Begininning with the letter "G"

Today’s word of the day is “Gimmick” and can be described as: (1) an innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project or product. (2) a significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.

Today’s word of the day will actually be a two profile entry on the same word starting with this one which is a little more personal then the previous format I have used so far. Since starting my blog I have really been trying to focus on giving researched and informative information (hopefully on all subjects I have chosen) so that not only can I interject my own thoughts throughout the various entries but have those that are following and/or making comments do the same. While a blog is really just a personal website that allows an individual a format to express views and opinions about really….anything, it can also be used to assist that someone in forming and transposing those views to others and maybe in the end change them. In other words a blog can be an obscured or a not readily evident form of Public Relations.

My stratagem in this project thus far was that by providing clear and researched information about the current Public Relations frenzy of Jim Balsillie’s endless attempts at securing a Canadian NHL franchise and those involved that want to stop him (which I knew would draw strong opinions) I could provide a perspective that would not necessarily change the minds of those that read it but perhaps give them something to think about. While during the first half of this project I may have spent more time on the information part than the actual PR perspective (which by the way is my actual gimmick here) I do believe that I have been fairly successful in providing a format that has promoted some really good feedback.

Can the same be said about the Public Relations methods used by Jim Balsillie, Gary Bettman and the NHL as a whole? Did each provide researched information that drew its followers to their own desired project or product which then in turn influenced the positive opinions to those results? Or in the end did they become the ring leaders in a media circus of schemes and misrepresented strategies which included name calling; character assassination and media leaks that may have backfired? Instead of using a “gimmick” to benefit their own cause they each in their own way may have became one.

Begininning with the letter "P"

Today’s word of the day is “Persistent” and can be described as: (1) obstinately refusing to give up or let go. (2) dogged: stubbornly unyielding.

Since I believe in fair play, I thought in today’s entry, I should spend a bit of time exploring the third corner of this apparent triangle, Jim Balsillie and his unyielding effort to become an owner of an NHL franchise. So, the short and sweet version is Balsillie, a die hard Canadian (when it comes to Hockey anyways) is the co-CEO of the company Research in Motion (also Canadian) which is the manufacturer of the Blackberry wireless phone network. His net worth is around $1.9 billion so the approximate $220 million he offered in his third attempt to buy a NHL franchise is really irrelevant. What is may be the real reason for all of what has happened. Is Balsillie really the die hard Canadian that he claims to be or is he now just playing the PR game for his own benefit?

As I mentioned in my first blog entry, Public Relations in the end is about having people want something that was your idea. By clearly and effectively using what is wrong with the NHL and Bettman as its apparent CEO, Balsillie has marketed his vision to the magical number of seven with all Canadians behind the wrongs that it seems he has been dealt. It has helped him tremendously that the other two corners have all refused to play along but then again they’re playing a different PR game. Whether Balsillie truly wants to “Make it seven” for the right reasons or he just wants to draw from another sport and not make it his third strike is yet to be seen.

Really in the end, the best game that Balsillie could have hoped for in this scenario is exactly what the outcome has been. Did he get the Phoenix Coyotes in the end? The answer is unfortunately no. Let’s be honest, did he really expect to after what had taken place the last two times? I’m not sure. What Balsillie did however was to unite a country to stand up for him and a sport that should be their right to play and own more of. What the real question is though did Balsillie’s PR show the true difference of being dogged by being “Persistent” or just being plain old dogged?

Begininning with the letter "C"

Today’s word of the day is “Commissioner” and can be described as: (1) an individual, group or organization who appoints an individual/organization to perform a specific task. (2) an official chosen by an athletic association to exercise broad administrative or judicial authority.

Instead of spending some more time exploring what the NHL can do with rules and when they can do it, let’s spend a minute looking at the man who’s apparently leading it. For approximately 16 years, the NHL’s has been ruled by its Commissioner, Gary Bettman. That said, he just didn’t one day decide this would be a cool job to have and just got it. There was a reason for the owners to vote in Bettman and this was mainly to expand the NHL into the US market. Right there we now know that an agenda was long in the works before Jim Balsillie and his three attempts to secure an NHL team and relocate it to Canada. Did Bettman deliver? The answer is yes. Did Bettman deliver successfully? Well that ones up for debate.

Presently there are approximately ten NHL teams that have a higher operating cost than revenue. This is not good. Along with this is the fact that these teams are based in the US and most are those expansion teams that Gary Bettman was hired to deliver to his boss’s. So you could say that he did what he was supposed to. The problem here is that both the owners and Bettman continue to drive the sport of Hockey into US markets that really don’t want it.

Bettman has become the target by many especially in this last round with Balsillie. While both could be accused of playing a bit dirty especially in the media, just remember one thing. At the end of the day, like any employee, Bettman takes his direction from those that pay him. That said, this may be an example of when “Not to shoot the Commissioner”.

Begininning with the letter "B"

Today’s word is “Bankrupt” and can be described as: (1) Noun - a person or business which has made an assignment in bankruptcy or has been petitioned into bankruptcy. (2) Adjective - owing more money than you have assets or income to repay.

The word itself seems pretty straight forward. Someone owes more than they have and therefore applies for bankruptcy. This way they have some protection against any creditors. This type of state as happened to millions of people especially over the last few years with the mortgage fiasco in the US and an over-all recession. So, why is it that when Jerry Moyes, the owner and chief executive officer of the Phoenix Coyotes files for Chapter 11 (legal term for bankruptcy) a full blown court case needs to happen?

Jim Balsillie made a substantial (and only) bid to purchase the team (and was probably persuaded by Moyes) and the only way he should have been denied is if someone else bid higher. While there were some questions about secured versus unsecured creditors and who would get paid and who wouldn't, that was the job of the judge overseeing the case. The only reason the NHL got so ticked was this was a back door way for Balsillie to be able to move the team once his bid was accepted. They then remove Moyes from any position of authority (seems they don’t like him anymore) and proceed before the courts in the “best interests” of the NHL, its constitutions (here we go again) and other owners. I question the motives in this one.

To me, it so far seems that someone never truly owns a NHL team, can sell one or after losing millions by having one, declare bankruptcy. Why the NHL and its Commissioner, Gary Bettman are going to the lengths to stop Jim Balsillie from buying a losing team is the real question. The whole “bankrupt” part in this is just another asset for the NHL to play with.

Begininning with the letter "R"

Today’s word of the day is “rules” and can be described as: (1) Governing power or its possession or use; authority (2) To dominate by powerful influence (3) An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct and regulations governing the procedures in a legislative body observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.

Much as been talked about or written about the apparent rules that a prospective owner for a NHL franchise must follow to be awarded a team. Are these strictly followed by both the league and agreed to by the new owner or are they just guidelines that are only enforced if any of the parties choose to?

One of these rules surrounding much of the controversy is the so called NHL’s “seven year rule” which would require the new owner of the franchise to remain in the present team city for seven years before relocating it. So, is this an actual rule or regulation in the NHL’s Constitutions and Bylaws? If it is, I could not find it. I painfully undertook the task of reading through anything affiliated with relocation, transfer and new ownership but could only find something in the application process. That was more about the timing of an application to transfer a team having to be completed by January 1^st of the year prior to the year a team would start its first season in a new location. That’s all I found nothing more specific and finally gave up due to lack of time, patience and the general understanding in the misleading wording in the documents themselves. If someone knows of anything more, please feel free to post a comment.

I now believe that the “seven year “is not actually about a rule but more about the real power behind it. By trying to have Jim Balsillie agree to another seven years of financial loss by remaining in Phoenix where the Coyotes already own this record since relocating from Winnipeg seven years ago, the NHL can deter and monopolize its franchises and who owns them. This dismal prospect would be like receiving the maximum penalty for breaking two mirrors. So, does anyone ever truly own a NHL franchise or is it really just someone that’s allowed to play. Since the “rules” seemed to be arbitrary and the rulers have all authority when to direct them, it seems that either you play along or you don’t play at all.

Begininning with the letter "H"

Today’s word of the day is Ice Hockey or simply put “Hockey” (in countries where it is frequently played) and is: (1) a team sport played on ice that originated in Canada around 1800. (2) most popular in areas that are sufficiently cold for natural reliable seasonal ice cover, such as Canada, the northern United States, the Nordic countries and Russia. (3) The official national winter sports of Canada.

I thought today’s word should be about the sport that is as Canadian as the Maple Leaf, Don Cherry, Wayne Gretzky (before Janet and her aerobics video), The Tragically Hip and Molson’s beer. Anywhere you search for information on this word, the one thing that is constant is that this is a true Canadian born sport and passion. How then did we end up in the NHL with only six current teams compared to the twenty four that are based in US cities? If this is truly our countries sport why is starting to feel like it has obtained dual citizenship but prefers the US over its true nationality? Has the sport gone along with the Liberal Party, with the true leader, the NHL picking and choosing when to appear interested in building or even continuing a future for the sport on its own home ground? How do teams like the Quebec Nordics and the Winnipeg Jets get whisked to the US so quickly (no “seven year rule” there) but when ironically the city that the Jets relocate to (Phoenix) cannot support the sport, someone like Jim Balsillie cannot move it back to the country where it truly belongs? As well, how the heck do cities like San Joes, Los Angeles, Dallas, Anaheim, Raleigh, Tampa and some other place called Sunrise (another Florida team) even get awarded franchise’s when they don’t even have snow?

The real risk that we as Canadians run here is that while the NHL stands for National Hockey League, in what Nation does its interest truly lay? If people like Jim Balsillie stop fighting for us and for what’s truly right, we may just end up with the official winter sport but no professional teams in the game of “Hockey”.

Begininning with the letter "R"

Today's word of the day is "relocation", which can be defined as: (1) the transportation of something to a new settlement after an upheaval of some kind; (2) vacating fixed location (such as a residence or business) and settling in a different one. A move can be to a nearby location within the same neighborhood, a much farther location in a different city, or sometimes a different country.

This word alone seems to be one of the major controversies surrounding the subject of my blog. Now it has since been tied in with other questionable words, which will be, discussed in future entries but let’s start here. Relocation of a business happens frequently due to economic benefits. Why not move something that isn’t working where it is to some other place that will see it grow and do well? If a NHL Hockey team is losing scads of money in one city because the people in that city don’t support it, shouldn't the owner of that team be able to just sell it to someone else and the new owner move it to somewhere that really wants it? The necessary upheaval as already happened, we’ll call that bankruptcy, so why enforce the so-called “seven year rule"? This would now mean that a new owner who just paid millions of dollars to buy a non-profitable team would be forced to stay in the same city that made it that way for another seven years. Hello, am I the only one that thinks this does not make good business sense?

Is the relocation really more about Jim Balsillie’s choice of location? His plan has always been to move the Phoenix Coyotes out of the US and into a Canadian City. Since only six of the current NHL’s thirty teams are Canadian franchises, it is not like the NHL is at risk of seeming pro Canadian in this one. It would take another ten teams to move to have that happen. While Balsillie’s initial choice in The City of Hamilton has flared additional controversy, it is interesting to note that this city lies in between Toronto and Buffalo which both have long standing NHL teams. Are the present owners of these teams afraid of a little friendly competition in revenue? In the end, maybe this is the projected upheaval that is the underlying controversy in this purposed “relocation”.