HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

All CBA talk. A deal? A deal!!!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-30-2012, 02:22 PM
  #26
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
I understand that it is. Not saying that I believe that to be true, but I repeatedly see that argument being made.

I'm aware that the contract signed is governed by the CBA. I agree that Jack Johnson should have had an agent explain everything to him. However, consider this.

Both sides had the right to terminate the CBA and renegotiate it. If the players opted out in order to get more money in a new deal, they'd universally be called greedy. However, they didn't. The owners opted out of a deal that they basically wrote and got most of what they wanted. Why are the players still being called greedy?

I just can't reconcile the fact that no matter what happened with the CBA, people are so quick to hate on the players in all this.
I don't think they are greedy nor do I think the owners are greedy. I also don't hate the players.

What I do hate is uniformed rants (Jack Johnson) or disingenuous shock (Suter) from players over potential hits to their contracts. Something they should have known was likely to happen.

joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 02:25 PM
  #27
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luceni View Post
Seriously, aren't there some other fans who quit watching the NHL if they can't find a freaking agreement?

I mean this is just BS.
They're all should be happy that there are so many people who are interested in this league and this is how they blow it up.

my patience is almost over and I've got zero understanding for both sides.

****ing *****es....

luceni
Obviously all of us, since no agreement means no NHL hockey being played.

joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 04:07 PM
  #28
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
I understand that it is. Not saying that I believe that to be true, but I repeatedly see that argument being made.

I'm aware that the contract signed is governed by the CBA. I agree that Jack Johnson should have had an agent explain everything to him. However, consider this.

Both sides had the right to terminate the CBA and renegotiate it. If the players opted out in order to get more money in a new deal, they'd universally be called greedy. However, they didn't. The owners opted out of a deal that they basically wrote and got most of what they wanted. Why are the players still being called greedy?

I just can't reconcile the fact that no matter what happened with the CBA, people are so quick to hate on the players in all this.
I won't call them greedy, but they're sure as hell wrong on how the financials are going to shake out. These are the highlights for me:

1. The NFL gives its players 47%. Albeit without a cap, MLB gives its players ~45%. The NBA gives its players 50%. ALL of these leagues make more in TV revenue, which is the one major source of money that has NO OVERHEAD COSTS for owners, meaning the NHL pays out more in overhead for every dollar they make back than in these other leagues. If any of these leagues are anything like the NHL, this would indicate players should actually get less than 50% in the NHL.

2. Forbes reports that the median NHL team is losing money. The average NHL team makes only $4M/year, well less than a reasonable return on investment on the market. For the NHL to thrive in the long-term, they need to be a reasonably successful investment. For a franchise you paid $300M for, a 1.33% return on investment won't cut it.

3. RS can help plug holes, but not holes this big. No other major sports league has adopted a RS program that relies on 3-4 teams getting pillaged to keep afloat half the league that's underwater. The NFL may have tremendous sharing, but it doesn't amount to tremendous redistribution - even the poorest teams are putting into the pot, and even the richest teams are taking out of it. Even under the most draconian, politically impossible RS program, where you take away 95% of Toronto's profit, you can only get the average team to $4M/year profit. Split that between several owners in some cases, and the average owner makes less than the average player, while being on the line for all liabilities of the franchise and fronting all of its capital. It's not just bad, it's insane. Even the players don't seem to think that RS can do that much, because they only proposed increasing it from 150 to 240, which the owners met them more than halfway on.

4. Back to owners losing money. Owners are the party that makes the least out of this deal by far, and that's why they have all the leverage. If ~25 games get cancelled, players will have lost $500M that they would have earned, the whole amount they were fighting for between the last two proposals. If ~25 games get lost, owners will lose ~30M, net. It would take 4 years of cancelled games before the owners would lose enough to make taking the players offer worth it. So yeah, the owners can damn well sit it out, and the players are going to have to have a come to Jesus moment where they realize the only people keeping them from making money is themselves.

So yeah, maybe the NHL isn't asking for their absolute, can't-operate-without-it, red line here. But the facts all indicate that they're fighting for something close. Hell, the facts indicate they might not even be asking for enough at this point - I think it's likely that they offered more than some owners were comfortable with (as is now rumored) because they knew losing games would hurt the tremendous growth momentum they had, and so were okay with operating a little more underwater for a 5 year term to not lose that.

Players, on the other hand, seem to be living on some other planet where 57=50, revenues=profit, their contracts were never subject to the CBA, and they earned everything they got even if they earned more than their team could literally afford to pay them without robbing the owner's personal bank account. The wake up call has been sounding, and pretty soon they'll realize it.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 04:42 PM
  #29
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,214
vCash: 500
are we there yet?

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 05:45 PM
  #30
vcv
Moderator
Deal with it
 
vcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Williamsville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,383
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to vcv
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I won't call them greedy, but they're sure as hell wrong on how the financials are going to shake out. These are the highlights for me:

<snip>
Excellent points. I was never really on a side before. More on the players side, if anything.

But slowly and surely I've been starting to think the players are asking too much and being awfully unrealistic.

vcv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 02:06 AM
  #31
heartsabres*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Budapest
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
I understand that it is. Not saying that I believe that to be true, but I repeatedly see that argument being made.

I'm aware that the contract signed is governed by the CBA. I agree that Jack Johnson should have had an agent explain everything to him. However, consider this.

Both sides had the right to terminate the CBA and renegotiate it. If the players opted out in order to get more money in a new deal, they'd universally be called greedy. However, they didn't. The owners opted out of a deal that they basically wrote and got most of what they wanted. Why are the players still being called greedy?

I just can't reconcile the fact that no matter what happened with the CBA, people are so quick to hate on the players in all this.

So you want to compare Ownership earnings to player earnings? How many players lost money last year? How many owners lost money last year?
What risk do the players have compared to the owners?
Who started the NHL? What will be here after the players short career is over?
F$%$ the players, if they canīt take a 50-50 split then the idiots I mean players are going to lose a lot if money and they know it. What league has the players making 57%? We all know your stance Beechsack and your on your own.

Who the F+++ is Jack Johnson, he needs to shut his mouth and worry about his short NHL career. Every time these guys shoot their mouth off it shows they are breaking.


What also makes these greedy NHL players get on my nerves is they cry about their millions of dollars and having to take A PAYCUT

The entire Irish population just took a 10% paycut last year. Minumum wage was cut from 10€ an hour to 9€
Greece is on the brink of collapse and civil servants have lost 25% of there pay
ect ect ect

Quit your ******* crying and get back to work and be happy your league average salary is $1,900,000 down from $2,100,000.


Last edited by Chainshot: 10-31-2012 at 07:57 AM.
heartsabres* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 02:11 AM
  #32
heartsabres*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Budapest
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I won't call them greedy, but they're sure as hell wrong on how the financials are going to shake out. These are the highlights for me:

1. The NFL gives its players 47%. Albeit without a cap, MLB gives its players ~45%. The NBA gives its players 50%. ALL of these leagues make more in TV revenue, which is the one major source of money that has NO OVERHEAD COSTS for owners, meaning the NHL pays out more in overhead for every dollar they make back than in these other leagues. If any of these leagues are anything like the NHL, this would indicate players should actually get less than 50% in the NHL.

2. Forbes reports that the median NHL team is losing money. The average NHL team makes only $4M/year, well less than a reasonable return on investment on the market. For the NHL to thrive in the long-term, they need to be a reasonably successful investment. For a franchise you paid $300M for, a 1.33% return on investment won't cut it.

3. RS can help plug holes, but not holes this big. No other major sports league has adopted a RS program that relies on 3-4 teams getting pillaged to keep afloat half the league that's underwater. The NFL may have tremendous sharing, but it doesn't amount to tremendous redistribution - even the poorest teams are putting into the pot, and even the richest teams are taking out of it. Even under the most draconian, politically impossible RS program, where you take away 95% of Toronto's profit, you can only get the average team to $4M/year profit. Split that between several owners in some cases, and the average owner makes less than the average player, while being on the line for all liabilities of the franchise and fronting all of its capital. It's not just bad, it's insane. Even the players don't seem to think that RS can do that much, because they only proposed increasing it from 150 to 240, which the owners met them more than halfway on.

4. Back to owners losing money. Owners are the party that makes the least out of this deal by far, and that's why they have all the leverage. If ~25 games get cancelled, players will have lost $500M that they would have earned, the whole amount they were fighting for between the last two proposals. If ~25 games get lost, owners will lose ~30M, net. It would take 4 years of cancelled games before the owners would lose enough to make taking the players offer worth it. So yeah, the owners can damn well sit it out, and the players are going to have to have a come to Jesus moment where they realize the only people keeping them from making money is themselves.

So yeah, maybe the NHL isn't asking for their absolute, can't-operate-without-it, red line here. But the facts all indicate that they're fighting for something close. Hell, the facts indicate they might not even be asking for enough at this point - I think it's likely that they offered more than some owners were comfortable with (as is now rumored) because they knew losing games would hurt the tremendous growth momentum they had, and so were okay with operating a little more underwater for a 5 year term to not lose that.

Players, on the other hand, seem to be living on some other planet where 57=50, revenues=profit, their contracts were never subject to the CBA, and they earned everything they got even if they earned more than their team could literally afford to pay them without robbing the owner's personal bank account. The wake up call has been sounding, and pretty soon they'll realize it.

Google "union pay cuts"
Teachers, doctors, police officers, autoworks they do it to survive to keep there profession going to keep their job
NHL Players you have fans these professions donīt
Why are the players not stepping up? They are ******* greedy


Last edited by Chainshot: 10-31-2012 at 07:56 AM. Reason: Cut it out.
heartsabres* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 05:55 AM
  #33
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartsabres View Post
Dude, you really donīt know whats going on do you? I mean every post is the same just at a different angle and the fact is they all sound ridiculous


So you want to compare Ownership earnings to player earnings? How many players lost money last year? How many owners lost money last year?
What risk do the players have compared to the owners?
Who started the NHL? What will be here after the players short career is over?
F$%$ the players, if they canīt take a 50-50 split then the idiots I mean players are going to lose a lot if money and they know it. What league has the players making 57%? We all know your stance Beechsack and your on your own.

Who the F+++ is Jack Johnson, he needs to shut his mouth and worry about his short NHL career. Every time these guys shoot their mouth off it shows they are breaking.


What also makes these greedy NHL players get on my nerves is they cry about their millions of dollars and having to take A PAYCUT

The entire Irish population just took a 10% paycut last year. Minumum wage was cut from 10€ an hour to 9€
Greece is on the brink of collapse and civil servants have lost 25% of there pay
ect ect ect

Quit your ******* crying and get back to work and be happy your league average salary is $1,900,000 down from $2,100,000.
The issue isn't completely about the money. The players are taking issue with things such as RFA. The main money thing they are upset about is the fact that the owners were not dealing with them in good faith. They gave out contracts that they never intended on paying. It doesn't matter about what an ending CBA means for contracts. Notice the common denominator on the players complaints. The owners offered the contracts saying you don't need to worry about the CBA you will get paid what your contract promises. Every single owner said that to their players, only to come back a month later and say "Oh yeah, were not going to give you what we agreed to. The players operated under good faith that the owners wouldn't go back on their word. But they did. If the owner doesn't want to pay a contract that's fine, but the players shouldn't be stuck with the result. IMO if the owners want to break contracts that THEY offered, players should be allowed to break their contracts as well. Why do the owners get an out saying "well that was under the old CBA" but not the players. If the owners want to be fair to the players, then players should be allowed to terminate their contract too. It WAS made under a CBA rhat no longer is in effect after all.

HiddenInLight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:48 AM
  #34
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I won't call them greedy, but they're sure as hell wrong on how the financials are going to shake out. These are the highlights for me:

...
That's generally fair. I disagree with some of your points obviously, especially that the players thing 57=50, but I respect what you're saying.

Frankly, my belief at this point is we lose this season, the players break ranks and get worked over again, and when the new CBA comes up we repeat the process. The owners will find some other way to screw up their finances, either by poor math drafting the CBA (like we see this time around), or by some other means of cap circumventing contracts that they forgot to outlaw.

I believe this lockout will hurt the league a lot, and the next one will probably kill it.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 07:46 AM
  #35
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,005
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartsabres View Post
Google "union pay cuts"
Teachers, doctors, police officers, autoworks they do it to survive to keep there profession going to keep their job
NHL Players you have fans these professions donīt
Why are the players not stepping up? They are ******* greedy
The players did step up. With three offers, in fact. All of which would get the owners to their desired 50-50 split likely around Year 4 of the new agreement. And that was operating under the owners' more conservative assumption that growth would slow to 5% in the coming years; if the recent growth had remained, the league may have even been able to get to 50-50 even quicker. I think that's a perfectly reasonable offer, even if the NHL found it to be unacceptable. (Say nothing for the fact it would also make 50-50 the point from which the parties start negotiating in the next round of CBA talks, likely getting the owners a more advantageous split wherein their share exceeds 50%.)

At this point, both sides seem to be in agreement that 50-50 is likely an inevitability. The owners want it now, the players want to slowly phase it in. To get the money addressed, I think the sides are going to have be more creative, but that can't happen until they sit down and talk. And I don't anticipate the PA being too open to the newer restrictions on ELC's and arbitration--that was the primary consideration in exchange for the salary cap in the last CBA--or contract-limit lengths for UFAs (at least anything close to the current offer of five years). I could see the PA bending on the front-loaded contract issue (year-to-year salary variations) and the rule about players earning over a certain amount counting against teams' cap even if they're in the minors or playing elsewhere.


Last edited by Chainshot: 10-31-2012 at 10:56 AM. Reason: Spelling
Zip15 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 07:53 AM
  #36
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,234
vCash: 500
Awards:
This was made clear in the previous thread and is the basic rule here: Debate post points, not poster.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 08:32 AM
  #37
brian_griffin
Measured Intangibles
 
brian_griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Z4QQQ batman symbol
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 6,476
vCash: 500
My view is this will be worked out, eventually, regardless of whether a season is lost.

My real concern is around future franchise viability / equity.

I alluded to this in the prior thread, and apologize for being too cute with the analogies between the weaker money-losing franchises as "kept mistresses" for the 8 or so uber-wealthy franchises. I firmly believe both the players and the league need and want the current number of franchises (or thereabouts) and must preserve that, lest it devolves back to some modification of the "original six" days.

Lacking a meaningful TV contract, increased revenue sharing and/or greater cost-certainty, or both, with or without other equitable financial features, must be addressed. Spread or disparity on franchise valuations will continue to grow (franchise ceiling value grows, but floor remains) without addressing it, and I'm sure that is NOT in the league's (or players) best interest. Without fixing that spread, you will simply increase the number of franchises which are un-sellable, as a prospective owner will NOT want to spend $100-$200M for a weak financial franchise with negative to 2% annual profit potential, and low appreciation potential, when the potential return for other investment options is much greater.

It is not clear to me that either the League or Player proposals fully address my concern above. I suspect the League proposal is dominated by wants of the wealthier franchises. It's not clear the Player proposal for greater revenue sharing ($240M or whatever) adequately addresses the issue. As a previous poster noted, both the absolute RS amount as well as the means that is achieved present signficant challenges to the League, and RS alone may not be a singularly adequate tool.

[Note I recognize PHX is a specific case.]

[Note also I do not frequent the "business of hockey" thread*, and apologize if these issues are rehashed ad nauseum there. (*But I will do so at some point if the season remains suspended.)]

brian_griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:26 AM
  #38
heartsabres*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Budapest
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
That's generally fair. I disagree with some of your points obviously, especially that the players thing 57=50, but I respect what you're saying.

Frankly, my belief at this point is we lose this season, the players break ranks and get worked over again, and when the new CBA comes up we repeat the process. The owners will find some other way to screw up their finances, either by poor math drafting the CBA (like we see this time around), or by some other means of cap circumventing contracts that they forgot to outlaw.

I believe this lockout will hurt the league a lot, and the next one will probably kill it.

The players are greedy, they only issue is money. Minimum salary is almost 10 times higher then when it was 30 years ago and they are still unhappy. Greedy little .......

They are greedy becasue 50 other unions across the USA countries in whole are taking pay cuts and they are unhappy and going from 5.5 million dollars to 5 million dollars.

The Union will break, sooner or later and in the end they will lose wages from this season, not get what they want and have a role back.
Fehr is like a blind squirrel trying to find a nut.


Last edited by joshjull: 11-01-2012 at 08:35 AM. Reason: Going around profanity filter
heartsabres* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 06:47 PM
  #39
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,478
vCash: 500
As of 6:50pm tonight, Dreger is reporting the owners are amending their last proposal. They are shifting the burden of the "make whole" provision from the players to the owners. This is viewed as a major concession by the owners.

I read this on my tsn app so I have no link. I'm sure it's on their website.

If this is the case that's a very positive development.

joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 07:17 PM
  #40
Woodhouse
Global Moderator
 
Woodhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 7,352
vCash: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
As of 6:50pm tonight, Dreger is reporting the owners are amending their last proposal. They are shifting the burden of the "make whole" provision from the players to the owners. This is viewed as a major concession by the owners.

I read this on my tsn app so I have no link. I'm sure it's on their website.

If this is the case that's a very positive development.
Here's the link.

Woodhouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 10:26 PM
  #41
Zman5778
Registered User
 
Zman5778's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: York, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,616
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Zman5778 Send a message via MSN to Zman5778 Send a message via Yahoo to Zman5778
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/85...ting-contracts

Quote:
In the meantime, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly and NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr will meet Saturday in and undisclosed location to resume bargaining talks, sources on both sides told ESPN.com.

Zman5778 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 08:44 AM
  #42
enrothorne
A DJ saved my life
 
enrothorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Downtown Buffalo
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,397
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to enrothorne
I happen to think it is refreshing that there will be no Winter Classic this year. It has lost its appeal for me. No longer unique.

enrothorne is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 12:17 PM
  #43
Taro Tsujimoto
2 Sam(my)s, 1 avatar
 
Taro Tsujimoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Clarence Center, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 50
Send a message via MSN to Taro Tsujimoto
Quote:
Originally Posted by enrothorne View Post
I happen to think it is refreshing that there will be no Winter Classic this year. It has lost its appeal for me. No longer unique.
You're just saying that because the Leafs were involved this year.

Taro Tsujimoto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 03:46 PM
  #44
Zman5778
Registered User
 
Zman5778's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: York, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,616
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Zman5778 Send a message via MSN to Zman5778 Send a message via Yahoo to Zman5778
https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger

Quote:
I'm certain of this, based on number of texts received from players. They want a deal and want their leadership to focus on getting it done.

Zman5778 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 06:29 PM
  #45
Rhett4
KALETA REBORN
 
Rhett4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Home of the 'Merks
Country: United States
Posts: 11,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zman5778 View Post
I think they hammer this thing out this month. That big PR war from a few weeks ago backfired on both sides, and with the Winter Classic canceled, the entire league looks stupid. Based on comments I've seen, Twitter, and message board threads, it seems that most fans are equally fed up with Fehr and Bettman. At some point this turns into diminishing returns for both sides...and I think they're starting to understand that. If the league reverts to a 2 billion dollar league, they all lose and lose big.

Rhett4 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 09:11 PM
  #46
Dubi Doo
Registered User
 
Dubi Doo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,372
vCash: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zman5778 View Post
They have been in that room for hours. No info leaked. Good signs.

Dubi Doo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 10:31 PM
  #47
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi Doo View Post
They have been in that room for hours. No info leaked. Good signs.
Exactly. The less public back and forth that goes on, the closer they get to getting this done.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 11:39 PM
  #48
Dubi Doo
Registered User
 
Dubi Doo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,372
vCash: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
Exactly. The less public back and forth that goes on, the closer they get to getting this done.
Yup .

Meetings STILL going on. I wish they would have been this proactive back in august.

Dubi Doo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 11:39 PM
  #49
McTankel
HFBoards Sponsor
 
McTankel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,814
vCash: 500
They are still in the meeting room! Progress possibly??!!!?

McTankel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 12:10 AM
  #50
Dixon Ward
Fire SOMEONE
 
Dixon Ward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: District of Columbia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awwufelloff View Post
They are still in the meeting room! Progress possibly??!!!?
If that's the case it makes you wonder to what extent a "personality" conflict between d. Fehr and Bettman might have been freaking the process up to this point

Dixon Ward 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 12:02 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. Đ2014 All Rights Reserved.