Jump to content

haroldsnepsts's Photo


Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private

#2331514 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 13 October 2012 - 03:00 PM

I will have a hearty laugh when Bettman finally retires, and Gretzky or someone else that everyone is sure is the savior of the game, comes in and picks up right where Bettman left off. The butthurt will be enough to fill oceans.

Bettman is 3 for 3 on lockouts during CBA negotiations, so it would be a challenge for someone to keep up that track record.

Personally I'd rather hope the game be healthy and not lose seasons rather than have a smug laugh while Bettman's successor continues to ruin the league.

But to each their own.

#2331490 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 13 October 2012 - 10:39 AM

The owners will opt for a lockout the next time they get the chance, regardless of who's Commissioner.

Just saying.


But the owners were the ones who outvoted Bettman in '95 to end the lockout and save the season, back when they only needed the majority to overrule him.

The depressing part is it would take 24 out of 30 owners to vote for Bettman to be fired.

#2331488 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 13 October 2012 - 09:53 AM

There's really no getting around that three lockouts in a row, one (and maybe more) costing the entire season is terrible league management.

As others have said, there's a fair chance we'll lose this season. Might as well make it worth it.

#2331302 Our friend @HockeyyInsiderr lists anti-lockout teams...

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 11 October 2012 - 11:34 AM

Do you have a link or source to this? I would like to see for myself what Bettman changed back in 95 and where they stand today. I did a google search on this and didn't find anything on it.

I had read it in a few places years ago but here's the most recent reminder.

To make sure the disunity of 1994-95 did not happen again, Bettman engineered a change in the voting rules: if he was against a settlement, he could be overruled only by a vote of three-quarters of the owners. And he was given the power to fine any owner or team official as much as $1 million for divulging internal league matters.


Everything I've read credits Bettman for the change but ultimately I think the Board of governors has to approve it. I haven't found much info about how that process works exactly.

And here:


There is legislation – he introduced a rule that allows him to reject a collective agreement proposal from the NHLPA with only eight votes from the 30 owners. Firing Bettman would require three-quarters of the owners to approve, something he negotiated when he took the job.
Bettman also made sure most of the other owners owed him enough, by naming them to the powerful governors’ executive committee or shepherding their attempts to buy a team or letting them bend the rules, that they will not cause any trouble. Finally, he makes sure he is aligned with the two most powerful owners, Jeremy Jacobs of the Boston Bruins, the chairman of the board of governors, and Ed Snider of the Philadelphia Flyers.
It is an adept way to handle people who are essentially your bosses and who are not accustomed to being told how to operate their business since many of them built successful companies before buying hockey teams.

The part I bolded is especially depressing.

#2331231 Z basically says Bettman should be fired

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 October 2012 - 05:27 PM

Boyle should have kept his mouth shut. Even if he was privy to some inside information (Which he probably isnt) does he honestly beleive there arent players out there who just want to play and arent in favor of asking for the moon? I am willing to bet my life savings (Granted it isnt much) that there is a MUCH higher percentage of players who just want to play then there are owners who do. This is why the players will cave first and revenue will probably end up being split some where close to 50 -50. Like every other sports league.

The best thing the owners have done is not say anything. Every single time a player opens his mouth in the press it ends up sounding selfish, immature and just plain stupid.

Every other sports league?

Look at baseball's salary situation. And the NBA may have a close to 50% split but they also have a luxury tax system the NHL doesn't. And a lot more revenue sharing among franchises. As does the NFL.

It's not really fair to just take the percentage while ignoring all the other differences between the leagues.

Just by sheer number, I'm sure you're right about there being more players wanting to play than the 29 owners. And like I mentioned in another thread, Bettman only needs 7 to keep from being overruled so it doesn't even matter if the majority of owners wanted to end the lockout.

#2331226 Our friend @HockeyyInsiderr lists anti-lockout teams...

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 October 2012 - 05:09 PM

It's well known that Jeremy Jacobs is solidly on Bettman's side, so that would mean he would only need 7 more to guarantee he has the final word. Although the teams listed by "HockeyyDerpp" (as I've seen him called) might be big market powerful teams, they still would need a practically impossible majority to overrule Bettman.

Lest we also forget, all 30 owners voted in favor of a lockout...

The NHL owns the Coyotes, so I think that actually makes it 6 owners since Bettman likely controls that vote.

#2331219 Our friend @HockeyyInsiderr lists anti-lockout teams...

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 October 2012 - 03:27 PM

Even if that is true, they still need 18 more teams to overrule him.

Because of how Bettman got the rules changed after he as overruled in '95, there's practically no chance of the owners seizing control from him. He only needs to keep 8 happy.

#2331216 Russians Possibly Staying In KHL After Lockout

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 October 2012 - 03:00 PM

I disagree. I think they have TONS of marketable players, but they just chose the obvious ones. Think if Biznasty was marketed like OV. I think he has a better personality. I don't know why Russians come off as so selfish to me and seem egotistical.

I don't know either. Are you basing it on only a few Russians?

Because the Wings currently have a Russian player that is the antithesis of that. And they have had several in the past as well. Larionov, Fetisov, Vladdy, Kozlov.

#2331124 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 09 October 2012 - 05:31 PM

Bettman and Fehr have combined to cause a lockout or strike that has resulted in missing their respective championship playoff series 1 each. Not 3.

What could I possibly have been referring to when I said Bettman has done this three times?

Anyone? Any guesses?

#2330979 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 08 October 2012 - 04:45 PM

Without a union, there would be no lockout. Without a union, there wouldn't have been the need to negotiate a salary cap... and therefore there wouldn't have been a lockout last time.

Owners spending more than they can afford is a complicated topic, but without question the current CBA largely contributes to it. Without a union, there is no need for a CBA. If you believe the core problem with the leagues finances is rich clubs driving up the players salaries... how does the union solve that problem? I would argue that the NHLPA contributes to that problem, through forcing a CBA.

Get rid of Bettman and there's no lockout.

Without Bettman, there wouldn't have been a lockout in 95 that cost half a season, and we wouldn't have lost a whole season ten years later. Just let the true free market decide, no cap, and owners pay whatever they want to players. Then for those franchises that aren't profitable, let 'em fail.

See how easy that is?

Saying getting rid of unions equals no lockouts is a massive oversimplification of what's going on. First, every major pro sport has a union. It's a reality of the beast. And hockey is entertainment, entertainers also typically have unions.

If there wasn't a union and the NHL owners put together any deal they wanted, one of two things (or possibly both) would likely happen. The players would organize a union because they'd see they were getting a ridiculously small portion of the billions in revenue they generate. Or a lot of players would leave the NHL play in other leagues.

If this current group of owners and Bettman ran the league however they wanted back in 2004, it's pretty safe to say the Red Wings would have lost most of their European contingent.

Lidstrom would've gone back to Sweden. Dats back to Russia. So long guys! I'm sure they scrubs that couldn't crack the NHL when you were playing will be just as entertaining. Anyone can do what those guys do.

#2330939 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 08 October 2012 - 10:08 AM

We should all support dissolving the players union. When that is done, we will never have to worry about another lockout. If players don't like the terms the NHL owners offer, they can play elsewhere. If the best players are choosing to play outside of the NHL, the owners can choose to offer better contracts to entice them to play in the NHL. Free market economics... it works amazingly well.

In the long run, it is market competition that ensures fair wages and treatment... not unions.

Free market competition would mean no salary cap.

The players aren't striking for more money. The owners are refusing to let them play even though they have current valid contracts in the NHL.

The league had market competition before the cap and the owners apparently couldn't manage to run their business under that construct. It's not like the players were striking because they felt they were underpaid. The owners locked them out to implement a device that artificially suppresses employee salaries.

Once again, the big problem is the disparity in the wealth of the clubs. The rich clubs are what's driving up the players salaries, not unions. It was just a couple months ago that the Flyers put together an offer sheet for Weber that was specifically constructed to try and financially cripple Nashville so they wouldn't be able to match.

But that's somehow the unions fault?

#2330758 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 05 October 2012 - 10:23 AM

It's unbelievable that an employee of the owners/BoG has so much power over them. There are few jobs anywhere else in the world where the employee holds all the power over his employers...

I'm glad to hear that the PA is working on a new proposal, but I can't wait to see how long the League rejects it, and submits a counter offer that's pretty much the same thing as their first and second proposals.

When I found out how hard it is to overrule Bettman, it was both depressing and explained a lot about the last lockout.

We've seen how idiotic some of these owners can be. And now Gary only needs 8 not to vote against him. I've seen several references to what a hardliner Jeremy Jacobs (owner of the Bruins) is and how much influence he has. A friend of mine is from Boston and said fans hate him. They even booed him when he was announced during their Cup win.

Among ownership there's got to be more reasonable, intelligent voices in the group, but are there 24 of them? Probably not.

EDIT: And I just remembered that the league owns the coyotes, so Bettman probably gets one of those 30 votes himself. So he might only need 7 owners to support him.

#2330755 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 05 October 2012 - 10:12 AM

While it's not surprising that the owners don't want to play out the season without a CBA, Fehr is exactly right that under Bettman's reign lockout has not been a last resort but is the basis of his negotiating strategy.

Especially considering Bettman got the rules changed to make it even harder to overrule him, so compromise on the owners side is even less likely. Given the amount of concessions they want from the players, ownership had to know it would require locking the players out before they'd ever agree to them.

This lockout wasn't the unfortunate result of unexpected circumstances, it was almost certainly something ownership prepared for.

#2330680 ESPN-KHL Deal in the Works?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 04 October 2012 - 01:47 PM

Yeah I realize that now. I thought he was playing for Ak Bars again.
I actually just watched today's game CSKA against Spartak. CSKA won 2-1 in OT. Datsyuk scored a nice one intercepting a defenseman's pass, going in one on one on the goalie (who played deep in the net and didn't challenge Pav fearing the datsyukian dekes) and sniped a wrister to give CSKA a 1-0 lead in the second. He also scored the game winner in OT on a goal mouth scramble quickly pouncing on a Radulov rebound and putting it home

It's depressing me hearing about Datsyuk playing.

He's 34 years old and doesn't have a lot of seasons left, certainly not at top level. Every game missed is a big deal at this point in his career.

#2330679 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 04 October 2012 - 01:42 PM

from NHL.com

NEW YORK -- The National Hockey League announced today the cancellation of the 2012-13 regular-season schedule through October 24. A total of 82 regular-season games were scheduled for Oct. 11 through Oct. 24.
The cancellation was necessary because of the absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL Players' Association and the NHL.

There was nothing about this that was necessary.