HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-20-2012, 02:42 PM
  #351
Therick67
Registered User
 
Therick67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 4,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
It'd be great for an owner to step forward - a la Kraft during the NFL negotiations- to grease the gears a bit and rebuild some trust between all sides.
I'm sure JJ is getting ready to step up for the game he loves so much

Therick67 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 02:48 PM
  #352
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,821
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
Not official, but the NHL and PA are hoping to meet around 10am tomorrow morning.

arren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger

PA intends on continuing to strategize and work on its presentation tonight for tomorrows next round of CBA negotiations.

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 03:16 PM
  #353
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Horizons View Post
Their bosses the NHL owners aren't trying to screw the players over. The players and agents have been taking advantage of loopholes to screw over the owners and the owners want to close them and the NHLPA (or a small group of hard line players and their boss)are refusing to negotiate. No league or business lets the workers take home 57% of revenues(not profits) and stays in business for long. If you can't see the parallels between the Hostess story and the NHL lockout then maybe you should look into it. But I'll keep it simple here: Hostess was losing money all of the unions except one took a pay cut to stay open. One union said no so they all lost their jobs. Some players want to give back and get a deal done and some don't and I suspect those that don't want to give back are the minority and they are costing everyone money. The moral here if people making $50k are willing to give back so they can work then someone making 2.4 million shouldn't ***** about doing the same to keep their job.
This type of thing has been happening all over the world in order for people to keep their jobs. I get that NHL players are great at what they do and should get a higher salary than the average Joe. But for some reason they don't see it this way, the actual threat of losing their jobs might do this, but I'm afraid even that won't make a difference in their minds.

In the 'real world' half these guys would be out of a job since the companies they are working for are losing money.

But I'm just gonna sit back and wait for the season to start. It's pretty much all we can do.

These players will NEVER get this money back that they are losing right now. Ever.

Plus, Iginla is a UFA this summer.

patty59 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 03:16 PM
  #354
ReggieMoto
Registered User
 
ReggieMoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manchester, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 4,304
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to ReggieMoto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
The reason they fly charter, for example, is not because they're being "babied" per se, but because fans want to see strong, rested players on the ice, not a bunch of zombies who've spent excessive amounts of time schlepping through airports.
The reason they fly charter is because of practicality, not because of fan expectations.

ReggieMoto is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 03:19 PM
  #355
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReggieMoto View Post
The reason they fly charter is because of practicality, not because of fan expectations.
I'm guessing there is something in the CBA about what types of flights they get.

patty59 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 03:30 PM
  #356
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
But again you keep saying that these owners should lock themselves into a six to ten year deal where not only must they give away their profits if they happen to make some... But its also perfectly acceptable not to make any because only if its their fault...

For the tecord i mostly agree with how you see things... I just totally disagree with the why you see things. yes its the owners that get the taxes but why are they needed... And what happens if they get cut off... And what do us fans get for our taxes if theres no hockey

And yes sports teams are an economic benefit to a city but so are casinos... I dont support tax dollars to them either.

Its clear you dont care whether or not several owners lose money but they do care how much they lose. a solution to this issue wont be found unless the owners concerns are addressed
No I would be locking them into a deal that works...for everyone. I have shown how it benefits every single team. I even left out as much revenue sharing as it looks like they are agreeing to. Better for the rich owners and room to move in future years for the poor owners.

The taxes aren't needed. They are given because the city and taxpayers approve them because they want a team and it brings revenues to the city. If everyone cuts them off nothing happens. They will spend their own money to build the stadiums or get financing elsewhere. If only some cities cut them off, then they could lose a team/not get a team. That is their choice. What you get for your taxes is whatever any city without a team gets.

Casinos don't need the money either. Like you said they are an economic benefit to cities (not sure that is true just as teams may not be a net benefit). That it why taxpayers agree to have them there. You don't have to agree or disagree. Move to a city that doesn't give any of these breaks. Lead a charge against voting for tax increases. The thing is the cities and taxpayers have a choice and they have agreed to pay. And nothing will change by paying the players less. Owners, casinos, businesses are always going to ask for and get tax breaks.

You are right. I don't care at all what billionaires lose on hockey operating income. I care that the game is healthy and the players offer did that. It is now up to the owners to make it work. They should have the opportunity to make money, not an entitlement. They actually had an opportunity at 57% and were doing quite well at 54% and when the cap floor was ~55%.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 03:31 PM
  #357
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
This type of thing has been happening all over the world in order for people to keep their jobs. I get that NHL players are great at what they do and should get a higher salary than the average Joe. But for some reason they don't see it this way, the actual threat of losing their jobs might do this, but I'm afraid even that won't make a difference in their minds.

In the 'real world' half these guys would be out of a job since the companies they are working for are losing money.
But I'm just gonna sit back and wait for the season to start. It's pretty much all we can do.

These players will NEVER get this money back that they are losing right now. Ever.

Plus, Iginla is a UFA this summer.
In general I hate the 'real world' comparison because there is nothing comparable to real about playing hockey for a living. Add to that, because of the salaries these guys pull down, they're able to sit out until they get a deal that suits them. There's a reason most strikes/protests don't last too long, you give up on what you believe is right pretty quickly when you realize that you're going to have to miss a mortgage payment. Some of these guys have the luxury to not have to do that.

And before someone chimes in with "they're locked out, not striking"...yes, I know. But they could quickly not be locked out if they agreed to the league's terms, which they have the luxury to not do.

Kate08 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 03:36 PM
  #358
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
Oh, c'mon, cry me a river. We're not talking about sweatshop workers in Bangladesh who have no other hope.

These players, when they sign their contracts, know that their careers are short. There are not too many Tim Wakefields in the NHL. They have agents who are supposed to advise them on how to invest their million dollar salaries. I feel no remorse for their situation.
Yeah, that is what I said we should do and who I've been comparing them to. Sorry I don't feel remorse for any owners. They aren't exactly working in sweatshops in Bangladesh who have no other hope either. Squeezing the players for an extra million per year isn't going to change that.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 03:36 PM
  #359
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
No I would be locking them into a deal that works...for everyone. I have shown how it benefits every single team. I even left out as much revenue sharing as it looks like they are agreeing to. Better for the rich owners and room to move in future years for the poor owners.

The taxes aren't needed. They are given because the city and taxpayers approve them because they want a team and it brings revenues to the city. If everyone cuts them off nothing happens. They will spend their own money to build the stadiums or get financing elsewhere. If only some cities cut them off, then they could lose a team/not get a team. That is their choice. What you get for your taxes is whatever any city without a team gets.

Casinos don't need the money either. Like you said they are an economic benefit to cities (not sure that is true just as teams may not be a net benefit). That it why taxpayers agree to have them there. You don't have to agree or disagree. Move to a city that doesn't give any of these breaks. Lead a charge against voting for tax increases. The thing is the cities and taxpayers have a choice and they have agreed to pay. And nothing will change by paying the players less. Owners, casinos, businesses are always going to ask for and get tax breaks.

You are right. I don't care at all what billionaires lose on hockey operating income. I care that the game is healthy and the players offer did that. It is now up to the owners to make it work. They should have the opportunity to make money, not an entitlement. They actually had an opportunity at 57% and were doing quite well at 54% and when the cap floor was ~55%.
You know what? I don't know the specifics of what the players were offering... Is there a link or something that lets us in on that.

Last I heard, their offers were a joke. I took the word that they weren't putting the effort in to make an offer based on the league's demands (and I understand why), but you've said multiple times that there was something legit there. I'm curious as to what you're referencing.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 03:39 PM
  #360
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,933
vCash: 500
"The Real World" doesn't have anti-trust exemptions that allow you to draft someone's legal right to work in your industry.

Comparing professional sports to "The Real World" is intellectually dishonest, intentional or not.

Lets compare the NHL to other professional sports leagues, because nothing else really compares.

EverettMike is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 03:53 PM
  #361
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
"The Real World" doesn't have anti-trust exemptions that allow you to draft someone's legal right to work in your industry.

Comparing professional sports to "The Real World" is intellectually dishonest, intentional or not.

Lets compare the NHL to other professional sports leagues, because nothing else really compares.
I think a lot of the pro-owner sentiment is based on the idea that the players union is a needless entity. A support for the people in charge of making the financial decisions, rather than the employees. I understand that. I'm not a pro-union guy, myself having worked in a union shop and greatly disliking my experience with it.

The trouble with the line of thinking, is that it basically works for any offer the league proposes - and that it doesn't deal with reality that there IS a players union and that they won't (and in my opinion SHOULDN'T) be ruled as if they are powerless. The path to getting any of these deals done starts with the acceptance that both sides have to mutually benefit... And to do so, they must cooperate. That was how the LAST CBA came into fruition and that's the only way THIS one will as well.

The debate isn't whether or not the league is a dictatorship. It's numbers and sound financial strategy.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 03:59 PM
  #362
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
This argument has really become pointless to argue anymore.

Because someone may own 4, 5 6, whatever number of businesses does not mean that he/she should lose money on one of those businesses.

Every business has a right to make money regardless of what their other business ventures are doing. They have a right to be self sustaining. If I own three business ( A, B and C) if A and B are doing well and C sucks, I fix C regardless of what A and B are doing.

It's really not rocket science.

A small part may be mis-management, but a larger part is trying to improve the economics by spending to improve the product and an even larger part is just pure economics.
But these are related businesses that they have as a result of owning a hockey team. They are package deals. The operating income on hockey is a loss leader (and profitable on its own for many) for franchise value, arena and cable deals. Agree with the numbers or not these things have to be considered in the overall picture.

What were franchise values in 1970, 80, 90, 2000 and now? What are they making on related businesses that they wouldn't have without the hockey team?

Should it stand on its own? Yes and at 57% it could have. 50% certainly will - which will also benefit the owners related businesses.

It really is common sense people. If Jacobs is barely breaking even and in fact probably losing money as some say on operating income now; then how many millions was he losing when paying the players 75%? Do you really think Jacobs was actually losing money? Don't you think he would have sold the team?

If Leipold really lost $70M on Nashville why would he buy another team? Look at the whole picture. Most are making money. Some from operating income alone. Most of the others when you factor in FV, & hockey related businesses.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 04:33 PM
  #363
cat400
Registered User
 
cat400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,487
vCash: 500
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...wXxC0LsVCiyxmM

"Let’s be clear about this. Any negotiated settlement on a NHL collective bargaining agreement will be measured by the scope of player givebacks — and player givebacks, alone.

There is not now, and never has been, a quid pro quo approach from the owners’ side throughout this lockout, now in its third month. One giveback from the players begets another from the players. Oh, and that second giveback? It begets a third, and a fourth.

If this is a trade, then it’s the NHL as Boston getting Rick Middleton with the NHL Players’ Association as the Rangers getting Ken Hodge."

cat400 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 04:36 PM
  #364
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
You know what? I don't know the specifics of what the players were offering... Is there a link or something that lets us in on that.

Last I heard, their offers were a joke. I took the word that they weren't putting the effort in to make an offer based on the league's demands (and I understand why), but you've said multiple times that there was something legit there. I'm curious as to what you're referencing.
This is what I have been working off:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ter-to-players

All of their offers were either a soft landing to 50% or when the league proposed their 50/50 with make whole; one of the players offers proposed 50/50 immediately with their make whole of $592M instead of $211M.

People will claim that none of their proposals have been linked. That was a linked %. Make whole was outside that percentage which makes it a soft landing to 50%. Is the owners 50/50 offer with $211M linked? No, it is also a soft landing to 50%.

Both sides have used a growth rate - owners 5% and players 7.1% as it has been growing at. Owners don't want to assume growth but they have done so in their offers.

Growth is there. About 15 teams are playing to capacity or more. Another 6 or 7 are over 95%. Attendance has gone up every year except 2010. Ticket prices will increase (sorry fans- owners aren't passing on savings). The new TV contract is growth. There are also new Canadian and local TV contracts that are coming up for renewal. Islanders moving to Brooklyn. Phoenix could be moved. I believe 2 other new teams will be added which also provides a huge windfall to owners that players don't get a piece of outside of the revenue growth. There are more marketing opportunities. Sports constantly grow so they shouldn't be hung up on that.

Now that games have been cancelled the calculus has been changed which is making it harder to get a deal. But, the deal was there to be had when the players offered 50/50 immediately or any of their soft landing proposals actually. This was before any games or the winter classic had been cancelled.

Now the players did offer only 5 years but project things out for once make whole is done. That is all true 50/50 and saves the owners over $230M. $246M/year with a 5% growth rate. How does that not work for the owners? Why did they reject everything in 10 minutes without working off these proposals including one that was structured exactly like theirs but with different numbers. The deal was there before games got cancelled.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 04:40 PM
  #365
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
"The Real World" doesn't have anti-trust exemptions that allow you to draft someone's legal right to work in your industry.

Comparing professional sports to "The Real World" is intellectually dishonest, intentional or not.

Lets compare the NHL to other professional sports leagues, because nothing else really compares.
You're right, nothing else really compares. So, what are the revenue splits in the other sports?

patty59 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 04:42 PM
  #366
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODAAT View Post
fans here knock sense into them???

sjaustin, that`s who I send, not because I agree with him/her, nor disagree, opinion based solely on whom I could see presenting the most detailed (accurate or otherwise) Spreadsheets, Financial Statements and other great fillers, confuse the heck outta both sides so much they just cave
Thanks...I guess. I don't think anything I have presented is confusing at all and is accurate based on what everyone else is also working with. Give me the real numbers and I could still make it work for both sides.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 04:49 PM
  #367
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
I think a lot of the resentment of players stems from simple envy, which is certainly a natural emotion. Many people would give anything to be able to play a game they love for a living, let alone be paid extremely well for it; hence you have the "they're spoiled brats" or the "I'd play for free" sentiment. I think being a ridiculously wealthy businessman is much more of an abstract concept, and certainly not something you dream about when you're a kid growing up playing sports.
Exactly and I just don't get the sentiment. People relate better to the players so that is who we should be mad at because they make millions playing a game?

The owners are the ones who are more out of touch with reality than the players, who are far more rich, who averaged far more than the players.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 05:16 PM
  #368
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Horizons View Post
Their bosses the NHL owners aren't trying to screw the players over. The players and agents have been taking advantage of loopholes to screw over the owners and the owners want to close them and the NHLPA (or a small group of hard line players and their boss)are refusing to negotiate. No league or business lets the workers take home 57% of revenues(not profits) and stays in business for long. If you can't see the parallels between the Hostess story and the NHL lockout then maybe you should look into it. But I'll keep it simple here: Hostess was losing money all of the unions except one took a pay cut to stay open. One union said no so they all lost their jobs. Some players want to give back and get a deal done and some don't and I suspect those that don't want to give back are the minority and they are costing everyone money. The moral here if people making $50k are willing to give back so they can work then someone making 2.4 million shouldn't ***** about doing the same to keep their job.
The players couldn't take advantage of loopholes by themselves. It was the owners who did it.

Answer to bolded - No business or league really? The NFL owners averaged over $40M last year in cash and over $100M in cash and franchise value. Per owner! You don't think they could stay in business paying 57%? I think NFL players get screwed. Their owners are swimming in money while these guys have a 3 year career, non guaranteed contracts, end up walking with limp, concussion issues and dying at an earlier age than the average population. There is one business that is a similar to the NHL that could survive. MLB is another. NBA is another.

I have owned a labor intensive business where I paid my employees well over 57% of my revenue. I made a small margin off the work of each person. Collectively they made more than me but I made more than each one of them as does the NHL and other businesses. Almost every business works off a small margin. This was a construction business.

I am now on the other side of the equation and each revenue generating employee makes 76% of the revenues. The boss has all the expenses as well as other lower salaried employees to pay. He still makes more than each of us do as individuals because he makes something off each persons efforts. Collectively we make 76% of his revenue. More when you add in the other employees. This is a mortgage business.

There are 2 more - one on each side of the equation. I would say every industry I have been in works the same way. Labor intensive businesses pay more than 50% to employees. Product side sales businesses pay more than 50% for the product side. Add them together and what are they paying?

In the case of sports - players are not just the employee but the product as well. I would say that most companies pay well over 50% for their products (or materials to build said products) plus the employees salary. They operate on small margins as sports owners do.

A minority of players can't hold the deal back like the owners can. If more than 50% want to play they will force the union to a vote and they will play.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 05:16 PM
  #369
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,888
vCash: 500
Can someone explain to me the details of how this whole trading of
Cap space phenomenon would work?

Can a team deal a chunk of space for picks for example? How much can a team trade?

bp13 is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 05:29 PM
  #370
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
This is what I have been working off:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ter-to-players
Thank you! That's what I've been looking for.

To all the people complaining about how the players have been negotiating: Tell me where the flaws lie in these proposals (specifically the third, which I see as being the strongest).

What concerns me is the unknown... What have the players asked for in return for a smaller cut?

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 05:34 PM
  #371
ranold26
Get off my rink!
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,282
vCash: 500
A must read...

http://m.thestar.com/sports/leafs/ar...osal-wednesday

Quote:
COMMON GROUND

The sides have more or less agreed to:

• Change the free agent calendar, meaning the market would open on June 15 or 48 hours after the awarding of the Stanley Cup — the players want whichever is later — instead of July 1. Arbitration dates may change as well.

• Allow cap space to be included in transactions, to encourage trades and get teams out from under heavy contracts.

• A joint health committee.

• Eliminate re-entry waivers.

• A neutral, third-party arbitrator to deal with appeals for on- and off-ice discipline.

• Minimum roster requirements to avoid situations where teams dress fewer than 18 players to save salary cap room.
Much more detail and tidbits in it..

ranold26 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 05:39 PM
  #372
ranold26
Get off my rink!
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,282
vCash: 500
I'm thinking if they can hammer out the 50/50 HRR issue, whether its immediate or over a couple seasons, this lockout will be over pretty fast.

ranold26 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 05:40 PM
  #373
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,642
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
But these are related businesses that they have as a result of owning a hockey team. They are package deals. The operating income on hockey is a loss leader (and profitable on its own for many) for franchise value, arena and cable deals. Agree with the numbers or not these things have to be considered in the overall picture.

What were franchise values in 1970, 80, 90, 2000 and now? What are they making on related businesses that they wouldn't have without the hockey team?

Should it stand on its own? Yes and at 57% it could have. 50% certainly will - which will also benefit the owners related businesses.

It really is common sense people. If Jacobs is barely breaking even and in fact probably losing money as some say on operating income now; then how many millions was he losing when paying the players 75%? Do you really think Jacobs was actually losing money? Don't you think he would have sold the team?

If Leipold really lost $70M on Nashville why would he buy another team? Look at the whole picture. Most are making money. Some from operating income alone. Most of the others when you factor in FV, & hockey related businesses.
When you or any one else constantly refer to billionaire owners who should be able to afford blah blah blah, you are talking about money earned outside of hockey. No owner became a billionaire from hockey. And it's referred to here as mutual. It's not.

Hockey teams ( all 30 of them - not the league as a whole) have to be able to sustain themselves.

Again, the franchise value IMO means diddly squat. The owners don't make a penny off franchise values until they sell and can get that franchise value.

You and I agree on a lot of things, but we'll continue to disagree on this.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 05:53 PM
  #374
sooshii
Living the dream
 
sooshii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Philly burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 10,185
vCash: 50
Shawn Thornton losing money, patience as lockout drags on

Quote:
“I'm on the lower end, and I only have a few years left, so I get screwed as hard as anybody, and if anybody should be pushing to take this deal, it would be a guy like me,” Thornton said. “And there are some things in that deal that you couldn't -- I wouldn't sign off on it yet. I don't want to get into specifics, but there are certain things that it's not doable yet for us to take it. Until we get to that point, it's not going to go anywhere.”

sooshii is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 06:17 PM
  #375
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Forget who first floated the idea of removing both of them from the process as the best way to get anything accomplished. It's rock vs hard place with those two- neither of which have any incentive to get a deal done with any speed.

It'd be great for an owner to step forward - a la Kraft during the NFL negotiations- to grease the gears a bit and rebuild some trust between all sides.
I agree, doubt we see it but I agree

ODAAT 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 07:00 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.