Bettman signs 7 year contract extension

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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

Here's Resolute,

And what that taught Gary Bettman was that he needed the power to not only negotiate with the union, but to control his own table. Nfotiu says Bettman lacks vision? I disagree. Bettman knew what was going to happen in 2004. And he convinced his owners to give him the veto power that would ensure the seven or eight large teams could not fold the way they did in 1995. Bettman then realized that - painful as it was to do so - the NHL needed to be willing to cancel the season to convince the union of how dire the situation had become. Bettman outmaneuvered Goodenow, and got us the salary cap that Bob had spent 15 years proclaiming would never happen.

Aw forget it, now you're just being intentionally obtuse.

[Dion]

nm

[T@T]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The NBA has virtually lapped the NHL by about 100 fold since Bettman's come into the league so not sure why anyone would bring up the NBA which manages to get its games on three strong networks (ABC,ESPN,TNT) while the NHL gets a sprinkling of games (and not even the entire Stanley Cup) on NBC and the rest of a channel no one watches.

Bettman has done one good thing - the salary cap - which saved a bunch of small market teams (or at least made them competitive). Any other positives he's brought have been done by every other league and you can argue he's hurt the league by its visibility in the US and the tiny US TV deal he got them locked into on a channel no one watches.

Are you suggesting hockey could have fought basketball for market share?

Personally I hate the sport for viewing but it's massive in the southern states(120m) and it's massive with african americans(42m).

If hockey had 42 million built in hockey fans in the US we might compete but because it's expensive to play it'll never be as popular.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by T@T

Are you suggesting hockey could have fought basketball for market share?

Personally I hate the sport for viewing but it's massive in the southern states(120m) and it's massive with african americans(42m).

If hockey had 42 million built in hockey fans in the US we might compete but because it's expensive to play it'll never be as popular.

No. But they could have done better than being stuck on a channel that no one watches in NBCSN with the odd foray on NBC. You've got 2 games of the finals on NBCSN.

[GioforPM]

The correct way to look at the success of NBA versus NHL is increase in revenues, like the MLB example. The two leagues weren't starting from the same point. You can complain about the network coverage, but do you think that market choice is because of who the commissioner is?

You could also argue that the NBA has had more scandals and black eyes.

[Resolute 14]

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

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

You will get no apology for attempting to move the goalposts. You claimed, as an absolute fact, that Bettman had his veto in 1994-95. You have not offered one ounce of support for that claim. What you are pointing to here is literally a different concept entirely.

That the owners made a public claim of willingness to cancel the season in 1995 as an attempt at pressuring the union into a settlement is not evidence of a veto. And, as history told us, the owners' statement in that regard was just a front, as their unity fell apart before it came to cancelling the season. The very history you are trying to change tells us that you are still wrong.

It's not exactly the only time in history that powerful threats proved meritless either. In 2002, the MLBPA once again authorized Don Fehr to take the players on strike right before the playoffs. However, on the eve of that strike, the appetite to do so fell apart, and the two sides completed a last second deal.

So, once again, and for once in your existence, stop making things up to fit your own private world. Demonstrate the existence of sources that state outright that Gary Bettman had veto powers in 1994-95.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The correct way to look at the success of NBA versus NHL is increase in revenues, like the MLB example. The two leagues weren't starting from the same point. You can complain about the network coverage, but do you think that market choice is because of who the commissioner is?

You could also argue that the NBA has had more scandals and black eyes.

I am having a remarkably difficult time finding NBA revenues in 1990. I have found a claim of $1.8 billion in 1998, and Forbes estimates $5.2 billion for the 2014-15 season. I came across a number for 2013-14 of $4.8 billion.

I have also found a figure for the NHL for 1997-98 at $1.1 billion. And, of course, 2013-14 was at $3.7 billion.

So from 1998-2014, the NBA's revenues grew 3.06x and the NHL's grew 3.36x.

However, the NBA is entering a period where its growth will far surpass the NHL. For two big reasons: The Canadian dollar is going to have a mammoth impact on NHL revenues, given a third of its gate comes from Canada and given the league didn't hedge currency on the Rogers contract. The NBA is largely shielded from fluctuations in Canada's dollar. The second reason is that the NBA has some massive new local tv and sponsorship deals coming online.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You will get no apology for attempting to move the goalposts. You claimed, as an absolute fact, that Bettman had his veto in 1994-95. You have not offered one ounce of support for that claim. What you are pointing to here is literally a different concept entirely.

That the owners made a public claim of willingness to cancel the season in 1995 as an attempt at pressuring the union into a settlement is not evidence of a veto. And, as history told us, the owners' statement in that regard was just a front, as their unity fell apart before it came to cancelling the season. The very history you are trying to change tells us that you are still wrong.

It's not exactly the only time in history that powerful threats proved meritless either. In 2002, the MLBPA once again authorized Don Fehr to take the players on strike right before the playoffs. However, on the eve of that strike, the appetite to do so fell apart, and the two sides completed a last second deal.

So, once again, and for once in your existence, stop making things up to fit your own private world. Demonstrate the existence of sources that state outright that Gary Bettman had veto powers in 1994-95.

LOL. One thing you don't understand is when you are pointing the finger at someone else you are pointing 4 fingers at yourself. I just can't imagine what kind of a hell you live in to be so angry.

Gary had the power to call the season. It's in black and white but you try to interpret it to fit your own story.

[Resolute 14]

I'll take that comment as an admission you were making it up all along, Vulcan.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'll take that comment as an admission you were making it up all along, Vulcan.

I won't be dragged down to your level.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am having a remarkably difficult time finding NBA revenues in 1990. I have found a claim of $1.8 billion in 1998, and Forbes estimates $5.2 billion for the 2014-15 season. I came across a number for 2013-14 of $4.8 billion.

I have also found a figure for the NHL for 1997-98 at $1.1 billion. And, of course, 2013-14 was at $3.7 billion.

So from 1998-2014, the NBA's revenues grew 3.06x and the NHL's grew 3.36x.

However, the NBA is entering a period where its growth will far surpass the NHL. For two big reasons: The Canadian dollar is going to have a mammoth impact on NHL revenues, given a third of its gate comes from Canada and given the league didn't hedge currency on the Rogers contract. The NBA is largely shielded from fluctuations in Canada's dollar. The second reason is that the NBA has some massive new local tv and sponsorship deals coming online.

Thanks - whatever the ratio is, it's a far cry from the NBA "lapping the NHL a 100 fold". Plus, as I suggested above, the NBA has had to deal with a crooked referees scandal, a racist owner, fiascos with star players holding TV specials to announce free agency decisions, etc. There's hints of a work stoppage coming soon.

That all said, I think Silver is a really good commissioner.

[Resolute 14]

I really wish I could find the 1990 numbers. Because the NBA of the 1980s was probably a bigger joke than the NHL was. But the NBA of the 1980s was growing because of the Lakers-Celtics rivalry, and then Michael Jordan hopped on the scene and the sport exploded. It's a good parallel for Gretzky to the Kings and would make for an interesting comparison.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Thanks - whatever the ratio is, it's a far cry from the NBA "lapping the NHL a 100 fold". Plus, as I suggested above, the NBA has had to deal with a crooked referees scandal, a racist owner, fiascos with star players holding TV specials to announce free agency decisions, etc. There's hints of a work stoppage coming soon.

That all said, I think Silver is a really good commissioner.

As mentioned you do have to consider FX. NHL would have seen a big FX gain from 97 to 2014 (1997 CAD average was $0.722, 2014 was $0.906)

Also have to consider expansion - NHL added four teams since 2007 - Nashville, Atlanta, Minnesota and Columbus. NBA only added one - New Orleans.

100 fold was an exaggeration but if go on a team by team basis, the NBA has done much better than the NHL and that is before their giant TV deal kicks off in 2016.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

LOL. One thing you don't understand is when you are pointing the finger at someone else you are pointing 4 fingers at yourself. I just can't imagine what kind of a hell you live in to be so angry.

Gary had the power to call the season. It's in black and white but you try to interpret it to fit your own story.

What in the world???

Like Resolute has pointed out, this is a new story that you are promoting in your case against Bettman, but it ABSOLUTELY IS NOT what you were called out on on the last page of this thread.

Yesterday, Resolute offered the following as a retort to your suggestion that Bettman was bestowed all the authority necessary to bring the NHLPA to heel in the 1994/95 CBA negotiation:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

...No, Bettman did not have "All the control he needed" in 1994. The guy was two years into the job at that time. A job where his predecessors for the previous seven decades were ownership puppets. But that loss in 1994-95 is what convinced the owners to give him his veto for 2004-05...

To which you responded:

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Back to throwing personal potshots again, are we. Bettman had veto power in the 94/95 lockout and to say otherwise is more of your revisionist history.

All I have ever challenged in this thread is the last rather critical statement, because if you are wrong, then it runs completely against your insistence that Bettman had "all the control he needed" in 1994. Without the veto, he clearly did not.

Since you cannot demonstrate that he had veto powers in 1994/95, and since it has been soundly demonstrated that he did not, your entire critique of Bettman's performance in the first CBA negotiation of his tenure is in serious jeopardy.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

...Aw forget it, now you're just being intentionally obtuse.

I'm the one who is being intentionally obtuse?!

You're the one who has been challenged to support your claim which you doggedly defend despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and I am being intentionally obtuse?

Good one.

[TheOnlyBilko]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

70 by the time this next contract ends eh? One has to wonder if he can physically handle the stresses of the job by that age.

Have you seen the ages of Presidential candidates??

Bernie Sanders is 74
Donald Trump is 69
Hilary Clinton is 69

If these people can handle the stresses of CampaignING and then 4 years of running the free world, which is a full time 24/7 job lol, I'm sure Gary will do just fine.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm the one who is being intentionally obtuse?!

Your the one who has been challenged to support your claim which you doggedly defend despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and I am being intentionally obtuse?

Good one.

He had the power to cancel the season, so any deal had to go through him. Meaning he had the veto or am I dealing with someone who is just to slow to put it together.

In other words your evidence is hogwash.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

He had the power to cancel the season, so any deal had to go through him.

Even if we go down your merry little delusion and treat the "power to cancel the season" as a legitimate power rather than a public ploy to pressure the union, that does not stand as de facto evidence that "any deal had to go through him". Again, assuming the board was actually prepared to cancel a season in 1994-95, it could still have, and almost certainly did, retain power to determine the validity of an offer.

So, I am going to have to ask you to cite this claim of yours. And please, stop wasting our time with your attempted dot connecting. Show sources that directly support your claim.

Meaning he had the veto

See above. You're trying to connect dots based on faulty assumptions rather than provide sources that support your claim.

or am I dealing with someone who is just to slow to put it together.

Looks like you didn't need to be "dragged down to my level". You ducked under it voluntarily.

In other words your evidence is hogwash.

Eric Duhatchek and the Sports Business Journal are "hogwash".

This says all we need to know about your state of mind on the subject.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Even if we go down your merry little delusion and treat the "power to cancel the season" as a legitimate power rather than a public ploy to pressure the union, that does not stand as de facto evidence that "any deal had to go through him". Again, assuming the board was actually prepared to cancel a season in 1994-95, it could still have, and almost certainly did, retain power to determine the validity of an offer.

So, I am going to have to ask you to cite this claim of yours. And please, stop wasting our time with your attempted dot connecting. Show sources that directly support your claim.



See above. You're trying to connect dots based on faulty assumptions rather than provide sources that support your claim.



Looks like you didn't need to be "dragged down to my level". You ducked under it voluntarily.



Eric Duhatchek and the Sports Business Journal are "hogwash".

This says all we need to know about your state of mind on the subject.

Connect dots you make me laugh? It's there in black and white and the only way to take it is at face value unless you can prove the story wrong and you can't.
Man you guys hate to lose.

[MrMastodonFarm]

This is getting weird, and sad.