HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Team Staff Salary Cuts & Layoffs (MOD: and local city impacts from lockout)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-28-2012, 01:10 PM
  #51
broinwhyteridge
bro license revoked!
 
broinwhyteridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,381
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
None of the things you have mentioned so far, which might account for $10-30 a pop, have the slightest bit of relation to saving the $10,000+ a person needs to survive extended unemployment. You're talking about nickels and dimes here.

Do the math. Say a person is making $40k a year. Chances are they literally cannot afford to put away more than about $3k per year assuming they have no major life crisis during that year. $3k is roughly their pre-tax income per month. Being out of work for 4 months will cost them, pre-tax, about $12k.

Meaning they would have needed to put away money for the past 4 years non-stop with no major crisis causing them to tap into that reserve in order to survive a 4-month work stoppage. If it's more like 6 months, we're talking about saving non-stop since the last CBA was signed.

Get real. How many people can afford to save that much money for that long? And even if they did, they're facing the prospect of having that entire safety net consumed in one fell swoop, through no fault of their own. Meaning their next major life crisis is going to have no safety net.

Any way you look at it, unless they can pull from resources outside of personal savings, they're screwed.
I guess this person won't be able to retire either at any time (not that I don't agree with you - North America is based on almost everyone living beyond their means).

broinwhyteridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 01:52 PM
  #52
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
None of the things you have mentioned so far, which might account for $10-30 a pop, have the slightest bit of relation to saving the $10,000+ a person needs to survive extended unemployment. You're talking about nickels and dimes here.

Do the math. Say a person is making $40k a year. Chances are they literally cannot afford to put away more than about $3k per year assuming they have no major life crisis during that year. $3k is roughly their pre-tax income per month. Being out of work for 4 months will cost them, pre-tax, about $12k.

Meaning they would have needed to put away money for the past 4 years non-stop with no major crisis causing them to tap into that reserve in order to survive a 4-month work stoppage. If it's more like 6 months, we're talking about saving non-stop since the last CBA was signed.

Get real. How many people can afford to save that much money for that long? And even if they did, they're facing the prospect of having that entire safety net consumed in one fell swoop, through no fault of their own. Meaning their next major life crisis is going to have no safety net.

Any way you look at it, unless they can pull from resources outside of personal savings, they're screwed.
A family of four with only 40k household income could only dream of saving 3k a year.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 02:19 PM
  #53
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
None of the things you have mentioned so far, which might account for $10-30 a pop, have the slightest bit of relation to saving the $10,000+ a person needs to survive extended unemployment. You're talking about nickels and dimes here.

Do the math. Say a person is making $40k a year. Chances are they literally cannot afford to put away more than about $3k per year assuming they have no major life crisis during that year. $3k is roughly their pre-tax income per month. Being out of work for 4 months will cost them, pre-tax, about $12k.

Meaning they would have needed to put away money for the past 4 years non-stop with no major crisis causing them to tap into that reserve in order to survive a 4-month work stoppage. If it's more like 6 months, we're talking about saving non-stop since the last CBA was signed.

Get real. How many people can afford to save that much money for that long? And even if they did, they're facing the prospect of having that entire safety net consumed in one fell swoop, through no fault of their own. Meaning their next major life crisis is going to have no safety net.

Any way you look at it, unless they can pull from resources outside of personal savings, they're screwed.
I would say almost anyone has $100+ / week worth of expenses they could potentially cut.

A work stoppage for 4 months would cost them 6.66K pre-tax, because unemployment benefits are half of your salary. And if you're out of work your expenses should be going down as well. If you're smart you're not going to be spending money you don't have on things like eating out.

The majority of people don't save ANYTHING though, and a lot even go beyond that by piling up credit card debt and what not in order to live above their means.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 03:12 PM
  #54
Luca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 272
vCash: 400
I earn 60k-65k in a year and i have managed to save more than 65k in 5 years....

Luca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 03:26 PM
  #55
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broinwhyteridge View Post
I guess this person won't be able to retire either at any time (not that I don't agree with you - North America is based on almost everyone living beyond their means).
Hopefully the person's employer reserves a portion of their salary to some kind of 401k or pension plan. Otherwise, you're right. It would be extremely difficult for this person to retire. That's the future unless things change fairly dramatically in the next couple of decades.

* though it does need to be considered that a retiree might own their home, which is a huge cost factor

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTENOUGHBREWER View Post
A family of four with only 40k household income could only dream of saving 3k a year.
Absolutely. I'm speaking of one individual with no spouse or dependents. A family of four living on 40k is considered poverty level if I'm not mistaken.

Even a family of four living on 80k (ie, both spouses making 40k) isn't exactly in the clear. Children are extremely expensive and people of child-bearing age are typically saddled with significant debt from college loans, car loans, mortgage, etc. Cut off half their income and they default on those debts in order to support their children, which starts a negative financial snowball involving bad credit, higher interest rates on future loans, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
I would say almost anyone has $100+ / week worth of expenses they could potentially cut.
Your basis for saying this is, I'm sure, rooted in a close familiarity with the personal finances of 300 million strangers.

Quote:
A work stoppage for 4 months would cost them 6.66K pre-tax, because unemployment benefits are half of your salary.
That may be true in Canada, but in the United States unemployment insurance is considerably less. Also, it is time-limited and does not apply to contract workers or people hired in the past year. And the minute you start working to make ends meet, the unemployment insurance reduces or ceases. It helps some people, but does not resolve the fundamental problem of needing a much higher level of income that what one is currently receiving. Maybe things are better in Canada, but if it's like the US system then unemployment insurance is basically just a delaying tactic to keep people's heads above water temporarily.


Quote:
And if you're out of work your expenses should be going down as well. If you're smart you're not going to be spending money you don't have on things like eating out.
Again, we are not talking about nickels and dimes. Owning a home costs around $1000 a month on the low end for a middle class family, more like $1500 for most people. Owning a car costs from $200-400 for most models. Keeping the power and water connected costs at least a hundred bucks a month. Debts don't go away when you lose your job, and they grow when you don't pay them. It's nice that you saved $5 by eating ramen at home instead of buying fast food, or cut off your cable to save another hundred, but that doesn't pay off a mortgage.

You aren't going to cover the costs of a $40k lifestyle for very long on a few thousand dollars of savings and some unemployment insurance. It's really that simple. If the person isn't able to find a job within a few months -- and no, that's not necessarily enough time to find a $40k job -- they are going to be faced with financial ruin. At BEST they will have to downgrade to a lower-middle-class life and start all over from where they were as an entry-level worker. At worst they could be looking at rock bottom. Never mind if this person faces medical issues, psychological issues, substance problems, family crisis, or anything else that could drive them even deeper into the hole.

You mentioned you are 26, and I take it that you are single (maritally speaking) and have no children. Believe me when I say, there is a HUGE difference between being "broke" as a young bachelor at square one, and being "broke" in the sense of being older and having your life's accomplishments crumble around you.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 03:34 PM
  #56
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,738
vCash: 500
Sounds like a lot of people are buying houses or having kids they can't really afford.

rojac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 04:05 PM
  #57
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Well, here's a study of how the typical american family spends it's money:

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2010/...ow-to-trim-it/

Looking through the list I could easily pick out a few thousand / year in expenses to cut. I also personally know people who lived in poverty and still spent their money stupidly (families mind you). I grew up with kids who lived with parents who were broke and let their homes go to ****, yet still did things like lease new cars. People wasting their money in the US is a FACT backed by many studies, not something I came up with.

You're 100% right, you will NOT cover a $40K / year lifestyle off unemployment and a few thousand in savings. When you lose your job you cannot continue to live the same lifestyle as when you had it.

As for unemployment, I was referencing what it is in the US. In the US it's 50% of your previous salary up to a $ amount that varies by state (in NY it's $405). And you have to work for 6 months to qualify for full benefits. You used to be able to collect for only 26 weeks, but now it's been extended to 60 - 99 weeks depending on state.

Having families people can't pay for is a crappy life choice as well. There's plenty of cases of people having kids they're not ready for / can't afford to pay for. And yes, I'm single, no kids, and I couldn't afford to pay for kids even though I make 100K+ / year, so I won't be having them anytime soon. Debts also don't go away, but large debts, especially like mortgages / car debts aren't the kind of thing you should be taking on either if the monthly payments are going to stretch you so thin you'll have nothing left. The debt problem in the US is again a well documented thing.

The reality is the majority of americans will be in trouble if they lose their job, there's no disputing that. I'm saying that it's their decisions that put them in that position, so they're not getting any sympathy from me.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 04:07 PM
  #58
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
Sounds like a lot of people are buying houses or having kids they can't really afford.
That's exactly what happens.

The housing bubble that tanked the economy a few years ago is because banks gave out mortgages like candy to people who had no money, and people having kids they can't pay for has been a common theme for a long time.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 04:11 PM
  #59
broinwhyteridge
bro license revoked!
 
broinwhyteridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,381
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca View Post
I earn 60k-65k in a year and i have managed to save more than 65k in 5 years....
I won't pretend I care about your personal situation, but your statement, if true, is significantly outside the norm.

You need to provide more information to let everyone know how you managed that.

broinwhyteridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 04:31 PM
  #60
Luca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 272
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by broinwhyteridge View Post
I won't pretend I care about your personal situation, but your statement, if true, is significantly outside the norm.

You need to provide more information to let everyone know how you managed that.
1. Do not have kid(s)
2. Live in a small apartment.
3.Do not have car.

Quite simple...

Luca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 04:34 PM
  #61
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
If you take a job in a field where work stoppages might happen and could affect your job, do you really deserve sympathy? To be honest, all NHL team employees should have been preparing for this to happen.
Sometimes the blue collar stiff just can't win. If the guy had gurantees to get paid or some type of severance package many people would be crying the blues, damn unions. We've heard it all before.


Last edited by Confucius: 08-28-2012 at 04:41 PM.
Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 05:40 PM
  #62
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team
You're 100% right, you will NOT cover a $40K / year lifestyle off unemployment and a few thousand in savings. When you lose your job you cannot continue to live the same lifestyle as when you had it.
Right. The issue is that you can't flip lifestyles on and off like a switch. Your mortgage is structured to fit within your current income and debt scheme; it doesn't just go on hiatus when you become unemployed. If the kids are in daycare to allow you to work, you can't just yank 'em out the next day without penalty. Your car payments, utilities, loans, phone contract, cable contract -- all the vestiges of your previous life are STILL THERE when the income stops. Canceling frivolities is only a small part of the crisis.

This applies to all income levels, and is true even of people who live responsibly within their means. This is why pretty much everyone agrees that losing your job is one of the most devastating things that is likely to happen in ordinary life.

Quote:
As for unemployment, I was referencing what it is in the US. In the US it's 50% of your previous salary up to a $ amount that varies by state (in NY it's $405). And you have to work for 6 months to qualify for full benefits. You used to be able to collect for only 26 weeks, but now it's been extended to 60 - 99 weeks depending on state.
I'm not getting into a link-swapping contest, but Wikipedia has the average payout as 36% of salary. And some of the extensions you're referring to are stimulus-era packages that are now gone. I don't think there is a 99-week extension anymore.

Quote:
Having families people can't pay for is a crappy life choice as well.
What about having a family you CAN pay for and then you lose your job? Is that a crappy life choice? What are people supposed to do, just stay single and childless their whole lives because someday they might lose their jobs?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 05:51 PM
  #63
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
If having a family is going to make it so you can't afford to save up any money at all then I don't consider that as being affordable.

Same goes for mortgage/car payments.

The 36% average payout includes people with higher salaries. People making 40K will get 50% in a lot of states. I got < 25% of my salary for unemployment, and so did a lot of other ex-wall street people, so that drops the average quite a bit. Either way, 50% or more is still a significant cut to your cash flow so no point arguing the specifics.

The problem here is people live a lifestyle that uses up 100% (or more) of their paycheck, so it becomes devastating when they lose their job or get a pay cut. Hell, for a lot of people even things like their car breaking down and needing $2K to fix it is devastating. It's nobody's fault but their own for choosing to live that way. One of the first things people do when they get a raise / promotion is start spending more, not pay down debt or start saving money.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 06:01 PM
  #64
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,675
vCash: 196
Who the hell would want to work for the Flames anyway?

They should be looking at this as a blessing in disguise.

I am the Liquor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 06:05 PM
  #65
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Who the hell would want to work for the Flames anyway?

They should be looking at this as a blessing in disguise.
Who wants to work as a garbageman or a janitor?

Paycheck's a paycheck even if the organization sucks.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 07:33 PM
  #66
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post

Absolutely. I'm speaking of one individual with no spouse or dependents. A family of four living on 40k is considered poverty level if I'm not mistaken.

Even a family of four living on 80k (ie, both spouses making 40k) isn't exactly in the clear. Children are extremely expensive and people of child-bearing age are typically saddled with significant debt from college loans, car loans, mortgage, etc. Cut off half their income and they default on those debts in order to support their children, which starts a negative financial snowball involving bad credit, higher interest rates on future loans, etc.
You lose maybe 20k in taxes, 15k in rent and utilities (for Vancouver at least). If you're lucky enough not to have any debt you're not in great shape but ok. The problem is if you want to help your kids out for college (so they don't have student debt) then you won't even be able to begin building up savings for retirement until your mid 40's or early 50's. Then retirement is quickly looming.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 08:00 PM
  #67
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,200
vCash: 500
Close to 60% of all Canadians polled said they'd be in big trouble if they missed even one paycheck. No idea what jobs' the Flames (along with the rest of the franchises) plan to cut/suspend, and obviously a lot of them are part-time & casual, game night specific etc, but even still. And never mind the rest of the businesses, bars, restaurants who count on those 40+ event dates from October to April every year. Not pretty.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2012, 11:34 PM
  #68
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,947
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Close to 60% of all Canadians polled said they'd be in big trouble if they missed even one paycheck. No idea what jobs' the Flames (along with the rest of the franchises) plan to cut/suspend, and obviously a lot of them are part-time & casual, game night specific etc, but even still. And never mind the rest of the businesses, bars, restaurants who count on those 40+ event dates from October to April every year. Not pretty.
In one of my business classes we were looking at personal finances and here in the UK something like 70% of the working population under the age of 30 would be broke if they were out of work for more than a month.

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 12:12 AM
  #69
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
In one of my business classes we were looking at personal finances and here in the UK something like 70% of the working population under the age of 30 would be broke if they were out of work for more than a month.
There's plenty of people who would be broke if they were out of work for a day. There's plenty of people who owe more on payday loans and credit card bills then their next month's pay would be.

Payday loans are predatory lending at it's finest. It's not atypical for people to pay 20% in "fees" and interest for a 2 week loan. Loan sharks don't even charge that much. I can't believe anyone's stupid enough to fall for that scam but it happens all the time.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 12:46 AM
  #70
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
If having a family is going to make it so you can't afford to save up any money at all then I don't consider that as being affordable.
It is difficult and in many cases impossible for a middle-class person to independently raise a family on a $40k salary and still put away enough savings to cover an extended bout with unemployment. By your definition of affordability, middle class people should not have families, correct?

Quote:
Same goes for mortgage/car payments.
Car payments are not optional for most people. In most places, if you want to work, you need a car.

Mortgage payments are the result of owning property and ceasing the cycle of throwing money down a hole and then finding more money to follow it. Again, people with limited personal resources are least able to afford an entire lifetime of paying landlords instead of building equity. At some point, one reaches a phase in which they money they are "saving" is no longer equal to the amount they are losing in the long term.

It's very easy to brush off these issues with a "well, it's your own fault, screw you". That attitude fails to acknowledge that most people live their lives with a desire to marry, bear children, own a home, and feel like they have accomplished something other than scraping together a few pennies for future layoffs. Most people are able to throttle back on luxuries when their pay gets cut, but losing their entire income attacks the basic building blocks of their lives and self-worth. That's one reason to favor pay cuts over layoffs.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 01:07 AM
  #71
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
It is difficult and in many cases impossible for a middle-class person to independently raise a family on a $40k salary and still put away enough savings to cover an extended bout with unemployment. By your definition of affordability, middle class people should not have families, correct?



Car payments are not optional for most people. In most places, if you want to work, you need a car.

Mortgage payments are the result of owning property and ceasing the cycle of throwing money down a hole and then finding more money to follow it. Again, people with limited personal resources are least able to afford an entire lifetime of paying landlords instead of building equity. At some point, one reaches a phase in which they money they are "saving" is no longer equal to the amount they are losing in the long term.

It's very easy to brush off these issues with a "well, it's your own fault, screw you". That attitude fails to acknowledge that most people live their lives with a desire to marry, bear children, own a home, and feel like they have accomplished something other than scraping together a few pennies for future layoffs. Most people are able to throttle back on luxuries when their pay gets cut, but losing their entire income attacks the basic building blocks of their lives and self-worth. That's one reason to favor pay cuts over layoffs.
The truth is, for most middle class families, they'd probably be better off without kids.

Car/mortgage payments are a function of how expensive the car/house is that you buy. Spending 10K on a reliable car to drive to work may be a necessity, but unless you're a realtor or are in some other job where you're going to be judged based on the car you drive, spending another 10 - 15K on a nicer model is purely a luxury expense. Same goes for mortgage. Buying a house that's going to cost you 50% of your paycheck in mortgage payments is generally a bad idea.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2012, 10:58 PM
  #72
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,006
vCash: 500
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...yers-and-fans/

PHT uses TV news "article" and other reporting to remind folks that tens of thousands of part time (arena) workers and those at restaurants and bars around the league's arenas will be impacted by a lockout.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2012, 11:41 PM
  #73
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
I got what was essentially a salary cut once. I more or less just dragged my feet and cut work as much as I could for the next year or so until I got fired.

If you need to cut the payroll by 20% (just throwing out a #), I think it's better to fire 20% of your workforce versus keeping everyone and cutting everyone's pay by 20%. The former option leaves you with 80% of a motivated workforce, the latter leaves you with your whole workforce but they all resent you now.
Dunno. I'm not working right now and I'd much rather be employed at 80% of what I was making than the $0 I'm currently being paid.

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2012, 11:43 PM
  #74
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Good!

Cut all their salaries. The owners deserve to make more profit since they are the one's taking all the risk.

Yes! But then take that profit and give it to the players because their guaranteed millions just aren't enough to survive on!

(Just playing devil's advocate, I think both sides are too rich, too spoiled and too greedy.)

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 12:55 AM
  #75
EastCoastSensFan
Registered User
 
EastCoastSensFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Pictou N.S.
Country: Canada
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
anyone who has more sympathy for the players then the staffers during a lockout i don't even know what to say.

I know one thing none of these people got a 14 million dollar bonus for agreeing to check tickets for a team.

EastCoastSensFan 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 11:59 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.