Buccigross talks to former Whalers owner

[Jim Bob 0]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...john&id=1904436

On Sept. 7, 1988, the NHL's board of governors approved the sale of the Hartford Whalers to Donald Conrad and Richard Gordon. Almost six years later, on June 28, 1994, Gordon sold the Whalers to Peter Karmanos for $47.5 million.

I tracked down Gordon with the thought that talking to a former NHL owner might offer at least an idea of what is on their minds. The current crop of owners are not allowed to talk about the subject, otherwise they face a fine from the NHL.

No. 1: Who is lying and who is telling the truth?

Gordon: Many years I ago, I met Bob Goodenow. I said, "You know, Bob, things aren't going well. We're not making any money and we have no chance." He said that was tough. That if you go out someone else will take it. That's your problem. That's Bob Goodenow's attitude. And you know what? That's when I sold. Bob Goodenow couldn't care less about anything. There is no question the owners are bleeding. I gave them all my books for crying out loud. When Peter Karmanos, who I'm not a big fan of, says the Hurricanes will lose less money not playing he is absolutely telling the truth.

No. 2: Why did you buy the Whalers and why did you sell?

Gordon: I bought them because the league was stabilized, I like hockey, and I had an investment in downtown Hartford. There was a commonality of interest between players and owners. I sold them when I met Bob Goodenow. I was convinced he would destroy the league.

No. 3: Should Gary Bettman step down after this whole mess is cleaned up?

Gordon: He doesn't play hockey. Whatever he says, I don't think it means anything. The issue is the owners. They need to come up with a plan that enables them to make a living and the players to make a living.

No. 4: Is there an economic scenario where the NHL could work in Hartford, Conn.?

Gordon: Only on a subsidized basis and if you knew what your costs were. ESPN has control of its costs. Hockey has no control of its costs because costs are players' salaries. Goodenow says no one is putting a gun to the owners' heads to pay these salaries. Arbitration is an automatic gun. That's the thing that destroys the league as far as I can see.

No. 5: What's the most important economic chip the owners need to win in this negotiation?

Gordon: The owners need certainty. They need to know what the hell their costs are going to be. They need to know how much salary they can allocate and how many players they are going to have, and then they can run a business. Hockey is perpetuating incompetence.

No. 6: How has the union changed from the late '80s to today?

Gordon: There was a lot more trust. The players were happy and the owners were somewhat happy. Some were losing money, but not like today. There's got to be a balance. If you average 15,000 fans a night for 41 nights a year, that's 615,000 seats. If we average $40 a ticket, that's $24 million. You can make a bit more in parking, concessions, advertising, very little from radio, and a little from TV, but where else is the revenue? And think of the costs of all the other employees, chartering planes, booking hotels, and so on and it's obvious salaries are incredibly bloated.

No. 7: Are the owners really unified or is it a front?

Gordon: If I were them, I would be unified -- unless you want to have six teams. The only question is trust. The issue is Goodenow has told all the players not to trust the owners. Perhaps, there needs to be one person both sides trust to eventually bring them together.

No. 8: What is your prediction on what will happen?

Gordon: I don't think they will get the season in. I think the problem is going to be Goodenow is going to take it right to the wall. They did that in 1995. But I think now it is so severe and so much money is at stake that Goodenow has pushed them too far and the owners have no choice. It's very difficult to negotiate when you have no choice. It's simple math. You know how many seats are in the building. You know concessions. You know advertising. Everything is available. There are no hidden secrets.

[mack 44]

Yeah, the NHL sucks.

[joshy207 15]

So, my thinking is right... Goodenow really is the one killing the league, he's far worse than Bettman...

[Chadd 916]

I like Bucci, his stuff is good with a touch more personality than most others. He also responds rather quickly to email as well.

[Chadd 916]

Theo, he's the commissioner he can't say the game sucks right now. He has top put a happy face on everything. As for the quality of game play, that's why they have Colin Campbell. He's the director of hockey operations, as Brian Burke was before him. They are responsible for the quality of play on the ice, not Bettman. Also bear in mind that Bettman answers to the owners, he is doing what he is told to do.

[2048 0]

Theo, he's the commissioner he can't say the game sucks right now. He has top put a happy face on everything. As for the quality of game play, that's why they have Colin Campbell. He's the director of hockey operations, as Brian Burke was before him. They are responsible for the quality of play on the ice, not Bettman. Also bear in mind that Bettman answers to the owners, he is doing what he is told to do.

THANK YOU!

Why does everyone think that it's dictator Bettman vs. GOODenow and the Players association? Really bugs me, a lot.

[Chadd 916]

I see.

Guess my blame is to the wrong guy...Although its true a few things fall on Bettman, like the expansion, true? Or no?

2048- All the polls show that Bettman or the owners are actually the favorite side. Most I saw were around 65-35, not that its a competition. Thats one of the problems...Both sides seem to be treating it like one.

The owners made the decision on expansion, not Bettmen. He was hired to manage the process.

[joshy207 15]

No. 1: Who is lying and who is telling the truth?

Gordon: Many years I ago, I met Bob Goodenow. I said, "You know, Bob, things aren't going well. We're not making any money and we have no chance." He said that was tough. That if you go out someone else will take it. That's your problem. That's Bob Goodenow's attitude. And you know what? That's when I sold. Bob Goodenow couldn't care less about anything. There is no question the owners are bleeding. I gave them all my books for crying out loud. When Peter Karmanos, who I'm not a big fan of, says the Hurricanes will lose less money not playing he is absolutely telling the truth.

The quoted text is the part that really got me.

I know both sides are to blame, the owners for allowing salaries to get out of control, and the PA for not recognizing there's a problem that, if not fixed, will cost every one of them their jobs.

I also know that if the owners opened camp today, the players would all be there... but on the other hand, if players would agree to salary controls/revenue sharing, the owners would end the lockout.

You can't blame the players for wanting to continue making the kind of money they make, but you also can't blame the owners for trying to stop (or at least minimize) their losses.

Not only do I favor the owners (I can't sympathize with anyone who makes millions of dollars to play a game) but I also think the owners will "win" this time. All of the owners have other business interests, not one of these guys counts his NHL team as his primary source of income. The players, on the other hand... where in the world are they going to make anywhere NEAR the kind of money they make playing hockey? Is making a little less money (in some cases) REALLY that bad? Maybe they should try living on US$11.50/hr.

[Perry94 0]

I think that it is imperative for the hockey players to make more than the "regular joe". The hockey player's career is much shorter most of ours, and at the end of it all, they're probably too banged up to enjoy their money anyways (try to get it on with your wife on some exotic island with a chronically painful knee). However, I think that the max salary should be 2-3 million a year. No-one needs to drive Ferrari's or smoke Cuban cigars or have their groupies (I had other word in mind) follow them around in Escalades.

IN fact, I think hockey, football, and other professional sports are just a less-violent style of the gladiators of ancient Rome. I don't think that there should be such a thing as professional sports.

[MDE3 0]

If the owners were making significant money (as a whole) they would not be going through this process...even if the majority were at least breaking even..we probably would not have this..there are likely more than a few owners to whom the "glory" of owning a franchise is at least as valuable as having a profitable business. However that glory at the risk of bankrucy is somewhat less attrative.

I keep hearing the NHLPA argument that "if the owners couldn't afford to pay that kind of money, they shouldn't have offered it". Well think about what would have happened if the owners got talking to each other about not offering those salaries to specific players..deals pushed and played by agents against various owners...these owners would be in court on anti-trust and collusion charges...something well known by the agents who pull these strings.

Arbitration became the only haven in many cases, and that was a one way street where the only options are staying status quo or going up.... arbitration could never effect a ceiling on players earnings or protect the owners in the long run.