Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
He had this power during the 94/95 lockout and all your links just show the 2004/05 lockout. Some mistaken reporters are writing as if it was something new but it wasn't.
|
You cannot honestly be this daft, but I'll play along:
Again, from a report in 2004 in the
Sports Business Journal:
Quote:
|
Four years ago, NHL owners voted unanimously to allow Bettman to nix any deal if he has the support of just eight of the 30 NHL owners...
|
And if you happened to be in doubt regarding the source of this information:
Quote:
|
...said NHL chief legal officer Bill Daly.
|
According to Eric Duhatscheck, also in 2004:
Quote:
Bettman received one guarantee when he signed his current contract a few years back that suggests things may be different this time around.
When the NHL board of governors extended Bettman's tenure, they also gave him extraordinary veto power on the matter of the new CBA. Under the terms of Bettman's contract, if he recommends a tentative agreement to the board, then he'll need only a simple majority—or 16 owners—to certify it. If Bettman presents an offer to the board, but withholds his blessing, he needs only eight votes to turn it down.
|
So, yes, I would agree that both reports are pertaining to the 2004 work stoppage that at the time appeared to be on the horizon. But, both are also reporting—with SBJ providing a highly reliable source—that the veto Bettman received was NEW to his most recent contract, which was signed some time AFTER the 94/95 lockout.
I am very curious to hear your explanation for what you read going on here. Is Daly lying to the SBJ? Is Duhatschek mistaken in his assertion that the veto was new to Bettman's current deal?
How does this all fit into your baseless narrative? And moreover, do you have anything at all to counter these statements?