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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Mark Recchi's advice to players is to sign CBA now

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 10:46 PM
  #426
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 35,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
The system that was created was forward looking a depression, not a boom. That the cap raced up to $56M before stopping tells you how far off the original projection was. Just not in year one, where it missed by 4% or so. I do not think they foresaw the figure doubling during the course of the CBA.

I am not a fan of that document.
I think I said as much in my 'treatise' above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
Giving them that much of HRR was concession for the cap.

It's completely illogical to think that the owners wanted to keep only 43% of HRR.

Sorry, but no, they were after a $31 MM cap, and then came up with the range because they had to have something that was workable given the existing contracts as well. Bettman has explained his philosophy on the cap range system. I won't do that for him

By your logic, the owners also shouldn't want only 50%. My claim is about what they proposed/targeted/declared as their goal for that lockout. They got what they wanted.



And just to belabor this point, they'd be even happier if the players played for free.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:49 PM
  #427
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Excellent question.



You'll note that in spite of making it very difficult to use offer sheets in this most recent go-around, the one that did happen exposed that even a very severe compensation structure wouldn't begin to compensate a team like Nashville for a player of Weber's stature.

I think of Shea Weber as the poster child for this lockout and the NHL's financial and market problems. He's the one player that can be used to illustrate what the two sides are fighting over.
Shea Weber is a greedy money sucking player who talked for 2 years about wanting his team to "prove to him" that they are willing to spend to get better.... and in accepting that offer sheet hurts his team beyond belief. He doesn't want to win , he just wants the big paycheck. If he hadn't filled the media with "I just want a winning team ********" we would feel different.

Lots of top tier players give their team a little discount to stay with the team and play on a winning team (crosby, sedins, etc)

We had to match his offer sheet. But I dont doubt he wanted to leave and I don't doubt that he will play half assed. He isn't worth the money we paid. No one is.

If he's a poster child for what the players want....... screw hockey.

And don't use Nashville as a bad market example.

I hope the owners stand firm.

predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:53 PM
  #428
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think I said as much in my 'treatise' above.
Yeah, but the reasoning is slightly different. I just think they were lazy. The problems with creative contracts didn't come up until the cap started to tighten up. Most of the early contracts were of the terms and structures that you would have expected to be written into the document.

Except for some reason when Daly/Saskin/Linden were writing this thing on a bar napkin, they kinda forgot to get to the section where contract rules were defined.

Whoops.

So it's not hard to see why the league office WANTS these things and seems a little too hellbent on them. They forgot them last time. And it's not just protecting themselves from themselves, it's from the agents and the players are aware of this as well.

Some of this was defined by the Kovalchuk CBA agreement, but I don't remember if that was binding or just an honor agreement. If it was really a binding agreement between the two parties, this shouldn't be something that should take long in negotiations.

Of course they immediately all found another loophole, though.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 11:21 PM
  #429
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,737
vCash: 500
The owners clearly "won" the last CBA. Because it has been good to the players is irrelevant to today's situation. Who actually "won" is also irrelevant.

Renbarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 06:36 AM
  #430
ps241
Gordie Baby ❤️
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 17,915
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Recchi knows as much about economics as he does medicine apparently.



Fehr was the right call. When you're dealing with Proskauer Rose and Luntz PR blitzes, you need a real defense system, not some mock ups left lying on the beach to spook the boogeymen away.
Mark was a player rep and pretty connected with the PA. Although he may not be well versed in economics or medicine he has been through the wars with the PA and is qualified to talk on this subject.

ps241 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 06:55 AM
  #431
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Oh please, you're starting to sound hysterical.

You don't have to be an insider to know what the NHL wanted. Gary told us himself.
So Gary wanted lowered UFA age? Gary wanted lowered RFA age? Gary wanted 54-57% players' share?

No.

If you make claims that NHL got all it wanted, you better prove those claims. And in thise case, you can't prove it in any way.

Yes, they got the linkage, they got the salary cap but they didn't get all they wanted.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 07:20 AM
  #432
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 123,983
vCash: 756
Recchi is pissed that the PA director actually has a pair of grapefruits as opposed to when he was playing

__________________
Philadelphia's Real Alternative
(ynotradio.net)

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2015

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17
GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 08:30 AM
  #433
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
Recchi is pissed that the PA director actually has a pair of grapefruits as opposed to when he was playing
Wait, you're saying that Goodenow didn't have balls?

That makes absolutely no sense.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 08:48 AM
  #434
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 123,983
vCash: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Wait, you're saying that Goodenow didn't have balls?

That makes absolutely no sense.
It's the very reason the PA hired Fehr for this lockout. They don't want to get bent over like they did with Goodenow.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 08:51 AM
  #435
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 11,419
vCash: 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So Gary wanted lowered UFA age? Gary wanted lowered RFA age? Gary wanted 54-57% players' share?

No.

If you make claims that NHL got all it wanted, you better prove those claims. And in thise case, you can't prove it in any way.

Yes, they got the linkage, they got the salary cap but they didn't get all they wanted.


I agree with you the owners didn't all they wanted last, but they got their 2 biggest priorities...lingage and a hard salary cap.

For this thing to get settled the owners will again need to get their # 1 priority...50/50 HRR with continued linkage and without some crazy minded the owners have to pay for all the damages of a lockout. IMO the owners will eventually give on most contract rights issues, except for the 5% varience on contracts which is their main need.

KingBogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 09:36 AM
  #436
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingBogo View Post
[/B]

I agree with you the owners didn't all they wanted last, but they got their 2 biggest priorities...lingage and a hard salary cap.

For this thing to get settled the owners will again need to get their # 1 priority...50/50 HRR with continued linkage and without some crazy minded the owners have to pay for all the damages of a lockout. IMO the owners will eventually give on most contract rights issues, except for the 5% varience on contracts which is their main need.
Yes, they got the basic concepts they wanted but the actual % is just as important as the concept of linkage.

I agree with you on the rest, I don't think the NHL really cares about the contract limitations that much, as long as they get the true 50/50 split.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 09:37 AM
  #437
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 15,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
I gotta ask you GKJ, have you been paying ANY attention??

Goodenow was the guy who went for the full season lock-out but after that he was outed by Saskin & players who didn't want a hardliner like Goodenow to continue.

Goodenow was the guy with balls (and personal agenda against Bettman) but the PA chose to override him.
Bobbie G gave the league their 24% rollback, and then the PA took the cap and kicked him to the curb...Fehr better be careful because it's looking like history will repeat itself...if the PA loses a full season, the offers will be worse, they have to be because the revenue cushion they built to 3.3B will no longer be 3.3B....

Hopefully the PA and the owners can work this out, remember Gary and Don work for these parties...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 09:43 AM
  #438
Captain Mittens*
Catquistador
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Meow-ntain
Posts: 33,448
vCash: 69
Goodenow had balls. There is no question there.
Fehr was brought in because he has balls and brains.

Captain Mittens* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 10:04 AM
  #439
HockeyH3aven
#Flynnsanity
 
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckercky View Post
On the other hand....the NHL will just lock them out a gain and the NHL hasn't conceded anything, so it's not like they're lying.
Educate yourself before you say things that are just outright false.

HockeyH3aven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 10:21 AM
  #440
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 123,983
vCash: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
I gotta ask you GKJ, have you been paying ANY attention??

Goodenow was the guy who went for the full season lock-out but after that he was outed by Saskin & players who didn't want a hardliner like Goodenow to continue.

Goodenow was the guy with balls (and personal agenda against Bettman) but the PA chose to override him.
I gotta ask you, do YOU pay attention? Do YOU know who Donald Fehr is and what he has been a part of before being begged and pleaded to by the PA? If you're going to come at people with patronizing questions, as you've been doing for years, you better be able to take it too. The PA went from the second PA director in pro-sports to lose a post-season, to the first. Clear message that they want a guy who won't blink when being stared down.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 10:48 AM
  #441
pepty
Let's win it all
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,914
vCash: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
I gotta ask you, do YOU pay attention? Do YOU know who Donald Fehr is and what he has been a part of before being begged and pleaded to by the PA? If you're going to come at people with patronizing questions, as you've been doing for years, you better be able to take it too. The PA went from the second PA director in pro-sports to lose a post-season, to the first. Clear message that they want a guy who won't blink when being stared down.
it was Paul Kelly, a moderate who was first voted in by the players as the new director of the PA,post Goodenow.

Kelly was deposed in a middle of the night coup by a few malcontents, Goodenow hardliners and others.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...lpa/index.html
. That led to an unfathomable string of events: players with union connections conspiring to undermine Kelly, union lawyers gaming to get control, longtime union reps exiled, and former auto union boss Buzz Hargrove making an alleged power grab for the throne and replacing Eric Lindros as Ombudsman in March 2009. (Lindros was said to be leading the "get Kelly movement," which according to some was an egregious breach of his duties.)

After that coup was completed in a rush job in the middle of the night while most PA members were sleeping they looked for a new director. It seems that Fehr did not require a lot of persuasion.

The committee members seem to want former Major League Baseball players union boss Donald Fehr, who has been acting as an unpaid advisor for nearly a year. Fehr is at least hinting at interest -- so much interest that critics of his role with hockey are pointing at the fact that he was a principal advisor on the new constitution with an eye on making certain that it's bulletproof regarding the needs of a new boss taking his charges into negotiations for a CBA that will replace the one that expires in two years. Fehr is also advising on the search for a new director, an odd role when one is also said to be on the short list of candidates for the job.

Fehr is 61 and has indicated that he has the drive for one more go-round with a sports entity.

Read More:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz2CUzmWZe4

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 10:58 AM
  #442
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 15,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
Shea Weber is a greedy money sucking player who talked for 2 years about wanting his team to "prove to him" that they are willing to spend to get better.... and in accepting that offer sheet hurts his team beyond belief. He doesn't want to win , he just wants the big paycheck. If he hadn't filled the media with "I just want a winning team ********" we would feel different.

Lots of top tier players give their team a little discount to stay with the team and play on a winning team (crosby, sedins, etc)

We had to match his offer sheet. But I dont doubt he wanted to leave and I don't doubt that he will play half assed. He isn't worth the money we paid. No one is.

If he's a poster child for what the players want....... screw hockey.

And don't use Nashville as a bad market example.

I hope the owners stand firm.
Shea Weber is like about 95% of the pro-athletes out there these days, and when they go greedy they hide behind the " my agent takes care of the business side of things" so the fans will understand...

The guys like Yzerman, Ray Bourque etc just don't seem to exist anymore...it's all about the money, ask Don Fehr...just business...but it leaves the fans very sour...guys like Shea want the money, they want the Cup, they want to be able to ask the GM and owners, what are you doing to make us a better team, the boys want it all...the guy, along with most of his PA buddies are selfish...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 11:16 AM
  #443
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
I gotta ask you, do YOU pay attention? Do YOU know who Donald Fehr is and what he has been a part of before being begged and pleaded to by the PA? If you're going to come at people with patronizing questions, as you've been doing for years, you better be able to take it too. The PA went from the second PA director in pro-sports to lose a post-season, to the first. Clear message that they want a guy who won't blink when being stared down.
MOD

You first said that Goodenow had no balls. Now you're saying that Goodenow "blinked" when he was stared down?

I just don't know what to tell you. Goodenow held his ground and didn't accept the terms NHL offered, thus the season was missed.

MOD


Last edited by Fugu: 11-17-2012 at 12:24 PM. Reason: flaming
Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 12:01 PM
  #444
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 123,983
vCash: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
You first said that Goodenow had no balls. Now you're saying that Goodenow "blinked" when he was stared down?

I just don't know what to tell you. Goodenow held his ground and didn't accept the terms NHL offered, thus the season was missed.
What? When the season was about to be canceled, he offered a salary cap in the late-night emails which were intended to be made public by TSN. And then the league canceled the season anyways. And then afterward when they tried to un-cancel the season, in that meeting when the PA requested that Lemieux and Gretzky show up, Saskin came out and said there wasn't any progress (I don't recall whether or not Goodenow was or was not in that meeting), Bettman told WFAN that he felt he was set up, and the season was still canceled. Memory may be foggy after 8 years, but I'm pretty sure that's what happened in February of 2005.

Otherwise, if you're in such awe of not being able to comprehend a different form of reasoning, feel free to stay in your bubble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
it was Paul Kelly, a moderate who was first voted in by the players as the new director of the PA,post Goodenow.

Kelly was deposed in a middle of the night coup by a few malcontents, Goodenow hardliners and others.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...lpa/index.html
. That led to an unfathomable string of events: players with union connections conspiring to undermine Kelly, union lawyers gaming to get control, longtime union reps exiled, and former auto union boss Buzz Hargrove making an alleged power grab for the throne and replacing Eric Lindros as Ombudsman in March 2009. (Lindros was said to be leading the "get Kelly movement," which according to some was an egregious breach of his duties.)

After that coup was completed in a rush job in the middle of the night while most PA members were sleeping they looked for a new director. It seems that Fehr did not require a lot of persuasion.

The committee members seem to want former Major League Baseball players union boss Donald Fehr, who has been acting as an unpaid advisor for nearly a year. Fehr is at least hinting at interest -- so much interest that critics of his role with hockey are pointing at the fact that he was a principal advisor on the new constitution with an eye on making certain that it's bulletproof regarding the needs of a new boss taking his charges into negotiations for a CBA that will replace the one that expires in two years. Fehr is also advising on the search for a new director, an odd role when one is also said to be on the short list of candidates for the job.

Fehr is 61 and has indicated that he has the drive for one more go-round with a sports entity.

Read More:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz2CUzmWZe4
I do remember the very short Paul Kelly Era, don't know if he actually accomplished anything, but the point was Fehr is here because there is no one out there who is less likely to fold when Bettman goes for the jugular.

The PA feels the perception is that they are a bunch of sheep, later confirmed by a team executive, and further confirmed by other repulsive people such as Jeremy Jacobs, and then of course there is the black-clouded association with Alan Eagleson. When Fehr was director of the MLBPA, they were not sheep.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 12:14 PM
  #445
pepty
Let's win it all
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,914
vCash: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
WThe PA feels the perception is that they are a bunch of sheep, later confirmed by a team executive, and further confirmed by other repulsive people such as Jeremy Jacobs, and then of course there is the black-clouded association with Alan Eagleson. When Fehr was director of the MLBPA, they were not sheep.
It was Paul Kelly who put an end to the Eagelson era and put the man behind bars when many in the hockey and political world were bowing and scraping to him. Kelly was not a man likely to fold.

Problem is he didn't bow and scrape to certain people at the PA either.

Fehr is what he is.Hard to know if the bulk of the players knew what they were getting though a number of them certainly did and he seems to have been more than ready to take it on. If the players wanted this kind of negotiations or lack of it then they have what they bargained for, no need to feel sorry for them and the fix they are in.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 12:21 PM
  #446
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 35,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So Gary wanted lowered UFA age? Gary wanted lowered RFA age? Gary wanted 54-57% players' share?

No.

If you make claims that NHL got all it wanted, you better prove those claims. And in thise case, you can't prove it in any way.

Yes, they got the linkage, they got the salary cap but they didn't get all they wanted.

Yes, this was completely and unequivocally Gary's CBA.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 03:06 PM
  #447
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The players had a CBA rammed down their gullets, and it was 54% of HRR at the beginning. It only increased as revenue increased. The league wanted this certainty. They defined revenue (HRR), got a 24% rollback from contracts already on the books, and the 54% starting point.

So, yes, the league did get everything they wanted.
You should know better than to say the 24% rollback was a win for the owners. That was for the players. The players salaries were set to revenue and even more players would have been released from their contracts during the compliance period, resulting in more veterans without jobs.

Fish on The Sand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 03:31 PM
  #448
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 35,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
You should know better than to say the 24% rollback was a win for the owners. That was for the players. The players salaries were set to revenue and even more players would have been released from their contracts during the compliance period, resulting in more veterans without jobs.

Sorry, FOTS, but that also prevented many teams from having to buy out even more contracts. You're forgetting that since the contracts were guaranteed, the players also agreed to let the teams buy them out at 2/3rds the original value. It would have been extremely costly to many teams to buy players' contracts out and THEN still have to fill every one of those 22 roster spots.

They were paying players to not play for them, and then having to sign new contracts to replace those guys.

I think the players would have gladly not taken a 24% cut and let the owners buy out 2/3rds of that original value.

If you were earning $5 MM, with and without the pay cut plus a buyout would look like:

$3.8 MM base, $2.5 MM after being bought out.

--or--

$5 MM base, $3.3 MM

Essentially a 32% loss ($3.3 MM vs $2.5 MM)


I think what you're forgetting is that the number of NHL contracts is fixed. 30 teams with 22-25 spots. If you don't have one guy, you have to have another, so there is no loss of jobs to the PA overall.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 04:55 PM
  #449
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Shea Weber is like about 95% of the pro-athletes out there these days, and when they go greedy they hide behind the " my agent takes care of the business side of things" so the fans will understand...
Don't kid yourself, Shea Weber is worth more to the Preds and the NHL than he'll ever get paid. The Preds tried to take advantage of him, that's why he got pissed.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-17-2012 at 05:55 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 05:51 PM
  #450
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Sorry, FOTS, but that also prevented many teams from having to buy out even more contracts. You're forgetting that since the contracts were guaranteed, the players also agreed to let the teams buy them out at 2/3rds the original value. It would have been extremely costly to many teams to buy players' contracts out and THEN still have to fill every one of those 22 roster spots.

They were paying players to not play for them, and then having to sign new contracts to replace those guys.

I think the players would have gladly not taken a 24% cut and let the owners buy out 2/3rds of that original value.

If you were earning $5 MM, with and without the pay cut plus a buyout would look like:

$3.8 MM base, $2.5 MM after being bought out.

--or--

$5 MM base, $3.3 MM

Essentially a 32% loss ($3.3 MM vs $2.5 MM)


I think what you're forgetting is that the number of NHL contracts is fixed. 30 teams with 22-25 spots. If you don't have one guy, you have to have another, so there is no loss of jobs to the PA overall.
For the guys who got bought out but couldn't find a job anywhere else because they were replaced by an inexpensive rookie the 24% rollback was probably a better option than forced retirement. While the PA membership did not change that came at the expense of long term members who were forced out for new rookies who would not have previously been a part of the PA.

It also appears you missed my point. The rollback in effect saved a lot of guys from being bought out. In your example it would be 3.8 million after rollback vs 3.3 for being bought out. The guys who got bought out anyways lost out, but don't forget, the players volunteered the rollback without even being asked.

Fish on The Sand is online now   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 04:13 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.