Post by cheswick on Apr 15, 2011 22:48:47 GMT -5
I know it was briefly touched upon on another thread in regards to his talking about the Coyotes. Bettman baisically said the talk that the deal was dead in Phoenix was simply not true and that they are continuing to work on it. Anyway, I found his response to a caller from Atlanta interesting.
The caller asked about the ownership situation in Atlanta. How they go forward from here and the patience the NHL will take finding a new ownership group and if it's up to the NHL or upto the current owners. And mentioned he thinks Atlanta needs a majority owner.
Bettman responded the following way:
"Well with any ownership group, any partnership in any business, especially a sports team you want somebody who's in control. and obviously the atlanta ownership group had some years of litigation over that very subject. The issue of patience is really two fold. An owner loses patience; not whimsically but over a number of years, either because they don't think it's working or the losses have gotten to a level that they either can't or are unwilling to sustain anymore than you get a problem. and in that circumstance you've gotta see if there's somebody else who would like to own a team in that market. and the problem happens, and that's what happened in Winnipeg, and thats what happened in Quebec city. we reached a point where nobody was prepared to own the team any longer in that market. and when you reach that inevitable point having explored all options and tried all different things to generate interest, than you wind up with a situation where you have to look to relocate. relocation in the final analysis is subject to the approval of the NHL board of governors who requires a majority vote. So you don't pick up on your own. I don't make the decision in the final analysis, the board of governors does. and they do that as I said by majority vote."
Maybe it's just me reading too much into it, but when someone from Atlanta asks about ownership and Bettman responds by saying Winnipeg and Quebec had to relocate cause they didn't have a willing owner, doesn't instill much confidence in his take on the ownership situation.
The caller asked about the ownership situation in Atlanta. How they go forward from here and the patience the NHL will take finding a new ownership group and if it's up to the NHL or upto the current owners. And mentioned he thinks Atlanta needs a majority owner.
Bettman responded the following way:
"Well with any ownership group, any partnership in any business, especially a sports team you want somebody who's in control. and obviously the atlanta ownership group had some years of litigation over that very subject. The issue of patience is really two fold. An owner loses patience; not whimsically but over a number of years, either because they don't think it's working or the losses have gotten to a level that they either can't or are unwilling to sustain anymore than you get a problem. and in that circumstance you've gotta see if there's somebody else who would like to own a team in that market. and the problem happens, and that's what happened in Winnipeg, and thats what happened in Quebec city. we reached a point where nobody was prepared to own the team any longer in that market. and when you reach that inevitable point having explored all options and tried all different things to generate interest, than you wind up with a situation where you have to look to relocate. relocation in the final analysis is subject to the approval of the NHL board of governors who requires a majority vote. So you don't pick up on your own. I don't make the decision in the final analysis, the board of governors does. and they do that as I said by majority vote."
Maybe it's just me reading too much into it, but when someone from Atlanta asks about ownership and Bettman responds by saying Winnipeg and Quebec had to relocate cause they didn't have a willing owner, doesn't instill much confidence in his take on the ownership situation.