HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

lockout

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-21-2012, 07:36 AM
  #51
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheIceman26 View Post
Yep, no other sport sees big increases in ratings during the playoffs.
Other sports see increases, just nowhere near the % the NHL does. It's the only sport where the product drastically changes once the postseason starts.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 07:39 AM
  #52
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1865 View Post
Well, there's no shoot outs in the play-offs and the ratings go through the roof. Ergo, People hate the shoot out and it should go. FACT.

In fact, there's the little Stanley Cup logo painted onto the ice during the post-season and raings go through the roof! It's not even close, the people have spoken! We want more painted logos! FACT.

God, it's the beards! No regular season beards but as soon as the beards come out in the play-offs the tv ratings are ridic. FACT.
Did you have your tin foil hat on when you came up with that?

If you chalk up increased ratings in the postseason to shoot outs, painted logos and beards, I guess the only thing you fear is a bear in the forest too.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 08:25 AM
  #53
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,955
vCash: 500
I usually go about 8 days without getting gas. Last week I took my putter out of my trunk and brought it into my apartment. Afterwards, I managed to go 9 days without getting gas! That proves putters cause bad gas mileage.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 11:24 AM
  #54
RJ8812*
Hellooooo ladiiiies
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,092
vCash: 500
cutting down the amount of games in a season would be a start, but the owners will never do that

RJ8812* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 11:45 AM
  #55
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ8812 View Post
cutting down the amount of games in a season would be a start, but the owners will never do that
19,000+ people attend Flyers games and many of them spend quite a bit on concessions and merchandise as well as parking... Seats on average I'd guess would top $100.00 per ticket... The Organization's take on concessions and merchandise is a good bit of their revenue and the ticket sales is by far the greatest chunk of their revenue. Television contracts are added revenue, but just that... added revenue... and are I'm sure predicated on the amount of offered dates and potential First Round PostSeason games... Now, reduce the number of games and you reduce the ticket sales, concession sales and merchandise sold when fans pack the shops grabbing up O&B products. Unlike the NFL and some other sports the NHL makes its money from people who go through the turnstiles... take that away and lower TV/Radio contracts and you take a great deal of money out of the Owners' pockets... IMO, no added interest in the sport through a better product would recoup all the lost revenue from reduced dates at the venues when you consider that the NHL almost always plays to capacity, even when you take into account the weak franchises.

I agree... the Owners will never do that.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 12:03 PM
  #56
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
I usually go about 8 days without getting gas. Last week I took my putter out of my trunk and brought it into my apartment. Afterwards, I managed to go 9 days without getting gas! That proves putters cause bad gas mileage.
Sounds like you fear big bears in the forest too.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 12:09 PM
  #57
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING View Post
Sounds like you fear big bears in the forest too.
Prove that fighting has ANY correlation with ratings.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 01:14 PM
  #58
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,697
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
I think the big difference between the previous lockout and this year's negotiations is the drastic changes made last time. There really isn't anything too big (at least that I am aware of) that is going to be debated. Probably something with the length of contracts, the olympics, and some head-shot related stuff is going to highlight the negotiations. Maybe something about suspensions because of the lack of consistency as of late. But as far as I can tell there is nothing dramatic that will be debated this time around.

If that is wrong someone please correct me...I'd hate to go into this summer thinking everything is fine when in reality there is some looming issue I am not aware of. Haha.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 01:23 PM
  #59
4thline4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I think the big difference between the previous lockout and this year's negotiations is the drastic changes made last time. There really isn't anything too big (at least that I am aware of) that is going to be debated. Probably something with the length of contracts, the olympics, and some head-shot related stuff is going to highlight the negotiations. Maybe something about suspensions because of the lack of consistency as of late. But as far as I can tell there is nothing dramatic that will be debated this time around.

If that is wrong someone please correct me...I'd hate to go into this summer thinking everything is fine when in reality there is some looming issue I am not aware of. Haha.
The big issue imo, is that the owners are most likely going to try and lower the player revenue from 57% to somewhere around 50%.

4thline4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 01:25 PM
  #60
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
If that is wrong someone please correct me...I'd hate to go into this summer thinking everything is fine when in reality there is some looming issue I am not aware of. Haha.
The biggest issue is the share of the profits. Last season, the players were awarded roughly 57% of the revenues. Management wants to decrease this closer to 50/50. Player Revenue drives the salary cap. Therefore, the owners want to lower the salary cap to improve their profits.

That will be the big issue.

I don't expect that there will be a long battle that will impact the season, but it will go down to the deadline I'm sure. The reality is that any way you slice the profits, a bigger pool of money to split is the most important driver of profits for both sides. They both realize that after 7 consecutive years of record revenue, a work stoppage would cost them a whole lot more than 2-3% of the current revenue sharing model would.

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 05:14 PM
  #61
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Prove that fighting has ANY correlation with ratings.
Easy, just look at regular season ratings versus post season ratings.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 05:16 PM
  #62
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING View Post
Easy, just look at regular season ratings versus post season ratings.
Or maybe it's the post lockout rule changes and the surge in interest following the Olympics.

Almost every league has higher ratings during their playoffs. Is that because of less fighting as well? Maybe it's because people are more interesting in seeing who wins when it really matters, with the best teams of that season going at it.

Like I said...I got an extra day out of my tank of gas after bringing my putter inside. Should we take that as irrefutable proof that putters hurt gas mileage? The evidence to support it is just as sound as the evidence for your argument.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 05:33 PM
  #63
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Or maybe it's the post lockout rule changes and the surge in interest following the Olympics.
That may be a small part of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Almost every league has higher ratings during their playoffs. Is that because of less fighting as well?
No, other MAJOR sports don't allow it. Imagine Tim Duncan dunking the ball and as he jogs back up the court, Kobe Bryant squares off with him and they fistfight. What does that have to do with basketball? Nothing. It is as stupid as watching Rinaldo fight someone cause they checked Giroux or Briere too hard.

Fighting is low brow and appeals to the least common denominator. The least common denominator doesn't watch playoff hockey because there are virtually no fights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Maybe it's because people are more interesting in seeing who wins when it really matters, with the best teams of that season going at it.
Exactly, seeing who wins the GAME, not the fist fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Like I said...I got an extra day out of my tank of gas after bringing my putter inside. Should we take that as irrefutable proof that putters hurt gas mileage? The evidence to support it is just as sound as the evidence for your argument.
You're free to believe a putter improved your mileage. One thing for sure though, no auto makers are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars studying the effects of putters on gas mileage.

Conversely the NHL has spent similar amounts doing market research around fighting in the game and how it impacts viewership and growth of the sport.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 05:43 PM
  #64
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING View Post
That may be a small part of it.



No, other MAJOR sports don't allow it. Imagine Tim Duncan dunking the ball and as he jogs back up the court, Kobe Bryant squares off with him and they fistfight. What does that have to do with basketball? Nothing. It is as stupid as watching Rinaldo fight someone cause they checked Giroux or Briere too hard.

Fighting is low brow and appeals to the least common denominator. The least common denominator doesn't watch playoff hockey because there are virtually no fights.




Exactly, seeing who wins the GAME, not the fist fight.



You're free to believe a putter improved your mileage. One thing for sure though, no auto makers are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars studying the effects of putters on gas mileage.

Conversely the NHL has spent similar amounts doing market research around fighting in the game and how it impacts viewership and growth of the sport.
They've been doing that research for years, yet they show absolutely no interest in actually banning it; that suggests fighting isn't having loads of negative impact on viewership. Also, if people are watching to see who wins the game I doubt they're going to turn the whole thing off because of a fight.

Let's look at these articles:

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2012/4/2...gs-first-round
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/04...olumn-nhl-1-3/

This year, the NHL pulled in the highest first round ratings its EVER had...despite the higher than normal level of violence, brawls, suspendable incidents, etc.

So...more violence than normal, best ratings ever. That sorta shoots your argument in the foot.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 05:58 PM
  #65
Flyersfan1493
Formerly Go For It
 
Flyersfan1493's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Collegeville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,647
vCash: 500
Overdue:


Flyersfan1493 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 06:30 PM
  #66
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,697
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheIceman26 View Post
The big issue imo, is that the owners are most likely going to try and lower the player revenue from 57% to somewhere around 50%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
The biggest issue is the share of the profits. Last season, the players were awarded roughly 57% of the revenues. Management wants to decrease this closer to 50/50. Player Revenue drives the salary cap. Therefore, the owners want to lower the salary cap to improve their profits.

That will be the big issue.

I don't expect that there will be a long battle that will impact the season, but it will go down to the deadline I'm sure. The reality is that any way you slice the profits, a bigger pool of money to split is the most important driver of profits for both sides. They both realize that after 7 consecutive years of record revenue, a work stoppage would cost them a whole lot more than 2-3% of the current revenue sharing model would.
Snap. And there is that looming issue I was unaware of. Haha. Hopefully it doesn't impact the the start of the season.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 07:45 PM
  #67
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
They've been doing that research for years, yet they show absolutely no interest in actually banning it; that suggests fighting isn't having loads of negative impact on viewership. Also, if people are watching to see who wins the game I doubt they're going to turn the whole thing off because of a fight.

Let's look at these articles:

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2012/4/2...gs-first-round
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/04...olumn-nhl-1-3/

This year, the NHL pulled in the highest first round ratings its EVER had...despite the higher than normal level of violence, brawls, suspendable incidents, etc.

So...more violence than normal, best ratings ever. That sorta shoots your argument in the foot.
Do you understand what you're reading? It was the most watched because EVERY game was on TV. It wasn't the "best ratings ever" either. The article from The Daily says ONE game registered the highest overnight rating in 10 years. Last time I checked, the NHL had ratings that went back more than 10 years.

The SB Nation article stated "Those are the highest numbers for hockey on cable since 2001." That doesn't say "best ratings ever" either. Being a google commando is good and the links provide some facts to consider. When summarizing them it your post, try to truthfully state what they actually say, rather than what you want them to say.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 07:46 PM
  #68
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Snap. And there is that looming issue I was unaware of. Haha. Hopefully it doesn't impact the the start of the season.
From what I'm being told, there is not a majority of owners who want a rollback closer to 50% like the NBA had during their lockout.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 08:26 PM
  #69
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING View Post
Do you understand what you're reading? It was the most watched because EVERY game was on TV. It wasn't the "best ratings ever" either. The article from The Daily says ONE game registered the highest overnight rating in 10 years. Last time I checked, the NHL had ratings that went back more than 10 years.

The SB Nation article stated "Those are the highest numbers for hockey on cable since 2001." That doesn't say "best ratings ever" either. Being a google commando is good and the links provide some facts to consider. When summarizing them it your post, try to truthfully state what they actually say, rather than what you want them to say.
You said lots of things and failed to address my core point:

Despite an uptick in rough/violent play in this year's first playoff round, more people watched overall. If people were so revolted by fighting/violence, they wouldn't have tuned in, regardless of how many games are being shown.

Edit: Basically, you say that lack of fighting leads to increasing ratings. That round had high ratings AND a lot of fighting/scrums/violence. How can that be?

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 09:25 PM
  #70
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Cause and effect reasoning has to be applied here, IMO... and common sense where there are no numbers that can prove either side.

There are 82 games played by each of the thirty teams over the course of the regular season... over that span there are a few games a week and some dud games scheduled along the way. Except for key rivalries and popular teams scheduled, the importance of the games are watered down by mere amount of them and the fact that they only mean two or maybe even only one point in a season's total as opposed to the PostSeason where the lesser quality teams are weeded out before it starts and each game is important because four losses in a series and a team goes home for the Summer... and every series is like a key rivalry before long as each team faces the other every other day on average.

The Postseason also brings on the people who say... and this is an exact quote I have heard often... "I only watch hockey in the PlayOffs because the Regular season means absolutely nothing".

There are no studies that I know of that have concluded that fighting, or the lack thereof, either deters nor attracts viewers in the PostSeason... Logic tells me athat those who can stand fighting in the RegularSeason will be able to stand it in the PostSeason also... and conversely, those who cannot and will not watch hockey in the RegularSeason because of the fighting will not suddenly watch hockey and pray for a fight to not break out.

Common sense dictates... at least to me... that PostSeason play in any sport would draw more attention than the RegularSeason simply because of the importance, the added widespread and quality coverage as well as better quality play that often gets even better as the rounds progress and the better teams survive and want the Cup so badly... To suggest it has anything more than a slight trace of an amount to do with the less -- not lack -- of fighting is anything but logical IMO.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 10:37 PM
  #71
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
You said lots of things and failed to address my core point:

Despite an uptick in rough/violent play in this year's first playoff round, more people watched overall. If people were so revolted by fighting/violence, they wouldn't have tuned in, regardless of how many games are being shown.
More people watched because they put every game on TV. When you stop twisting what the articles you posted say, and correctly interpret the data, you will better understand it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Edit: Basically, you say that lack of fighting leads to increasing ratings. That round had high ratings AND a lot of fighting/scrums/violence. How can that be?
Playoff hockey has always garnered higher ratings and the biggest difference is the absence of goonism and fighting. You want to take the one exception, this years first round, and twist what the numbers say, to somehow conclude more people watched because of goonism and violence.

No other sport "benches" people who have played all season for the post season. People don't want to see Jody Shelley & Zac Rinaldo in the playoffs. Their style of play doesn't attract people to the game. Players like Giroux, Parise, Kovalchuk, Stamkos, etc are the ones people tune in for.

When the lights shine brightest and the ratings go way up, Rinaldo and Shelley are in the press box where they belong.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 11:17 PM
  #72
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING View Post
Playoff hockey has always garnered higher ratings and the biggest difference is the absence of goonism and fighting. You want to take the one exception, this years first round, and twist what the numbers say, to somehow conclude more people watched because of goonism and violence.

No other sport "benches" people who have played all season for the post season. People don't want to see Jody Shelley & Zac Rinaldo in the playoffs. Their style of play doesn't attract people to the game. Players like Giroux, Parise, Kovalchuk, Stamkos, etc are the ones people tune in for.

When the lights shine brightest and the ratings go way up, Rinaldo and Shelley are in the press box where they belong.
Do you honestly believe that the biggest difference no fighting? -- please keep in mind that while fighting is not as prevalent, it still is there... and "goonism" is still there in a much more subtle manner with cheap shots abounding and responded to by retaliatory cheap shots -- because if you do believe it is that rather than the all out higher quality play that continues until there is a winner (through normal 'team' play) in elimination rounds between two teams playing with earned hate for each other every other day to survive and have a chance to win the Cup... If you believe it is mostly the lack of fighting, then I suppose there is no way to convince you otherwise.

BTW; I am far from the lowest denominator group but I also understand that fighting, when done for the proper hockey related reasons of policing, is often necessary over the course of the RegularSeason... In the PostSeason fighters are a luxury but talented enforcers who can also play a regular shift -- albeit often a reduced forth line one -- are often important in some series... Fighting is not the knuckle dragging supported thing that you make it out to be. I could live without fighting and not love the sport one iota less... but it would mean that players would have a harder time policing themselves and you would see more stick-work and cheap shots... and much more need for officiating to be involved. Asking players and retired players would find the vast majority wanting the players to be able to police themselves... and that has been determined by many surveys taken.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 11:38 PM
  #73
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING View Post
From what I'm being told, there is not a majority of owners who want a rollback closer to 50% like the NBA had during their lockout.
That would be good news. You have a link to that? It's surprising that the owners wouldn't want a little more than 43%... even 45-47 seems reasonable from an outsider's perspective.

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 11:53 PM
  #74
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING View Post
More people watched because they put every game on TV. When you stop twisting what the articles you posted say, and correctly interpret the data, you will better understand it.
Wait...so what is it? The absence of fighting, or wider availability? If people were so revolted by fighting, shouldn't all the goonery in the first round have done more damage to hockey overall, with more people watching?

Yet, that wasn't the case. People kept tuning in anyways.



Quote:
Playoff hockey has always garnered higher ratings and the biggest difference is the absence of goonism and fighting. You want to take the one exception, this years first round, and twist what the numbers say, to somehow conclude more people watched because of goonism and violence.

No other sport "benches" people who have played all season for the post season. People don't want to see Jody Shelley & Zac Rinaldo in the playoffs. Their style of play doesn't attract people to the game. Players like Giroux, Parise, Kovalchuk, Stamkos, etc are the ones people tune in for.

When the lights shine brightest and the ratings go way up, Rinaldo and Shelley are in the press box where they belong.
Just because useless goons who lack skill don't play as much, that doesn't automatically equate a ratings boost to lack of fighting. That has more to do with coaches wanting their best players on the ice more often, especially because the competition is better.

I don't think the lack of fighting has anything at all to do with higher ratings. I think the fact that the games really matter for something has FAR more to do with it. Instead of being 1 game out of 82, it's 1 game of 7 or less that determines which team moves on. That's far more compelling than "less fighting!"

Playoffs in other sports garner higher ratings as well...and it's because the games are more important. Those sports don't have the fighting aspect to remove, so why is there a ratings difference there? For the same reason as hockey: people care more when the games matter more. That's all there is to it.


Edit: I have several friends who only watch hockey once in a blue moon during the season, but tune in to as many playoff games as they can. I can assure you, none of them would say it's due to less fighting. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who will tell you they like the playoffs more because players fight less.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 05:45 PM
  #75
pughater
Registered User
 
pughater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: montgomery county
Posts: 998
vCash: 500
with september inching closer and closer the reality of a strike creeps closer and closer. first proposal by the nhl didnt take well with the nhlpa. Both sides seem so far apart on what they want. It looks like a shortened season or no season may be looming

pughater is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.