Bruce Garriouch of The Ottawa Sun writes that there's some growing concern amongst some of the owners about the NHL Lockout and how long it could last.
The belief is not everybody on the NHL's board of governors is happy the league is in the midst of its third lockout in 20 years -- all with Bettman at the helm -- and he's getting some heat to try to find a solution.
With games cancelled up till October 24 and the NHL alreay at a $100 million loss from no preseason games, how deep do the waters of resistance run?
How much heat Bettman has on him at the moment remains to be seen, but bear in mind this: Bettman doesn't need the full amount of owners to vote on accepting/rejecting NHLPA proposals.
Dave Shoalts of The Globe & Mail has more on the powers Bettman lobbied and negotiated for when he took over as NHL Commissioner.
While Bettman and the owners are at fault for the lockout, it's on the NHLPA for the stalled negotiations. I honestly think the league isn't holding in with giving to the players, it's more the NHLPA hasn't even moved off their initial proposal.
This is kinda typical Garrioch trolling though. Without a season, he can't pose questions like "Would The Islanders Be Interested In Malkin"? Everyone knows there is a split with the owners. Owners, like the ones he listed either were making money under the old deal, or didn't care if they lost money.
The thing is, there is not enough of them to keep the league afloat. We also only know that there were teams willing to play under the old CBA, but we haven't heard any of those teams jumping at the revenue sharing based proposal. When you talk about the owners loses, the only numbers they can give are revenue. In reality, more owners are probably happy to be avoiding the expenses that come with that revenue. The players are the ones losing REAL money, and without the NHL, they have no option to recoup that cash.
I've never thought he was dumb... too bad he only uses his intelligence to protect himself. Kinda disgusted at this point.
@erichan Actually, the purpose of the 3/4 majority is to protect the whole league. You can't have a league run on a CBA that is good for 16 owners, and leaves 14 losing money. With a 3/4 majority, you make sure deals are made in best interest of everyone.
This isn't something Bettman dreamed up in an evil underground lair somewhere, it's pretty standard practice. Kinda like how in our government it takes a 2/3's majority to over ride a veto.
First off, thanks to the misuse of the the filibuster, it takes a 2/3 majority to even pass a bill nowadays in the government. Secondly, your analogy does not apply in this case. Sure it takes 2/3 of a vote to override a veto in government, that makes sense since the many are overriding the few. In the case of the NHL, these rules allow the 25% to override the vote of the majority, the few can override the many. That is completely bass-ackwards. It should be set up that he can reject the proposal as long as he has 75% of the owners with him. That would be pretty standard. The power he gets to wield from the rule as written is ridiculous and ensure that as long as he protects 8 owners, he can never be fired. Effin joke!!
@gravey94 I don't think it's Bettman's quest for job security that's gumming up the works here. People beg him as being on some sort of power trip in these negotiations, and I think he does what to do a good job, but it's not cause he wants to be "King of the NHL". He just wants to make the league successful in the long term. If this guy was on the power trip he gets pegged for being on, why wouldn't he have jumped to politics by now?
I understand the veto reference wasn't exact, but just thought it would be a simple and practical example of how an extended majority is demanded sometimes. Figured if we didn't remember it from school, we all knew it from School House Rock. The reason he wanted the 3/4 vote was because of how close the league was getting a salary cap years ago, before a few rich owners caved. Without the 3/4 majority, the NHLPA only has to cater to half the owners.
the man gets a raise after killing a season. Of course he is smarter than we think. Either that or we are all friggen morons.
So is Bettman the Caesar of the NHL and the owners the useless Senate? What are the chances we hear a "Et tu, Sather?" to end the lockout?