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
11-26-2012, 08:09 PM
  #251
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
That's because of the shortened first season. The point is that the owners will never agree to something like that, in the chance that revenues fall.
No, they probably wont, and I don't imagine that it would end up in the final agreement. But the point is that the players have agreed to a 12% rollback of salary, with a couple conditions. The discussion now is about the conditions, not about the rollback itself.

If that deal were signed today, the players would only make 50% HRR plus whatever "make whole" amount is agreed upon, which is identical in the first year to the NHL proposal but for a small difference in the make whole provision.

NotProkofievian is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:19 PM
  #252
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's the same law firm (out of thousands of law firms) for all the different sports leagues.
There is a very simple explanation, if it is true, this firm is the most experienced in a very specialized area of law. Why? Because they were hired by one league, which led to them having experience, and therefore, led to them getting hired by another league, and so on.

Simple. No conspiracy theory required.

Habbadasher is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:29 PM
  #253
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You should read your own link, it says " The NHL was represented by Executive Vice President Bill Daly, outside counsel Bob Batterman, and NHL Board of Governors Chairman Harley Hotchkiss, who also co-owns the Calgary Flames." Not that Batterman led negotiations.

It goes on to say "Shortly after this series of meetings, Daly presented Saskin a proposal", umm, a meeting not attended by the "lead negotiator" Batterman.

I am NOT an authority on anything, nor, do I claim to be, however, I admitted my error. You did not admit yours when you claimed the NHL had rejected the PA's request for an increase in revenue sharing.


Last edited by overlords: 11-26-2012 at 10:35 PM.
Habbadasher is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:50 PM
  #254
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
Your CHL question sounds like sarcasm, but if you were being sincere the minimum salary for a CHL player is $345 week if under 25 games played, and $390 a week if played more than 25.
Not sure which CHL you're referring to there... but in the junior CHL players really do get something more like a "stipend". It is typically quoted as something like $50/week, but varies with age/experience a little bit. Unless you're talking about the overall expenses to a team for a junior player. Maybe that's more like the $300-400 range? They get room and board, their billets are paid to feed them, for example. FWIW.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 09:18 PM
  #255
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Not sure which CHL you're referring to there... but in the junior CHL players really do get something more like a "stipend". It is typically quoted as something like $50/week, but varies with age/experience a little bit. Unless you're talking about the overall expenses to a team for a junior player. Maybe that's more like the $300-400 range? They get room and board, their billets are paid to feed them, for example. FWIW.
OK, so they're not being paid to play a game while in high school.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 09:22 PM
  #256
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
You should read your own link, it says " The NHL was represented by Executive Vice President Bill Daly, outside counsel Bob Batterman, and NHL Board of Governors Chairman Harley Hotchkiss, who also co-owns the Calgary Flames." Not that Batterman led negotiations.

It goes on to say "Shortly after this series of meetings, Daly presented Saskin a proposal", umm, a meeting not attended by the "lead negotiator" Batterman.
I don't know how the writer writes that Batterman was "lead negotiator", which implies "the lead negotiator", as based on what I read, he was merely "a lead negotiator", but he may know additional things.


Last edited by overlords: 11-26-2012 at 10:34 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-27-2012, 03:02 AM
  #257
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
You could say that about any job. When I worked construction I could spend my free time at home eating better and getting stronger, it would help me get better at my job, but it was my free time, and I wasn't required to do it in order to keep my job, neither are hockey players. This is just arguing semantics though and we've gotten away from the real discussion, so I'll concede that I was wrong on myb20 hours a week estimate.
actually they do, it's not like they can do whatever they want during summer for example (no training at all) without taking a stepback. Their salary is performance based, so to speak, so taking a stepback means less money on their next contract, whereas in other fields you could pretty much do whatever you want with your free time and still get the same salary.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:22 AM
  #258
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,196
vCash: 500
In a Montreal Gazette article, Lars Eller basically makes a case for the lockout that I and a few others have speculated on in these threads:

Quote:
“In the big perspective, not only just with this lockout and this CBA but in years to come, if players cave in now and give the owners what they want, then these lockouts will continue CBA after CBA.

“Players need to take a stand and let (owners) know we’re for real. Hopefully, they’ll start to respect us, which I think they don’t right now. That’s the only chance we have that this won’t continue. If we give them what we want, then they know the way (Bettman) is negotiating is working for them. If we cave in now, it will be the same pattern next time.”

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sport...#ixzz2DPgOG7Ky
It's not just about this lockout, it's about the next lockout as well.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-27-2012, 09:26 AM
  #259
habsfan92
Registered User
 
habsfan92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
In a Montreal Gazette article, Lars Eller basically makes a case for the lockout that I and a few others have speculated on in these threads:



It's not just about this lockout, it's about the next lockout as well.
Because Lars has so much experience with lockouts. If in the future, after this CBA, if the owners have faired much better than the players, then the players will strike. If the owners have not faired as well as the players, then the owners will have a lockout. Caving in will not restrict either from happening in the future.
Quoting Lars has zero bearing on anything, like you're grasping at straws. I am sure you are getting tired. Nothing will ever get resolved in this thread. Nobody is going to change their mind. Some players get too much money, some owners get too much money. Imposing a lower salary cap and having revenue sharing amongst the teams just makes for a stronger league and competitive teams. Which I am in favor. This isnt about work conditions, or pensions, or benefits, it is about how big a slice of the pie players think they deserve, they made it, but the owners have the recipe that makes it so delicious and the oven that it was cooked in. 50/50 will be the end result, but as long as the players want that high minimum amount, nothing is going to happen.

habsfan92 is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 09:55 AM
  #260
Craig71
Registered User
 
Craig71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfan92 View Post
Because Lars has so much experience with lockouts. If in the future, after this CBA, if the owners have faired much better than the players, then the players will strike. If the owners have not faired as well as the players, then the owners will have a lockout. Caving in will not restrict either from happening in the future.
Quoting Lars has zero bearing on anything, like you're grasping at straws. I am sure you are getting tired. Nothing will ever get resolved in this thread. Nobody is going to change their mind. Some players get too much money, some owners get too much money. Imposing a lower salary cap and having revenue sharing amongst the teams just makes for a stronger league and competitive teams. Which I am in favor. This isnt about work conditions, or pensions, or benefits, it is about how big a slice of the pie players think they deserve, they made it, but the owners have the recipe that makes it so delicious and the oven that it was cooked in. 50/50 will be the end result, but as long as the players want that high minimum amount, nothing is going to happen.
This post sums it up so nicely and is so bang on!!!

Craig71 is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 12:20 PM
  #261
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfan92 View Post
Because Lars has so much experience with lockouts. If in the future, after this CBA, if the owners have faired much better than the players, then the players will strike. If the owners have not faired as well as the players, then the owners will have a lockout. Caving in will not restrict either from happening in the future.
Quoting Lars has zero bearing on anything, like you're grasping at straws. I am sure you are getting tired. Nothing will ever get resolved in this thread. Nobody is going to change their mind. Some players get too much money, some owners get too much money. Imposing a lower salary cap and having revenue sharing amongst the teams just makes for a stronger league and competitive teams. Which I am in favor. This isnt about work conditions, or pensions, or benefits, it is about how big a slice of the pie players think they deserve, they made it, but the owners have the recipe that makes it so delicious and the oven that it was cooked in. 50/50 will be the end result, but as long as the players want that high minimum amount, nothing is going to happen.
although the analogy makes no sense, maybe the owners should try their recipe with different ingredients (players) and see if it taste as good.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 12:52 PM
  #262
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
although the analogy makes no sense, maybe the owners should try their recipe with different ingredients (players) and see if it taste as good.
I agree. The owners should bring in replacement players and see what happens if a deal can not be found in time to have a partial season. I would be very willing to try the new recipe with the new ingredients.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
actually they do, it's not like they can do whatever they want during summer for example (no training at all) without taking a stepback. Their salary is performance based, so to speak, so taking a stepback means less money on their next contract, whereas in other fields you could pretty much do whatever you want with your free time and still get the same salary.
Incorrect. Many players actually do whatever they want. Kaberle is just one example of a player who came back after a lazy summer and hasn't really suffered because of it. There are plenty of cases where players go off and live life during their time off and get back to work and conditioning for the season when training camp starts. Byfuglien, Kaberle and others over the years. Keep in mind, most players have guaranteed contracts. Nothing will happen that is too detrimental to a player on a contract who comes into camp a bit out of shape because he lived it up over the summer unless it is in a contract year. Want to bet how few players in contract years come to camp out of shape? Care to compare it to those guys who have longer term contracts?

As far as other careers allowing people to do whatever they want with their free time that is also not necessarily true. Many people work overtime that they do not get paid for because they want to keep their jobs. There are many others who work week-ends or other off hour times in order to ensure they still have a job. Players do not have to worry about those little things once they sign a contract. So, you are making some broad assumptions that aren't exactly accurate.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 12:58 PM
  #263
habsfan92
Registered User
 
habsfan92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
although the analogy makes no sense, maybe the owners should try their recipe with different ingredients (players) and see if it taste as good.
Guess what, if the teams had no superstars, the league would still exist. The owners would still make their money, players would get a lot less money, but the framework is still there. The analogy makes sense to those capable of understanding it. Are you using that same analogy to say that the league would exist without these particular players?

habsfan92 is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 01:12 PM
  #264
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I agree. The owners should bring in replacement players and see what happens if a deal can not be found in time to have a partial season. I would be very willing to try the new recipe with the new ingredients.




Incorrect. Many players actually do whatever they want. Kaberle is just one example of a player who came back after a lazy summer and hasn't really suffered because of it. There are plenty of cases where players go off and live life during their time off and get back to work and conditioning for the season when training camp starts. Byfuglien, Kaberle and others over the years. Keep in mind, most players have guaranteed contracts. Nothing will happen that is too detrimental to a player on a contract who comes into camp a bit out of shape because he lived it up over the summer unless it is in a contract year. Want to bet how few players in contract years come to camp out of shape? Care to compare it to those guys who have longer term contracts?

As far as other careers allowing people to do whatever they want with their free time that is also not necessarily true. Many people work overtime that they do not get paid for because they want to keep their jobs. There are many others who work week-ends or other off hour times in order to ensure they still have a job. Players do not have to worry about those little things once they sign a contract. So, you are making some broad assumptions that aren't exactly accurate.
think you missed the part where I said it's performance related... Buff may have been lazy all summer before last season, but at the end of the said season, the only D to have more points than him in the NHL was Karlsson. and Except for his Bruins/Canes games, since he's a Habs), Kaberle has been the TO Kab - more or less 40 pts, average defensively...

just like there's teachers, construction workers, engineers, etc who party real and and still manages to get the job done.

but for the most part, they dont. And for the most part (yeah yeah, there's exceptions I know) they have to train hard and keep in top shape to stay in the league and/or get some kind of raise on their next contract.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 01:14 PM
  #265
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfan92 View Post
Guess what, if the teams had no superstars, the league would still exist. The owners would still make their money, players would get a lot less money, but the framework is still there. The analogy makes sense to those capable of understanding it. Are you using that same analogy to say that the league would exist without these particular players?
Owners who makes money with their team, you have too many fingers in both hands to count 'em...

so, you're sayin' ?

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 01:28 PM
  #266
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
although the analogy makes no sense, maybe the owners should try their recipe with different ingredients (players) and see if it taste as good.
Going forward with players that are paid a fraction of the price? I think the owners would make less money, for if all they have to do is barely pay these players 100K, then they'd likely make some profits. Not every team though, and less people would watch. So it's tough to say, but I strongly doubt NHL players would ever let that happen.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-27-2012, 01:33 PM
  #267
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Going forward with players that are paid a fraction of the price? I think the owners would make less money, for if all they have to do is barely pay these players 100K, then they'd likely make some profits.
let's make a poll for a sec.
1. who here owns a MaB jersey ?
2. who here owns a Karl Dykhuis t-shirt ?
3. and who here owns a Pat Traverse jersey ?


there goes the money saved in salary

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 01:39 PM
  #268
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
let's make a poll for a sec.
1. who here owns a MaB jersey ?
2. who here owns a Karl Dykhuis t-shirt ?
3. and who here owns a Pat Traverse jersey ?


there goes the money saved in salary
Who here owns a Jersey without a name behind it?

Jersey Sales aren't the determining factor.

Operating fees for a Bell Center is huge, if they don't even sell out half of it, they could very well end up renting a different arena and playing there. Who knows really.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-27-2012, 01:40 PM
  #269
habsfan92
Registered User
 
habsfan92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Owners who makes money with their team, you have too many fingers in both hands to count 'em...

so, you're sayin' ?
This is almost jibberish to me, but I will try to understand what you are saying. When the team payroll will be less than 25 million, the owners will make money. The atmosphere will be more like a college game where the people who attend are there to support their team, not there to watch a particular player. Between gate receipts (which would be much less because seats would be much cheaper) and advertising revenues, owners would make money. Believe it or not, there are lots of leagues that don't have these particular players that do fine. Couldn't they get players that wanted to play for between 500,000 and a million dollars? You say no?

habsfan92 is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 02:16 PM
  #270
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfan92 View Post
Because Lars has so much experience with lockouts. If in the future, after this CBA, if the owners have faired much better than the players, then the players will strike. If the owners have not faired as well as the players, then the owners will have a lockout. Caving in will not restrict either from happening in the future.
Quoting Lars has zero bearing on anything, like you're grasping at straws. I am sure you are getting tired. Nothing will ever get resolved in this thread. Nobody is going to change their mind. Some players get too much money, some owners get too much money. Imposing a lower salary cap and having revenue sharing amongst the teams just makes for a stronger league and competitive teams. Which I am in favor. This isnt about work conditions, or pensions, or benefits, it is about how big a slice of the pie players think they deserve, they made it, but the owners have the recipe that makes it so delicious and the oven that it was cooked in. 50/50 will be the end result, but as long as the players want that high minimum amount, nothing is going to happen.
i brought this point up befor, that the main diference in opinion in these arguments are that how much do the players bring to the game comparitavly to the investors. While you like the recipe, which in todays world of information, is nothing "special" per say (anyone with money can build a profitable team in TO for example).

While you rather pay for the recipe, i rather pay for the fresh and scarce ingredients. The days of 'grandmas secret recipe' and 'coke's secrete recipe' are long over IMO.

Also there is reason why certain teams sing humongous contracts ala Kovalchuk, and it probably has more to do with bringing in more fans, then actually 'winning'. of course, Kovy was brought in to score goals and make the team better, but i'm sure when Lou had his advisers make the cost benefit analysis of signing Kovy to a monster contract, with a team that's in financial difficulties, i'm sure bringing in new fans, new "vibe" (away from "boring" trap game of the 2000s) had alot to do with them overspending on Kovy.


Last edited by uiCk: 11-27-2012 at 02:22 PM.
uiCk is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 02:26 PM
  #271
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfan92 View Post
This is almost jibberish to me, but I will try to understand what you are saying. When the team payroll will be less than 25 million, the owners will make money. The atmosphere will be more like a college game where the people who attend are there to support their team, not there to watch a particular player. Between gate receipts (which would be much less because seats would be much cheaper) and advertising revenues, owners would make money. Believe it or not, there are lots of leagues that don't have these particular players that do fine. Couldn't they get players that wanted to play for between 500,000 and a million dollars? You say no?
You may not remember but, even the first year of the last CBA (with salary cap), there were teams losing money even though the cap was 39 mil...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 03:01 PM
  #272
WhiskeySeven
President of Canada
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
You may not remember but, even the first year of the last CBA (with salary cap), there were teams losing money even though the cap was 39 mil...
It should be noted that most owners also own club-related businesses which can rack up revenues. Arena owners can get public money which they don't count as HRR (one of the talking points in these negotiations) and also they can, and are inclined to, defer HRR revenue through non-club businesses in order to be eligible for all sorts of bonuses the NHL offers low-income teams.

Basically teams are inclined to not make a profit for a multitude of reasons - and it is in the owners' best interests to not make a profit through the club itself.

I used to be appalled at the number of hockey teams "losing money" every year - teams like the Ducks and Sharks who spent to the cap - but I get it now. These owners are smart businessmen, they would never, ever invest in the team if they were literally losing money every year. Just the fact that they can get massive low-interest loans by putting the club as collateral is a huge benefit for them. Look at how Gillette and Hicks bled Liverpool dry, and the gigantic loans the Glazers took out on Manchester United.

This is why I have no sympathy for the owners - it's a sport where the players are the product and the owners sign them to giant contracts to improve their teams. The players aren't employees, they're the main attraction. They deserve much more than 50%, it's only because the NBA and NFL have terrible PAs that the NHL players fell to 50% HRR. In a free-market system they were getting up to 72% of HRR! So as far as I can tell, any separation in terms of figures or contract details between both parties must be made up by the owners and not the PA.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 03:13 PM
  #273
Redux91
I do Three bullets.
 
Redux91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Montreal West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,874
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Redux91 Send a message via MSN to Redux91
Whats So great about this Barkov kid anyway? or Lindholm , Im pretty Unfamiliar With Them

Redux91 is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 03:38 PM
  #274
HankyZetts
Twi2ted
 
HankyZetts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,732
vCash: 500
You people that think the NHL could survive, or even try to survive with replacement players...

The reason you all love the Habs is because of Ken Dryden, Patrick Roy, the Richards, Koivu, Lafleur, etc., etc. That's the only reason that the CH is recognizable to you. They are the ones that made it what it is. Replacement players and you can call me an ex-NHL fan, that's for sure. I'd watch THE PLAYERS play freaking pickup at the Pierrefonds Arena. Actually, I have and I do! I'd pay to watch THEM practice, oh wait, I've done that as well. How many of you lined up for autographs for Mr. Molson et cie at the golf tourney and whatever other charity function there's been? If the habs played their home games at an outdoor rink in Lachine, there'd be double the attendance of the Bell Center.

What does all that tell you of my opinion on the owners and their "perfect recipe"? Gimme a freakin break!!

If it has to be 50-50, then the players should maintain most all of their contracting rights and it should absolutely be a "soft landing" of some sorts. Will it end up that way? Probably not, but that's today's world, the more money you have the more power and control you possess. Doesn't matter what's right or wrong.

HankyZetts is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 03:52 PM
  #275
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankyZetts View Post
You people that think the NHL could survive, or even try to survive with replacement players...

The reason you all love the Habs is because of Ken Dryden, Patrick Roy, the Richards, Koivu, Lafleur, etc., etc. That's the only reason that the CH is recognizable to you. They are the ones that made it what it is. Replacement players and you can call me an ex-NHL fan, that's for sure. I'd watch THE PLAYERS play freaking pickup at the Pierrefonds Arena. Actually, I have and I do! I'd pay to watch THEM practice, oh wait, I've done that as well. How many of you lined up for autographs for Mr. Molson et cie at the golf tourney and whatever other charity function there's been? If the habs played their home games at an outdoor rink in Lachine, there'd be double the attendance of the Bell Center.

What does all that tell you of my opinion on the owners and their "perfect recipe"? Gimme a freakin break!!

If it has to be 50-50, then the players should maintain most all of their contracting rights and it should absolutely be a "soft landing" of some sorts. Will it end up that way? Probably not, but that's today's world, the more money you have the more power and control you possess. Doesn't matter what's right or wrong.
Survive? No. That league would die, and players will join another league making that league the strongest.
Can it make some cash over half a year however? Very possible. Nobody is talking long term.

Kriss E 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 12:57 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.