Sign in with your NHL account:
  • Submit
  • Or
  • Sign in with Google

Jump to content


Photo

If Bettman's Idea Works, Ducks Fans Should No Longer Boo Him....


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
16 replies to this topic

#1 duck123

duck123

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 02:20 PM

Ducks fans, and fans in the NHL, typically boo Gary Bettman everywhere he goes (because of what happened with the lockout last time).

The thing that is always impressive about Gary is how respectful and dignified he is everywhere he goes, and with everybody he talks with. I know some people might say that's his job. But he's human. Does anybody like being booed? Would any hockey fan (yes, I believe he likes hockey) feel good about hockey fans hating you everywhere you go? Nobody likes so be hated. Nobody likes to be booed.

I think this idea with him getting the players' to meet yesterday and again today seems to be making progress. With the players' now in the room, being assertive in getting a deal done ASAP, it seems that hopefully we will have a deal done soon (I wouldn't be surprised if it was done as early as Saturday).

If there is a deal done, I think fans everywhere owe a lot of gratitude towards Bettman (No, this is not Bettman. He did not hack into my Duck123 account). But seriously...his idea was very creative and seemingly unheard of before in other sports. I think people should get acknowledgement for good ideas. And if this season is saved, why would fans boo the guy who's idea made hockey available again for everybodys' enjoyment? He might just go from dud (in many hockey peoples' minds) to hero. Here' s Gary, for at least trying his best while working with two sides that seem very greedy at times. And here's to the Ducks winning the Cup in an abbreviated season!

#2 Administrator

Administrator

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 2,391 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 02:27 PM

Keep in mind, it wasn't Bettmans idea, it was the arbitrator.

#3 duck123

duck123

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 02:50 PM

Really? For some reason I thought Bettman was the one who thought of it. At least he suggested it when he didn't have to, even if the arbitrator thought of it. He could have just said it was a crazy idea and cancelled the rest of the season. Good for him for not doing so.

#4 kcjones

kcjones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 03:10 PM

It was Bettman' s idea to lockout the players.Hope he applies for NBA commissioner when Stern retires.

#5 tonyeroberts

tonyeroberts

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:54 PM

Bettman is only gracious when getting booed because he's so arrogant he thinks he's done everything right and the stupid fans just don't understand. He's a puppet and nothing more. I really haven't seen anything about him that's impressed me.

#6 gilligoos

gilligoos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:35 PM

It was Bettman's idea after 80 days and no movement in negotiations. He could have pushed for negotiations early this year instead of starting late Summer. Third lockout under his watch...I say boo him louder. Fire Bettman chants right after the first puck drop across all 15 games in the first day of hockey.

#7 duck123

duck123

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:10 AM

I agree, MooseDuck. I have a feeling Lindholm will play for the Ducks sometime this season, if there is one. I wouldn't be surprised if the Ducks paired him up with Sbisa, to take the place where Visnovsky used to be. But he would more likely be paired with Allen. Yes, it would mean a more experienced verteran defenseman won't make the top 6. But I think we can use a player like Lindholm. To have him, Sbisa, and Fowler on the same team would be pretty good.

Edited by duck123, 06 December 2012 - 07:10 AM.


#8 njvbutt

njvbutt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 575 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:01 PM

I agree, MooseDuck. I have a feeling Lindholm will play for the Ducks sometime this season, if there is one. I wouldn't be surprised if the Ducks paired him up with Sbisa, to take the place where Visnovsky used to be. But he would more likely be paired with Allen. Yes, it would mean a more experienced verteran defenseman won't make the top 6. But I think we can use a player like Lindholm. To have him, Sbisa, and Fowler on the same team would be pretty good.

Lindholm will not be playing with the ducks IF there is a season. If anyone other than Fowler, Beachemin, Sbisa, Lydman, Allen, and Souray play, its going to be Vatanen or Guenin.

Back to the original topic, it sounds to me like its wishy washy. They don't sound to optimistic towards getting a deal done soon. According to people on twitter they are still very far apart so i dont see them getting it done any time soon. That being said I hope they are wrong and they get something done so I can watch hockey on christmas morning.

#9 gilligoos

gilligoos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:41 PM

Can someone explain to me why it is crucial for the NHLPA not to accept the 5 year contract limit? There's always the option to re-sign after 5 years. I hate those long-term deals because of the risk of injury or a player not performing to his potential any given year. Contract term limits push superstars to play at their highest potential year after year, as they risk a drop in salary if they don't perform well i.e. Dustin Penner. I'm piddleed at both sides. The NHLPA and NHL equally gave up a lot on the Make-Whole provision under the new proposal ($89M each side). That was the key issue in this whole mess. Yet they still can't agree on a new CBA. Players want an 8 year CBA term (with a release clause after 6) vs 10 years (and release clause after 8). So I guess the NHLPA doesn't care about the fans and would rather go through this bullDung every 6 years or so. The NHLPA offered an 8 year contract term limit...I say reduce it to 6 or 7 and the owners may be willing to listen. If the owners don't budge, then just accept the 5 year limit. Players will still make millions over the course of the contract for crying out loud!!! If we don't hear an agreement by tomorrow, we're in a lot of trouble and we may be looking at a lockout that could last until next late Fall/Winter.

#10 ZTHER

ZTHER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,231 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:06 PM

Lindholm will not be playing with the ducks IF there is a season. If anyone other than Fowler, Beachemin, Sbisa, Lydman, Allen, and Souray play, its going to be Vatanen or Guenin.

Back to the original topic, it sounds to me like its wishy washy. They don't sound to optimistic towards getting a deal done soon. According to people on twitter they are still very far apart so i dont see them getting it done any time soon. That being said I hope they are wrong and they get something done so I can watch hockey on christmas morning.


Vatanen? Have you seen him play? He hasn't looked nearly ready enough... particularly in his own end. I really can't see a scenario where he makes the team. Simply not NHL material right now.

On the season... it's the owners game, and the players have made the miscalculation of thinking that they are in a position to bargain. Every day their deal should (and likely will) get worse.

#11 ZTHER

ZTHER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,231 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:10 PM

Can someone explain to me why it is crucial for the NHLPA not to accept the 5 year contract limit? There's always the option to re-sign after 5 years. I hate those long-term deals because of the risk of injury or a player not performing to his potential any given year. Contract term limits push superstars to play at their highest potential year after year, as they risk a drop in salary if they don't perform well i.e. Dustin Penner. I'm piddleed at both sides. The NHLPA and NHL equally gave up a lot on the Make-Whole provision under the new proposal ($89M each side). That was the key issue in this whole mess. Yet they still can't agree on a new CBA. Players want an 8 year CBA term (with a release clause after 6) vs 10 years (and release clause after 8). So I guess the NHLPA doesn't care about the fans and would rather go through this bullDung every 6 years or so. The NHLPA offered an 8 year contract term limit...I say reduce it to 6 or 7 and the owners may be willing to listen. If the owners don't budge, then just accept the 5 year limit. Players will still make millions over the course of the contract for crying out loud!!! If we don't hear an agreement by tomorrow, we're in a lot of trouble and we may be looking at a lockout that could last until next late Fall/Winter.


Injury.

NHL contracts are guaranteed... longer contracts mean more guaranteed dollars to the players who are fortunate to score such deals. When a player finally reaches UFA status, those long term, big dollar deals start looking extremely attractive.

That said, you're right. Contract limits are good for the game!

#12 gilligoos

gilligoos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:49 AM

His idea work but I think the problem comes down to Betteman and Fehr being involved which really soured things.

DuckPride 4ever
MooseDuck

A respected hockey writer tweeted this coming from a player: "We were ready to play again. But Don came in (Wed.) and told us we could get more and to hold out". Fehr doesn't care about the good of the game or the fans. He doesn't care that players want to play. It seemed that players were pleased with the recent proposals. The NHLPA gave up a lot with revenue split and the make-whole provision. But so did the owners by allowing free agency and arbitration to remain as they are, and accepting to increase their make-whole proposition. There seemed to be consensus that both sides saw the middle ground and were able to push for a deal today. Unfortunately you have a greedy prick like Fehr that will ruin the second sports league he has touched. Shouldn't the player have the final say since they're the ones that will play over the next decade and represent countless of players of the next generation? Don't they receive the paychecks and not Fehr? Coming from a hardcore of a hockey fan that I am, I accept that hockey falls behind the NBA, NFL, MLB, NASCAR, and global soccer. Fehr is asking way too much for a league that has just started to grow and make a dent in North America over the last few years. If the owners can continue to help this league grow, players will see their share of revenue grow significantly as well. Within 5-7 years I expect the player share to hit $2B. The next generation of players may even see a time where their share reaches $2.5-3B. This won't happen if they don't play. If this lockout drags on until next year, I hope for Fehr's sake that revenue declines after this mess. I want players to sit back five years from now and wish that they could have convinced Fehr of taking the initial deal. I have been siding with the players since this lockout, but just recently have lost respect for both sides. A middle ground was reached on Wednesday and games could have started in 2 weeks, but still no agreement. This mess is unfair to the fans, to the workers at the stadiums, to the business owners relying on gameday, and to the businesses who have endorsed and poured a lot of money into this league. It's unfair for fans like me who was proud over the last few years that the NHL wasn't a mere speck in North America's sports market anymore. Hockey had momentum and hockey fans in non-traditional markets were beginning to be heard. If this drags on in 2013, you can kiss that last part good-bye.

#13 Thom-74

Thom-74

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:40 AM

From where I'm watching, it looks like this has all been a game designed to allow the four owners to take a harder position in negotiations. I saw that Boston was one of the four franchises calling the shots at the negotiations, who are the other three franchises that I should root against?

Anyways, time for the players to decertify the Union, and to enjoy playing in other leagues until the losses start adding up for the four owners that are calling the shots.

#14 Kanauhtli

Kanauhtli

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,256 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:21 PM

A respected hockey writer tweeted this coming from a player: "We were ready to play again. But Don came in (Wed.) and told us we could get more and to hold out". Fehr doesn't care about the good of the game or the fans. He doesn't care that players want to play. It seemed that players were pleased with the recent proposals. The NHLPA gave up a lot with revenue split and the make-whole provision. But so did the owners by allowing free agency and arbitration to remain as they are, and accepting to increase their make-whole proposition. There seemed to be consensus that both sides saw the middle ground and were able to push for a deal today. Unfortunately you have a greedy prick like Fehr that will ruin the second sports league he has touched. Shouldn't the player have the final say since they're the ones that will play over the next decade and represent countless of players of the next generation? Don't they receive the paychecks and not Fehr? Coming from a hardcore of a hockey fan that I am, I accept that hockey falls behind the NBA, NFL, MLB, NASCAR, and global soccer. Fehr is asking way too much for a league that has just started to grow and make a dent in North America over the last few years. If the owners can continue to help this league grow, players will see their share of revenue grow significantly as well. Within 5-7 years I expect the player share to hit $2B. The next generation of players may even see a time where their share reaches $2.5-3B. This won't happen if they don't play. If this lockout drags on until next year, I hope for Fehr's sake that revenue declines after this mess. I want players to sit back five years from now and wish that they could have convinced Fehr of taking the initial deal. I have been siding with the players since this lockout, but just recently have lost respect for both sides. A middle ground was reached on Wednesday and games could have started in 2 weeks, but still no agreement. This mess is unfair to the fans, to the workers at the stadiums, to the business owners relying on gameday, and to the businesses who have endorsed and poured a lot of money into this league. It's unfair for fans like me who was proud over the last few years that the NHL wasn't a mere speck in North America's sports market anymore. Hockey had momentum and hockey fans in non-traditional markets were beginning to be heard. If this drags on in 2013, you can kiss that last part good-bye.


I find myself in the middle on this but one thing that you can't deny is that Fehr made the baseball union one of the strongest and right now baseball owners are making so much money while players are making a lot of money. Fehr didn't ruin baseball. Heck didn't the Dodgers, a struggling franchise, sell for about a billion dollars?

#15 Thom-74

Thom-74

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:45 PM

I find myself in the middle on this but one thing that you can't deny is that Fehr made the baseball union one of the strongest and right now baseball owners are making so much money while players are making a lot of money. Fehr didn't ruin baseball. Heck didn't the Dodgers, a struggling franchise, sell for about a billion dollars?


Sorry to nitpick...but in the case of the Dodgers...the franchise had no doubt lost value... the franchise's value is based mostly in the team's history, the McCourts had been running it into the ground, but the history was there to tap into when new owners came buying. So, Fehr wouldn't be necessarily responsible for the loss of value to the Dodgers, but he certianly wasn't responsible for making the Dodgers more valuable. Skip the McCourt ownership, and the Dodgers are probably worth even more.

#16 Kanauhtli

Kanauhtli

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,256 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:22 PM

Sorry to nitpick...but in the case of the Dodgers...the franchise had no doubt lost value... the franchise's value is based mostly in the team's history, the McCourts had been running it into the ground, but the history was there to tap into when new owners came buying. So, Fehr wouldn't be necessarily responsible for the loss of value to the Dodgers, but he certianly wasn't responsible for making the Dodgers more valuable. Skip the McCourt ownership, and the Dodgers are probably worth even more.


I wasn't too clear but my argument wasn't actually the worth of the Dodgers but of how anti-unionist blame Fehr for ruining baseball when it actually got better. The sport grew to the point were owners and players are making money.

#17 sclives

sclives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:40 PM

Baseball has not gotten better per se, it has now due the confluence of a lot of elements tapped into a massive market (television) that at the time of the Fehr MLB episode did not exist. Teams, other than the Yankees were not signing individual TV deals that were marketplace specific. The Dodgers TV deal is estimated to be worth $900MM. That is what they potential owners were bidding on......TV revenues. The average age of TV viewer of MLB is 54 years old. MLBs audience is aging and aging almost in lock with step with the babyboomers. It will rage and generate massive TV revenues for the next 2 decades. After than who knows. Fehr and everyone knew this was coming.

For Hockey the future revenue streams are far less clear and concise to a substantial extent. It is one reason deals are also so short term as the NHLs future is uncertain.

Hockey as we know is a merciless TV sport.





AnaheimDucks.com is the official Web site of the Anaheim Ducks. Anaheim Ducks and AnaheimDucks.com are trademarks of Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club, LLC. NHL, the NHL Shield, the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup and NHL Conference logos are registered trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P. Copyright © 1999-2013 Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club, LLC and the National Hockey League. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy     Contact Us    Jobs     Honda Center    Corporate Partnerships   Terms of Use   NHL TicketExchange  Site Map AdChoices