Worst Commissioner in sports

It is kind of frightening when you stop and think that Bud Selig is easily the best of the Big 4 commissioners. Good Lord...

 

Gary Bettman's strategy of using the lockout as his ONLY negotiation strategy earns him this award.

Even Selig manages to come up with something.

 

Yeah, why can't they vote him out if they don't like him.

I would notbe surprised to see if that happened if this mess blows up in their faces.

 

I imagine it is set up this way for stability, for change to take place they need the overwhelming support of 66 per cent or whatever the math works out to. Don't know who put the rule in, I imagine he pushed it through. It essentially made him emperor for life, or as long as he wants it.

 

What part of 8 owners don't you get?

 

James Dolan tried to challenge Bettman, and lost. Dolan is the living embodiment why the remaining 22 owners won't challenge Bettman.

 

here's a question that I have, hopefully not a threadjack: What would define "permanent damage" to the NHL? It's not like attendance for the southern teams is going to go *down*; Tampa Bay and Florida, to name two, draw just about the minimum amount of die-hards on a game-by-game basis. Contraction, frankly, would help the league as a whole, and of course the players' association wouldn't let that happen anyway. The Canadian teams will draw because hockey is a religion in Canada.

So why not lock out, and see what you can get? What's the worst that will happen to the NHL, long term?

(Please note that I'm a casual hockey fan and do not in any way support the owners' action. I'm genuinely just curious.)

 

Franchise resale values will crash.

The one overriding value for any sports franchise is the presumption it will continue to exist. Once franchises are contracted, ANY franchises, that becomes a question mark.

 

Going to assume that's a joke ... major pro sports commissioners is the subject.

What? You think I'm suddenly going to shower John Swofford with praise? The blimp shot above was the proverbial needle in his balloon.

 

Hmmm. Yeah ... no.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-contract-20-teams-183051197--nhl.html

 

So if there'll be no contraction (and it's a non-starter, 'cause it costs players jobs), and the vast majority of the fans that will be there before they locked the players out will be there when you come back, and there's no TV deal to speak of anyway (at least, not in the U.S.) then why shouldn't the owners simply shut down every fifth season or so and try to get back every penny they possibly can?

 

May want to fact check your no TV deal thing

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=362861

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/cbc-has-much-at-stake-in-next-nhl-television-rights-negotiation/article4601079/

http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?v-print/m-1201023255/

Is it NFL or MLB money? no, but that's still a significant chunk of change and in Canada both deals are up for renewal in the next couple of years, a recent history of lost seasons don't exactly help raise your bottom line in those deals. On top of that you have major sponsors like Molson Coors that have already been very public in their talk about seeking compensation for losses due to the lockout. There is quite a bit at stake. And the mentality shouldn't ever be "Well we have our core fans that are going to come back . . ." because eventually you will piss them off. They have made small gains in some of the southern markets like Nashville, but that goodwill gets flushed down the shitter everytime there is a lockout and it's back to square one. A lockout should never be your main method of negotiating a new CBA, it should be the absolute last option. To suggest otherwise is just assinine.