In analysis, we always take note of anything offered to us (not as a result of a direct question) in the negative, as important. It may be sensitive due to its importance, or it may be sensitive due to deception.
Is Gary Bettman deceptive?
Use the same principles as always, and what do you find? Please note the beginning analysis is in bold type, as you are to finish in your comments.
From the NHL:
Commissioner Gary Bettman Media Availability Transcript
Toronto, October 16, 2012
Good afternoon, everyone. Bill Daly and I just spent the last hour with Don and Steve
Fehr, and I would like to briefly report to you on what was discussed.
Please note pronouns. He begins with the strongest pronoun, "I", something humans use millions of times. He is taking ownership of his own speech and it is strong. We look for consistency in this strength to note truth.
As I think all of you know
we have been extremely disappointed, and that’s an understatement, that we’ve been unable to
Note the change from the strong, "I", to the pronoun "we" and its context:
disappointment. Note also that the word "disappointment" is sensitive with the addition of "extremely"; yet he then uses "that" (distancing language), rather than "this."
get these negotiations on the essential elements moving forward. So, today, we began by
discussing with Don and Steve that if we were to drop the puck on November 2nd for the start of
the regular season, we could preserve an 82-game schedule for the regular season and play full
playoffs as we normally do and be done before the end of June.
He now tells us "why" something has happened, rather than report simply what has happened. This "so" is very sensitive, and note that he has left the pronoun "I" to embrace the pronoun "we"; which is often an indication when, speaking alone, that there is a desire to not be "alone" in responsibility for whatever is in the context.
We very much want to preserve a full 82-game season, and in that light, we made a
proposal, an offer, really that is our best shot at preserving an 82-game regular season and
playoffs, and this offer that we made obviously was contingent upon having an 82-game regular
A lot of you know we don’t negotiate publicly, and I’m not going to break that habit
because I don’t think it’s constructive.
Principle: always note that which is indicated in the negative as very important, very sensitive. Next, note the change from "we" to "I" as a strong statement, which immediately changes into a very sensitive statement as he has the need to explain "why" in the word "because":
In context: Not negotiating in public is highly sensitive to the subject. Why is this? The answer comes in the next sentence:
The fact of the matter is, we offered a 50-50 share of
He has now negotiated in public.
He calls it the "fact" and then reveals a term of the negotiation to the public with "50-50 share"
The subject has indicated why it was so sensitive to him about not negotiating in the public: he was about to negotiate in the public.
Please note that he said, "we don't negotiate" which is in the present tense. Then he said, "I'm not going to break that habit" which, when going from the plural "we" to the singular, "I" is very strong, yet, he feels the need to explain why with the highly sensitive word, "because";
But it is not a "rule" or a "law" but only a "habit" in his speech.
He broke his "habit." This is something humans do often.
Continue with analysis following the same principles:
HRR, hockey related revenues, and we believe we addressed the concern that players have
about what happens to their salaries as a result in this year of reducing the percentage from 57
Beyond that, I don’t want to get into the substance other than to say we believe that this
was a fair offer for a long-term deal, and it’s one that we hope gets a positive reaction so that we
can drop the puck on November 2nd—which backing up, entails at least a one-week training
camp. So we have about nine or ten days to get this all put to bed, signed, sealed and
delivered, in order for this offer to be effective and for us to move forward.
We hope that this effort that we’ve undertaken today would be successful because we
know how difficult this all has been for everybody associated with the game, particularly our
How confident are you that this is going to go forward?
Well, we certainly hope it will. We’ve given it our best shot.
What was the reaction?
The reaction was that they obviously need to study it, and so we told them that we’re
available to them. But they’re going to need some time to review it, and I respect that portion of
the process. Obviously, they’ve got to understand the offer and get comfortable with it.
Was it just the core economic issues in terms of the offer?
We had a number of significant elements that we believe can and should serve as the
basis of a deal to get us playing hockey.
Why do this today?
Because if we want to have an 82-game regular season, if we want to preserve an 82-
game regular season and you back up the timetable in terms of the schedule, we needed to do
By the way, in terms of the schedule, so everybody understands, the compression that
would be involved is one additional game every five weeks. Beyond that, we don’t think it would
be good for the players or for the game. But if you look at what our ability would be to schedule
82 games and you work back from November 2nd, if we didn’t do it now, if we didn’t put an effort
on the table that we thought was fair and could get us playing hockey, if we didn’t do it now,
then it probably wasn’t going to happen for a while. Because, again, it’s done in the spirit of
getting a full season in.
Is it 50-50 across the board?
It’s 50-50 across board.
How long of a contract will this be?
I’m not going to get into the specifics. We proposed a long-term contract. We think
that’s in everybody’s interest. We think that’s what our fans want.
Can you explain how you address the roll back or the escrow?
There is no roll back, and I’m not going to get into the specifics. It would not be
constructive at this point in time. The union has some work to do, and we respect the process.
I probably have gone further than I usually have in terms of discussing what we’ve proposed
than at any other time. But I’m not comfortable going any further. I’m more concerned about
the process right now and getting us back on the ice.
How worried are you they might say no and more of the season will be lost?
I don’t even want to go there.
Is the league amenable to playing an abbreviated schedule?
We’re focused on getting the puck dropped on November 2nd and playing a full 82-game
regular season and full playoffs. That’s what this offer is all about.
Have you made plans to meet later in the week?
We’re going to be on-call to them. They have some work to do internally. Obviously, we
didn’t put this proposal, this offer, together overnight, and they’re going to need a little time to
review it. I’m hoping that review will get us to a positive and constructive place.