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.

Friedman Speculates on Teams Believed to be Hardliners

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2012, 09:35 AM
  #126
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2525 View Post
I doubt Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg or for that matter Ottawa are part of this group.
Last lockout, I recall the Leafs were on the outside of the majority.
As for Montreal and Vancouver I have no idea where they stand.....in fact none of us know where any of them stand.

The one area where there's a huge discrepancy is TV revenue. All TV revenue including local should be shared.
I imagine both Calgary and Toronto are "hardliners." The Flames ownership group is a very powerful one in the BoG, dating back to when Hotchkiss was running the show. The Leafs just got appointed back to the Executive Committee after being kicked off last time around for being moderates.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:35 AM
  #127
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,247
vCash: 500
Not going to comment on whether the article is accurate or not, but how the heck does Phoenix get a vote or any say in the matter at all? They don't have an owner. So it's Gary and Bill controlling that team. And I'm guessing Gary and Bill support Gary in the lockout. So if Gary only needs 8 teams on his side to continue a lockout, he really only needs 7 since Phoenix is in the bag. Maybe this is why they haven't pulled the plug on Phoenix yet, it gives them an extra vote.

All teams probably supported the idea of a lockout and lower payroll costs. But do all teams still support a continued lockout when the players have basically offered up a decrease from 54 to 50% over the life of the next deal? Iron out some wrinkles, but I'd be willing to wager at least half the owners would be in favour of a deal like that.

(Yes, I know, the majority can team up and oust Gary, but as much as some teams want to play, there's probably no appetite yet to pull a coup and oust Gary just to get back on the ice).


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2525 View Post
The one area where there's a huge discrepancy is TV revenue. All TV revenue including local should be shared.
Amen. But wait, that would ruin the myth that salaries have to be slashed every few years to account for miniscule TV revenues. People need to realize that there is a lot of TV money in the NHL. Rogers, Bell, MSG and Comcast all own teams themselves. The problem is most TV money is allowed to go to teams as local money. If they took all TV money and threw it in the pot, just like the NFL does (and yes, it's all national TV contracts in the NFL but so what) then the league would be far better off.

CGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:55 PM
  #128
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
Elliotte Friedman was on TSN 690 Montreal yesterday and said at least one Canadian team is a hardliner, and that several large market teams are also hardliners. He is working to verify the additional teams. There are a lot more hardliners than in the post.

I'm guessing at least Edmonton and probably Calgary are in this group.
Calgary's previous rep, Hotchkiss, was not a hardliner. The other team which was not hardline in the last lockout was Toronto. Both have new reps on the BOG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Without those teams,the NHL is not a $3.3B business. Those are the teams which will be forking over more of THEIR money into the expanded revenue sharing program. Those teams shouldn't have a major voice in the NHL debacle? Really? The maximum contribution/deduction of revenue sharing was $14M in the 2005 CBA. Some teams will be asked to fork over $10M more in top of the $14M. Those teams losing money will benefit from that money. What do teams such as the Rangers,Habs and Leafs which will be forking over $24M annually into revenue sharing get for their money? Those teams are making the money. Just hand over $24M and shut up? Think again.
If they get $10mil more in rev because of the next CBA, giving it back in sharing has no net effect. This has been part of Fehr's complaint about reducing player share. Providing yet more of a windfall for the big guys.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:00 PM
  #129
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChillyPalmer View Post
lmfao, Why are people always surprised the owners might not be united?

The only reason they're willing to stick with the hardliners is because they don't wanna share more revenue.
Even the phrase "hardliners" is totally misleading.
TOR isn't going to sign a CBA that makes them fork over 40% of their revenues into a revenue sharing pool. They want that money for themselves.
NYI isn't going to sign a CBA that puts the floor at 70% of their revenues.

EVERYONE has a line, and 20 teams have a legitimate reason that their line is hard (Wait, that didn't come out right. You know what I mean).

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2525 View Post
The one area where there's a huge discrepancy is TV revenue. All TV revenue including local should be shared.
We don't have all the local TV contracts known. But based on some reports, ballpark, if it was this:
$45 - TOR
$30 - MON, NYR, DET
$25 - CHI, BOS
$20 - VAN, NYI, NJD, PHI
$18 - CAL, EDM, OTT, WAS
$15 - PIT, MIN, LA, ANA, COL
$12 - WIN, DAL
$10 - BUF, TB, SJ
$8 - NASH, FLA, CAR, CBJ, STL
$5 - PHX

That amounts to about a $17 million cut if divided 30 ways. So, re-doing the last revenue numbers with 100% broadcast revenue sharing, 50% of HRR is a $52 million midpoint, $44 million floor and $60 million cap.

We'd have only FOUR TEAMS who'd be under the floor by spending 50% of HRR (instead of TWELVE), and three off them would be at $43 million or $42 million if they spent 50% of HRR on payroll.

We'd have 22 middle class teams instead of NINE. That CBA would look A LOT like the starting point for the last CBA. This solves everyone's problems except the Islanders (50% = $30 million), because their TV deal is huge and their arena revenues are low. But that is solving itself in 2015, when they move in Barclays.

Maybe you make them exempt from paying in while in Nassau, which would lower everyone's cut by $666,667. That moves STL to just below the cutline, but puts the Islanders at $40 million. Five teams would be a combined $11 million below the floor. That's manageable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Amen. But wait, that would ruin the myth that salaries have to be slashed every few years to account for miniscule TV revenues. People need to realize that there is a lot of TV money in the NHL. Rogers, Bell, MSG and Comcast all own teams themselves. The problem is most TV money is allowed to go to teams as local money. If they took all TV money and threw it in the pot, just like the NFL does (and yes, it's all national TV contracts in the NFL but so what) then the league would be far better off.
If they just shared all broadcast revenues, that's the only form of revenue sharing they'd need. But they'd have to solve the PHI/NYR/MLSE situation, where those teams could "hide" their TV dollars by the corporate empires that own both the media and the team lowering their rights fees.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:31 PM
  #130
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Not going to comment on whether the article is accurate or not, but how the heck does Phoenix get a vote or any say in the matter at all? They don't have an owner. So it's Gary and Bill controlling that team. And I'm guessing Gary and Bill support Gary in the lockout. So if Gary only needs 8 teams on his side to continue a lockout, he really only needs 7 since Phoenix is in the bag. Maybe this is why they haven't pulled the plug on Phoenix yet, it gives them an extra vote.
If this was the case, I would imagine that the PA would have already questioned this obvious conflict of interest. My guess is that either Gary has to abstain, or it's not Gary that's casting the vote here. At least I'd hope that's how it works.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 01:01 AM
  #131
KEEROLE Vatanen
Failures Of Fenwick
 
KEEROLE Vatanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 17,648
vCash: 500
so a writer for a canadian company is pandering to his canadian audience by speculating and making the canadian teams look like innocent pawns being played by Bettman and the big bad small market teams whom Friedman speculates is almost all southern teams. Yeah no axe grinding at work there, the small market teams don't control the league, get real!

KEEROLE Vatanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 06:11 AM
  #132
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccupySheen View Post
so a writer for a canadian company is pandering to his canadian audience by speculating and making the canadian teams look like innocent pawns being played by Bettman and the big bad small market teams whom Friedman speculates is almost all southern teams. Yeah no axe grinding at work there, the small market teams don't control the league, get real!
If Friedman worked for the Winnipeg Free Press or the Globe & Mail, you might be onto something. But as someone who reads his column damn near religiously, I know that he's got better things to do than sink to that sort of "journalism". This guy knows his stuff, and doesn't just spew controversial crap to get hits on the website like the others do.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 12:07 PM
  #133
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccupySheen View Post
so a writer for a canadian company is pandering to his canadian audience by speculating and making the canadian teams look like innocent pawns being played by Bettman and the big bad small market teams whom Friedman speculates is almost all southern teams. Yeah no axe grinding at work there, the small market teams don't control the league, get real!
Friedman is very credible. If you listen to him speak about this, he says that list is not all inclusive. He also defines "hardliners" as owners who can't settle without getting their costs in line.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 01:53 PM
  #134
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
Friedman is very credible. If you listen to him speak about this, he says that list is not all inclusive. He also defines "hardliners" as owners who can't settle without getting their costs in line.
Well, that's why Boston's owner is so hated: He CAN settle without getting his costs in line; but he wants to crush the union.

Also I don't see what makes someone who "can't settle without getting their costs in line" a hardliner. That should describe all 30 owners. STL isn't going to say "I have to spend 70% of my HRR to hit the salary floor... GREAT, where do I sign?" and TOR isn't going to say "40% revenue sharing? Score! Let's play hockey!"

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 08:36 PM
  #135
2525
Sad Leafs fan
 
2525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 1807
Puck Daddy's column

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...9901--nhl.html

2525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 09:00 PM
  #136
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
What's funny is how all the stupid contracts are mentioned... while not mentioning that they have a FLOOR to meet.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 09:04 PM
  #137
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Even the phrase "hardliners" is totally misleading.
TOR isn't going to sign a CBA that makes them fork over 40% of their revenues into a revenue sharing pool. They want that money for themselves.
NYI isn't going to sign a CBA that puts the floor at 70% of their revenues.

EVERYONE has a line, and 20 teams have a legitimate reason that their line is hard (Wait, that didn't come out right. You know what I mean).



We don't have all the local TV contracts known. But based on some reports, ballpark, if it was this:
$45 - TOR
$30 - MON, NYR, DET
$25 - CHI, BOS
$20 - VAN, NYI, NJD, PHI
$18 - CAL, EDM, OTT, WAS
$15 - PIT, MIN, LA, ANA, COL
$12 - WIN, DAL
$10 - BUF, TB, SJ
$8 - NASH, FLA, CAR, CBJ, STL
$5 - PHX

That amounts to about a $17 million cut if divided 30 ways. So, re-doing the last revenue numbers with 100% broadcast revenue sharing, 50% of HRR is a $52 million midpoint, $44 million floor and $60 million cap.

We'd have only FOUR TEAMS who'd be under the floor by spending 50% of HRR (instead of TWELVE), and three off them would be at $43 million or $42 million if they spent 50% of HRR on payroll.

We'd have 22 middle class teams instead of NINE. That CBA would look A LOT like the starting point for the last CBA. This solves everyone's problems except the Islanders (50% = $30 million), because their TV deal is huge and their arena revenues are low. But that is solving itself in 2015, when they move in Barclays.

Maybe you make them exempt from paying in while in Nassau, which would lower everyone's cut by $666,667. That moves STL to just below the cutline, but puts the Islanders at $40 million. Five teams would be a combined $11 million below the floor. That's manageable.



If they just shared all broadcast revenues, that's the only form of revenue sharing they'd need. But they'd have to solve the PHI/NYR/MLSE situation, where those teams could "hide" their TV dollars by the corporate empires that own both the media and the team lowering their rights fees.
Ahh that was back in the heyday, now that rogers and Bell own MLSE, they can barely give the local broadcasting rights away. I guess TSN and Sportsnet will pay pennies on the dollar to what they use to pay.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 11:26 PM
  #138
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Ahh that was back in the heyday, now that rogers and Bell own MLSE, they can barely give the local broadcasting rights away. I guess TSN and Sportsnet will pay pennies on the dollar to what they use to pay.
Actually, they are in fact required to pay market value for the rights. The current contract is for $750,000 per game. The value of the rights today was estimated a earlier this or last year at $1 million per game.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 11:34 PM
  #139
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Actually, they are in fact required to pay market value for the rights. The current contract is for $750,000 per game. The value of the rights today was estimated a earlier this or last year at $1 million per game.
Are they required to actually pay that amount, or is that what is used to estimate the players' share/HRR? Just like the CAD is translated into USD using the annual average, that money isn't actually translated into USD except to pay players.

A better example would be the monies received for shared arenas with NBA teams. The team pockets X dollars, but only some agreed upon percentage is counted as HRR (60/40 iirc, but that's not the point).

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 12:21 AM
  #140
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHill Seeker View Post
if this is true, Frankly it's a joke. Teams like the Habs, Leafs, NYR, Canucks, etc should be in positions of power instead of being held hostage..apologies for my frustration...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...-refrains.html


MOD: Title changed to say "speculates" vs "outs" since that's a bit misleading
Funny that he lists Phoenix because they are owned by the NHL. So is he saying the NHL is a hardliner owner?

Tommy Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 09:46 AM
  #141
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Are they required to actually pay that amount, or is that what is used to estimate the players' share/HRR? Just like the CAD is translated into USD using the annual average, that money isn't actually translated into USD except to pay players.

A better example would be the monies received for shared arenas with NBA teams. The team pockets X dollars, but only some agreed upon percentage is counted as HRR (60/40 iirc, but that's not the point).
I imagine in the case of the Leafs at the very least, they would have to pay it out, if only because Bell and Rogers has an additional partner: Tanenbaum owns 25% of the company.

Whether Comcast or MSG, for example, needs to pay it out or can simply estimate for the purposes of HRR, I don't know.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 09:49 AM
  #142
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I imagine both Calgary and Toronto are "hardliners." The Flames ownership group is a very powerful one in the BoG, dating back to when Hotchkiss was running the show. The Leafs just got appointed back to the Executive Committee after being kicked off last time around for being moderates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I imagine in the case of the Leafs at the very least, they would have to pay it out, if only because Bell and Rogers has an additional partner: Tanenbaum owns 25% of the company.

Whether Comcast or MSG, for example, needs to pay it out or can simply estimate for the purposes of HRR, I don't know.
Just curious, how do you know all this htpwn ?

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:05 PM
  #143
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,716
vCash: 500
The Hardline Owners and Jacobs

1-Friedman on the Hardliners:

"While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas"

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...-refrains.html

2- When Friedman reported the Bruins were hardliners teamed up with some of the struggling have-not franchises, I think many people scratched their heads... I was wondering if the following was a consideration?:

''Jeremy Jacobs, the chair of the board of governors since 2007, acquired the Bruins for $10 million in 1975 and today has a net worth of almost $2 billion courtesy of his food and hospitality company Delaware North, which runs rink concessions for many of his colleagues.''

Gatehouse, The Instigator, p. 288-289.

http://www.delawarenorth.com/sportservice-partners.aspx

3- His company operates rink concessions for certain struggling Sunbelt teams: Bridgestone Arena – Nashville Predators, Nationwide Arena – Columbus Blue Jackets, Tampa Bay Times Forum – Tampa Bay Lightning. Does that influence his positioning with the have-not teams?

4- His company operates rink concessions for First Niagara Center – Buffalo Sabres. Does that influence relocation options of struggling have-not teams to Southern Ontario?

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:29 PM
  #144
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
1
3- His company operates rink concessions for certain struggling Sunbelt teams: Bridgestone Arena Nashville Predators, Nationwide Arena Columbus Blue Jackets, Tampa Bay Times Forum Tampa Bay Lightning. Does that influence his positioning with the have-not teams?

4- His company operates rink concessions for First Niagara Center Buffalo Sabres. Does that influence relocation options of struggling have-not teams to Southern Ontario?
I would think a position as Chairman would allow one to influence events more than the same guy's position as contracted caterer.

billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:37 PM
  #145
rj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
I would think a position as Chairman would allow one to influence events more than the same guy's position as contracted caterer.
He makes more money off being their caterer than being their chairman. Although in said lockout his catering business would be losing the money they'd normally be making.

It's best to look at it in the context of how Italian business is done: "if you don't have a conflict of interest, why do you have an interest?"

Quote:
"While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas"
how can Phoenix be in this group? they don't have an owner other than the NHL

rj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:48 PM
  #146
TrillMike
Registered User
 
TrillMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
1-Friedman on the Hardliners:

"While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas"

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...-refrains.html

2- When Friedman reported the Bruins were hardliners teamed up with some of the struggling have-not franchises, I think many people scratched their heads... I was wondering if the following was a consideration?:

''Jeremy Jacobs, the chair of the board of governors since 2007, acquired the Bruins for $10 million in 1975 and today has a net worth of almost $2 billion courtesy of his food and hospitality company Delaware North, which runs rink concessions for many of his colleagues.''

Gatehouse, The Instigator, p. 288-289.

http://www.delawarenorth.com/sportservice-partners.aspx

3- His company operates rink concessions for certain struggling Sunbelt teams: Bridgestone Arena Nashville Predators, Nationwide Arena Columbus Blue Jackets, Tampa Bay Times Forum Tampa Bay Lightning. Does that influence his positioning with the have-not teams?

4- His company operates rink concessions for First Niagara Center Buffalo Sabres. Does that influence relocation options of struggling have-not teams to Southern Ontario?
I'd be shocked if Gaglardi (Stars owner) was a "hard liner" for the owners. In fact, he was on the local sports station 2 days ago and said he hasn't been very close to the situation.

TrillMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 03:22 PM
  #147
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillmike View Post
I'd be shocked if Gaglardi (Stars owner) was a "hard liner" for the owners. In fact, he was on the local sports station 2 days ago and said he hasn't been very close to the situation.
The previous owner, Hicks, was a hardliner. I am not sure on Gagliardi, but the history is there.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 08:23 PM
  #148
viper0220
Go Jets Go
 
viper0220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,596
vCash: 50
Who are NHL and NHLPA hardliners

Who in your opinion who are the hardliners on each side? They can be anyone players, owners, lawyers(please provide name don't just the NHL lawyers and NHLPA lawyers Etc Etc). Or is it the heads of each side?

viper0220 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 09:01 PM
  #149
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,777
vCash: 703
Jacobs and Leonsis on the owners side to name a few.

octopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 01:20 PM
  #150
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,503
vCash: 133
For players, you can sort of categorize various players based on their general comments to the media regarding the proposals (not talking about their thoughts on Bettman)


Hardliners, run thru a wall for Fehr - Cole, Crosby, Gorges
Moderate I, pro-PA but playing is equally important - Schnieder, Bieksa
Moderate II, pro-PA but playing likely more important - BizNasty
Just want to play, indifferent to the process -
Just want to play, Discontent with the PA - Hamrlik

700 players... you are going to see your full range...

If i were to guess
100 Hardliners, 100 Discontents
100 Moderate I's, 200 Moderate II's
200 Indifferent - This would likely be many of the very young bubble guys that have only been in the league a couple yrs or rookies - too busy developing their craft for when the game resumes.. or other players playing elsewhere, focused on other things, etc... These guys MIGHT check their PA app every once in awhile.. but otherwise are like - let me know when its it done.


I'm sure many can probably accurately place certain players in certain categories based on their comments...

Go ahead list others if you heard em..


Last edited by DL44: 11-23-2012 at 01:28 PM.
DL44 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 03:33 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.