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.

Make Whole, Not War (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XIX

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-04-2012, 12:36 PM
  #901
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Some interstkng tidbits here and details of owner concessions.

http://m.startribune.com/?id=177160641

artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players; 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish). Some other things that the players should like: 1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union; 2) Establishment of a “standard of care” and “primary allegiance” obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing); 3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team’s home city; 4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense; 5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp; 5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms; 6) Ice condition improvements and standards; 7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones; 8) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams; 9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players; 10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/177160641.html

Web version

Renbarg is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 12:40 PM
  #902
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azaloum90 View Post
NHL waited to use their leverage... Cancelling the Winter Classic
PA waited to use their leverage... Force the NHL to lose a big chunk of revenue by cancelling the Winter Classic...

Both seem to have gotten what they wanted, IMO...




I agree, this is a good thing. I also believe that ANYTHING that was discussed between those two are the SAME views that Bettman and D.Fehr share. There is no way either one of those individuals are going over their own superiors head, unless there is some plan to oust both of them from their positions, and I don't see that being the case here...
I mean, think about it. Would you hold a secret meeting with a client, only to tell them about your side company and how you can do it so much better? And while doing this, expecting a) the client not to say anything to the company and b) your superior never finding out about this?
Absolutely not. We're on a good road here
how in the bluest of bleeps is losing hrr a leverage to the players?

Barrie22 is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 12:40 PM
  #903
Ilrider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chicago Burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
Much better! Thanks!

Ilrider is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 12:43 PM
  #904
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,465
vCash: 500
Just get a deal done guys...gotta see some hockey this winter...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 12:43 PM
  #905
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
how in the bluest of bleeps is losing hrr a leverage to the players?
How profitable is the WC really? How much does it really contribute to HRR? I would guess that the real measure of success with the WC is the increased exposure of the league rather than the dollars that one single event brings in.

The players lose out on cash from one event...The owners lose way more than that.

__________________
Yours in Christ,

waffledave
waffledave is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 12:46 PM
  #906
Ominous Grey
Registered User
 
Ominous Grey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 3,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Parent View Post
So, what is the feeling this morning?

Optimism?
Hell no.

The NHL just cancelled the Winter Classic. Season is still probably toast.


Honestly, if they were so close to a deal, would they have just done that? I highly doubt it.

I pray you optimists are on to something. For now though, I have to think it's just false hope (again).

Ominous Grey is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 12:48 PM
  #907
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Wow reading Russo's article it sounds like the players are getting a lot.

Quote:
Among other things, the owners have proposed to 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players; 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).
Some other things that the players should like:

Quote:
1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union; 2) Establishment of a “standard of care” and “primary allegiance” obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing); 3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team’s home city; 4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense; 5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp; 5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms; 6) Ice condition improvements and standards; 7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones; 8) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams; 9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players; 10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you’re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders.
The NHLPA makes it sound like it's nothing but a shakedown and there's nothing for them in the NHL proposals.

Iggy77 is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 12:54 PM
  #908
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
Great article, full of interesting new information.
He is fast becoming my favourite hockey reporter.
Guess I'll have to develop more interest in the Wild though...

pepty is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 12:59 PM
  #909
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 18,635
vCash: 500
That's pretty significant concessions to me. We are getting closer, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilty00 View Post
Amazing how you take the two biggest egos out of the room and all of a sudden it's a relatively peaceful proceeding.
Seems like pure coincidence to me.

InjuredChoker is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 12:59 PM
  #910
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
So, mean it's like this:

I own some middle to bottom revenue team.
I can't spend to the cap, but I have a real problem if I end up with a few good players. I can't afford to spend to the cap to keep them, and if I let them go, then I risk losing more fans and more revenue.
So, I favor having control over my players. That way i can stay in the middle of the salary floor/cap, and still have a team with a chance to win, and I can keep my fans.

Is that how this would shake out?


Not sure the PA would like that. It sounds like the owners want a pass on paying the really good guys as much as they are worth. And, every player is going to think he is worth more than he really is....
It isn't that simple as "the owners don't wnt to pay true value". The way that the players were valued (they ended up taking 57% of the money made) under the past CBA ended up being unsustainable because of revenue disparity.
The NHL is bringing in lost of money but unevenly: the few teams at the top are responsible for most of the revenue growth the NHL as seen. So what this means is that a few teams are driving the cap up: about half the teams in the NHL are breaking even give or take. Since the cap is based on how much money the NHL (it's a bit more complicated than that but it remains true) makes the cap ended up not working the way it was meant to (the point of the cap is to even the playing field both financially and on the ice). A few teams drove the cap upwards for everybody so most teams ended up being unable to keep up with it; the reasons why the teams at the top drove revenues up so much is attributable to a lot of different factors.
So this is how the cap keeps rising and in turn this leads to player salaries rising: they make 57% of the revenues (which is all the money brought in without factoring in costs; once costs are factored in and susbtracted from the revnues you get profits which are rather inconsequential to the debate outside of revenue sharing) so the players keep taking more of everybody's money but only a few teams are able to handle it: the same teams that are driving up the cap are doing so by bringing in more money than all the other teams combined, so only a few teams are able to afford player costs because they were meant to be based on the overall financial health of the league according to what the previous CBA said it was (all hockey related revenue). Both parties, when the expired CBA was agreed upon in 2005 said: the amount of money the league brings in is how good things are going but as I explained this ended up being an inadequate measuring mechanism.

Now we end up in 2012 and the owners are telling the players that the way they agreed to look at things doesn't work them anymore: the way the money is split up is too heavily in the players favour and the way revenues are rising makes for a dysfunctional league on a financial level.
So now we see the owners problem: a few teams have all the money but everybody pays for it as if the money was spread evenly. They got there because of how everything was calculated and because that faulty premise lead to huge financial gains by players. The problem for the owners is two fold: they need to find a way to spread the wealth and to make sure player salary growth does not end up making a mess of things again.

The NHL has proposed ways to get to there and the NHLPA has worked off the principles you are invoking in the post I quoted: if there is so much money in the system then why don't just spread it evenly (through revenue sharing which both sides have agreed to and have offered rather similar, still lacking, numbers of around 225 million dollars) rather than do that AND take away our salary growth potential AND make the contracts you just signed worth less than what we both agreed to a few months ago?

You say the owners do not want to pay the true value of the players' worth. The fact of the matter is the market determines the value of something and the NHL market is compromised of owners, players and consumers (fans) and you need the owners on board to determine what the market will bare. If something costs too much make then no one is going to do invest it because it becomes a money hole: you lose money and that's it. The owners are saying the value of the contracts has been distorted and we need to do something about it and with this make whole we can do something about it and still give you almost 90% (someone made the calculations) of the current contracts and keep the total amount of money you guys make the same as last year going foward.

I'd say it's pretty good deal but the NHLPA is entirely within it's right to ask for more. The thing is they haven't, they've been asking for a completely different model that the owners have said no to; like I just said if the owners are not on board then you're not going anywhere.

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 12:59 PM
  #911
T-Funk
Registered User
 
T-Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave View Post
How profitable is the WC really? How much does it really contribute to HRR? I would guess that the real measure of success with the WC is the increased exposure of the league rather than the dollars that one single event brings in.

The players lose out on cash from one event...The owners lose way more than that.
200million out of 3.3 billion so 6% of HRR?

T-Funk is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:02 PM
  #912
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 18,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Great article, full of interesting new information.
He is fast becoming my favourite hockey reporter.
Guess I'll have to develop more interest in the Wild though...
Yeah, Russo got me during the Parise/Suter saga last summer. He's right after LeBrun, Bobby Mac and maybe Friedman for me.

InjuredChoker is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:03 PM
  #913
Ilrider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chicago Burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
Wow reading Russo's article it sounds like the players are getting a lot.



Some other things that the players should like:



The NHLPA makes it sound like it's nothing but a shakedown and there's nothing for them in the NHL proposals.
And look what it's gotten the NHLPA if they accept it. Look, there is a good reason Fehr has been holding out, even though it has angered many. He wants concessions for the players in exchange for giving the league 50/50. Let's hope we move toward a deal now.

Ilrider is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:07 PM
  #914
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
Ugh this is what I am afraid of... Expanding the group means bringing in D. Fehr and Bettman.
Not necessarily. In 04-05 the expanded group included league and PA counsel, players, etc. Bettman and Goodenough stayed out of "the room" until near the end.

Mike Jones is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:07 PM
  #915
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave View Post
How profitable is the WC really? How much does it really contribute to HRR? I would guess that the real measure of success with the WC is the increased exposure of the league rather than the dollars that one single event brings in.

The players lose out on cash from one event...The owners lose way more than that.
how much revenue does that one event bring in? it brings in probably the same revenue as 8 normal games combined.

the average ticket price is 186 dollars to the just cancelled game, seats available (considering they were trying to break the all time attendance record for a ice hockey game at 104,173) lets use that number. that would mean this one game would of brought in 19,376,178 in revenue. that is one of the 4 games that were said to be played that weekend. 1 ohl, and 1 ahl, and also an alumni game was also to be played at another baseball field.

so that one weekend they just cancelled cost the league/players close to probably 22-23 million in revenue.

those numbers are just attendance, doesn't include parking, doesn't include concession stands.

Barrie22 is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:10 PM
  #916
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
Aaron Ward ‏@aaronward_nhl

NHLPA negotiating committee conference call, Sunday at 3:30 PM (Eastern). #TSN
This is one of the places where good will and good work could go off the rails.

Mike Jones is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:12 PM
  #917
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Among other things, the owners have proposed to 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players
This seems fair to both players and owners.

Quote:
2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted);
Not entirely clear what this means. Salary and cap hits already accompany trades in most cases, don't they?

Quote:
3) eliminate re-entry waivers;
Not entirely sure I like this. Seems like the kind of thing that could lead to unintended consequences as GMs game the waiver system to stash contracts in the minors. On the other hand, it might mean fewer players languishing in the minors due to short-term roster overloads, so I'm on the fence here.

Quote:
4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted);
Revenue sharing reform was the best thing the PA brought to the table, and I was disappointed when they seemed to abandon it early on. Bringing it back is definitely good for the long term stability of the league, even if it means we have to deal with more annoying HF threads bashing the system.

Quote:
5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish
Very small and reasonable concession for the owners. There's really not a good reason to resist this.

Quote:
1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union;
This shouldn't even be regarded as a concession, just a good idea.

Quote:
2) Establishment of a “standard of care” and “primary allegiance” obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing);
The big picture implications of this are over my head.

Quote:
3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team’s home city;
Seems like a minor concession to make life easier on injured players.

Quote:
4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense;
Eric Lindros is a great example of why they should have been doing this for decades. Matter of common sense.

Quote:
5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp;
That is getting into the realm of pampering. Do your damn jobs.

Quote:
5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms;
More pampering. Nothing about the condition of visitor locker rooms is a serious problem.

Quote:
6) Ice condition improvements and standards;
Good for everyone.

Quote:
7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones;
That's nice, I guess. Not sure why it needs to be part of the CBA but it's an easy concession.

Quote:
8) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams;
This is vague, and I doubt any fan really cares.

Quote:
9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players;
Very minor throw-in concession, why not.

Quote:
10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you’re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders.
More pampering. I understand why young players would see single rooms as desirable, but the truth is they probably benefit from the support and team focus of sharing space with teammates. I'm not crazy about teams spending a ton of money so 20-year-olds get private hotel rooms. Seems like luxury for the sake of luxury.


On the whole, it's easy to see why these line items could get done very quickly. There are only a couple that have really wide-ranging impact. The rest are a matter of how many bells and whistles the players can get in exchange for salary cuts.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/177160641.html

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:13 PM
  #918
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,459
vCash: 500
Little news leaked from the meeting? Sounds good to me. Even if it's little progress, I'd prefer to not hear mud-slinging from either side.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:13 PM
  #919
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave View Post
How profitable is the WC really? How much does it really contribute to HRR? I would guess that the real measure of success with the WC is the increased exposure of the league rather than the dollars that one single event brings in.

The players lose out on cash from one event...The owners lose way more than that.
Exposure equals money (eventually). The players put more in their pockets from every dollar brought in (in HRR terms of course) than the owners do. The players lost more from the Cancellation of the winter classic than the owners did (unless of course the cap is not linked to HRR). The players will lose more money than the owners do from lost potential revenue.

Renbarg is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:16 PM
  #920
spudnick
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoobs View Post
So with Mortgage/Rent reimbursements... does that mean that players that live full time in the city they play in have their mortgage paid by the owners? Pretty cushy deal.
If its like my job, the employer is responsible for all moving costs which includes penalty fees for breaking a mortgage or lease agreement because the employer is the one forcing the player to move. The employer is also responsible for covering all realestate agent fees associated with selling of the property, ie my last house I had to sell was 12,000 in realestate commission fee. Basically I think it mean that the employer is responsible so that the move will be door to door with out any cost to the employee including connection fees such as telephone Internet hook up etc...

spudnick is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:18 PM
  #921
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
T
More pampering. I understand why young players would see single rooms as desirable, but the truth is they probably benefit from the support and team focus of sharing space with teammates. I'm not crazy about teams spending a ton of money so 20-year-olds get private hotel rooms. Seems like luxury for the sake of luxury.
Agree that this is not a great idea-expensive and its probably a good idea for young players to have an older player mentor them.

Maybe they could make it less games before they go to a single room, but separate rooms for every player even kids just coming in, seems like an unnecessary expense.

pepty is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:20 PM
  #922
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
Go Leafs Go
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Little news leaked from the meeting? Sounds good to me. Even if it's little progress, I'd prefer to not hear mud-slinging from either side.
I can't remember if this was said on TSN or Sportsnet but someone from either network said when you don't hear any news it's good news, because they might be getting close to a deal.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:26 PM
  #923
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,083
vCash: 500
One thing Id like to see is a system, if they keep reentry waivers, that allowed 1 or 2 waiver eligible players to be an exception so they don't have to go through the waivers

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:35 PM
  #924
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
I can't remember if this was said on TSN or Sportsnet but someone from either network said when you don't hear any news it's good news, because they might be getting close to a deal.
The thought came to my mind but I don't trust either side enough to be too optimistic about anything. However, considering the standstill the past couple of weeks, both sides finding reason to get back to the table and again scheduling one early this week, i would suggest that some common ground has been found. We don't know how substantial that common ground is but it's a good sign that it's enough for both sides to keep talking.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:36 PM
  #925
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
It isn't that simple as "the owners don't wnt to pay true value".



You say the owners do not want to pay the true value of the players' worth. The fact of the matter is the market determines the value of something and the NHL market is compromised of owners, players and consumers (fans) and you need the owners on board to determine what the market will bare. If something costs too much make then no one is going to do invest it because it becomes a money hole: you lose money and that's it. The owners are saying the value of the contracts has been distorted and we need to do something about it and with this make whole we can do something about it and still give you almost 90% (someone made the calculations) of the current contracts and keep the total amount of money you guys make the same as last year going foward.
Sorry, Canadian Guy. You and I have a miscommunication here. I understand everything you wrote. But, in my post earlier, I was quoting another poster who said that the HRR% was not the sticking point. That poster said the real argument between the players and owners was the contract length and player movement rights. I was trying to understand why that would be. And, I still am.

I understand the HRR% and the Make Whole stuff. Not sure who is right, because I can't see the books. I am really trying to understand the financial advantages to owners between these 2 situations:

1) HRR% = 50%. Make whole - owners cover 90%. UFA rights begin at age 29. Contracts are limited to 5 years....

or

2) HRR% = 50%. Make whole - owners cover 90%. UFA rights begin at age 27. Contracts limited to 8 years (or 10 yrs).

Compare those 2. I can see individual players wanting #2. If I think I am better than I really am, I want a chance at that windfall. That's the players' side.

But, again, where is the edge for the owners? The only one I can see is for middle and low revenue teams being able to hold onto good and star players.

Is there any other?

MNNumbers 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 02:07 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.