Bettman

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Just when I thought I couldn't dislike him more........
The current charade in Quebec City is another example of his arrogance.
Bettman has alienated all of Canada with his handling of Make it "7".
Southern Ontario is a far better market, bigger and more affluent with more corporate headquarters to fill the all important sky boxes. Winnipeg and QC weren't good enough for the NHL. Quebec would revive the battle of Quebec rivalry but would cut into the Hab's territory of francophone fans. Canadiens ticket sales are not in need of a rivalry injection and QC is still a small market.
Build a stadium, line it with gold, line my pockets with gold and then we may talk?
This is an insult intended to placate Canada and split the opposition to the NHL.

[LoupDogg]

Oct 15, 2009 12:52:20 GMT -5 Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Just when I thought I couldn't dislike him more........
The current charade in Quebec City is another example of his arrogance.
Bettman has alienated all of Canada with his handling of Make it "7".
Southern Ontario is a far better market, bigger and more affluent with more corporate headquarters to fill the all important sky boxes. Winnipeg and QC weren't good enough for the NHL. Quebec would revive the battle of Quebec rivalry but would cut into the Hab's territory of francophone fans. Canadiens ticket sales are not in need of a rivalry injection and QC is still a small market.
Build a stadium, line it with gold, line my pockets with gold and then we may talk?
This is an insult intended to placate Canada and split the opposition to the NHL.

Québec IS a good hockey market. As far as hockey town goes, this one is amongst the top. The sport is rooted deep inside the citizens there.

The Bell center hasn't been full since it was opened. Who is really scared to see the Canadiens having trouble selling tickets because there's a rival a few hudread miles from there.

The Nordiques never lost money when they were in Québec. Marcel Aubut knows that very well, and he traveled to NY with Qc's mayor to meet Bettman. So the argument that the town wasn't good enough for the NHL is not valid, IMO. It's way more fit than Nashville or Tampa, to name only those two.

It doesn't mean that adding a club in Winnipeg (who has a new, albeit tiny, arena) or Hamilton is not also a good idea. But Québec city wants hockey. They need hockey. And my gut feeling is that they will have it. And that's a very good thing indeed.

That being said, I probably dislike Bettman as much as you do, but not for that specific reason.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Oct 15, 2009 13:24:00 GMT -5 LoupDogg said:

Oct 15, 2009 12:52:20 GMT -5 Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Just when I thought I couldn't dislike him more........
The current charade in Quebec City is another example of his arrogance.
Bettman has alienated all of Canada with his handling of Make it "7".
Southern Ontario is a far better market, bigger and more affluent with more corporate headquarters to fill the all important sky boxes. Winnipeg and QC weren't good enough for the NHL. Quebec would revive the battle of Quebec rivalry but would cut into the Hab's territory of francophone fans. Canadiens ticket sales are not in need of a rivalry injection and QC is still a small market.
Build a stadium, line it with gold, line my pockets with gold and then we may talk?
This is an insult intended to placate Canada and split the opposition to the NHL.

Québec IS a good hockey market. As far as hockey town goes, this one is amongst the top. The sport is rooted deep inside the citizens there.

The Bell center hasn't been full since it was opened. Who is really scared to see the Canadiens having trouble selling tickets because there's a rival a few hudread miles from there.

The Nordiques never lost money when they were in Québec. Marcel Aubut knows that very well, and he traveled to NY with Qc's mayor to meet Bettman. So the argument that the town wasn't good enough for the NHL is not valid, IMO. It's way more fit than Nashville or Tampa, to name only those two.

It doesn't mean that adding a club in Winnipeg (who has a new, albeit tiny, arena) or Hamilton is not also a good idea. But Québec city wants hockey. They need hockey. And my gut feeling is that they will have it. And that's a very good thing indeed.

That being said, I probably dislike Bettman as much as you do, but not for that specific reason.

Once again I haven't made myself clear. I agree with almost everything you say.
Quebec is a good hockey market and the Montreal Quebec rivalry was great.
Splitting the province into two factions would hurt the sale of Hab's merchandise and broadcasting.
The Hab's aren't hurting for attendance and they sell out regularly.
While QC has rabid fans with a love and history of hockey, they lack the corporate sponsorship and support that the Southern Ontario market has. Pierre and Guy buying a ticket and a couple of beers doesn't match the revenue generated from high rollers in a corporate skybox.
Quebec and the surrounding towns have a much more loyal fan base than Phoenix, Ft. Lauderdale or even Los Angeles. I'm not against Quebec City getting a team. I'm against the way Bettman is manipulating the situation and hurting Southern Ontario.
A team in Quebec City won't add any incremental TV viewership or the US support Bettman is trying to build.
It allows Bettman to appear to be supporting Canada while making QC run around in circles and costs the NHL nothing.

[LoupDogg]

That is indeed clearer, but I still don't fully agree on a few points.

The corporate sponsorship in Quebec City has evolved since the Nordiques are gone and I think that there would be money around for that now. Is it as much as there is in Southern Ontario? Perhaps not.

But then, you talk about splitting the market in the Belle Province, and neglect to mention that a team in, say, Hamilton, would split the market in Ontario, and would be getting near the market zone of the Leafs and Buffalo...

Will it add US TV viewers? Certainly not. But what will? The ratings for hockey in the States are appalling. All the Bettman era is a huge failure in that regard. That's where I lay most of the blame on the tiny man.

The real reason why I think Bettman has been supportive of the Quebec argument is to show a certain potential owner that when you do things properly, things are suddently possible (i.e. go talk to the big guys in the League first, then talk about moving or buying a team, not the other way around). Bettman has also said that in an ideal scenario, he doesn't want any franchises to move. Maybe an expansion if the League is very healthy (he's dreaming big time there, IMO). But follow the pattern set by the League, and a hockey club may come to your town. It's that simple.

[CentreHice]

I think it's time to give up on the elusive national U.S. television deal.

The horses aren't drinking....and they likely never will.

Regional at best, as it's always been.

And perhaps that's where Bettman is failing....by continuing to try to force too many square pegs into round holes.

No more gimmicks, either....please.

[The New Guy]

I have bigger problems with Bettman than his Great American Expansion. At least there's some kind of logic behind it. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is a hockey fan base. It takes time. A long time.

However he's done it all wrong IMHO. What he needs to do is work with the AHL and the ECHL to develop the fan base in an incremental manner. It takes somewhere between fifteen and thirty years to build a sports fanbase in a place where the exposure is near zero (it would, of course, take less time in QC or Hamilton, or even Minnesota because of the high level of exposure already). To ask an NHL team, worth hundred of millions of dollars, to operate at a loss or at a barely break even point for twenty years is foolish.

What instead should've happened at the start of this mess is a roll out. First, you assert your influence on the lower leagues (they may not like this, but it'll be worth their while). Make a rule stating that every NHL team must have its own AHL and ECHL affiliate. That's sixty teams. Then push to move lower-tier teams into the new markets. Strong markets get AHL teams, weak markets get ECHL teams. Let them play there for ten years or so and build a following. Then look at the possibility of expanding the NHL into that area. The AHL teams, because they are smaller, don't take a big financial hit (or don't take a hit at all, since they usually get a lot of sponsorship from the big leagues). And when you move a team in they only have five years left on that fifteen year build to have an excellent following.

Sadly, now that Bettman has made the mess I'm not sure there is a betterchoice than to leave the teams where they are. For the individual owners it makes a lot of sense to look at places like Winnipeg, QC and Hamilton because there's easy dollars there. Not so much for the league as a whole. the league as a whole would benefit much more from leaving these teams to rot in these areas, and hoping that, in another ten or fifteen years, a fan base comes knocking on their door step.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Good post, TNG.

Oct 16, 2009 9:29:30 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

I have bigger problems with Bettman than his Great American Expansion. At least there's some kind of logic behind it. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is a hockey fan base. It takes time. A long time.

However he's done it all wrong IMHO. What he needs to do is work with the AHL and the ECHL to develop the fan base in an incremental manner. It takes somewhere between fifteen and thirty years to build a sports fanbase in a place where the exposure is near zero (it would, of course, take less time in QC or Hamilton, or even Minnesota because of the high level of exposure already). To ask an NHL team, worth hundred of millions of dollars, to operate at a loss or at a barely break even point for twenty years is foolish.

What instead should've happened at the start of this mess is a roll out. First, you assert your influence on the lower leagues (they may not like this, but it'll be worth their while). Make a rule stating that every NHL team must have its own AHL and ECHL affiliate. That's sixty teams. Then push to move lower-tier teams into the new markets. Strong markets get AHL teams, weak markets get ECHL teams. Let them play there for ten years or so and build a following. Then look at the possibility of expanding the NHL into that area. The AHL teams, because they are smaller, don't take a big financial hit (or don't take a hit at all, since they usually get a lot of sponsorship from the big leagues). And when you move a team in they only have five years left on that fifteen year build to have an excellent following.

I like your concept of building the foundation first, then building on that if the foundation is strong enough.

Sadly, now that Bettman has made the mess I'm not sure there is a betterchoice than to leave the teams where they are. For the individual owners it makes a lot of sense to look at places like Winnipeg, QC and Hamilton because there's easy dollars there. Not so much for the league as a whole. the league as a whole would benefit much more from leaving these teams to rot in these areas, and hoping that, in another ten or fifteen years, a fan base comes knocking on their door step.

I honestly don't know the NHL way of conducting business, but if I'm Bettman I would want my front office to broker the sale and relocation of any team so as to try and recoup any financial loses to the losing owner. At least this way I might be able to save a little face.

I'll try and qualify that by suggesting that Bettman has too many personal decisions invested in his American Expansion vision. He simply can't tell an owner or ownership group, "sorry, I was wrong" and then walk away when they've already invested several hundred million bucks on his sales pitch.

Wanted to ramble on a bit more, but work is calling.

Cheers.

[CrocRob]

Oct 16, 2009 10:22:17 GMT -5 Disgruntled70sHab said:

I honestly don't know the NHL way of conducting business, but if I'm Bettman I would want my front office to broker the sale and relocation of any team so as to try and recoup any financial loses to the losing owner. At least this way I might be able to save a little face.

I'll try and qualify that by suggesting that Bettman has too many personal decisions invested in his American Expansion vision. He simply can't tell an owner or ownership group, "sorry, I was wrong" and then walk away when they've already invested several hundred million bucks on his sales pitch.

Wanted to ramble on a bit more, but work is calling.

Cheers.

"Face" doesn't have any monetary value, and Bettman is nothing more than a singular focal point for the 30 NHL owners who tell him what to do.

The NHL operates as a collective except in player transactions, operating revenue and transfer of ownership. Even with ownership transfers, the transfer has to be approved by the rest of the collective. Bettman is just a fall guy for 30 men who equally deserve whatever criticism is out there.

IMO, Bettman doesn't have a single significant "personal" decision out there, because any real decision that's made is vetted by the 30 owners on the BoG. That isn't to say Bettman hasn't guided some of the decisions, but they're all complicit.

I think that moving franchises around is more harmful in the long run to the NHL than trying to improve a particular market. Phoenix should be the test case for this, because I really believe that if better decisions had been made there's no reason it couldn't be a successful franchise. Also, reliocating teams doesn't solve anything. The economic system of the NHL is set up such that there are haves and have-nots. If Phoenix moves to Winnipeg, or QC, or Hamilton that only sets up one of the other franchises (or the new franchise) to suffer the same fate and be at the bottom of operating surplus. The actual fault here was the new CBA, which created this economy. There are only a handful of teams which have never faced economic disparity in the NHL at one time or another, only one of which is in Canada.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Oct 16, 2009 11:14:18 GMT -5 CrocRob said:

Oct 16, 2009 10:22:17 GMT -5 Disgruntled70sHab said:

I honestly don't know the NHL way of conducting business, but if I'm Bettman I would want my front office to broker the sale and relocation of any team so as to try and recoup any financial loses to the losing owner. At least this way I might be able to save a little face.

I'll try and qualify that by suggesting that Bettman has too many personal decisions invested in his American Expansion vision. He simply can't tell an owner or ownership group, "sorry, I was wrong" and then walk away when they've already invested several hundred million bucks on his sales pitch.

Wanted to ramble on a bit more, but work is calling.

Cheers.

"Face" doesn't have any monetary value, and Bettman is nothing more than a singular focal point for the 30 NHL owners who tell him what to do.

The NHL operates as a collective except in player transactions, operating revenue and transfer of ownership. Even with ownership transfers, the transfer has to be approved by the rest of the collective. Bettman is just a fall guy for 30 men who equally deserve whatever criticism is out there.

I remember decisions being made by the BoG. The annual BoG meetings are more of a facilitation process than anything else. You're saying, then, that Bettman is the facilitator and front man for that process?

I think that moving franchises around is more harmful in the long run to the NHL than trying to improve a particular market.

I think I'd agree in part, disagree in other parts. There have been some very successful relocations and some not-so-good ones as well.

IMO, the move from Quebec to Colorado was pretty successful, whereas the move from Winnipeg to Phoenix simply hasn't worked.

Why Colorado has worked this time around is something I really don't know. Maybe it is because the Nordiques were an established team when they were transfered to Denver, whereas the Colorado Rockies, coming from Kansas City, never got out of the "expansion mode." Like I said, I really don't know.

Phoenix should be the test case for this, because I really believe that if better decisions had been made there's no reason it couldn't be a successful franchise.

What decisions, made differently, would have made the difference in Phoenix? It's not a loaded question, I honestly just don't know what decisions you're talking about.

Also, reliocating teams doesn't solve anything.
Not so sure I agree with this opinion, Red. As I was saying there are examples of successful and not-so-successful relocations.

The economic system of the NHL is set up such that there are haves and have-nots. If Phoenix moves to Winnipeg, or QC, or Hamilton that only sets up one of the other franchises (or the new franchise) to suffer the same fate and be at the bottom of operating surplus. The actual fault here was the new CBA, which created this economy. There are only a handful of teams which have never faced economic disparity in the NHL at one time or another, only one of which is in Canada.

Right now, if it weren't for the current CBA I believe Phoenix would have either folded or relocated to a more hockey-viable market.

At the same time, if it weren't for the current CBA it's entirely possible that several Canadian teams might have had to either fold or relocate as well.

Have to be quick now ... boss just peaked his head in and said "see ya!"

Bettman loves pointing this out every so often. However, I think the circumstances are different in this case. A team like Phoenix is finally starting to compete at a very competitive level, yet where was the fan and corporate support for the Coyotes to make a go of it? What were the blocks to a successful franchise there?

Sort of comes back to your reference of "if different decisions were made ..."

Phoenix is actually a pretty good sports city; Phoenix Cardinals, Phoenix Suns, Arizona Diamondbacks are all competitive franchises. However, why did hockey fail there?

I've really got to get going, Red. I'll pick this up later.

Cheers.

[CrocRob]

I'm not totally sure what you mean by "facilitator and front man." Bettman's position is not akin to a CEO where he makes decisions and the shareholders can vote on big ones. The NHL ownership group is set up such that Bettman effectively has to run by any major decision with the BoG, and league-wide strategy is agreed upon at those meetings. It wasn't Bettman's decision to lock the players out, for instance. It may have been his recommendation, but he's not the decision maker.

Yeah I'm kind of fleeting here in and out, too. Busy day. The decisions I was referring to were those which moved the team from downtown Pheonix (and sharing an arena with the Suns) to Glendale with sole proprietorship of the arena (which means more luxury box revenue if you can fill them) but also moved the team 30 minutes from the downtown core.

Many people have gone on record, one I can currently think of is Phil Esposito, and stated that this decision was the downfall of the Coyotes. There were butts in seats prior to the move and they never came to Glendale. The idea to base a hockey arena near a football stadium is dumb, since the football stadium is only occupied 8 to 10 times each season. And putting it inside a shopping complex to draw viewers is equally dumb.

Meanwhile, Phoenix never progressed past expansion mode (like the Colorado Rockies) which also has a big impact on the success of a market. Sustained team failure is detrimental to every market, save a select few (Toronto, NYR, Philadelphia and maybe a couple more). That's why I think moving the franchise doesn't solve anything. A team has to be competitive at least some of the time to draw fans -- especially if they have to drive to Glendale.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Oct 16, 2009 13:28:12 GMT -5 CrocRob said:

I'm not totally sure what you mean by "facilitator and front man." Bettman's position is not akin to a CEO where he makes decisions and the shareholders can vote on big ones. The NHL ownership group is set up such that Bettman effectively has to run by any major decision with the BoG, and league-wide strategy is agreed upon at those meetings. It wasn't Bettman's decision to lock the players out, for instance. It may have been his recommendation, but he's not the decision maker.

I'm a part-time facilitator and a full-time teacher (currently; my contract as a curriculum designer is under negotiation). As a facilitator I maintain control of a process that produces an end product, which ultimately belongs to the client(s). Good facilitators will provide parameters for discussion once an issue has been identified and tabled. The facilitator's job then is to ensure that participants stay within those parameters during the process (that he/she controls). They shouldn't provide personal opinions or have hidden agendas. They also don't have any say whatsoever in the final product other that, "is everyone online with this?" If not, they reopen discussion until a concensus is reached.

As a front man I mean, is Bettman merely the facilitator for the BoG and is he the guy who meets the press to present the concensus?

Yeah I'm kind of fleeting here in and out, too. Busy day. The decisions I was referring to were those which moved the team from downtown Pheonix (and sharing an arena with the Suns) to Glendale with sole proprietorship of the arena (which means more luxury box revenue if you can fill them) but also moved the team 30 minutes from the downtown core.

Got you now. I remember attendance for the Montreal Alouettes booming after they moved from the Big Oh to McGill Stadium, which is downtown. Perhaps this is the opposite for the Coyotes.

Many people have gone on record, one I can currently think of is Phil Esposito, and stated that this decision was the downfall of the Coyotes. There were butts in seats prior to the move and they never came to Glendale. The idea to base a hockey arena near a football stadium is dumb, since the football stadium is only occupied 8 to 10 times each season. And putting it inside a shopping complex to draw viewers is equally dumb.

I can think of one example where it didn't hurt a club moving from downtown to a suburb. The Ottawa Senators were playing at a revamped Civic Centre. That is where the 67's continue to play nowadays, but the Sens' move was out of necessity. The Civic Centre only holds approximately 10,000 people. (before the Sens arrived the record crowd for an indoor sporting event was for a cage match between Killer Kowalski and Mad Dog Vachon. There were over 10,000 people there that night including me)

The Sens now play in Scotia Bank Place, which is just off hwy 417 in Kanata. They have decent crowds now but attendance will vary on how well the team does. Ottawa has always been that way. I grew up there and over the years the Ottawa fan base would only support a winner ... however, the Sens have done much better since moving there.

Meanwhile, Phoenix never progressed past expansion mode (like the Colorado Rockies) which also has a big impact on the success of a market. Sustained team failure is detrimental to every market, save a select few (Toronto, NYR, Philadelphia and maybe a couple more). That's why I think moving the franchise doesn't solve anything. A team has to be competitive at least some of the time to draw fans -- especially if they have to drive to Glendale.

How far is Glendale from Phoenix? Kanata isn't all that far from Ottawa and the Sens generally don't have problems selling tickets.

Cheers.

[Skilly]

Oct 16, 2009 9:29:30 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

I have bigger problems with Bettman than his Great American Expansion. At least there's some kind of logic behind it. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is a hockey fan base. It takes time. A long time.

However he's done it all wrong IMHO. What he needs to do is work with the AHL and the ECHL to develop the fan base in an incremental manner. It takes somewhere between fifteen and thirty years to build a sports fanbase in a place where the exposure is near zero (it would, of course, take less time in QC or Hamilton, or even Minnesota because of the high level of exposure already). To ask an NHL team, worth hundred of millions of dollars, to operate at a loss or at a barely break even point for twenty years is foolish.

What instead should've happened at the start of this mess is a roll out. First, you assert your influence on the lower leagues (they may not like this, but it'll be worth their while). Make a rule stating that every NHL team must have its own AHL and ECHL affiliate. That's sixty teams. Then push to move lower-tier teams into the new markets. Strong markets get AHL teams, weak markets get ECHL teams. Let them play there for ten years or so and build a following. Then look at the possibility of expanding the NHL into that area. The AHL teams, because they are smaller, don't take a big financial hit (or don't take a hit at all, since they usually get a lot of sponsorship from the big leagues). And when you move a team in they only have five years left on that fifteen year build to have an excellent following.

Sadly, now that Bettman has made the mess I'm not sure there is a betterchoice than to leave the teams where they are. For the individual owners it makes a lot of sense to look at places like Winnipeg, QC and Hamilton because there's easy dollars there. Not so much for the league as a whole. the league as a whole would benefit much more from leaving these teams to rot in these areas, and hoping that, in another ten or fifteen years, a fan base comes knocking on their door step.

Not sure if that would work ....

The most successful AHL franchise in the past 20 years has been the St. John's Maple Leafs. They didn't move out of here because of financial problems. And St. John's would not be able to support an NHL team. So how would the other markets?

Some AHL teams are already in NHL markets.... Are there even 30 markets where the NHL would like to "grow" to?

[duster]

The whole Bettman in Quebec City thing is a pretty cynical exercise. It helps the current mayor in his election campaign (a $400 million stadium that can accommodate an NHL franchise that will only cost the city $50 million sounds pretty good to a portion of the electorate) and it makes Bettman look pro-Canadian after the Balsillie/ Phoenix fiasco.

Both parties know that there is little to no chance of a team relocating to Quebec City. It presumes that Provincial and Federal taxpayers will be willing to fund the remaining $350 million which likely won't happen while the economy is shaky. If Quebec City was serious and it was viable, they'd pay for it themselves like the Leafs, Habs, Canucks, Sens etc...had to do. Bettman knows it, so does the mayor. It's empty rhetoric and hot air, imo.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Oct 17, 2009 9:31:39 GMT -5 Skilly said:

Oct 16, 2009 9:29:30 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

I have bigger problems with Bettman than his Great American Expansion. At least there's some kind of logic behind it. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is a hockey fan base. It takes time. A long time.

However he's done it all wrong IMHO. What he needs to do is work with the AHL and the ECHL to develop the fan base in an incremental manner. It takes somewhere between fifteen and thirty years to build a sports fanbase in a place where the exposure is near zero (it would, of course, take less time in QC or Hamilton, or even Minnesota because of the high level of exposure already). To ask an NHL team, worth hundred of millions of dollars, to operate at a loss or at a barely break even point for twenty years is foolish.

What instead should've happened at the start of this mess is a roll out. First, you assert your influence on the lower leagues (they may not like this, but it'll be worth their while). Make a rule stating that every NHL team must have its own AHL and ECHL affiliate. That's sixty teams. Then push to move lower-tier teams into the new markets. Strong markets get AHL teams, weak markets get ECHL teams. Let them play there for ten years or so and build a following. Then look at the possibility of expanding the NHL into that area. The AHL teams, because they are smaller, don't take a big financial hit (or don't take a hit at all, since they usually get a lot of sponsorship from the big leagues). And when you move a team in they only have five years left on that fifteen year build to have an excellent following.

Sadly, now that Bettman has made the mess I'm not sure there is a betterchoice than to leave the teams where they are. For the individual owners it makes a lot of sense to look at places like Winnipeg, QC and Hamilton because there's easy dollars there. Not so much for the league as a whole. the league as a whole would benefit much more from leaving these teams to rot in these areas, and hoping that, in another ten or fifteen years, a fan base comes knocking on their door step.

Not sure if that would work ....

The most successful AHL franchise in the past 20 years has been the St. John's Maple Leafs. They didn't move out of here because of financial problems. And St. John's would not be able to support an NHL team. So how would the other markets?

Some AHL teams are already in NHL markets.... Are there even 30 markets where the NHL would like to "grow" to?

I think The_New_Guy had some excellent points. I was involved coaching minor hockey in Orange County and Playing adult hockey in Ontario, CA (that's California). Among the parents of minor hockey and the adult league players there were a lot of Kings/Ducks seasons ticket holders and fans. They understood the game and appreciated it.
Perhaps St. John's is too small to support the NHL, but an AHL team increases fan awareness of players in the NHL and television viewership. Local heroes like Ryder get followed, the cup gets viewed in a local parade, a NHL Gm comes to town for a golf outing and interest is created. The objectibve is not to put NHL teams into every locality but rather to generate fan interest.
The NHL had alienated fans to the extent that the WHA became an alternative. The lockout created dislike. It may happen again.