget has done n othing for the game, other than allowing mickey mouse clubs to play hockey and punishing teams with an established fanbase by heavily limiting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me personally the outcome doesn't matter, the smallest "major league" in NA has been shut down more often than all others right now, fact.

I wish people would stop bringing up the TV contract, growing the game and why RS is needed so mickey mouse clubs or wellfare clubs can get beat us in the first playoff round, screw that!

I am a fan of the Detroit Red Wings, if teams like Dallas, Anaheim, Ottawa and whatever can't support themselves too bad, either spend less, relocate or fold. There is absolutely no reason to ask owners of well run franchises such as DRW to help them out with their own money. You don't see family companies getting help in order to defend themselves against soulless, greedy global players...but in PRO sports it should be that way? Give me a break, I'd rather see a 15 team league without the stupid CBA, RS and a free market it would be may more competitive, exciting and UFA, Trade Dead Line would actually mean something again, not just the first days.

As a fan I don't gain anything from TV contracts so why should I care about them? Especially in the age of the internet I'd rather pay 200 $ for quality livestreams and be done with it, I don't need ESPN, NBC you name them to watch hockey.

Bettman is a moron if he truly believes, this growing the game crap.

Think about a league built up with the Original 6 + Vancouver, Pittsburgh, Philly, Buffalo, Washington, Edmonton

sure some teams could be argued about but in the end the NHL would be left with crap and I'd bet my house, the new league would gain the fans.

The way to grow a game is done by creating the good ones and the bad ones, just look at the WCW or former WWF after they've introduced the New World Order as the "bad" ones ratings took off like a rocket. So why the f*** can't the NHL have superteams again? Just because some teams don't want to spend, well how about not forcing them to spend for once?!

Yes, this is a rant but seriously the midget has done n othing for the game, other than allowing mickey mouse clubs to play hockey and punishing teams with an established fanbase by heavily limiting them.

By creating an artificial parity for teams in the league you are creating an artificial disparity for the fans. The teams that create the greatest revenues have the most fans. So when a small market team knocks out a larger market there are more disappointed and losing fans than there are fans celebrating the victory.

Edited by Johnz96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know why anyone gives credit to Gary Bettman for the game growing.

It has always been big in Canada, and Gary takes away the Jets and Nordiques in the mid 90's when Canada's dollar was struggling. Colorado is a successful organization and a team belongs there, but Phoenix has not made a cent profit since they moved there.

The sunbelt expansion is, was, and will always be remembered as a failure. Most of those teams are the reason that there is a lockout because they make no money.

The Canadian dollar is on par with the US dollar now and the US economy is not at it's best unfortunately so maybe it's time for teams like the Coyotes and Panthers to move for the good of the league.

At the end of the day, the only reason that the salary cap has to go down with a 50/50 split is because of the bottom 5 or so teams in the NHL that are basically bankrupt. Move the Coyotes, Panthers and Devils to Seattle, Quebec and Markham and the cap doesn't move with a 50/50 split by the end of a season when the NHL goes from 3.3 billion profit to 4 billion.

And what happens if the Canadian dollar ends up at .65 cents on the US dollar like it was about 10 years ago? We move those teams back? We need real revenue sharing and more league revenue.

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