HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-25-2012, 08:10 PM
  #176
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I think decertification would be an asinine move and hope that guys like Neuvirth and Hamrlik know enough others of like mind to prevent the union from doing such a stupid move. That type of move would only help the rich players and damage the weaker lights of the players union.

Of course, with idiots like Bolland (man, if I tweeted that I want my boss dead I would lose my job faster than I could finish typing the tweet. I guess the players' sense of entitlement extends beyond hockey fame and fortune...sigh...) running around, it is amazing that the players haven't managed to screw themselves completely...oh, wait, they are locked out because they can not understand why the guys who pay all of the bills want 50% of the money. Never mind, I actually do understand why the NHLPA is FUBAR at the moment...
There are very few players currently playing for $500,000.

As such, there are very few players, less than 10%, whose salaries would fall below the current floor without a CBA. Owners already think they're worth that much and they're not forced to pay all that.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-25-2012, 08:36 PM
  #177
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
You're probably right that it's going to be a tough sell. It probably involves most current players losing money, and there's risk involved. But:

- Many players are angry. It looks like they were ready to accept the equivalent of the NBA CBA, but Bettman & co. insisted on going a step further, a facewash after the whistle. It may not be rational from a self-interest POV, but hockey players are emotional, competitive people.

- If they don't decertify now, there's a good chance they will in 6 years, after another lockout. Some people believe that the owners will be satisfied with 50% of revenues... I don't believe it, and I don't think players do.

- Something that was puzzling to me in the recent Erik Cole interview was his comments about fighting for future players. Maybe this is what he had in mind. It would make a lot more sense than if he was referring to the make whole battle. If some players are thankful for those who battled in 94-95 and feel the obligation to do something for the next generation, taking the difficult road to a post-CBA league could be the best way to go about it.
An incredibly good post.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-25-2012, 08:41 PM
  #178
Alexdaman
Registered User
 
Alexdaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Pominville, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
You're probably right that it's going to be a tough sell. It probably involves most current players losing money, and there's risk involved. But:

- Many players are angry. It looks like they were ready to accept the equivalent of the NBA CBA, but Bettman & co. insisted on going a step further, a facewash after the whistle. It may not be rational from a self-interest POV, but hockey players are emotional, competitive people.

- If they don't decertify now, there's a good chance they will in 6 years, after another lockout. Some people believe that the owners will be satisfied with 50% of revenues... I don't believe it, and I don't think players do.

- Something that was puzzling to me in the recent Erik Cole interview was his comments about fighting for future players. Maybe this is what he had in mind. It would make a lot more sense than if he was referring to the make whole battle. If some players are thankful for those who battled in 94-95 and feel the obligation to do something for the next generation, taking the difficult road to a post-CBA league could be the best way to go about it.

LOL battled... only 1% of kids who try hockey make it to the NHL I don't see how making 4.5 million a year instead of 4.85 is a battle

Alexdaman is offline  
Old
11-25-2012, 08:46 PM
  #179
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexdaman View Post
LOL battled... only 1% of kids who try hockey make it to the NHL I don't see how making 4.5 million a year instead of 4.85 is a battle
It's a much bigger difference then that.

Players took a 24% pay cut last time, so it's 4.5 versus 4.5/(1-0.24) = 5.9 million. Add in another 12.3% cut this time and the 5.9 million becomes 3.9 million -- that's a massive difference.

Then think about all the other benefits owners want to take away:
- two extra years on the entry level contract (WTF ???)
- one extra year before free agency
- etc.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-25-2012, 09:41 PM
  #180
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,397
vCash: 500
I think if the union successfully votes to de-certify there will be a lot of pressure for the Canadian teams to decouple from the NHL and find a way to come to an agreement with the players from the Canadian teams. We'll end up with a Canadian league, which is fine by me.

Our laws are different than American law, all our teams are profitable and there is a willingness to find a reasonable solution to keep playing. If there is a de-certification there will be a legal mess for between a couple years and up to 5 years, something I think the Canadian teams want nothing to do with.

Frozenice is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 12:05 AM
  #181
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,750
vCash: 500
On the sociological consequences of mass-lockouts in the professional sports world, one of the best articles I've seen on this issue:

Meet the Lockout Lawyers Destroying Sports
By Dave Zirin
http://www.edgeofsports.com/2012-10-16-784/index.html

Quote:
Currently the sports world is suffering its fourth lockout in the past fourteen months. On four occasions since August 2011, pro sports owners have locked their publicly subsidized stadium doors, sent stadium workers home and stopped play as usual. This is not coincidence or happenstance. It’s a coordinated management offensive that has reverberations far beyond the playing field. ...
The number of lockouts, once the third rail of collective bargaining, has doubled since 2010. But you need more than cash reserves to make this the new norm. For management to win a lockout they need to convince the public—and transform the culture—into thinking that lockouts (starving out your workers) is an acceptable practice. No NHL players are starving, of course, but this is about exploiting sports to enforce a new national labor paradigm.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 12:35 AM
  #182
overlords
Hfboards
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,411
vCash: 500
I've noticed an alarming amount of posts recently that have a bit too much vitriol or anger directed at other posters. Argue your points, but don't single out posters or group of posters because you don't like what they think.

overlords is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:57 AM
  #183
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
There are very few players currently playing for $500,000.

As such, there are very few players, less than 10%, whose salaries would fall below the current floor without a CBA. Owners already think they're worth that much and they're not forced to pay all that.
That could depend. If the mid-tier and top-tier players commanded more money without a CBA, the entire landscape could change and the entire pay structure could be out the window.

There will be unintended consequences for both sides.

The last CBA resulted in the cap acting as a magnet, it also resulted in some ridculous contracts being handed out to circumvent the cap. I doubt the architects of the CBA foresaw that.

HCH is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 09:01 AM
  #184
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlords View Post
I've noticed an alarming amount of posts recently that have a bit too much vitriol or anger directed at other posters. Argue your points, but don't single out posters or group of posters because you don't like what they think.
Maybe someone just hacked their accounts

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 10:02 AM
  #185
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,357
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410069

Probably already posted/argued.
pretty obvious Hammer doesn't care much about the negotiations as an entity and seems to only care about his contract and end of career. Which is fine, but i don't really understand how he's a "hero" in so many fan's eyes, since what motivated his public outing his is his own greed towards his own remaining short career. it's pretty obvious, especially given such jealous influenced comments like:
""I'm a little bit disappointed in what he said. What I do know is he has three years left on his contract and I'm sure he got a nice signing bonus this summer, so I don't think he didn't have to sacrifice anything. So good for him, good agent.""


edit: brouwer's comment on the comment:
""Those are two guys that have never been on a conference call, never been to a meeting, never paid attention," Brouwer told The Post. "People are going to have their own opinions but when you're fighting for something with 700 other guys, all you're doing is just making it harder to make a deal and making it harder to accomplish the things we're fighting for."


Last edited by uiCk: 11-26-2012 at 10:09 AM.
uiCk is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 10:32 AM
  #186
Rickkins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 573
vCash: 500
The more I read up about it, the more decertification sounds like a viable path.

Rickkins is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 10:36 AM
  #187
Rickkins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
Unless I'm mistaken the current contracts all have the CBA as their basis, without it the contracts are void.
No, I think that devoid of the cba as the basis for the contracts, the governance of said contracts would revert to the contract law of each respective jurisdiction.

Rickkins is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 11:08 AM
  #188
swimmer77
Post Oates
 
swimmer77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: in water
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410069

Probably already posted/argued.
pretty obvious Hammer doesn't care much about the negotiations as an entity and seems to only care about his contract and end of career. Which is fine, but i don't really understand how he's a "hero" in so many fan's eyes, since what motivated his public outing his is his own greed towards his own remaining short career. it's pretty obvious, especially given such jealous influenced comments like:
""I'm a little bit disappointed in what he said. What I do know is he has three years left on his contract and I'm sure he got a nice signing bonus this summer, so I don't think he didn't have to sacrifice anything. So good for him, good agent.""


edit: brouwer's comment on the comment:
""Those are two guys that have never been on a conference call, never been to a meeting, never paid attention," Brouwer told The Post. "People are going to have their own opinions but when you're fighting for something with 700 other guys, all you're doing is just making it harder to make a deal and making it harder to accomplish the things we're fighting for."
If you actually read the interview in it's entirety it's quite interesting. Why does Hamrlik not have a right to an opinion? He said himself he may be selfish. He actually said he was at a meeting in the summer where the "gameplan" was layed out. My perception is that what was sold to the players isn't coming to fruition and that's what Hamr sees. And even here today a solution doesn't seem nearby.

Hamrlik isn't a hero. He's just a player who was pretty frank and honest about his feelings and had the gumption to speak about it. It also sounds like he voiced his ideas to Cole and Gorges and the results didn't sound too productive for him so he took another route, stepped on some precious toes and got somebody's attention.

Meanwhile another faction of players Tweet, make their own false accusations, bash on a personal level, make goofy hats and act with a basic immaturity that I'm somewhat surprised at. And now others are telling Hamr he has no right to speak because they think he's not informed. To say he is not informed sounds like a big assumption to me.

swimmer77 is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 11:19 AM
  #189
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,400
vCash: 500
Good explanation of decertification and its consequences:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410312

Fozz is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 11:23 AM
  #190
habtastic
Registered User
 
habtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mumbai via MTL
Country: India
Posts: 9,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer77 View Post
If you actually read the interview in it's entirety it's quite interesting. Why does Hamrlik not have a right to an opinion? He said himself he may be selfish. He actually said he was at a meeting in the summer where the "gameplan" was layed out. My perception is that what was sold to the players isn't coming to fruition and that's what Hamr sees. And even here today a solution doesn't seem nearby.

Hamrlik isn't a hero. He's just a player who was pretty frank and honest about his feelings and had the gumption to speak about it. It also sounds like he voiced his ideas to Cole and Gorges and the results didn't sound too productive for him so he took another route, stepped on some precious toes and got somebody's attention.

Meanwhile another faction of players Tweet, make their own false accusations, bash on a personal level, make goofy hats and act with a basic immaturity that I'm somewhat surprised at. And now others are telling Hamr he has no right to speak because they think he's not informed. To say he is not informed sounds like a big assumption to me.
I tend to agree with this. I don't think he was trying to be a hero, although may be perceived as one by those who
a) side with the owners/think the players are greedy millionaires
b) just wish this would be over with

Like swimmer said, it's as though the players had this gameplan laid out in which they were a little too cocky (at Fehr's hand) by not putting proposals in early (if you recall). Then things started going very badly. Now it's about Bettman vs. Fehr, which was always going to be the one thing you wanted to avoid (an ego showdown). The players aren't in a great place now and I don't blame them for trying to keep fighting, but to a vet who's been through quite a few lockouts (not like he didn't put in his time), a lot of this IS petty BS.

Brouwer has his own perspective and you could interpret it as staying the course OR continuing to bang your head against a wall while depriving fans of hockey. I do understand that it's not about a small amount for many players as well as it's also about the future of the NHL and players' rights, but I don't disagree with Hamrlik. The fact he's a PA member, maybe that's what makes it incendiary.

So if and when the season does resume, even next year, do Hammer and Brouwer become bunk buddies? I would not be pleased if there was this kind of dissent in our locker room (I hardly think Cole's comments were taken badly by our players -- if anything he was fighting FOR the players, perhaps with a weak hand).

habtastic is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 11:35 AM
  #191
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
On the sociological consequences of mass-lockouts in the professional sports world, one of the best articles I've seen on this issue:

Meet the Lockout Lawyers Destroying Sports
By Dave Zirin
http://www.edgeofsports.com/2012-10-16-784/index.html
I think the owners have gone a long way towards changing the public ethos regarding labor relations, possibly helped by the current political opinion regarding "entitlements" in the U.S. This place is a perfect example. Quite literally, according to the Don Cherries on this board, unless the players accept whatever the owners offer, they're "not negotiating," or they're spoiled, and stifling the league. There were people on the main board actually suggesting that the players accept 20-30% of HRR. The default opinion seems to be that so long as the players are playing in the NHL, it doesn't matter to whom the labour belongs. The player are nothing but "cattle," afterall, grazing in pastures that the owners paid for...well, not really. The tax payers paid for it, but the owner gets to reap any benefits therefrom.

NotProkofievian is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 12:06 PM
  #192
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
I think the owners have gone a long way towards changing the public ethos regarding labor relations, possibly helped by the current political opinion regarding "entitlements" in the U.S. This place is a perfect example. Quite literally, according to the Don Cherries on this board, unless the players accept whatever the owners offer, they're "not negotiating," or they're spoiled, and stifling the league. There were people on the main board actually suggesting that the players accept 20-30% of HRR. The default opinion seems to be that so long as the players are playing in the NHL, it doesn't matter to whom the labour belongs. The player are nothing but "cattle," afterall, grazing in pastures that the owners paid for...well, not really. The tax payers paid for it, but the owner gets to reap any benefits therefrom.
agreed, and in this particular case lots of "fans" are blinded by the fact the players make a more than decent salary, it seems to be a good enough reason for those players to accept things those "fans" would never agree on at their job.


besides, think owners have to be careful with this "image game" IMO, cause at the end of the day, none of the t-shirts, jerseys, etc have the owners name on the back of it.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:06 PM
  #193
zx81
Registered User
 
zx81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,471
vCash: 500
Let's be realistic. Players will not win.
It's unfortunate but unavoidable.

Do you think that decertification, the so called "nuclear" option will lead to a peaceful agreement in favor of the players?

No way.
You drop a nuclear bomb on a powerful country, you can expect a reply.

Decertification will only cause endless legal battles that will ultimately make the players lose a lot of money.

Are they willing to lose millions of $ to break the lockout cycle ? I don't think so.

I understand the need to break that cycle but you have to evaluate the price you're willing to pay.

zx81 is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:11 PM
  #194
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zx81 View Post
Let's be realistic. Players will not win.
It's unfortunate but unavoidable.

Do you think that decertification, the so called "nuclear" option will lead to a peaceful agreement in favor of the players?

No way.
You drop a nuclear bomb on a powerful country, you can expect a reply.

Decertification will only cause endless legal battles that will ultimately make the players lose a lot of money.

Are they willing to lose millions of $ to break the lockout cycle ? I don't think so.

I understand the need to break that cycle but you have to evaluate the price you're willing to pay.
lest not forget there's teams playing in small markets that are losing $ every season, how much more would they be willing to lose you think ?

and lest not forget that, as we speak, because of the lockout, profitable teams arent making any profits.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:27 PM
  #195
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
I think the owners have gone a long way towards changing the public ethos regarding labor relations, possibly helped by the current political opinion regarding "entitlements" in the U.S. This place is a perfect example. Quite literally, according to the Don Cherries on this board, unless the players accept whatever the owners offer, they're "not negotiating," or they're spoiled, and stifling the league. There were people on the main board actually suggesting that the players accept 20-30% of HRR. The default opinion seems to be that so long as the players are playing in the NHL, it doesn't matter to whom the labour belongs. The player are nothing but "cattle," afterall, grazing in pastures that the owners paid for...well, not really. The tax payers paid for it, but the owner gets to reap any benefits therefrom.
It's about knowing when to settle, or how to cut your losses short.
If they lose the whole year, players end up losing more cash over it than if they were to accept the 12% rollback, which seems to be the main reason they can't sign a deal.
Cut your losses short, try to bring down the rollback a little more, and work around the other things that the league suggested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410069

Probably already posted/argued.
pretty obvious Hammer doesn't care much about the negotiations as an entity and seems to only care about his contract and end of career. Which is fine, but i don't really understand how he's a "hero" in so many fan's eyes, since what motivated his public outing his is his own greed towards his own remaining short career. it's pretty obvious, especially given such jealous influenced comments like:
""I'm a little bit disappointed in what he said. What I do know is he has three years left on his contract and I'm sure he got a nice signing bonus this summer, so I don't think he didn't have to sacrifice anything. So good for him, good agent.""


edit: brouwer's comment on the comment:
""Those are two guys that have never been on a conference call, never been to a meeting, never paid attention," Brouwer told The Post. "People are going to have their own opinions but when you're fighting for something with 700 other guys, all you're doing is just making it harder to make a deal and making it harder to accomplish the things we're fighting for."
How is it greed to not want to be forced to retire due to a lockout? And why is him voicing his opinion any different from when Crosby says something? or Cole with his ''Puck Bettman'' shirts??
Did Brouwer or anybody from the PA get up to blast Cole in the media or say how he's not helping negotiations???

There's huge hypocrisy going on.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:29 PM
  #196
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zx81 View Post
Let's be realistic. Players will not win.
It's unfortunate but unavoidable.

Do you think that decertification, the so called "nuclear" option will lead to a peaceful agreement in favor of the players?

No way.
You drop a nuclear bomb on a powerful country, you can expect a reply.

Decertification will only cause endless legal battles that will ultimately make the players lose a lot of money.

Are they willing to lose millions of $ to break the lockout cycle ? I don't think so.

I understand the need to break that cycle but you have to evaluate the price you're willing to pay.
Decertification isn't about pragmatism or peaceful agreements, it's about forcing the NHL into a corner so they have to make concessions. Of course, you wouldn't do such a move unless you were certain that it would work. If it doesn't work, then we're talking about a scenario where, indeed, the players would probably lose a lot of money. A scenario where the NHL would hold all the cards, as the lockout really could hold out indefinitely.

However, if the lockout were deemed illegal post decertification, that would be a huge blow to the NHL. Monumental. Multiple hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-trust and collusion law-suits which would make the difference in "make-whole" provisions seem like childs play. If there's a favorable chance that the NHL would lose a lawsuit post decertification, they would be wise to settle somewhere nearer to the NHLPA's last proposal.

NotProkofievian is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:32 PM
  #197
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
lest not forget there's teams playing in small markets that are losing $ every season, how much more would they be willing to lose you think ?

and lest not forget that, as we speak, because of the lockout, profitable teams arent making any profits.
But owners usually have other sources of income. Most players are probably not getting anything outside hockey and endorsements.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:34 PM
  #198
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
It's about knowing when to settle, or how to cut your losses short.
If they lose the whole year, players end up losing more cash over it than if they were to accept the 12% rollback, which seems to be the main reason they can't sign a deal.
Cut your losses short, try to bring down the rollback a little more, and work around the other things that the league suggested.
What are you talking about? They already accepted the 12% rollback, starting next year. What the owners won't accept is some semblance of a guarantee that there won't be a further clawback during the course of the next CBA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
How is it greed to not want to be forced to retire due to a lockout? And why is him voicing his opinion any different from when Crosby says something? or Cole with his ''Puck Bettman'' shirts??
Did Brouwer or anybody from the PA get up to blast Cole in the media or say how he's not helping negotiations???

There's huge hypocrisy going on.
It's greed because he wants a couple extra mill at the expense of future players. It isn't hypocrisy because while the puck-bettman shirts were puerile, no one but pro-owner fans took them with any sort of seriousness, whereas Hamrlik's dissension could be damaging to what the NHLPA is trying to accomplish.

NotProkofievian is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:35 PM
  #199
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
Decertification isn't about pragmatism or peaceful agreements, it's about forcing the NHL into a corner so they have to make concessions. Of course, you wouldn't do such a move unless you were certain that it would work. If it doesn't work, then we're talking about a scenario where, indeed, the players would probably lose a lot of money. A scenario where the NHL would hold all the cards, as the lockout really could hold out indefinitely.

However, if the lockout were deemed illegal post decertification, that would be a huge blow to the NHL. Monumental. Multiple hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-trust and collusion law-suits which would make the difference in "make-whole" provisions seem like childs play. If there's a favorable chance that the NHL would lose a lawsuit post decertification, they would be wise to settle somewhere nearer to the NHLPA's last proposal.
I think Bettman and the owners are willing to call the bluff of a decertification. I don't see how the majority of the players would be for one, it's likely just all talk.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:38 PM
  #200
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
agreed, and in this particular case lots of "fans" are blinded by the fact the players make a more than decent salary, it seems to be a good enough reason for those players to accept things those "fans" would never agree on at their job.
I agree. Petty jealousy at best.

NotProkofievian is online now  
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 07:55 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.