Back In The Game?

[IceCap]

I'll echo admiral. This isn't an unreasonable position at all. I think the one sticking point is Hamilton. If Bettman, the BoGs, and owners let him have a team in Hamilton, either by expansion or relocation, then Balsillie will, more then likely, be willing to get in line. It could also work the other way. If Balsillie proves to the NHL hierarchy that he can and will play by the rules then they will be more likely to grant him a team in Hamilton.

That being said, even if Balsillie does do what he has to do to get back into the good graces of the NHL I wouldn't want him to NOT be the Mark Cuban type that the NHL desperately needs.

I doubt the sticking point is Hamilton....the sticking point is that Balsillie's actions by selling season-tickets while not owning a team (not to mention intruding on two teams' territories) ticked off the NHL owners, as well as Bettman.

Hmmm, unless I missed something, didn't those season ticket sales in Hamilton obliterate what the Preds had (and have)? A questionable move? Yeah. It proved a point though.

Think about the 180-degree turn Balsillie would need to make....of the 29 owners (Phoenix was withheld, I believe) that were involved in that vote-of-approval for Balsillie earlier this year, zero voted for him, and 26 voted against him. These are pretty damning numbers. Balsillie is 0-26-3 with the NHL owners right now. They're pretty much telling him that despite all the money and love of hockey he has, they want no part of him. I highly doubt that half of these owners are suddenly going to change their minds in the next few years.

My point is that, really, none of what he did should matter. He has the money, the financial stability, and a passion for the game. Plus he was willing to doll out $200+ million for a franchise that's bleeding money, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future during an economic recession. When you consider all of that the excuse that "he's pissed off the owners and commissioner" really is petty on the league's part. For all the talk about pro sports being a business first and foremost shutting Jim Basillie out of the league seems like a pretty piss poor business decision.

As for infringing on two teams' territories? MLSE needs to get over themselves. A team in Hamilton could pop up tomorrow and sell out every single home game and the Leafs wouldn't feel a thing in terms of the bottom line. And the Sabres? I've said it before, southern Ontario is not their territory to be had. They get the excess fans by default for lack of a better, local, option. Their only response to a team popping up in Hamilton should be to try and make it drawing from mostly upstate New York.

Furthermore crossing the boarder is now much more of a hassle then it once was. So if you want to give this large number of southern Ontario fans a more convenient, a more local, and to be perfectly frank a Canadian alternative, a team in Hamilton makes sense.

Unless I'm missing something, here's what Mark Cuban has done in his time as the Mavericks owner:

1. Spent more money on his team's roster.

2. Endlessly complain about the officials and the Commissioner's disciplinary actions.

3. Insulted Dairy Queen employees.

What can Balsillie possibly do to bring this fresh air to the NHL that so many people believe that the league needs? A lot of folks say that the NHL needs their version of Cuban....what can Balsillie do that no one else can?

First and foremost? Challenge the existing NHL mindset, a mindset that Gary Bettman's tenure is a result of. In case people HAVEN'T been noticing, the number of NHL teams mentioned as having financial troubles is growing. First the Coyotes. Then the Panthers. Columbus and Tampa Bay have also been mentioned. No one's really sure who owns your Thrashers. On top of that, the league is stuck in a third rate cable sports channel that most people don't even get, and local coverage of most teams varies, but on average is pretty poor. Point being that the NHL is not in good shape. Things don't just become bad overnight, they get bad as a result of bad leadership and bad decision making over time. The current mindset of the NHL, that they're a viable #4 in the American sports landscape and that "growing the game" has made them a truly national league on par with the NBA, NFL, and MLB, has failed. It's simply not worked. It's not just a simple question of "do teams work in Sunbelt markets?" Teams have worked in Dallas (if a story surfaces that Dallas is in trouble, game over), San Jose, Carolina, and Washington (if you consider that a Sunbelt location, I've heard it both ways). And in a few years Atlanta, TB, and Nashville may prove to be successes.

The thing is though, as I said before, the problem isn't as simple as "do Sunbelt teams work?" The problem is that despite teams in Sunbelt locations gaining a strong fan following, the NHL has STILL failed to gain a truly "national" footprint. Yeah, the Stars have a solid fan following in Dallas. How far are they behind the Cowboys though? Say Atlanta turns into a southern NHL success story. They'll still be a distant fourth behind the Hawks, Falcons, and Braves.

The problem is that the current mindset, the entire philosophy for how the league has been run for the better part of two decades is broken. So what can Jim Basillie (or anyone else who has the potential to be the NHL's Mark Cuban) do? Shake up that failed mindset. Challenge the way that the NHL has been run for 15+ years. Be someone who stands up to the Commissioner and other owners once and a while, even if only to stir the pot and get the NHL regime thinking differently.

What's wrong with the NHL is that it's operating ideology is flawed, and they need someone within the ownership ranks to challenge it and shake that up. So far the no one in the current crop of NHL owners have proven to be able or willing. So they need some new blood.

[The_Admiral]

What do you mean by "its operating ideology is flawed," specifically? That's what I would've said when they were expanding just to pocket the money because they wouldn't make money otherwise, but that's over now.

[Gothamite]

Partly they're still living off those bad choices, with too many of those teams struggling financially.

I'd say that the NHL's media strategy continues to be flawed - we need to explain why the NBC ratings are as low as they are (with the sole exception of the Winter Classic, one of the rare home runs the league has hit). By moving the majority of the games to a second-tier cable channel, they've also hurt the broadcast ratings. Unless there's another explanation for the subterranean ratings on NBC.

"Quite frankly, I don't believe people know what Versus is, and I still don't know what they do," says Chicago Blackhawks chairman Rocky Wirtz

[Brian in Boston]

The point being that the people who claim Bettman's just a pawn/scapegoat/puppet of the owners never seem to say the same thing when, say, Selig screws up. People like rams80, ElwoodCuse, and Brian in Boston are always quick to say "IT'S NOT BETTMAN'S FAULT STOP PICKING ON HIM" but they never run to the aid of any of the other commissioners when people pile on them for their shortcomings.

Quite frankly, I can honestly say that all of the North American major-professional sports commissioners are functionaries acting on behalf of - indeed, at the whim of - their respective leagues' owners. Bettman, Selig, Goodell, Stern and Garber are all in the same boat: they're hired hands. About the only place that they seem to have any true "power" is in the area of disciplining owners for breaches of rules. The owners realize that to step-in and countermand the commissioners in such instances would undermine any appearance of said commissioners enjoying even a modicum of independence. However, when it comes to the direction that each of the leagues will take from a business standpoint - i.e. issues such as expansion, relocation, broadcast rights negotiations, etc. - it is the owners calling the shots and telling their respective commissioners to make things happen according to the wishes of the majority of owners. To believe that these business leaders would allow a hired hand to dictate to them the direction in which they're businesses - i.e. the franchises - should operate is naive.

As for my seeming unwillingness to leap to the defense of Selig, Goodell, Stern or Garber as vociferously as I do on behalf of Bettman, I'd chock that up to perspective. The fact of the matter is I don't see anywhere near as many posts on a regular basis vilifying the commissioners of MLB, the NFL, NBA or MLS as I do those taking Bettman to task. If I did, I'd be just as likely to point-out that Selig, Goodell, Stern and Garber are basically corporate mouthpieces, as well. Frankly, Bettman is a far-too-convenient boogey-man for those NHL fans looking to point the finger at a single source for the league's ills. He's the American who doesn't understand Canada's national obsession. He's the former basketball guy who doesn't understand hockey. He's this, he's that. I'll tell you what he is: the convenient vehicle by which the NHL's owners implement THEIR vision for where they would like to see the league go. Period.

[Gothamite]

Commissioners are more than just mouthpieces - CEOs serve at the pleasure of their company's Board of Directors, but that doesn't mean CEOs don't run the show.

Selig for one has a very specific vision for Major League Baseball, and has been trying to drag the owners towards it for some time. Sometimes he succeeds (Wild Card), sometimes he doesn't (Radical Realignment). Is he the owners' representative? Sure. But that doesn't mean he's their puppet. We can only presume that Bettman has the same amount of authority as your average CEO.

But I think most people who criticize Bettman realize that they are also criticizing the owners as a group for letting him run off the leash. Doesn't alter the validity of those complaints.

[IceCap]

What do you mean by "its operating ideology is flawed," specifically? That's what I would've said when they were expanding just to pocket the money because they wouldn't make money otherwise, but that's over now.

What I mean is that they still believe in trying to make those failed expansion and relocation markets work. It's one thing to say "lets put the Jets in Phoenix, it'll grow our national footprint in the US." Fair enough, in 1996 that was a valid point of view. It's thirteen years and $400 million later though, and and the same "operating ideology" that lead them to Phoenix is keeping them from cutting their losses there and moving on. That in and of itself is just an example of the philosophy the league has operated under for the better part of two decades. They think that the road to financial stability and being accepted as a major sports league was/is through rapid expansion and relocation, and staying in those markets come hell or high water.

In short, the NHL has delusions of grander, and the ideology the league's operating under is designed, in their minds, to achieve what they think the NHL is capable of. The problem is it hasn't achieved that, it's failed miserably.

Teams are facing financial difficulty despite Gary Bettman telling the world that every team was financially stable (this was during the period when the NHL was secretly funding the Coyotes so he can't claim ignorance).

The league airs most of its games in the US on a third rate cable channel most people don't have.

The games that are shown on NBC are drawing awful ratings.

Local coverage is awful for a good number of teams.

And despite all of that they felt turning down a $200+ million offer for a team $400 million in the hole and bleeding even more money was the right call.

The NHL isn't in good shape. The mentality, the "operating ideology," of the league isn't working. They need to fix it, and it doesn't seem like anyone, the current crop of owners, the BoGs, or the Commissioner, are willing to fix the problem.

Speaking of Phoenix specifically, now that we have BiB here, I'd like him to reiterate something for me. A while back in this thread he said that pro sports were not a charity but a business. Well I have two questions.

1) How is staying in a market where they've lost $400 million in thirteen years and projected to lose more for the foreseeable future a good business decision?

2) How is turning down a $200+ million offer, during a recession mind you, from a wealthy, financial stable, and passionate business man a good business decision? It seems to me that the league's line of "Balsillie broke the rules" seems pretty petty when compared to his other, positive attributes as a potential NHL owner.

[Brian in Boston]

My point is that, really, none of what he did should matter.

Yes, it should. Rules and laws and standards of behavior are in place in society, business and sports for a reason. They are put in place to create order out of chaos. They are put in place to serve the greater good.

He has the money, the financial stability, and a passion for the game.

Sorry, but that shouldn't exempt you from having to play by the rules.

For all the talk about pro sports being a business first and foremost shutting Jim Basillie out of the league seems like a pretty piss poor business decision.

Sound business decisions aren't necessarily based on a simple matter of an individual's net-worth and business acumen. That is particularly true in a business partnership. The individuals involved in such a partnership also have to possess an ability to work with one another according to rules, laws and/or standards of behavior. The NHL's current owners have determined that for all of Mr. Balsillie's "money, financial stability and passion", he is sorely lacking in a willingness to play by the rules when it comes to dealing with his potential partners in the business entity that is the NHL. As a result, they've chosen not to do business with him until such time as he demonstrates the ability to work cooperatively.

Challenge the existing NHL mindset, a mindset that Gary Bettman's tenure is a result of.

Wait a minute! So Gary Bettman's tenure as NHL commissioner is a result of a pre-existing NHL mindset? Well, if said mindset was responsible for the hiring of Gary Bettman, than it is safe to say that the NHL's owners brought-in a commissioner that they believed would conform to ideas and goals that they already had. So, all of the talk about Gary Bettman forcing his will on the NHL and, thus, causing the league's current ills has been a crock. In point of fact, the NHL's owners called the shots and hired as commissioner someone that they felt would serve their already existing mindset. imagine that.

The problem is that the current mindset, the entire philosophy for how the league has been run for the better part of two decades is broken. So what can Jim Basillie (or anyone else who has the potential to be the NHL's Mark Cuban) do? Shake up that failed mindset. Challenge the way that the NHL has been run for 15+ years. Be someone who stands up to the Commissioner and other owners once and a while, even if only to stir the pot and get the NHL regime thinking differently.

The guy has 26 NHL owners aligned against him even before securing an NHL franchise. Good luck with getting "the NHL regime thinking differently".

What's wrong with the NHL is that it's operating ideology is flawed, and they need someone within the ownership ranks to challenge it and shake that up. So far the no one in the current crop of NHL owners have proven to be able or willing. So they need some new blood.

One guy isn't going to make a difference. Particularly a guy who has alienated the league's current owners so much that he can't even secure a franchise.

[Brian in Boston]

We can only presume that Bettman has the same amount of authority as your average CEO.

Yes, we'd be PRESUMING. We don't know.

But I think most people who criticize Bettman realize that they are also criticizing the owners as a group for letting him run off the leash.

You could have fooled me. I very rarely see folks taking the NHL owners to task. It's always Bettman, Bettman, Bettman.

[Brian in Boston]

1) How is staying in a market where they've lost $400 million in thirteen years and projected to lose more for the foreseeable future a good business decision?

I can only surmise that the NHL's current owners have determined that the upside to ultimately successfully establishing a franchise in the Greater Phoenix market outweighs the losses incurred until doing so.

2) How is turning down a $200+ million offer, during a recession mind you, from a wealthy, financial stable, and passionate business man a good business decision?

It would seem that the NHL's current owners have determined that their ideal candidate for ownership of a franchise in the league is a wealthy, financially stable businessman with a passion for hockey who has given the indication that he is willing to operate within the league's laws, rules and standards of behavior. Mr. Balsillie has failed to convince them of his ability to meet the latter requirement, a requirement that the NHL's current owners apparently grant as much importance as wealth, financial stability and passion.

[The_Admiral]

The fact of the matter is I don't see anywhere near as many posts on a regular basis vilifying the commissioners of MLB, the NFL, NBA or MLS as I do those taking Bettman to task.

Maybe that's because the makeup of this specific board has a lot of hockey fans from Canada, but don't you think that in the grand scheme of things, Stern and Selig are just as individually vilified for the decisions they make, if not more so given the larger popularity of their respective sports? When people are mad about the NBA, they don't blame the interests of Dolan, Reinsdorf, Buss, and others. They don't blame Stern working on behalf of them. They just straight-up blame David Stern.

[IceCap]

First off Brian, I'm going to do away with any pretence that you're an "impartial observer" who's just "telling us how it is." You have a camp. I don't have a problem with that, we're all entitled to our opinions. I would just like you to stop pulling a Fox News here and admit that you are not a neutral observer in the matter.

Regarding what should matter. Sorry, you were right the first time. Pro sports is a business, first and foremost. The NHL seems to, ironically, understand that more then any other "major" North American leagues. Given the people that they have been, and are, willing to get in bed with, the excuse that Jim Balsilli "broke the rules" is piss poor at worst and petty at best.

And again, say it with me class, he's wealthy, financially stable, and a passionate hockey fan. The first two are more then enough for the NHL's standards if we look at their track record in such matters. The third is just icing on the cake.

Now you have a point about rules, the common good, chaos, and all of that. I do think, however, you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. Look at it this way. You have a GREAT potential owner who's been shut out of the league time after time just because they're scared of, for whatever reason, another southern Ontario team. They've pushed him to the point that if he really wanted to be a NHL owner he HAD to go around the rules. If anything it's a pretty sad indictment on the NHL regime that Jim Balsillie had to do what he did regarding the Coyotes. Any self-respecting group businessmen would have welcomed him on board and given him his franchise the moment he showed interest.

As for your little Bettman snark, that was funny. Helped me stomach a night that saw me have to put up with a London Knights win. Thanks.

Though really your selective quoting skills are in top notch Brian. I've seen you debate on this forum before, in much more important topics then this, so I KNOW that you do your homework. So it's somewhat baffling because, really, I conceded/admitted/re-evaluated my stance on Gary Bettman's position within the NHL chain-o-command a while ago. And what I had to so say isn't that far off from what Goth put forward; that being that while the NHL's ownership does hire him with a certain direction in mind, they ultimately hire him to be the guy in charge, and because of that he holds a good deal of influence.

If you want to debate "Gary Bettman is the dictator of the NHL" Icecap you better get your hands on a time machine, because he hasn't been around in a while.

And one quote that I specifically want to address....

He's the American who doesn't understand Canada's national obsession

Is this not a valid concern? When over half of the NHL's revenue comes from six teams in Canada, when the country that gets the league its best ratings is Canada, when a majority of the players are Canadian, wouldn't it make sense for the guy running the league to understand that country's "national obsession"?

Time after time we hear the NHL say they understand Canada's importance to the NHL, but they seem more interested in keeping teams out of Canada and in failing markets then in the country that's generating a majority of their income. Can you not see how this might tick off the country that's essentially propping up this league?

Oh, there's also the whole thing about Gary Bettman telling everyone that every NHL team was financially stable only a few months ago. If the CEO of a corporation or an elected head of government made a lie as big as this and was caught with their pants down like Mr. Bettman was they'd get booted out as soon as possible.

Will one guy make a difference? Well there are factors to consider. How many of those anti-Balsillie owners would change their tone if Mr. Bettman, for whatever reason, relented and welcomed him to the league and pushed for his admittance?

Also, assuming, again for whatever reason, he did get in, it just takes one fresh mind to introduce a few new ideas here and there to get the ball rolling.

And the ball needs to be rolled Brian. Regardless of what you want to believe, the way the NHL has been doing business, the way the owners and commissioner have been running the league, ISN'T WORKING.

You're really grasping for straws aren't you? "You're just presuming, you don't know."

Really? Could it be possible that the NHL Commissioner actually has the influence and authority that the office holds? It was you who said pro sports was a business, and in that model the Commissioner is the parallel of the CEO. Your "he's just a mouthpiece/puppet/scapegoat" suggestion just doesn't make sense.

As for people taking owners to task, I've said it before. Be it Bettman, the owners, the BoGs, or a combination of all or some, the way that the NHL is being run isn't working. The complaints are legit. Let them be directed at whoever is responsible (in my opinion it's all three to varying degrees).

Again, stop with the Fox News "fair and balanced" act. You're in the NHL camp here, I'm asking for YOUR opinion on the matter. How does keeping this team in Phoenix make for good business sense? You yourself said pro sports is a business not a charity. Well keeping the Coyotes in greater Phoenix after thirteen years and $400 million lost, with no prospect of the bleeding stopping, seems pretty charitable when compared to more sound options on the table.

Yes, the problem with the NHL finding an ownership candidate who's a wealthy, financially stable businessman with a passion for hockey who has given the indication that he is willing to operate within the league's laws, rules and standards of behaviour is that such a person is currently non-existent. The closest bid behind Mr. Balsillie's was roughly $100+ million less. So really the trade off comes down to "acts in a way we like" or "more money." Ultimately its their call, but the "more money option" makes the most sense from a business perspective.

Really only one thing can be said about the NHL turning down a wealthy, financially stable businessman with a passion for hockey just because they don't like the way he goes about things; don't look a gift horse in the mouth, you're lucky someone of his stature is willing to put up that amount of cash up front for a failing team in a failing league in a failing economy.

[HedleyLamarr]

Which camp do YOU belong to, Icecap: The "Let Balsillie buy an NHL team" camp, OR the "Get a 7th Canadian team" camp?

In other words, are you supporting Balsillie just because he may bring a team to Hamilton, or are you supporting Balsillie just getting the opportunity to buy an NHL team?

What would your thoughts be if Bill Gates offered $300 million to whoever's in charge of the Coyotes, and Gates either keeps the team in Phoenix, or moves them to Kansas City (where an arena is already in place), or moves them to Seattle? He's a guy with a lot of money and, hypothetically speaking, has a passion for hockey.

[IceCap]

Which camp do YOU belong to, Icecap: The "Let Balsillie buy an NHL team" camp, OR the "Get a 7th Canadian team" camp?

In other words, are you supporting Balsillie just because he may bring a team to Hamilton, or are you supporting Balsillie just getting the opportunity to buy an NHL team?

Ultimately I think he's what the league needs. So the answer would be the "Let Balsillie buy an NHL team" camp. As for Hamilton, I've made it no secret that personally that is where I want to see the team end up, and to be frank I don't see why that's a bad thing. I'm sure you were pulling for Atlanta to get a team when the last round of expansion cities were chosen.

Ultimately though, I would still support the man getting a NHL franchise, even if it means they stay put, or move to some place other then Hamilton. Why? I think he's someone the NHL needs.

What would your thoughts be if Bill Gates offered $300 million to whoever's in charge of the Coyotes, and Gates either keeps the team in Phoenix, or moves them to Kansas City (where an arena is already in place), or moves them to Seattle? He's a guy with a lot of money and, hypothetically speaking, has a passion for hockey.

I would be all for it. The NHL could use Bill Gates to. He's financially stable and incredibly wealthy. The passion part's up for debate, but as I said above, the first two are the really important parts. So yeah, I would be all for Bill Gates owning a NHL team, and I'd react with pretty much the same level of shock, bewilderment, and disappointment if the NHL refused him ownership because they "don't like the way he conducts himself."

Really HL, I know you're better then that. I've said before that ultimately I would be happy to see the Coyotes end up in KC. It's not Hamilton, but at least it's a market I know they'll get a decent level of local support in. The trick is getting them there before the Isles snatch it up

As for Seattle, sure, if they build a new rink or renovate Key Arena. It's very much like Québec City in that regard. Get the arena and yes. Until then, no.

[HedleyLamarr]

Partly they're still living off those bad choices, with too many of those teams struggling financially.

I'd say that the NHL's media strategy continues to be flawed - we need to explain why the NBC ratings are as low as they are (with the sole exception of the Winter Classic, one of the rare home runs the league has hit). By moving the majority of the games to a second-tier cable channel, they've also hurt the broadcast ratings. Unless there's another explanation for the subterranean ratings on NBC.

"Quite frankly, I don't believe people know what Versus is, and I still don't know what they do," says Chicago Blackhawks chairman Rocky Wirtz

What are other realistic options for the NHL to be aired on television?

ESPN will be airing a lot of basketball, both pro and college, just about every night of the week. They have Monday Night Football now. They have the NBA now. They simply have no room, and no willingness, to air NHL games.

TBS/TNT is content with their one night of NBA coverage, as they're slowing going away from sports.

Fox Sports Net is all regionalized, as their attempt to be a national competitor to ESPN failed. Too many teams have local contracts with their regional FSN affiliates to risk airing a national game or two during the week.

Fox, CBS, and ABC are all content with their weekend sports packages. Fox has about a month's span between the bowl games, the NFL, and Nascar. CBS has the NFL and college basketball, and ABC has basketball.

The only two networks that are left are NBC and Versus. The NHL's lucky that Versus actually gives them money, and they have a "no money, but we'll split profits" deal with NBC so they can get on basic TV.

The NHL is simply a terrible televised sport, and viewership has been down for a long, long time. High-definition TV will help out hockey a lot, but it's going to take time.

[The_Admiral]

I don't think the NHL makes for a terrible telecast. People repeat this to the point where it's sort of the received wisdom, but I guess I've watched enough of it to acquire the taste. I've even learned to paint the mental picture very well with radio broadcasts, surely a function of the Blackhawks' top-notch radio announcers and the now-vanquished "television policy." I'll admit I'm in the minority on the latter, though.

But as for television, it shouldn't be that hard. The puck is black on white, and it quickly becomes easy to tell which player is skating with it. That said, I'm not so much of a traditionalist as to oppose concessions for the facilitation of telecasting. The first attempt at the glowing puck was a flop because it compromised the structural integrity of the puck itself, but surely technology has advanced since 15 years ago to the point where the puck can be highlighted during replays without affecting the way the puck plays. Maybe some new camera angles would help, too. I seem to remember the first Winter Classic in Edmonton having a camera that ran along the top of the glass. If they can make that work, I'd be all for that. I do remember seeing camera angles that were new to me. Also, CBC in general seems to have a better idea of how to produce a hockey game than we do. Let's raid their production crews.

This "you're not just a neutral observer" allegation toward Brian seems a little insidious. Do you mean to say he actually works in their office or something? Or is he just "in the NHL camp" the way STL Fanatic and others are for the purposes of this thread?

[IceCap]

This "you're not just a neutral observer" allegation toward Brian seems a little insidious. Do you mean to say he actually works in their office or something? Or is he just "in the NHL camp" the way STL Fanatic and others are for the purposes of this thread?

This.

[Brian in Boston]

First off Brian, I'm going to do away with any pretence that you're an "impartial observer" who's just "telling us how it is."

Do and believe what you like. I have no control over what you think of me and my mindset, no matter how erroneous your conclusions might be.

I would just like you to stop pulling a Fox News here and admit that you are not a neutral observer in the matter.

Of course I have opinions on the matter. I've never claimed otherwise. My opinion is that the National Hockey League owners are within their rights to collectively determine what to do regarding issues such as the awarding and relocation of franchises and the selection of potential owners for said teams. My opinion is that Gary Bettman isn't the end-all/be-all of NHL power that many in this community all-too-conveniently seem to make him out to be, and therefore - by extension - isn't the source of all of the ills that the NHL faces. All of that said, my reasoned examination of the matters surrounding this kerfuffle strike me - if I do say so myself - as being the least agenda-driven of the many that are so often bandied about. In short, I'm the closest thing this thread is going to get to a "neutral observer" commenting on these issues. I don't believe that anyone should be vilified in this matter: Bettman, the owners, Balsillie. They've all made their beds... they all must lay in them. A bit of concilatory behavior and compromise on all their parts would go a LONG way towards reaching an workable conclusion to L'affaire de Coyotes et Balsillie.

So it's somewhat baffling because, really, I conceded/admitted/re-evaluated my stance on Gary Bettman's position within the NHL chain-o-command a while ago.

Bully for you!

And what I had to so say isn't that far off from what Goth put forward; that being that while the NHL's ownership does hire him with a certain direction in mind, they ultimately hire him to be the guy in charge, and because of that he holds a good deal of influence.

Yes, "a good deal of influence, but ultimately the NHL's owners are calling the shots.

If you want to debate "Gary Bettman is the dictator of the NHL" Icecap you better get your hands on a time machine, because he hasn't been around in a while.

I'll take your word for it.

And one quote that I specifically want to address....

He's the American who doesn't understand Canada's national obsession

Is this not a valid concern? When over half of the NHL's revenue comes from six teams in Canada, when the country that gets the league its best ratings is Canada, when a majority of the players are Canadian, wouldn't it make sense for the guy running the league to understand that country's "national obsession"?

Time after time we hear the NHL say they understand Canada's importance to the NHL, but they seem more interested in keeping teams out of Canada and in failing markets then in the country that's generating a majority of their income. Can you not see how this might tick off the country that's essentially propping up this league?

Oh, there's also the whole thing about Gary Bettman telling everyone that every NHL team was financially stable only a few months ago. If the CEO of a corporation or an elected head of government made a lie as big as this and was caught with their pants down like Mr. Bettman was they'd get booted out as soon as possible.

Regardless of what you want to believe, the way the NHL has been doing business, the way the owners and commissioner have been running the league, ISN'T WORKING.

I've never claimed that it was or wasn't working. I've only said that the owners have determined the league's course of action... which is their right.

Your "he's just a mouthpiece/puppet/scapegoat" suggestion just doesn't make sense.

In your opinion, which you're welcome to. That doesn't make it a fact.

Again, stop with the Fox News "fair and balanced" act. You're in the NHL camp here...

So you claim. You're mistaken, but you're welcome to be wrong. It is your opinion and you're welcome to it.

I'm asking for YOUR opinion on the matter.

I've clearly expressed my stand on the situation. Read and comprehend.

[IceCap]

Again, stop with the Fox News "fair and balanced" act. You're in the NHL camp here...

So you claim. You're mistaken, but you're welcome to be wrong. It is your opinion and you're welcome to it.

Really most of what I have to say in response can be summed up in response to this....

Your problem is that you're arguing givens. You're arguing that the NHL owners have the right to deny Mr. Balsillie a franchise. Of course they have that right. You're arguing that they have a right to keep going on the same path they've been going on for the better part of two decades. Of course they have that right.

I never said they lacked those rights, I simply was saying that the decisions they've made have been the wrong ones, that the way the NHL has been run isn't working. I never really said anything to the effect of what you're implying I said.

I commend you for finally stating your opinion on the NHL owners/Gary Bettman/Jim Balsillie matter, but you going on and on about what the NHL owners and Commissioner can do strikes me as, well, irrelevant. Of course they can do this or that, no one said they couldn't. I was under the impression that this was a thread about discussing those decisions, not whether or not they have the right to make them.

So to recap, yes, they have the right to deny Mr. Balsillie a franchise and yes they have the right to continue the league's course of action.

My argument isn't that they don't have those rights, it's that the decisions they've made in regard to them have been the wrong ones.

And I keep mentioning your own "professional sports is a business not a charity" line because I think that line sums up why the Coyotes shouldn't be Phoenix. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that, and while we're at it, on the NHL's course action for the better part of the last twenty years. Not what the NHL owners think, we know what they think, and yes they have the right to think that. I'm asking you what YOU think, looking at the same evidence I'm looking at.

You accuse me of falsely labelling your position in the matter, so lets hear what your position actually is.

I'm asking for YOUR opinion on the matter.

I've clearly expressed my stand on the situation. Read and comprehend.

Wow, you can be a condescending chap, can't you?

You've given me no indication of what your personal stance is on the Coyotes staying in Phoenix or what you think of the current NHL "course of action."

One last thing, I think this is important, and it seems you were going to respond in your last post if not for quote tag troubles, so I'll just leave this here for ya....

And one quote that I specifically want to address....

He's the American who doesn't understand Canada's national obsession

Is this not a valid concern? When over half of the NHL's revenue comes from six teams in Canada, when the country that gets the league its best ratings is Canada, when a majority of the players are Canadian, wouldn't it make sense for the guy running the league to understand that country's "national obsession"?

Time after time we hear the NHL say they understand Canada's importance to the NHL, but they seem more interested in keeping teams out of Canada and in failing markets then in the country that's generating a majority of their income. Can you not see how this might tick off the country that's essentially propping up this league?

Oh, there's also the whole thing about Gary Bettman telling everyone that every NHL team was financially stable only a few months ago. If the CEO of a corporation or an elected head of government made a lie as big as this and was caught with their pants down like Mr. Bettman was they'd get booted out as soon as possible.

[Brian in Boston]

... the Coyotes shouldn't be Phoenix. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that, and while we're at it, on the NHL's course action for the better part of the last twenty years.

My thoughts on the NHL's owners allowing a franchise to move to Greater Phoenix - or, in the current situation, choosing to keep one there - are based upon their apparent belief that such a team, owned by a wealthy, financially stable, passionate business-person, will grow into a solid member-franchise. I can't say that I dispute the notion. It would have been wonderful if such ownership were in place in Phoenix right from the get-go, but it wasn't. So, the franchise had extreme difficulty gaining traction in the market, which set the establishment of a successful Phoenix-based NHL franchise back a great deal. Further, it is now going to be exponentially more difficult to attract a wealthy, finacially-stable, passionate business-person to undertake such a difficult task, and - even if one should be found - establish Phoenix as a healthy, stable, long-term home to the NHL. Exponentially more difficult... but, not impossible in the minds of the NHL's owners. I have to concede that while I am probably of the mind that it will be even more difficult than the NHL's owners believe, I must also concede that it is not impossible. So, with a great deal of time, effort (misguided as it might have been) and money (misspent as it might have been) already invested in the market, the NHL's owners have elected to give the process one, last-ditch attempt. It may ultimately prove impossible, but that isn't a guarantee, so they're going to go ahead and try.

Why? Well, they clearly believe that a healthy, stable franchise setting-up shop in Greater Phoenix means more to the NHL's bottom-line than another Canadian team. The market is exponentially larger than any unshared market the league could go into Canada. The market likely exceeds any corporate presence than the league could find in any unshared market in Canada. Establishing a team in the market won't infringe - factually, or simply in the minds of other franchise owners - on the territories of existing teams. Most importantly, the market represents one where currently unserved fans - both existing and potential - are still up for grabs.

Like it or not, the NHL's owners view Canadian hockey fans as captive. Canadians are already tuning-in to broadcasts, already attending games, already buying gobs of souvenir merchandise, and already supporting the NHL's corporate partners as it is. The NHL's owners have reasoned that adding franchises in Canada does nothing to truly add to the league's base of support in that country. Sure, it might be slightly easier for a Canadian fan to attend a game a bit closer to home, but the league's owners have reasoned that said Canadian is already a die-hard fan of an existing franchise. His or her interest and disposable income has already been captured. To the minds of the NHL's owners, further expansion - or, relocation - to Canadian markets is a wash. The NHL's owners have concluded that no matter how much Canadians may agitate for more Canadian-based franchises, said Canadians ultimately aren't going to walk away from the NHL in significant numbers if such expansion/relocation doesn't take place. As a result, the league's owners have concluded that the way to grow revenue is to service existing fans - or, grow new fans - in American markets. Hence, the league's course of action for the past twenty years. Frankly, I can understand why the NHL's owners have come to that conclusion: support for the league in Canada hasn't diminished greatly as a result of the Jets and Nordiques leaving, or as a result of the NHL failing to return teams to those markets, Hamilton, etc.

When over half of the NHL's revenue comes from six teams in Canada, when the country that gets the league its best ratings is Canada, when a majority of the players are Canadian, wouldn't it make sense for the guy running the league to understand that country's "national obsession"? Time after time we hear the NHL say they understand Canada's importance to the NHL, but they seem more interested in keeping teams out of Canada and in failing markets then in the country that's generating a majority of their income. Can you not see how this might tick off the country that's essentially propping up this league?

As outlined above, said country may be "ticked-off", but the NHL fans in said country have never been willing to walk away from the league in sufficient numbers to impact the bottom-line of the league's owners. In effect, the cultural passion of Canadians for the sport of ice hockey and the National Hockey League is working against them. The NHL's owners know that Canadian fans aren't going anywhere, which means that their bottom-line in Canada isn't being impacted, so catering to the Canadian market vis a vis expansion/relocation to Canadian cities isn't viewed as being necessary.

Bottom line? The NHL's owners have come to the conclusion that the rock-solid support they can count on from Canadian fans doesn't warrant rewarding said fans with further NHL franchises. Rather, they've come to the conclusion that given such a captive base upon which to build, they can go out and "roll the dice" with regard to the placement of expansion/relocated franchises in the United States. Perversely, the revenue generated by captive, dedicated Canadian fans has fueled the willingness of NHL owners to "grow the league's footprint" in the United States. While I find such a mindset disturbing in a moralistic way, from a business standpoint it is understandable. The NHL's owners aren't going to bend-over backward to accommodate the desires of Canadian fans until such time as they're convinced that said fans are going to pull their support from the league. NHL owners aren't convinced that will be happening anytime soon, so...

[IceCap]

THOSE R SUM PRETTTY BIG WORDS THEIR BIB, BUT IT REALLY JUST MEANS YOU HATE CANADAZ [/What Brian in Boston thinks Icecap79 sounds like]

*ahem* Sorry about that. I know that when people get an idea in their heads its hard to shake them of it (I was a self-described communist for the first part of high school). So rather then shatter your pre-conceived notions I thought I'd ease you into things with just a taste of what you expect. Onto business then, with that out of the way....

All very nice, but again your arguing, or perhaps stating, givens. Sadly, what you've said I know, and anyone following this topic and stories that coincide with it knows. So while it is a pretty concise summery of the NHL's current position/mindset/course of action, it's irrelevant. We all know the thinking behind the NHL's course of action(s). I've come out and said that, while I agree they have the right to pursue that course, it's the wrong one. The question I'm asking is this, what do YOU think? What's your position? Not a summary of the league's position, we know that. I would like Brian in Boston's position.

Why am I pushing you to reveal your point of view? Well aside from the fact that HL already opened the floodgates on that type of questioning by demanding I clarify my own stance, you yourself accused me of falsely summarizing your position. So I would like to know what your position actually is, if I was so wrong. I was, and in a way still am, convinced that you supported the NHL's course of action you so nicely summarized for us. You've said I was erroneous in doing so. So what are your own, actual thoughts on the situation the NHL finds itself in?

And again, because it's such a fun fact to point out.....

Oh, there's also the whole thing about Gary Bettman telling everyone that every NHL team was financially stable only a few months ago. If the CEO of a corporation or an elected head of government made a lie as big as this and was caught with their pants down like Mr. Bettman was they'd get booted out as soon as possible.