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.

Why so much hatred and criticism towards the players?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2012, 11:52 AM
  #126
Hanklite*
Bettman's Bro
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: TO
Country: Canada
Posts: 996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devil Dancer View Post
But why? Why is it the players' responsibility to "get some facts first or put themselves into the shoes of the fans who pay their salaries"? Why does it make you and others support the owners when they don't?

This is a business negotiation, nothing more. Nothing the players say has any effect as to what is right because there is no right and wrong in a negotiation like this. The owners don't deserve 50% of HHR, the players don't deserve to be free agents at 27 years old, and there are no morals at play here. The two sides only deserve what they negotiate, nothing more or less.

The players' position at this point is no less valid than the owners'. They might say stupid things on Twitter, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of the negotiations.
Why?

Because they are the ones begging for public support via videos and player tweets, comments.

Hanklite* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 11:53 AM
  #127
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAX View Post
The players have to realize it's not a concession exchange. It's what the league has to do in order to have a good chance of success for the franchises, not how to line the players pockets in different ways.
Indeed. I think this gets at the heart of my disrespect for the NHLPA. They seem to have zero respect for the owners of the business; the PA seems to view them as incompetent or even corrupt, treat all of their public statements with cynicism, believe the owners have outright hostile intent toward them, and that therefore the PA must fight for all their worth to milk the league for every dollar they can get. If the owners actually have enough left over after that to run the business, well, that's just a side effect; it's not something the PA particularly gives a damn about.

The owners aren't white knights by any means but their last offer showed a real outreach to the PA to get a deal done. The PA, rather than ramp down their hostility, spat on the league's offer, regurgitated their previously unaccepted offer, then had the audacity to act shocked that the league walked out on them.

One expects such behaviour from petulant adolescents, not professionals. The PA needs to grow the hell up.

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:06 PM
  #128
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
 
BowieSabresFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
Indeed. I think this gets at the heart of my disrespect for the NHLPA. They seem to have zero respect for the owners of the business; the PA seems to view them as incompetent or even corrupt, treat all of their public statements with cynicism, believe the owners have outright hostile intent toward them, and that therefore the PA must fight for all their worth to milk the league for every dollar they can get. If the owners actually have enough left over after that to run the business, well, that's just a side effect; it's not something the PA particularly gives a damn about.

The owners aren't white knights by any means but their last offer showed a real outreach to the PA to get a deal done. The PA, rather than ramp down their hostility, spat on the league's offer, regurgitated their previously unaccepted offer, then had the audacity to act shocked that the league walked out on them.

One expects such behaviour from petulant adolescents, not professionals. The PA needs to grow the hell up.

In what way did the owners' last offer reach out to the players? It contained almost everything the owners wanted. The owners then pretty much refused to negotiate much off of that offer, and wanted to make any negotiations with the players off of their own offer.

And it sounds nice, but the PA didn't "spit" on the owners' offer. They offered counter-proposals which the league rejected. It's called negotiating.

Some folk need to step back and look at this situation a bit more objectively. The players aren't coming off very well, but the owners are no better. Both sides need to grow up.

BowieSabresFan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:07 PM
  #129
Bongo
Registered User
 
Bongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,128
vCash: 500
This is all because of the owners so naturally here on HF people will blame the players.

Bongo is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:09 PM
  #130
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowieSabresFan View Post
In what way did the owners' last offer reach out to the players? It contained almost everything the owners wanted. The owners then pretty much refused to negotiate much off of that offer, and wanted to make any negotiations with the players off of their own offer.

And it sounds nice, but the PA didn't "spit" on the owners' offer. They offered counter-proposals which the league rejected. It's called negotiating.

Some folk need to step back and look at this situation a bit more objectively. The players aren't coming off very well, but the owners are no better. Both sides need to grow up.
But they didn't offer a legit counter. The league is speaking English while every single one of the player's responses was in Spanish. The players just need to offer a linked proposal and then we'll have real negotiations.

Renbarg is online now  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:09 PM
  #131
Devil Dancer
Registered User
 
Devil Dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 12,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanklite View Post
Why?

Because they are the ones begging for public support via videos and player tweets, comments.
So the players' attempts to drum up public support, however ineffective it may be, somehow makes the owners' bargaining position more appealing to you? That doesn't make sense.

Devil Dancer is online now  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:12 PM
  #132
T-Funk
Registered User
 
T-Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devil Dancer View Post
So the players' attempts to drum up public support, however ineffective it may be, somehow makes the owners' bargaining position more appealing to you? That doesn't make sense.
you argue like an nhlpa member

T-Funk is online now  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:20 PM
  #133
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
 
BowieSabresFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
But they didn't offer a legit counter. The league is speaking English while every single one of the player's responses was in Spanish. The players just need to offer a linked proposal and then we'll have real negotiations.
They didn't offer a legitimate counter in your or the owners' opinion. That doesn't make it any less legitimate.

Also, I could just as easily say that the owners have to bend just a little, and we'll have real negotiations.

BowieSabresFan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:25 PM
  #134
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devil Dancer View Post
So the players' attempts to drum up public support, however ineffective it may be, somehow makes the owners' bargaining position more appealing to you? That doesn't make sense.
He never said it makes the owners' position more appealing.

He said the players are losing his sympathy with each appeal to the "we should never have to take a paycut" line of thinking. A lot of us have taken paycuts, or lost our jobs, so there is very little support for the idea that millionaires should get to keep every dime they were promised.

That doesn't equate to an opinion on the validity of the owners' bargaining position. You're mixing up the PR side of this thing with the technical side.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:32 PM
  #135
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
 
BowieSabresFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
He never said it makes the owners' position more appealing.

He said the players are losing his sympathy with each appeal to the "we should never have to take a paycut" line of thinking. A lot of us have taken paycuts, or lost our jobs, so there is very little support for the idea that millionaires should get to keep every dime they were promised.

That doesn't equate to an opinion on the validity of the owners' bargaining position. You're mixing up the PR side of this thing with the technical side.
I think that's a valid point. However, it also does look as if some folk on this board are equating with the owners because of the pr issue.

BowieSabresFan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:32 PM
  #136
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,795
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
Indeed. I think this gets at the heart of my disrespect for the NHLPA. They seem to have zero respect for the owners of the business; the PA seems to view them as incompetent or even corrupt, treat all of their public statements with cynicism, believe the owners have outright hostile intent toward them, and that therefore the PA must fight for all their worth to milk the league for every dollar they can get. If the owners actually have enough left over after that to run the business, well, that's just a side effect; it's not something the PA particularly gives a damn about.

The owners aren't white knights by any means but their last offer showed a real outreach to the PA to get a deal done. The PA, rather than ramp down their hostility, spat on the league's offer, regurgitated their previously unaccepted offer, then had the audacity to act shocked that the league walked out on them.

One expects such behaviour from petulant adolescents, not professionals. The PA needs to grow the hell up.
Very well said. The owners reached out to the players in a significant way and the response by the PA seemed to be almost deliberately aimed at discouraging any more outreach.

They used it to spin the owners rejecting their 3 offers and now all the PA talking points are about the League proposal offering nothing at all for the players.

Everything points to Fehr not wanting a settlement at all but a reason to keep the players riled up at the League and in step with the PA.

It is clearer every day that Fehr has his own agenda and it does not involve an end to this impasse.

pepty is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:35 PM
  #137
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowieSabresFan View Post
They didn't offer a legitimate counter in your or the owners' opinion. That doesn't make it any less legitimate.

Also, I could just as easily say that the owners have to bend just a little, and we'll have real negotiations.
Here is why i believe it is the players that need to bend to the linked framework:

1) the players have publicly announced they want to play under the current cba, a linked cap.

2) the players have more at stake than the owners.

3) the owners can afford to take a hit.

The last two points speaks to leverage. The players have much less than the owners. They have to realize that when a party does not have the leverage the onus is on them to break to begin negotiations. That's just how negotiations work.


Last edited by Renbarg: 10-29-2012 at 12:49 PM.
Renbarg is online now  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:44 PM
  #138
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,043
vCash: 500
As far as im concerned, the NHL is the best hockey league in the world, in terms of overall talent, revenues, fan support, etc.

My POV on the players is simple. Because the league is the best in the world and generates the most revenue, I expect the players to be treated better than any other league and get paid better than any other league. I think, whether youre pro-owner or pro-player, we all agree.

But heres where I draw my line. The EXTENT to which they are the best treated and highest paid, is to the sole discretion of the owners. As a fan who spends money on the NHL in various ways, I accept the fact that I am choosing to put that money into the hands of the owners, who then decides who gets what from my ''investment''. If he decides to only give 50% or 25% of every dollar i spend to the players, well as an owner, thats his prerogative.

The players always have choices. They CHOOSE to play in the NHL where the owners dictate the way things go. You cant really go into a league where are the leverage is in the owners hands and expect to have things go your way.

As I said earlier, as long as the nhl players are the best treated and highest paid, then i think theyre getting what they deserve. Whether that be 10%, 50% or 200% more salary than another hockey league like the khl, is simply the owners decision. Each and every hockey player whos in the NHL had the choice on whether or not they wanted to be there. And by making that choice, you accept the nature of how the business functions. If you dont like it, you go somewhere. If owners were only paying 10% of hrr, and you dont like it, you go somewhere else. Theres a reason the players go to the nhl, its because working and salary conditions are the best.

Just follow the money. All gate revenue, tv revenue, merchandise revenue is given to the OWNERS to allocate accordingly. Hence, they choose where and how much of it goes to who.

At 50/50, this seems to follow the market of other sports leagues. In fact, considering that then nhl makes less overall revenue and more importantly less TV revenue, it seems the players have it pretty good for being #4 out of the 4 major sports.

The players know full well that there is no league comparable to the NHL. They have no other options, except for a handful of players.

And by standing their ground, whether it be moral or whatever, with the cancellation of 25 games or so, theyve already lost more than the difference between the two latest offers. And its all about money. And no matter what offer is settled on, the players will still be the highest paid and the best treated hockey players in the world.

And the owners, those blood-sucking owners, CHOOSE to have it that way.

EdAVSfan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:49 PM
  #139
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
 
BowieSabresFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
Here is why i believe it is the players that need to bend to the linked framework:

1) the players have publicly announced they want to play under the current cba, a linked cap.

2) the players have more at stake than the players.

3) the owners can afford to take a hit.

The last two points speaks to leverage. The players have much less than the owners. They have to realize that when a party does not have the leverage the onus is on them to break to begin negotiations. That's just how negotiations work.
1. There is no current cba. The players stated Fehr stated the players would have played under the cba. That no longer is really a valid issue.

2. Financially, the owners will lose less on this, I agree.

However, despite the leverage advantage (which I agree on), that does not mean the players have to bend first. Either side can still bend. Also, the NHLPA has indicated with their actions that they are willing to move off the 57%. It's just a matter of how to get there. Granted, that's a major sticking point, but the players have at least shown an indication to move on the issue.

Also, the last owners' proposal was NOT a move forward in any real sense, because the owners did not give up much of any significance in that issue.

Personally, I think if the owners would be more willing to move a bit, then we'd have some negotiations. Of course, that gets to the crux of the issue. Neither side wants to move.

Ahh well, I'd better stop. This is off the original issue brought up in this string.

BowieSabresFan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:58 PM
  #140
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowieSabresFan View Post
I think that's a valid point. However, it also does look as if some folk on this board are equating with the owners because of the pr issue.
That's not a huge surprise when you consider that 99% of fans have no stake or interest in the fine print of the CBA. The bargaining points are little more than conversation fodder for most of us -- the PR battle is where lasting damage can (and apparently will) be done.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:00 PM
  #141
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,163
vCash: 500
Players get criticized because they are idiots who appointed a moron and ********* as their representative.The players have very respectable positions, but they negotiated the exact opposite of what they should have done.

If they would have gotten ahead of the situation, taken control of the negotiations, respected the league, not tried to just play the PR game, or to create "false" leverage by delaying, the players would not be getting criticized like they are now. And we probably would be watching hockey right now.

But they acted like children. And are now stamping their feet, crying that the world is unfair.

nickschultzfan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:04 PM
  #142
Valic
BOOOOOOOOOO
 
Valic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
I blame the players because...

57% is too much of revenue. I fully believe this. Fundamentally the league cannot afford to pay 57%. Our sport has the lowest market share, worst tv deal meaning the least"free money", yet the players want the highest % of earning, and guaranteed contracts?

The way players have been pretty much crying and spouting proven false statements as fact on twitter. I'm looking at you all the WE OFFERED 50% idiots.

The whining about we just want to play under our contracts, without mentioning section 18 of a standard player contract that essentially says your contract exists within the frame work of whatever the CBA you play under is, ie rollbacks, escrow, all other things that can "change" a contract.

The crying about escrow. The players are making a % of revenues, how the hell do they expect to make that legally obligated amount? Do they want to have to pay back after the year if they made too much?

How about the idiots who say we'll play under the old rules while we figure it out, without acknowleding Fehr ruined a baseball season with that same tactic. They hire the most horrible person they can and then cry about what they choose have happen.


Last edited by Valic: 10-29-2012 at 01:12 PM.
Valic is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:08 PM
  #143
Freudian
Deja vu again?
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 31,404
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowieSabresFan View Post
They didn't offer a legitimate counter in your or the owners' opinion. That doesn't make it any less legitimate.

Also, I could just as easily say that the owners have to bend just a little, and we'll have real negotiations.
We lost a year of hockey to get a salary cap. Anyone who believes NHLPA has a chance to partly undo that by getting delinkage in a new CBA is deluded.

NHLPAs proposals had zero chance of being successful and Fehr knows this. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Freudian is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:13 PM
  #144
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
NHLPAs proposals had zero chance of being successful and Fehr knows this. Draw your own conclusions from that.
The delusion is that he thinks he has a chance of being successful in removing linkage and/or the cap. He wouldn't be stalling otherwise. Fehr mentioned he has no regrets in getting a World Series cancelled to get what he wants. I think he'd have no problem in destroying the NHL with a 2 year holdout or more to get what he wants.

It might take 2 years of holding out but I think he'd do it. Suter and Parise got lockout proof bonuses in the first 2 years, seems like the agents/PA were preparing for a possible 2 year lockout.

Iggy77 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:19 PM
  #145
scotchex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 561
vCash: 500
I'm annoyed at the players cause they are over-playing their hand. They don't have the leverage they think they have.

Ever watch an over-confident idiot negotiate for something -- a car, a raise, anything? That's what the players are doing.

The owners are going to win. The outcome is obvious to everyone but the players. Refusing to accept the inevitable isn't wise, reasonable, or admirable.

scotchex is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:22 PM
  #146
Mercurial
#lalala
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valic View Post
I blame the players because...

57% is too much of revenue. I fully believe this. Fundamentally the league cannot afford to pay 57%. Our sport has the lowest market share, worst tv deal meaning the least"free money", yet the players want the highest % of earning, and guaranteed contracts?

The way players have been pretty much crying and spouting proven false statements as fact on twitter. I'm looking at you all the WE OFFERED 50% idiots.

The whining about we just want to play under our contracts, without mentioning section 18 of a standard player contract that essentially says your contract exists within the frame work of whatever the CBA you play under is, ie rollbacks, escrow, all other things that can "change" a contract.

The crying about escrow. The players are making a % of revenues, how the hell do they expect to make that legally obligated amount? Do they want to have to pay back after the year if they made too much?

How about the idiots who say we'll play under the old rules while we figure it out, without acknowleding Fehr ruined a baseball season with that same tactic. They hire the most horrible person they can and then cry about what they choose have happen.
This is pretty much how I feel. When you see the players twitter posts and comments, you get the feeling that they don't really understand what's going on. They're drinking Fehr's koolaid. I get the feeling if they truly understood that they would have told Fehr to **** and get on with working out a deal.

I blame Fehr for feeding them the crap, I blame the players equally for not fully understanding their offers and the dispute. They're holding out for something they are never going to get, whilst hurting the NHL, revenue and future income at the same time.

Mercurial is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:28 PM
  #147
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,828
vCash: 500
I blame the agents most of all. They should have the most common sense in this situation. They should be advising their clients better than they have been. I'd really like to hear from the players who make <$1MM and who may not play more than 5 yrs or so. Losing a season is a major hit to their career earnings.

DuklaNation is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:48 PM
  #148
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,370
vCash: 500
Can I ask for clarification about the "linkage" issue?

I'm assuming that the linkage relates to having salaries linked to revenues; and that the players want to maintain that link while the owners do not.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wasting this comment, but otherwise this kind of relates to what I was arguing in a couple of threads a week or so ago. I don't see any problem with "linkage" so-to-speak, but the problem is with what exactly players salaries are linked to. My argument is that players salaries and the Salary Cap should be linked to the "median" of revenues in the League and not to the "average" of revenues in the League. A few teams have been driving the revenue average much too high for what most teams can afford. Whereas if the revenue median was used as the deciding value, the League would always be using that $ number where half the teams are above it and half are below it (with a 30-team league, the revenue average between the 15th and 16th ranked teams).

Using the League revenue median, and reducing the share % to players down to 50%, and the League would cut costs significantly. However, I'm not suggesting that this should be an immediate, retroactive decision. What the League should do as a compromise is to recognize all previously established contracts, but put the new economic rules in place moving forward. (I'd even go so far as the League stating that they're going to recognize all 'played on' contracts without making adjustments to the new rules, but contracts negotiated during this past off-Season would need to be renegotiated. But hey, that's a particular issue that both sides could fight over.) Now, in order to recognize all pre-established contracts, but have a Salary Cap based on the League median revenue, that would take some manipluation, but the best way to do it would be to freeze the Cap at 2011-12 levels until the new economic format catches up to that. I would imagine that it shouldn't take more than 2 years max. But then after that, the League, with the new economic structure, should be in significantly better condition.


I think both sides are being too rigid here, no one is really seriously open to negotiation. And too much dislike between to the two leaders on both sides. Bettman and Fehr have created this stalemate.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 10-29-2012 at 01:54 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:57 PM
  #149
Mercurial
#lalala
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Can I ask for clarification about the "linkage" issue?

I'm assuming that the linkage relates to having salaries linked to revenues; and that the players want to maintain that link while the owners do not.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wasting this comment, but otherwise this kind of relates to what I was arguing in a couple of threads a week or so ago. I don't see any problem with "linkage" so-to-speak, but the problem is with what exactly players salaries are linked to. My argument is that players salaries and the Salary Cap should be linked to the "median" of revenues in the League and not to the "average" of revenues in the League. A few teams have been driving the revenue average much too high for what most teams can afford. Whereas if the revenue median was used as the deciding value, the League would always be using that $ number where half the teams are above it and half are below it (with a 30-team league, the revenue average between the 15th and 16th ranked teams).

Using the League revenue median, and reducing the share % to players down to 50%, and the League would cut costs significantly. However, I'm not suggesting that this should be an immediate, retroactive decision. What the League should do as a compromise is to recognize all previously established contracts, but put the new economic rules in place moving forward. (I'd even go so far as the League stating that they're going to recognize all 'played on' contracts without making adjustments to the new rules, but contracts negotiated during this past off-Season would need to be renegotiated. But hey, that's a particular issue that both sides could fight over.) Now, in order to recognize all pre-established contracts, but have a Salary Cap based on the League median revenue, that would take some manipluation, but the best way to do it would be to freeze the Cap at 2011-12 levels until the new economic format catches up to that. I would imagine that it shouldn't take more than 2 years max. But then after that, the League, with the new economic structure, should be in significantly better condition.
Owners want linkage, Fehr's proposals often have a $ amount or 50% whichever is higher. This hard $ amount is not linkage as this could well be above 57%.

I think if the player salary was 57% of the median (multiplied by 30) as opposed to total revenue then the owners would jump all over that IMO.

Mercurial is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:58 PM
  #150
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Can I ask for clarification about the "linkage" issue?

I'm assuming that the linkage relates to having salaries linked to revenues; and that the players want to maintain that link while the owners do not.
Its the opposite. The owners want a linked cap as it reduces their risk should revenues drop. Players want a delinked cap.

Renbarg is online now  
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 04:23 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.