Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

Poll: Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,220 posts

Posted 13 October 2012 - 09:18 PM

What do you think would happen if the owners fired Bettman and hired someone else? Do you honestly think any commissioner, whose salary is paid by the owners, is going to side with the players? Do you really think a different commissioner will keep his job if he capitulates to the demands of the Players association?

The lockout is what everyone wants except the fans. Fans need to face the fact that they are not the owners of the team, the actual owners are. The owners have to protect their bottom line and the health of the league. Their loyalty is rightly directed to their wallet.

They also know they won't actually lose any fans as a result of their actions because fans, by definition are loyal to the team. Fair weather fans will always come and go.

Likewise the players have no loyalty to the fans, that's why they're all playing for in Europe. They sacrificed all the lazy hours you and I spent as a kids working hard so one day they might be part of the 1%.

It sucks for us but we don't really matter to any of the parties involved at the end of the day. And before anyone is tempted to judge too harshly, how would you respond is someone was trying to take more of your money?


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

kftx.jpg

 

The Offseason of truth ...

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

blank cheque for The Captain or Jim Star Nil please..

<< Win it for Mr. Hockey !


#22 martinezsvsu

martinezsvsu

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:40 AM

shanny or yzerman or bowman for commish! lol

#23 Euro_Twins

Euro_Twins

    Healthy Scratch

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,576 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:13 AM

Ah, you're right. Bad math on my part. Still a depressing number though.

And as I've mentioned, because the NHL owns the Coyotes I have to wonder if Bettman gets that vote. If he didn't then I'm not sure who would.


Even if Bettman got the vote, it wold still take 23 teams to override him (yes, still a depressing number) and bettman getting a vote does destroy a legimtimate vote, the problem is not enough owners want to stand up against him...

#24 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 04:00 AM

What do you think would happen if the owners fired Bettman and hired someone else? Do you honestly think any commissioner, whose salary is paid by the owners, is going to side with the players? Do you really think a different commissioner will keep his job if he capitulates to the demands of the Players association?

The lockout is what everyone wants except the fans. Fans need to face the fact that they are not the owners of the team, the actual owners are. The owners have to protect their bottom line and the health of the league. Their loyalty is rightly directed to their wallet.

They also know they won't actually lose any fans as a result of their actions because fans, by definition are loyal to the team. Fair weather fans will always come and go.

Likewise the players have no loyalty to the fans, that's why they're all playing for in Europe. They sacrificed all the lazy hours you and I spent as a kids working hard so one day they might be part of the 1%.

It sucks for us but we don't really matter to any of the parties involved at the end of the day. And before anyone is tempted to judge too harshly, how would you respond is someone was trying to take more of your money?

You got it all wrong. The players aren't making any demands, it is Bettman and the owners making demands counting on the players to capitulate

#25 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:33 AM

You got it all wrong. The players aren't making any demands, it is Bettman and the owners making demands counting on the players to capitulate

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.

Edited by chances14, 14 October 2012 - 11:34 AM.


#26 GoWings1905

GoWings1905

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 5,409 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:19 PM

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, 14 October 2012 - 12:19 PM.

 
 
"To whom much is given, much is expected."
 
 

 

 

 

 


#27 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:22 PM

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?

#28 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:45 PM

?

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

#29 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,008 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:24 PM

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, 14 October 2012 - 02:26 PM.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#30 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:55 PM

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, 14 October 2012 - 02:56 PM.


#31 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,852 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 14 October 2012 - 03:11 PM

Can't they just burn Bettman inside of a Wicker Man to save the season?
According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#32 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 14 October 2012 - 04:45 PM

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.

#33 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 14 October 2012 - 06:49 PM

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.

#34 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 14 October 2012 - 07:03 PM

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.

#35 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 14 October 2012 - 07:40 PM

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.

#36 Euro_Twins

Euro_Twins

    Healthy Scratch

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,576 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:14 PM

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 :(

#37 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:30 PM

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.

#38 esteef

esteef

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 8,874 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:17 PM

Bettman is evil and should be called midget some more.

esteef
"The Wings haven't won a Cup without Darren McCarty since 1955."

#39 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:31 PM

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

#40 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,756 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:18 AM

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.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users