Bettman signs 7 year contract extension

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You're the one who made the original claim.

No, I am quite certain I never claimed Gary Bettman had that veto power in 1994-95.

Now, unlike you, I do tend to show my sources. So, even knowing that you won't support your argument, I will support mine regardless.

Eric Duhatschek from the Globe and Mail in 2004. I highlighted the relevant bit for you. Note also the following paragraph, where Duhatschek points out what was common knowledge: the large market teams were all too happy to throw everyone else under the bus to get back playing. That is why Bettman negotiated his veto as part of his contract extension that preceded the 2004-05 lockout.

Spoiler!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

He had the power in 94/95 and although he was fairly new to his position, getting a salary cap was part of his mandate when he was hired.

He didn't have the veto power with the approval of 8 owners until the 2004 lockout.

The big market franchises went behind the backs of the other franchises and Bettman to negotiate a deal in 94 because he had very little power over his own side..

See above

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

He had the power in 94/95 and although he was fairly new to his position, getting a salary cap was part of his mandate when he was hired.

Having a mandate is not the same thing as having the power to achieve that mandate.

Incidentally, I wrote that Wikipedia passage you cited. I very much enjoy the irony of that.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, I am quite certain I never claimed Gary Bettman had that veto power in 1994-95.

Now, unlike you, I do tend to show my sources. So, even knowing that you won't support your argument, I will support mine regardless.

Eric Duhatschek from the Globe and Mail in 2004. I highlighted the relevant bit for you. Note also the following paragraph, where Duhatschek points out what was common knowledge: the large market teams were all too happy to throw everyone else under the bus to get back playing. That is why Bettman negotiated his veto as part of his contract extension that preceded the 2004-05 lockout.

Spoiler!

You claimed he didn't and still all the rebuttals have been about the 04/05 lockout, not the 94/95 lockout. Everything's written with the sense that he didn't have this power in 94/95 but it's revisionist history.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Having a mandate is not the same thing as having the power to achieve that mandate.

Incidentally, I wrote that Wikipedia passage you cited. I very much enjoy the irony of that.

That's okay, I've written stuff that Wikipedia has copied as well.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You claimed he didn't and still all the rebuttals have been about the 04/05 lockout, not the 94/95 lockout. Everything's written with the sense that he didn't have this power in 94/95 but it's revisionist history.

If it is, then prove it. I have yet to see a single claim otherwise.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You claimed he didn't and still all the rebuttals have been about the 04/05 lockout, not the 94/95 lockout. Everything's written with the sense that he didn't have this power in 94/95 but it's revisionist history.

No, I claimed that he negotiated the veto power following the 1994-95 lockout in preparation for the 2004-05 lockout. That is exactly what Eric Duhatschek said.

I have supported my claim. Others have supported it as well.

Now it is your turn. Back up your claim. Show a source that states Bettman had his veto in 1994-95.

And really, "written with a sense"? You are making inferences that aren't there, but that you really wish were there, and you have the gall to accuse other people of revisionist history?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

That's okay, I've written stuff that Wikipedia has copied as well.

The veto was reported by Duhatschek and SPJ in 2004 as a part of the powers that Bettmann received with his contract extension in 2000. This isn't just Wikipedia.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The veto was reported by Duhatschek and SPJ in 2004 as a part of the powers that Bettmann received with his contract extension in 2000. This isn't just Wikipedia.

But you have to admit, Vulcan's ability to misinterpret and twist what I write - even when he doesn't realize I wrote it - is impressive.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The veto was reported by Duhatschek and SPJ in 2004 as a part of the powers that Bettmann received with his contract extension in 2000. This isn't just Wikipedia.

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.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

But you have to admit, Vulcan's ability to misinterpret and twist what I write - even when he doesn't realize I wrote it - is impressive.

You're the one who claimed he didn't have the power in 94/95. I'm still waiting.

[Textcritic]

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:

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:

...said NHL chief legal officer Bill Daly.

According to Eric Duhatscheck, also in 2004:

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?

[jayswin]

So if I've got this correct, Vulcan just cited a Wikipedia article that Resolute wrote to try and prove Resolute wrong??!!!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jayswin

So if I've got this correct, Vulcan just cited a Wikipedia article that Resolute wrote to try and prove Resolute wrong??!!!

I believe that is what's happening here, yes.

*EDIT* FYI, Res: you may want to consider making some adjustments to your fine article here in an effort to prevent being mis-represented in the future.

[Hackey]

Booooooooooooooo!!!

[dobbles]

So a lot of the posts early on talk about how much money the owners and league make now and imply Bettman must be doing a good job because of it.

Is the NHL really doing well compared to its peers in the North American (or ever world) sports market? All of the leagues have been able to garner hugely ridiculous TV deals, so has the NHL done better/worse/par compared to those other leagues? All of the sports have convinced cities to finance arenas for their teams, has the NHL done better/worse/par in getting its teams new arenas?

These are honest questions I am hoping some of you nerds can dig into for me since I'm lazy. Because I think the thing that always needs to be remembered is that an entity can prosper in spite of a factor not because of it. Just wondering if that is part of the case here. Because in my mind, the NHL has not exactly been growing in market share for the North American market. So while everyone has gotten rich thanks to cable TV, I wonder of the long term feasibility of the model as the TV situation starts to erode these next few years.

[Resolute 14]

I don't feel like comparing everyone, so I'll just take a quick look at baseball. In 1990, the average MLB team had $51.9 million in revenue. In a 26 team league, that comes to $1.35 billion. MLB reached $9 billion in revenues in 2014. That is about a 6.7x increase over that period.

The NHL had revenues of $400 million in 1990-91. For 2013-14, it reached $3.7 billion. That is a 9.25x increase.

Of course, not all of that can be attributed to Bettman. I used 1990 specifically because that was when the NHL's board of governors hatched the plan to expand to at least 28 teams by the year 2000, and five of the nine teams the league ultimately added pre-dated Bettman. Starting from 1990 also allowed me a fairly easy apples to apples timeframe between the two sports.

As far as new stadia goes, come the 2017-18 season, Calgary and the Rangers will be the only teams in a pre-1990 arena. (And MSG was massively renovated just a couple years ago). Seven of MLB's teams are playing in stadiums that pre-date the 1990s. Though there are caveats... Fenway, Wrigley and Chavez Ravine are classics that teams are unlikely to leave soon. Anaheim was massively renovated as well, and the writing is on the wall for Oakland.

As part of the feasibility of the model goes, it depends on whether the TV bubble slowly shrinks or if it bursts suddenly. In MLB, teams would just start losing money as cable channels offer less for rights, or losing gobs of money if the channels simply all went bankrupt at once. For the NHL, the linked salary cap would position the league well in the event of a slow TV decline. But a catastrophic loss of revenues would actually result in the NHL equivalent of a constitutional crisis. If cable TV revenues suddenly vanished, the NHL would be in a spot where every team would be over the salary cap. That... would make for some interesting negotiations between the union and ownership.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You cannot honestly be this daft, but I'll play along:

Yes, yes he can.

It's been blind baseless hate of all things Bettman since '04. Even when repeatedly presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, it's the whole covered ears while singing lalalala treatment.

I used to engage it, now it's nothing more than amusement reading for me.

The very fact that GB just received yet another contract extension to represwent many of the best businessmen in North America is all we really need to know about his job performance to date.

Or the other explanation would have to be that the same guy has snookered these same brilliant guys for over 2 decades now and just got them again.

Make your own decision.

[Vulcan]

Okay here it is guys. Bettman was given the power to cancel the 94/95 season. That gave him control over the lockout. What happened in 2004/05 spelled out in more detail his control but he had already been given it in the previous lockout and he turtled.

Dec. 12: Owners authorize the commissioner to cancel the season.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...uts/57276222/1

Oh yeah, I'd like an apology from Textcritic, Resolute and Tranny who went above and beyond with your insults.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Okay here it is guys. Bettman was given the power to cancel the 94/95 season. That gave him control over the lockout. What happened in 2004/05 spelled out in more detail his control but he had already been given it in the previous lockout and he turtled.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...uts/57276222/1...

Where are his veto powers mentioned? I have to say, I am supremely underwhelmed.