HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-22-2012, 01:30 PM
  #51
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
is it a bad move or wishful thinking? who cares, its irrelevant.
I think the players care, the NHL is pissing away their money too.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 01:32 PM
  #52
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I think the players care, the NHL is pissing away their money too.
the players care about the logistics of a TV deal? doubt it.

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 01:34 PM
  #53
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,289
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
doesn't matter if its a bad business move for NBC, all that matters is that the NHL is raking in from these massive deals
Disagree. If the TV deal was all that mattered you'd see a team in Houston for sure. I also disagree that the NHL is raking in from these massive deals. The NHL TV deal is by far the worst of the 4 major sports. Gate revenues from the Canadian markets far exceed the TV revenues generated by the US teams. In fact, it isn't even close.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
10-22-2012, 02:23 PM
  #54
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
considering it's the biggest TV deal they've signed I would call it massive. they didn't get it because of the 8000 people, they got it because the TV market in those respective cites are huge, and NBC sees a potential for growth. is it a bad move or wishful thinking? who cares, its irrelevant. all that matters is the NHL is banking big time on these deals.

Compared to the rest of the big four it's puny. The NBA is the next smallest league and its national broadcast rights go for almost a billion dollars a year.

MLB has two national broadcast deals each worth significantly more than what the NHL's national broadcasting rights have gone for.

There's no doubt that NBC has made a substantial investment in NHL hockey, but the deal is modest by professional sports standards; it's not nearly big enough to represent a huge risk on the part of NBC sports, nor is it big enough to fundamentally change the economics of the NHL (it means less than $7m per team per season or less than $9m per US team per season).

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 02:52 PM
  #55
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,499
vCash: 500
This...

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
its going to be glorious watching the union crack in the subsequent months if a deal doesn't get done this week
...this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I can't wait until the NHL gets most of what it wants and 15 teams still find a way to lose money.
...and this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
That's what happens when you put hockey teams in Sunrise Florida, Phoenix Arizona, and Raleigh North Carolina. Hell even Nashville is barely scraping by and they've had a strong team for the past several years.
Are all "nail on the head" for me. I will be hugely surprised if we approach the "burn a season" point with the league and there aren't at least a few dissident voices shouting out that the NHLPA needs to capitulate. There were quite a few last time who - despite showing a united front and support for Goodenow in the beginning - began speaking out publicly in support of accepting a cap.

It's not all on the players, though - the NHL got a damn good amount of what it asked for in the last CBA, and they're still crying foul (made even more amusing by the fact that several key members of the BOG who are in on the negotiations signed some of these albatross deals that they are now trying to outlaw). As y2k accurately points out, it seems that they're still searching for ways to fund their failed expansion into non-traditional hockey markets, and they want the players to do that.

Hopefully it doesn't take a whole season being lost before both sides realize what's going to happen and make a deal.

Mr. Canucklehead is online now  
Old
10-22-2012, 04:20 PM
  #56
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Disagree. If the TV deal was all that mattered you'd see a team in Houston for sure. I also disagree that the NHL is raking in from these massive deals. The NHL TV deal is by far the worst of the 4 major sports. Gate revenues from the Canadian markets far exceed the TV revenues generated by the US teams. In fact, it isn't even close.
dallas is already a huge market, and it's easier said than done when discussing potential places for teams. and i wasn't discussing which revenue streams make more, all i'm saying is having NHL teams in big markets across the USA makes it far more attractive to broadcasters.

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 04:23 PM
  #57
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,367
vCash: 133
Numbers based off of Fehr's own proposal..

5% growth.

over 6 yrs, total projected rev = 19.2 billion.
Owners' pure 50-50 = 9.6 billion
Players' proposal #3 = 10.2 billion player's share. (53.1%)

So according to Fehr's 5% growth rate, the 2 sides are looking at around $600 mil difference over the 6 yrs.

at higher growth rates - owner's cut is slightly higher than above.. lower growth rates - owners' cut is slightly lower.


So different ways you can state the HRR split:
- they are just a vlaue of 13% of present salaries apart.
- They are just ~$600 mil apart
- They are just ~$100 mil/yr apart
- they are just ~3.1% apart

Anyway you you slice it... it really isn't significant enough in my mind to lose games over compared to where the owners are coming from last yr, in terms of the split.
Nor is it worth the risk for the players (or either side) to reset the battle lines and have the process regress if games were to get cancelled..

DL44 is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 04:51 PM
  #58
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
Numbers based off of Fehr's own proposal..

5% growth.

over 6 yrs, total projected rev = 19.2 billion.
Owners' pure 50-50 = 9.6 billion
Players' proposal #3 = 10.2 billion player's share. (53.1%)

So according to Fehr's 5% growth rate, the 2 sides are looking at around $600 mil difference over the 6 yrs.

at higher growth rates - owner's cut is slightly higher than above.. lower growth rates - owners' cut is slightly lower.


So different ways you can state the HRR split:
- they are just a vlaue of 13% of present salaries apart.
- They are just ~$600 mil apart
- They are just ~$100 mil/yr apart
- they are just ~3.1% apart

Anyway you you slice it... it really isn't significant enough in my mind to lose games over compared to where the owners are coming from last yr, in terms of the split.
Nor is it worth the risk for the players (or either side) to reset the battle lines and have the process regress if games were to get cancelled..
Nicely done.

It just confirms in my mind that if they lose game when they are this close in numbers then the hell with them both.

A partial season would be a disgrace.

A lost season would indicate a change in leadership is needed from both sides.

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 05:06 PM
  #59
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
Numbers based off of Fehr's own proposal..

5% growth.

over 6 yrs, total projected rev = 19.2 billion.
Owners' pure 50-50 = 9.6 billion
Players' proposal #3 = 10.2 billion player's share. (53.1%)

So according to Fehr's 5% growth rate, the 2 sides are looking at around $600 mil difference over the 6 yrs.

at higher growth rates - owner's cut is slightly higher than above.. lower growth rates - owners' cut is slightly lower.


So different ways you can state the HRR split:
- they are just a vlaue of 13% of present salaries apart.
- They are just ~$600 mil apart
- They are just ~$100 mil/yr apart
- they are just ~3.1% apart

Anyway you you slice it... it really isn't significant enough in my mind to lose games over compared to where the owners are coming from last yr, in terms of the split.
Nor is it worth the risk for the players (or either side) to reset the battle lines and have the process regress if games were to get cancelled..
Unless the league does not grow 5% over that time in which case the numbers you're pulling from the players proposal are totally meaningless because they are not linked to revenue.

The owners won't accept this because it puts them in a position of tremendous liability - basically if the league grows 10% or more every year (highly unlikely) they are laughing, if it grows 5% every year (still not too likely over the long term) they don't even have the split they wanted in the first place and if it grows less than that the players have a higher split than before.

If the league's revenue decreases (say the economy goes into the tank yet again) over the agreement it would be a catastrophe for the owners.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 05:15 PM
  #60
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,289
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Unless the league does not grow 5% over that time in which case the numbers you're pulling from the players proposal are totally meaningless because they are not linked to revenue.

The owners won't accept this because it puts them in a position of tremendous liability - basically if the league grows 10% or more every year (highly unlikely) they are laughing, if it grows 5% every year (still not too likely over the long term) they don't even have the split they wanted in the first place and if it grows less than that the players have a higher split than before.

If the league's revenue decreases (say the economy goes into the tank yet again) over the agreement it would be a catastrophe for the owners.
If the league gets a 50/50 split, and revenues in the top 10 markets grow 7-10% over the next 6 years while revenues in the bottom 10 markets only grow 1-2%, the league will essentially be in the same position it's at right now. Do they then say that 50/50 isn't good enough and they now need 60/40 in favor of the owners?

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
10-22-2012, 05:20 PM
  #61
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
If the league's revenue decreases (say the economy goes into the tank yet again) over the agreement it would be a catastrophe for the owners.
What other business is protected from a recession? The league has been growing in a recession in the US, it hasn't been a "catastrophe" for NHL owners, unlike a lot of their other business interests.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 05:27 PM
  #62
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Do they then say that 50/50 isn't good enough and they now need 60/40 in favor of the owners?
Of course. And the justification will, again, be that we have to protect those smaller markets to grow the game in order to get that mythical NBA-money national TV contract that, by that point, will have been right around the corner for the last 25 years or so.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 05:36 PM
  #63
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
If the league gets a 50/50 split, and revenues in the top 10 markets grow 7-10% over the next 6 years while revenues in the bottom 10 markets only grow 1-2%, the league will essentially be in the same position it's at right now. Do they then say that 50/50 isn't good enough and they now need 60/40 in favor of the owners?
It's possible, but I guess that's why CBAs have term limits: no one knows what's going to happen to the economy over the next 6-8 years. If revenues do grow more symmetrically, and all the teams are making out like bandits, it could be the players asking for a greater share the next time around.

Time will tell, but I'm hoping that 50/50 turns out to be a split that keeps the league competitive and healthy and the players happy. Maybe they'll just be able to extend the deal the next time around and we won't have to go through this again.

Chubros is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 05:45 PM
  #64
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,289
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
It's possible, but I guess that's why CBAs have term limits: no one knows what's going to happen to the economy over the next 6-8 years. If revenues do grow more symmetrically, and all the teams are making out like bandits, it could be the players asking for a greater share the next time around.

Time will tell, but I'm hoping that 50/50 turns out to be a split that keeps the league competitive and healthy and the players happy. Maybe they'll just be able to extend the deal the next time around and we won't have to go through this again.
Are you suggesting that its due to economical conditions that revenues have grown at a greater rate in Toronto, New York, Vancouver, Philadelphia, and Montreal than Phoenix, Florida, Dallas, and Carolina? I think you've missed the point completely.

The top hockey markets have experienced high growth in revenues, while poor "experimental" hockey markets haven't. The expansion into non-traditional markets has hurt the league, and should be deemed a failure by now. Relocate some of those teams to better markets and now the gap between the top and bottom teams isn't as large. Only at that point will a linkage to macro revenues work decently.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
10-22-2012, 05:51 PM
  #65
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,367
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Unless the league does not grow 5% over that time in which case the numbers you're pulling from the players proposal are totally meaningless because they are not linked to revenue.

The owners won't accept this because it puts them in a position of tremendous liability - basically if the league grows 10% or more every year (highly unlikely) they are laughing, if it grows 5% every year (still not too likely over the long term) they don't even have the split they wanted in the first place and if it grows less than that the players have a higher split than before.

If the league's revenue decreases (say the economy goes into the tank yet again) over the agreement it would be a catastrophe for the owners.
That's slightly misleading. The 'de-linked' portion of the the players' proposal is simply the 13% of present contract values. But it is a fixed and known amount going forward.

100% of every new contract going forward and 87% of present contracts would still be subject to the 50-50 split, as well as escrow... i.e. linked.

So altho slightly de-linked... it is still a negotiable point by the league according to Bettman.
i.e. if the players accept the other points and contract restrictions, the owners have suggested they DO have flexibility to accept paying the 13% to a certain degree. (to what degree is unknown and subject to the ongoing negotiation obviously)

Fehr stated as such in the Ottawa Sun article and in the letter to the players.

DL44 is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 05:58 PM
  #66
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Are you suggesting that its due to economical conditions that revenues have grown at a greater rate in Toronto, New York, Vancouver, Philadelphia, and Montreal than Phoenix, Florida, Dallas, and Carolina? I think you've missed the point completely.

The top hockey markets have experienced high growth in revenues, while poor "experimental" hockey markets haven't. The expansion into non-traditional markets has hurt the league, and should be deemed a failure by now. Relocate some of those teams to better markets and now the gap between the top and bottom teams isn't as large. Only at that point will a linkage to macro revenues work decently.
Some of those markets haven't had a chance. Do you think the Canucks would be in this position if they had made the playoffs only twice in the last 20 years? This franchise went to the finals in '94 and were playing in an empty building by '99, and that's in a Canadian market. Other than a couple markets (Toronto, Montreal, NYR?) you have to run your team well to have financial success. There are some exceptions, like the oil boom in Alberta, but for the most part all the teams making money have been run well and competitive, as it should be. The troubling ones are Washington and Nashville, where they have been well run teams. Those teams need help.

Phoenix lost a lot of money? No ****! you build the rink in a different city and have been jerking the fans around for 3 years.

Revenue sharing should be tied to winning. Exclude teams in the biggest markets, give small market teams bonuses for making the playoffs and winning playoff series. It gives them incentive to spend on payroll and put a winning product on the ice, the only thing that's going to grow the game in those markets.


Last edited by Scurr: 10-22-2012 at 06:10 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 06:07 PM
  #67
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,289
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Some of those markets haven't had a chance. Do you think the Canucks would be in this position if they had made the playoffs only twice in the last 20 years? This franchise went to the finals in '94 and were playing in an empty building by '99, and that's in a Canadian market. Other than a couple markets (Toronto, Montreal, NYR?) you have to run your team well to have financial success. There are some exceptions, like the oil boom in Alberta, but for the most part all the teams making money have been run well and competitive, as it should be.
The NHL in the 90's was not a competitive landscape. You see teams like Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto selling out despite how bad their teams have been. Then you have teams like Carolina who have won a Stanley Cup having poor attendance records.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
10-22-2012, 06:08 PM
  #68
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Some of those markets haven't had a chance. Do you think the Canucks would be in this position if they had made the playoffs only twice in the last 20 years? This franchise went to the finals in '94 and were playing in an empty building by '99, and that's in a Canadian market. Other than a couple markets (Toronto, Montreal, NYR?) you have to run your team well to have financial success. There are some exceptions, like the oil boom in Alberta, but for the most part all the teams making money have been run well and competitive, as it should be.
Tough to include Montreal as they haven't really had a prolonged length of medicority that the Canucks had - not even close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
The NHL in the 90's was not a competitive landscape. You see teams like Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto selling out despite how bad their teams have been. Then you have teams like Carolina who have won a Stanley Cup having poor attendance records.
Meh, Calgary *inherited* a playoff team (Atlanta Flames). They didn't have to go thru the expansion pains most teams experience.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 06:14 PM
  #69
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,289
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Tough to include Montreal as they haven't really had a prolonged length of medicority that the Canucks had - not even close.


Meh, Calgary *inherited* a playoff team (Atlanta Flames). They didn't have to go thru the expansion pains most teams experience.
Even the teams have have had to go through the expansion pains haven't done well. Anaheim, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Dallas. All southern teams that have had good teams and all have won cups. None of these teams were in the top 20 in revenue.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
10-22-2012, 06:14 PM
  #70
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Tough to include Montreal as they haven't really had a prolonged length of medicority that the Canucks had - not even close.


Meh, Calgary *inherited* a playoff team (Atlanta Flames). They didn't have to go thru the expansion pains most teams experience.
Montreal has been really mediocre in recent memory but is still making a pretty hefty profit. They could probably be really bad for a while and still make money.

Calgary is only making money because there is so much of it in Alberta right now and not a lot to spend it on.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 06:16 PM
  #71
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Montreal has been really mediocre in recent memory but is still making a pretty hefty profit. They could probably be really bad for a while and still make money.
Would be interesting to see if that happens if they continue to struggle and Quebec City gets a franchise. Doesn't hurt though having a history of 24 Cups either (where not all of them happened when the league only had 6 teams).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 08:06 PM
  #72
Reverend Mayhem
Freeway's closed man
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,942
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
the NHL and PA haven't made another date yet? WTF I THOUGHT THEY WANTED TO PLAY ALL 82 COME ONE GUYS!!! THERE ISN'T MUCH TIME!!!!!!

Seriously looking like that deal the NHL proposed on Tuesday was just more PR posturing. Fans don't want sides to look good! We want ****ing hockey man!

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 08:11 PM
  #73
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Unless the league does not grow 5% over that time in which case the numbers you're pulling from the players proposal are totally meaningless because they are not linked to revenue.

The owners won't accept this because it puts them in a position of tremendous liability - basically if the league grows 10% or more every year (highly unlikely) they are laughing, if it grows 5% every year (still not too likely over the long term) they don't even have the split they wanted in the first place and if it grows less than that the players have a higher split than before.

If the league's revenue decreases (say the economy goes into the tank yet again) over the agreement it would be a catastrophe for the owners.
Not really, at least not due to the players' share. When 87% of current contracts and 100% of new contracts are tied to revenues, it's tough for that guaranteed 13% to have much of an effect on the overall share in various growth/loss scenarios. If the NHL accepted the NHLPA's 3rd proposal to the letter, these would be the players' shares in a 5% compounded annual increase and decrease in revenues every year:

5% increase:

Year 1: 57.2% of 3.2 billion
Year 2: 55.4% of 3.36 billion
Year 3: 53.3% of 3.53 billion
Year 4: 52.2% of 3.7 billion
Year 5: 51.3% of 3.89 billion
Year 6: 51.0% of 4.08 billion



5% decrease:

Year 1: 57.2% of 3.2 billion
Year 2: 56.0% of 3 billion
Year 3: 54.0% of 2.89 billion
Year 4: 53.0% of 2.74 billion
Year 5: 52.0% of 2.6 billion
Year 6: 51.6% of 2.48 billion

The difference is pretty slight, and nothing that would throw the league's finances out of whack. Not to mention that's just a proposal. If the amount of the guaranteed portion or the length of the guarantee are negotiated downwards it'd be even better for the owners.

opendoor is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 08:38 PM
  #74
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,289
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
the NHL and PA haven't made another date yet? WTF I THOUGHT THEY WANTED TO PLAY ALL 82 COME ONE GUYS!!! THERE ISN'T MUCH TIME!!!!!!

Seriously looking like that deal the NHL proposed on Tuesday was just more PR posturing. Fans don't want sides to look good! We want ****ing hockey man!
I honestly don't even care anymore. I'm focused on my fantasy basketball pool (need to win this one to be a grand slam sport winner), and I enjoy having more free time at nights. Plus our team didn't seem to give a damn about the regular season last year so why should we this year? I'll miss playoff hockey but I'll deal with that when the time comes.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
10-22-2012, 09:04 PM
  #75
Reverend Mayhem
Freeway's closed man
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,942
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I honestly don't even care anymore. I'm focused on my fantasy basketball pool (need to win this one to be a grand slam sport winner), and I enjoy having more free time at nights. Plus our team didn't seem to give a damn about the regular season last year so why should we this year? I'll miss playoff hockey but I'll deal with that when the time comes.
How the hell am I supposed to procrastinate without hockey? My productivity has tripled. I can't live like this.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:49 AM.

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.