Bettman given a failing grade by business magazine

[Weekes Head]

According to TSN.ca:

BusinessWeek: Bettman failing

TSN.ca Staff

1/6/2005

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has been given a failing grade by a major business magazine in the United States.

BusinessWeek ranks Bettman fifth on its list of seven worst managers in 2004. Rankings were based on submissions from 130 writers and editors from around the world.

"Arenas have been empty since Sept. 15, when National Hockey League owners locked out the players," said the magazine regarding Bettman's selection. "NHL finances are in shambles, and the weak TV deal signed with NBC last spring suggests the league has little leverage and is now a second-tier sport."

The magazine does give Bettman credit for attempting to unite the owners, whom it calls "an undisciplined bunch (that) should shoulder much of the blame for wildly bidding up salaries."

"(Bettman) finally has owners marching in lockstep toward a tough new contract - even if their unanimity is about a decade too late."

NHLPA boss Bob Goodenow doesn't escape unscathed either.

"Little prudence has been shown by NHL Players Assn. chief Bob Goodenow, who might have been wise to heed Bettman's warnings that the unsustainable rate of salary growth was undermining the business on which players depend for their livelihood," says BusinessWeek.

The magazine concludes by saying, depending on the outcome of the dispute, Bettman could easily find himself on the list of Best Managers in one years time.

"If the league holds out and wins a salary cap - or even settles for a hefty rollback - Bettman could end up looking like a shrewd crisis manager. But it was a crisis that should never have happened."

It has not been a good week for the NHL boss. The Sporting News ranked Bettman 40th on its list of the 100 most powerful people. That's a drop of 27 spots from a year ago. NHLPA boss Bob Goodenow was ranked ahead of Bettman, 39th.

Both found themselves behind Janet Jackson's 2004 Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" on the Power 100 list.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=110264&hubName=nhl

[CRASHER]

Bettman's been incompitent far longer then the lockout's been.. no shock but good to see other people seeing it too.. shame this is the only way the NHL gets press

[Christopher_watts31_ls]

Ya know what hockey was never in the papers around here but since the lockout there is an article everyday.

One of my teachers on wed. was reading the paper and said im glad that stupid hockey is gone or whatever. all it was doing was taking up space on the tv. well i got really mad lol and said yea that hotdog eating contest was really exciting a few weeks ago. and to top off all the excitement they had the cheerleading finals on the next day. lol

its stupid the stuff they have on there.

i can understand cheerleading every now and then but a hot dog eating contest? i jus cant take that lol

[Ice Man]

Shame on the owners for following his lead and allowing tho NHL mess that was created by Bettman and the owners.

[Don]

Shame on the owners for following his lead and allowing tho NHL mess that was created by Bettman and the owners.

You bore me with your tripe.... And you still haven't sent me all your money yet.

[Risky]

Get Real,

It's no great suprise that you still have no idea what's going on. Thanks for stopping by. See you again in 3 months, enjoy life under the rock.

[E-Devil]

Much of the blame on Bettman is well deserved. He never should have allowed the League to fall into this bad position in the first place, and that was his job!

I do have some respect for him that he hasn't bent over and given into the will of the NHLPA right away and then go into his 'no problems, business as usual' attitude. Atleast he is determined to try to solve the financial mess that is the NHL.

After this is all solved I would, however, like to see him gone from the NHL with a Donal Trump style "You're Fired!" After of course he is explained on a rant from Trump about how bad and incompetent he was and undeserving of the job he is.

Edited January 7, 2005 by E-Devil

[Jas0nMacIsaac]

I don't like Betman as a businessman but he is doing a good job neotiating this mess. He wants the NHL to be like the NFL, every owner makes easy money....going into the business field I'm ok with this

[Ice Man]

Risky, are you watching a 2005/2006 NHL hockey season today? You Get Real !!!! Because I don't ever accept your point of view I'm wrong, I don't think so !!!!

If you were a player you would have accepted all the money you could have gotten from any owner for playing NHL Hockey. So what's new and different in this situation? Nothing, except you support the owners & Bettman who have screwed you and all fans with higher ticket prices for less product and have cooked the accounting books for their own financial gain.

I realize that you can't and won't understand this point of view but I invite you to keep posting here.

[Jas0nMacIsaac]

Risky, are you watching a 2005/2006 NHL hockey season today? You Get Real !!!! Because I don't ever accept your point of view I'm wrong, I don't think so !!!!

If you were a player you would have accepted all the money you could have gotten from any owner for playing NHL Hockey.  So what's new and different in this situation? Nothing, except you support the owners & Bettman who have screwed you and all fans with higher ticket prices for less product and have cooked the accounting books for their own financial gain.

I realize that you can't and won't understand this point of view but I invite you to keep posting here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And if you were an owner I would hope that you would want to make a profit.

[E-Devil]

It is silly that the owners are screaming "WE NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM OURSELVES!!!"

However if you make a mess (one that of course the owners suddenly and *surprise* found out they have to wallow in), THEN YOU CLEAN IT UP!

er I guess Gary "He's an a$$hole!" Bettman has to clean it.

Edited January 7, 2005 by E-Devil

[Don]

Since Ice Man thinks that the owners should continue to lose all of their money, I asked that he sell everything that he has and send me all his money. I mean, he can't expect the owners to do something that he wouldn't do. So I'm expecting a very large cheque any day now.

As for cooking the books, the NHL invited the NHLPA to have their own independant auditor go over the books AND THEY DECLINED.

[Risky]

How is this so hard to understand? 26 owners are demanding protection from an irresponsible 4. It is basic economics. When a price is set in a market system (ie, a player's salary), it becomes everyone's reality.

The owners have a right to have the ability to run a profitable venture. Otherwise, they have no reason to own the team. And when you have no reason to own a team, the NHL does not exist. The fact that individual players are walking home with significantly more money per year than the owners are indicates a VERY broken system.

You cannot logically possibly support the players' stance at this point. If you do, they have you fooled.

[point]

Maybe the problem is a revenue-sharing issue. Those 4-6 teams that have consistently overpaid players have too much money to spend, and not enough good sense.

As far as comparing it to NFL doesn't work. Every year there are a thousand fresh bodies out there (trained by a more than willing collegieate system) for the GMs to pick and choose from. And a good thing too, since the NFL eats up and spits out players like watermelon seeds.

[LizDevil30]

In the case of the NHL, the needs of the many far outweigh the wants of the few. The owners don't need to be protected from themselves, just from a few owners.

[BleedsRangerBlue]

Objectively, the union's proposal works a lot better than Bettman's proposal, especially if it were a 3 year deal like it was last time. Under Bettman's proposal, overall league costs AND revenues will go down at the same time, and also the Predators would fold within the next 5 years. I don't understand why Bettman can't accept the proposal for a 3 year deal. It might be better to shut down hockey under the past CBA, but I can't seriously accept the claim that it's better not to have hockey than to operate under the union's proposal. If salaries shoot up again in 2-3 years, then that would prove that a salary cap is needed, and the players would be more inclined to accept a salary cap. But I don't believe that will happen because the owners will be smarter this time around and not overestimate the growth of the sport.

Also, the comparison to the NFL is a good point. Under Bettman's proposal, there will essentially be no trading, because no one is going to have enough cap room to accept a player making more than a couple of million dollars. So the only way to get better would be to draft well, so teams that aren't very good will have to wait 5 years for their draft picks to develop, while in the NFL it'll take Roethlisbergr exactly 0 years to develop.

[E-Devil]

Under Bettman's proposal, overall league costs AND revenues will go down at the same time, and also the Predators would fold within the next 5 years. I don't understand why Bettman can't accept the proposal for a 3 year deal. It might be better to shut down hockey under the past CBA, but I can't seriously accept the claim that it's better not to have hockey than to operate under the union's proposal.

The fact that the league is even in this position is from neglect of league management to avoid having to come to this situation in the first place. A big reason we are having this strike is because of the NHL mentality of:

Just fix it for now or ignore it. We'll solve these problems once the time comes to address them.

Like Bettman said he needs a new car, not new tires. The difference between the two sides is basically operating the league in the long-run vs. the short-run. The league needs to have much more financial stability for an indefinate period of time then 3-5 years. We will just ended up in the same boat trying to solve these problems again if we just fix it for now and let the players go back to work. After salaries and are knocked down and the league runs under the current NHLPA proposal, more then likely salaries will soon crawl back up to what they were and move pass that.

Unfortunately the bad consequences of trying to solve these problems NOW result in a lockout. There is still a lot at stake to be lost(mainly the whole NHL) so it has become a necessary evil to endure a lockout to break the NHLPA into surrendering into a salary cap, or forcing them to come up with a plan that can please Gary "He's an Idiot!!" Bettman.

If salaries shoot up again in 2-3 years, then that would prove that a salary cap is needed, and the players would be more inclined to accept a salary cap.

The League can't afford to have it that way. Especially now after this strike where we don't know even what that consequences of it will be. After the league finds out knocking down salaries every few years doesn't work, 6-10 teams will have collapsed or already be in deep financial troubles. If you think that is fine for the rest of the league then you are fooling yourself.

You think TV, Radio, and all those sports outlets are going to give out huge contracts(which the league depends on) to nationally broadcast a game that is collapsing? The loss of those teams are not only felt by the fans of those teams but by the whole league as well. When those teams collapse many of those fans will be disgusted and won't just simply follow another team on television. They won't watch NHL hockey and less viewers means less ratings. Less ratings means the NHL isn't as worth much to the media outlets and doesn't deserve as much money to allow itself to be broadcasted. With the amount of money the league earns decreasing eventually it will even catch up to the big spending teams. They will one year find themselves locked into huge contracts and suddenly costs will greatly exceed revenue. Eventually they might go belly up with the rest of the league.

But I don't believe that will happen because the owners will be smarter this time around and not overestimate the growth of the sport. So the only way to get better would be to draft well, so teams that aren't very good will have to wait 5 years for their draft picks to develop, while in the NFL it'll take Roethlisbergr exactly 0 years to develop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You think all the owners first interests are keeping the NHL stable and building a winning team through drafting? Some of those owners(we all know who they are!) don't care if half the league even collapses in 5 years. They want their GM to do whatever it takes to bring in the big name stars into their arena because that fills the seats. Owners are in this business to make money, not to collaborate with other owners to keep everyone financially safe. For some teams having a GM that spends out of control on big name stars brings them back even more money. As for the league completely collapsing in 15 years? They don't care! Most likely they will have been out of this business long before that finally happens.

As for the small market teams already feeling the financial impact, of course they are the ones screaming that the rest of the league needs to be more responsible and that a salary cap is needed. They are in to make money just like the big teams. They want to be protected so they still have a job

Look, I know we are all upset about this lockout but I'd rather miss one year of hockey then have no Devil's hockey in seven years. I want to be able to continue to take my dates to NHL games and maybe one day take my kids to see the best hockey players in the world. Those are MY INTERESTS and that is why I'm backing Gary Bettman and most of his owners riding on his back even though my stomach tosses and churns.

[BleedsRangerBlue]

None of your replies really agreed with or refuted anything I said, but it looks like you probably haven't even read Bettman's proposal or the rest of the player's proposal other than the 24% rollback that the media claimed to be a marketing ploy. Also, at this rate, the NHL is done anyway. If there's a lockout for two years, a lot of people will have already found substitutes for hockey.

And my whole point was that the league as a whole (and probably every team in the league to varying amounts) was going make profits for 3 years even if salaries DO go up.

[E-Devil]

Maybe I misunderstood your point and I'm sorry for that if I did. From your post I assumed that you found that the NHLPA proposal is fine and everyone should go back to work now and in three years we could look at how the league did and fix it again. My point was that with the NHLPA proposal, there is still a good chance salaries will still inflate out of control(which fixing is Bettman's main agenda) and by the time the agreement is up we could just be back to where we are now and possibly even worse. When the time comes to negotiate again I don't think players would agree with your previous statement that :

If salaries shoot up again in 2-3 years, then that would prove that a salary cap is needed, and the players would be more inclined to accept a salary cap.

Like everyone has mentioned on this site numerous times, it is all about OWN interests. Players will never want a salary cap because NOBODY wants to take a pay cut. They won't change their mind just because the league will show them that a compensation limit on players is the only way to control spending. You'll notice that most of the players trashing Gary Bettman are those players that are the top earners in the league. Most of them are in their 30s, made their fortunes and don't have long term plans with the NHL. The younger players who have plans to be a part of the NHL are considering being scabs. So in three years from now Gary Bettman(or whoever is in charge) will just have to try again to break the older players into agree into a spending limit. That would mean another lockout and if the league isn't in serious trouble now, it will certainly be next time around.

As for the owners, they have their own personal interests as well. Notice New York, Detroit, Colorado want to play this year while owners are more interested in fixing the financial problems and moving on. You stated that the owners would be smarter next time around and won't go overboard on spending on free agents. Like I said some of those owners get more revenue back on bringing high priced players to their arenas. They don't care that it affects other teams in the league, they profit for it and that is all that matters to them.

As for the NHL proposal vs. NHLPA proposal yes I have read it. Here is why I think the NHLPA proposal has some flaws and could result in continued inflation:

There is a huge allowed spending gap between the very high revenue earning teams and the small market teams. Even if big spending teams are squeezed off the top under the NHLPA proposal how much impact does in make on their spending? Who knows if your team the Rangers are even near what their spending limit is? The same goes for Colorado, Detroit and Dallas. I feel some of the big spending teams can still hand out huge contracts and afford to be taxed for it. The NHLPA's way of cutting down salaries would help teams with more players with very large salaries then teams with consisting of less paid players. That might give some teams an even bigger room to sign more high priced free agents and many would choose to do so if it could mean winning a championship. Winning a championship of course would generate more team interest in the area and bring back more money for the owners. That makes it worth it by throwing an offer of 12 million/year at a norris winning defensement like Neidermayer if it means a better chance of bringing home the cup. With that, player salaries could continue to rise and the big spending teams could have an even bigger advantage. You right, the biggest losers in the NHLPA's proposal and Bettman's proposal are teams that spend close to what their spending limit is.

I feel a big problem why all these teams have become labeled "small market" and not generating interest in the area because they don't have players the fill seats and don't do much in the playoffs. It is sort of a catch 22, fans don't show because the team doesn't have highly skilled players, the team can't sign highly skilled players because they don't have enough fans. Getting these teams competitive again needs to be addressed somehow.

I also think the lack of interest isn't completely because of the spending limit gaps on the bottom and top teams. I think the NHL needs a lot more fixing then just the economic system to make it bring in and even back more fans. But limited how much can be spent on players and controlling ticket prices for teams is a step in the right direciton. Inflation won't be so bad under that system.

Edited January 10, 2005 by E-Devil