HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Haggerty: Jacobs should be held responsible

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 02:55 AM
  #126
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Toronto, Boston, Montreal, etc. are not making profits by "forcing" lesser teams to expend, not sure how you came to that conclusion. They make money because simply put they're in the handful of rare markets in North America where hockey can generate a high amount of revenue, period.

The players are the ones who win big, because Toronto/Boston/Montreal/etc. subsidize the entire NHL and inflate hockey revenue, but every player from the guys playing for Toronto to the guys on the Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, etc. benefit as the cap rises every year (taking the cap floor up with it).

If you're Toronto, what the heck is Columbus/Carolina/etc. doing for you? They could stop existing tomorrow and you'd still be making the same money.

This is a sweet deal for the players. 30 teams, maybe half pull a profit, but all the players are happy because they're getting their paycheques, and the teams not making money become desperate to pull a profit and are easy to be baited into overspending in a desperate attempt to raise attendance.
Incorrect. The last CBA created a structure with the floor and range which forced lesser teams to spend while capping the payroll expenses of the big guys. That was the tradeoff. I don't buy your argument and I don't think any of the owners (big market or little) would either.

KevFu made some excellent posts about how the floor/range was going to create havenots regardless of the number of teams.

The primary issue is that some of those lesser teams were actually not doing worse before the last CBA and in fact may have been doing better because they were not mandated to carry big payrolls. But there is no doubt that the payroll expense dropped for the big guys and their profits skyrocketed. And there is no doubt that some small markets suffered relative to the previous CBA because their payroll was mandated upwards beyond fiscal prudence.

Ostensibly, the lesser teams are creating a footprint for the league which generates merchandise sales in places where there wouldn't be any and generates the interest that draws a bigger TV contract. I won't argue that the expansion initiative has been completely successful at this point, but it is far from a complete failure. Both extremes of that argument are hyperbole.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:38 AM
  #127
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Incorrect. The last CBA created a structure with the floor and range which forced lesser teams to spend while capping the payroll expenses of the big guys. That was the tradeoff. I don't buy your argument and I don't think any of the owners (big market or little) would either.

KevFu made some excellent posts about how the floor/range was going to create havenots regardless of the number of teams.

The primary issue is that some of those lesser teams were actually not doing worse before the last CBA and in fact may have been doing better because they were not mandated to carry big payrolls. But there is no doubt that the payroll expense dropped for the big guys and their profits skyrocketed. And there is no doubt that some small markets suffered relative to the previous CBA because their payroll was mandated upwards beyond fiscal prudence.

Ostensibly, the lesser teams are creating a footprint for the league which generates merchandise sales in places where there wouldn't be any and generates the interest that draws a bigger TV contract. I won't argue that the expansion initiative has been completely successful at this point, but it is far from a complete failure. Both extremes of that argument are hyperbole.
You're not losing the cap floor now.

The NHL would probably be OK with scrapping it, but the PA now would not. I'm sure they quite like having the cap rise for every team basically every year (which wasn't the intent of the cap floor by the NHL anyway).

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:48 AM
  #128
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
I don't understand why the owners don't all have equal representation. They are ALL impacted by this.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 04:04 AM
  #129
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
You're not losing the cap floor now.

The NHL would probably be OK with scrapping it, but the PA now would not. I'm sure they quite like having the cap rise for every team basically every year (which wasn't the intent of the cap floor by the NHL anyway).
I agree the floor is not going anywhere. However, the big guys got it as a trade off for capping their expenses and reaped a windfall in return. The trade off among the owners for the big guys getting the windfall is revenue sharing. Beyond that, the presence of the lesser lights keeps that windfall coming as it keeps the cap "artificially" low. Part of the windfall is both deserved and earned by lesser lights as compensation for agreeing to the floor in the first place.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 04:24 AM
  #130
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
I don't understand why the owners don't all have equal representation. They are ALL impacted by this.
They do have equal representation, 1 vote per team. The NHL negotiating team answers to BoG.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 07:56 AM
  #131
Nab77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Toronto, Boston, Montreal, etc. are not making profits by "forcing" lesser teams to expend, not sure how you came to that conclusion. They make money because simply put they're in the handful of rare markets in North America where hockey can generate a high amount of revenue, period.

The players are the ones who win big, because Toronto/Boston/Montreal/etc. subsidize the entire NHL and inflate hockey revenue, but every player from the guys playing for Toronto to the guys on the Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, etc. benefit as the cap rises every year (taking the cap floor up with it).

If you're Toronto, what the heck is Columbus/Carolina/etc. doing for you? They could stop existing tomorrow and you'd still be making the same money.

This is a sweet deal for the players. 30 teams, maybe half pull a profit, but all the players are happy because they're getting their paycheques, and the teams not making money become desperate to pull a profit and are easy to be baited into overspending in a desperate attempt to raise attendance (ie: Columbus overspending on Carter, Wisniewski, in an attempt to keep Nash happy).
You make it sound like it was the players idea to expand the league. Wasn't it Bettman and BOG who wanted all these southern franchises and are now unwilling to move/contract them?

Nab77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 08:50 AM
  #132
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Winnipeg hasn't earned the right to walk into a CBA negotiations and dictate to other franchises that have either 1) been bleeding money the last 7-8 years or 2) been paying out a good chunk of their profit into revenue sharing and are now being asked to pony up even more.

If Jacobs said it, I'd guarantee just about every other owner in that room was thinking the same thing.

No one in that room is going to accept a crappy or badly compromised deal for the next 7-8 years just because Winnipeg was itching to maintain their 1-year-momenteum.

When the next CBA rolls around and Winnipeg has paid more of their dues and put in a good 7+ years in revenue sharing or just been in the business to have more skin in the game, then sure it will be a different story then.
And betcha LA was itching to maintain its one year momentum and the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers, Canadiens, Canucks and others were itching to keep making money hand over fist. And it wasn't about accepting a crappy or badly compromised deal; it was about "engaging in a long bloody lock-out". Seems to me we got the latter, not sure about the former.

moosehead81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 10:14 AM
  #133
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
If you want to carp about the lockout, that's fine, but trying to single out any one agency as entirely responsible is ludicrous.

If you're looking for one man to blame: if they'd had a reasonable union rep in charge of the NHLPA side of things, then everyone could have go back to getting rich at the expense of NHL fans months ago. Frankly what these two groups are fighting over is pennies on the dollar, but Fehr has his reputation and was literally hired not to give an inch to the owners, so here we are..

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 10:22 AM
  #134
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
They do have equal representation, 1 vote per team. The NHL negotiating team answers to BoG.
Yea but what about the group that even lets it get to a vote. It seems like there is a small minority fighting for every last cent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
If you want to carp about the lockout, that's fine, but trying to single out any one agency as entirely responsible is ludicrous.

If you're looking for one man to blame: if they'd had a reasonable union rep in charge of the NHLPA side of things, then everyone could have go back to getting rich at the expense of NHL fans months ago. Frankly what these two groups are fighting over is pennies on the dollar, but Fehr has his reputation and was literally hired not to give an inch to the owners, so here we are..
Every offer tabled has the players giving back, it's just how much. How about some of these owners take responsibility for running their business like **** and awarded franchises with short term gains in mind.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:23 PM
  #135
TOML
Registered User
 
TOML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Walnut Grove
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Jacobs has to have some support outside of Bettman to get his way. There is apparently committee of like-minded owners controlling the fate of the league.

I searched to find out what team owners/reps are in the NHL executive committee:

-Jeremy Jacobs (Boston)
-Craig Leipold (Minnesota)
-Brian Burke (TO)
-Murray Edwards (Calgary)
-Ted Leonsis (Washington)

(Can somebody confirm that this is indeed the inner circle? Sources are thin. The non-addition of Snider is suspect.)

No representation from Gary's newish franchises. Basically the guys who have the most experience with law and/or lockouts. And guys who are definitely on-side with helping out their own wallets at the expense of players.

Old man Jacobs: Of course the Darth Vader of NHL ownership has to be included.

Note that Leipold is there, and he just signed Parise and Suter to mammoth deals. Deals that he knew he probably wouldn't have to honor? Him and Gary go way back.

And of course Burke has to be there. Explains why we haven't heard much from the guy as of late. Since no 'person' owns TO, Burke being there makes sense, given his experience with inner NHL affairs.

The odd duck to me is Edwards. Who is he? Representing all of western Canada?

Ted Leonsis was thrown in to be a wildcard. (WILDCARD! YEEEEE-HAWWWWWW!) But he apparently is also a hard-liner, along with the rest of them.


TOML


Last edited by TOML: 11-30-2012 at 02:34 PM.
TOML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 02:15 PM
  #136
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alycat View Post
Each state is different. There's a reason MA has the lovely nickname of Taxachusetts.

I was responding to the comment that not paying the tax on the rings is par for the course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
If true about jacobs.How is it he can threaten the owner of the jets.Is not part of the thompson family.Worth over 20 billion dollars imagine their connections in the business and political world.
If it happened Thompson wasn't in the room himself, someone else from the organization was. The Thompsons are the richest in Canada and 17th richest in the world. They could buy everything Jacobs owns and still have billions of dollars in the bank so are unlikely to be intimidated by him nor would they allow someone like Jacobs to speak to them in that manner. As much of a jerk as Jacobs is, I doubt even he would have spoken that way (assuming he did) to Thompson himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
They can disagree all they want.

If I'm Boston or Montreal or Toronto, I'm telling them to sit down and wait your turn. Being in the league for one whopping year does not entitle you to walk into a CBA meeting and dictate the discussion.

They were voicing an opinion/position as equal partners with the other teams and weren't trying to dictate anything.

colchar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 02:50 PM
  #137
sunnyvale420
Registered User
 
sunnyvale420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
If the big markets have the audacity to put down Thompsons Jets then he should have every right to tell the money losing franchises to **** while he speaks.


Last edited by Fugu: 11-30-2012 at 03:29 PM. Reason: filter
sunnyvale420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:08 PM
  #138
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOML View Post
Jacobs has to have some support outside of Bettman to get his way. There is apparently committee of like-minded owners controlling the fate of the league.

I searched to find out what team owners/reps are in the NHL executive committee:

-Jeremy Jacobs (Boston)
-Craig Leipold (Minnesota)
-Brian Burke (TO)
-Murray Edwards (Calgary)
-Ted Leonsis (Washington)




And of course Burke has to be there. Explains why we haven't heard much from the guy as of late. Since no 'person' owns TO, Burke being there makes sense, given his experience with inner NHL affairs.


Burke is not on the committee. Burke himself has said on Hockey Central at Noon that he has only been at a few bargaining sessions and had no plans to go to any more unless the league asked him to. If someone was on the committee, they would be at the bargaining sessions.

Second, on Hockey Central at Noon today they were talking about who should be in these proposed owner/player meetings. They came up with a hypothetical situation in which Scott Morrison picked five owners to be in there and Millard picked five players. They were trying to determine the most reasonable people from each side who should be in there so that a deal would get done nice and quick. When Morrison named the owners one of the ones he picked was Tannebaum from Toronto. So, based on that, it is safe to assume that he is the Leafs representative on the BoG which makes complete sense since he is the Chairman of MLSE and owns 25% of the organization.

colchar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:27 PM
  #139
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,279
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
I don't understand why the owners don't all have equal representation. They are ALL impacted by this.
I think it's just that plenty of owners have other business ventures to tend to, so they don't want to all have to be present at every meeting. Instead, they vote for one owner who would do everything (to represent them).

__________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<
-]>++++++.>+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++++++.<-.
>-------.<<-----.>----.>.<<+++++++++++.>-------------
-.+++++++++++++.-------.--.+++++++++++++.+.>+.>.

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." -31-
Screw You Rick Nash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 07:12 AM
  #140
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,652
vCash: 500
I'm with Jacobs: cancels the season, break the union completly and rebuild a complete new business model for the NHL. It's ridiculous for the NHL who barely has a tv deal to pay their players like MLB, the NFL and even the NBA when they generate next to nothing. NHL players have always been overpaid. It's especially true since more than the others, hockey is a team sport and talent doesn't necesseraly make you win championships. So you pay big money for guys that are making questionable difference in the outcome. And the deal the NHL is proposing, even that deal is too generous to the players. Like in 2004 where the owners thought the Cap was enough and were easy on the rest of the stuff, it came to bite them in the butt later on, again this time, they'll settle for one victory (50-50) and let the rest pass and it will hurt them again because they don't have the balls to throw the killing blow. Wheras the whole landscape needs to be restructured.


Last edited by Kimota: 12-01-2012 at 07:20 AM.
Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 07:19 AM
  #141
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
If you want to carp about the lockout, that's fine, but trying to single out any one agency as entirely responsible is ludicrous.

If you're looking for one man to blame: if they'd had a reasonable union rep in charge of the NHLPA side of things, then everyone could have go back to getting rich at the expense of NHL fans months ago. Frankly what these two groups are fighting over is pennies on the dollar, but Fehr has his reputation and was literally hired not to give an inch to the owners, so here we are..
I didn't realize the players are demanding 57% of the revenues and keeping all the other past CBA conditions. If they gave an inch, say they dropped their demands to 56% would that be a step in the right direction? What's that they aren't even asking for 56% well I guess Fehr failed because he gave...

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 07:21 AM
  #142
BLASPHEMOUS
**** the King
 
BLASPHEMOUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sherbrooke
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,313
vCash: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I'm with Jacobs: cancels the season, breaks the union completly and rebuild a complete new business model for the NHL. It's ridiculous for the NHL who barely has a tv deal to pay their players like MLB, the NFL and even the NBA when they generate next to nothing. NHL players have always been overpaid. It's especially true since more than the others, hockey is a team sport and talent doesn't necesseraly make you win championships. So you pay big money for guys that are making questionable difference in the outcome. And the deal the NHL is proposing, even that deal is too generous to the players. Like in 2004 where the owners thought the Cap was enough and were easy on the rest of the stuff, it came to bite them in the butt later on, again this time, they'll settle for one victory (50-50) and let the rest pass and it will hurt them again because they don't have the balls to throw the killing blow. Wheras the whole landscape needs to be restructured.
I'm not against having the players earn a bit less for the good of the game, I'm all for that, but I feel his influence is poisonous. If he thinks he can treat his fellow ownership groups as his lessers without issue, then I don't want him leading any REAL charge towards change.


Last edited by BLASPHEMOUS: 12-01-2012 at 07:28 AM.
BLASPHEMOUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 07:34 AM
  #143
Macman
Registered User
 
Macman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I'm with Jacobs: cancels the season, break the union completly and rebuild a complete new business model for the NHL. It's ridiculous for the NHL who barely has a tv deal to pay their players like MLB, the NFL and even the NBA when they generate next to nothing. NHL players have always been overpaid.
And yet his team needlessly gives Seguin $35 million just before the CBA expires. It's hard to take guys like that seriously when they're largely the problem.

Macman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 07:34 AM
  #144
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Endersoldier View Post
I'm not against having the players earn a bit less for the good of the game, I'm all for that, but I feel his influence is poisonous. If he thinks he can treat his fellow ownership groups as his lessers without issue, then I don't want him leading any REAL charge towards change.
He may be poisonous, we don't know for sure but i'm talking about it as a frame of mind. Every owner should be a hard liner like this just because the whole business model, especially linked to players' salaries need to be rethought. But it will never happen because for the owners, sports are mainly ***** and gigles and it's a toy for a lot of them. And they will never adress it as a real business. And it needs to be, especially since the NHL are not drown in money like MLB and the NFL.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 07:37 AM
  #145
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macman View Post
And yet his team needlessly gives Seguin $35 million just before the CBA expires. It's hard to take guys like that seriously when they're largely the problem.
This was indeed a mindboggling signing. But the Bruins are usualy not this brash into making contract decisions.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 07:47 AM
  #146
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOML View Post
Jacobs has to have some support outside of Bettman to get his way. There is apparently committee of like-minded owners controlling the fate of the league.

I searched to find out what team owners/reps are in the NHL executive committee:

-Jeremy Jacobs (Boston)
-Craig Leipold (Minnesota)
-Brian Burke (TO)
-Murray Edwards (Calgary)
-Ted Leonsis (Washington)

(Can somebody confirm that this is indeed the inner circle? Sources are thin. The non-addition of Snider is suspect.)

No representation from Gary's newish franchises. Basically the guys who have the most experience with law and/or lockouts. And guys who are definitely on-side with helping out their own wallets at the expense of players.

Old man Jacobs: Of course the Darth Vader of NHL ownership has to be included.

Note that Leipold is there, and he just signed Parise and Suter to mammoth deals. Deals that he knew he probably wouldn't have to honor? Him and Gary go way back.

And of course Burke has to be there. Explains why we haven't heard much from the guy as of late. Since no 'person' owns TO, Burke being there makes sense, given his experience with inner NHL affairs.

The odd duck to me is Edwards. Who is he? Representing all of western Canada?

Ted Leonsis was thrown in to be a wildcard. (WILDCARD! YEEEEE-HAWWWWWW!) But he apparently is also a hard-liner, along with the rest of them.

TOML
I don't know, how would we know what opinion a certain owner has? What data do we have access too? How should that data be interpreted?

And the current position of course has backing from some sort of majority (but we don't really know if its by 7 other owners or 15 or 24...).

My point is just, on Leonsis for example, lets say he was willing to sign what was on the table 3 months ago, would we know that? Why would we know it? If we knew it, it probably just would have hurt the league and even Leonsis. It would just get harder to move the PA in any kind of direction if it gets known that there is a crack among the owners.

If we do hear about someone, like Snider for example, starting to make just a little bit of noise, I think it should be interpreted as him being beyond furious.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 02:51 PM
  #147
The Last Baron*
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
This was indeed a mindboggling signing. But the Bruins are usualy not this brash into making contract decisions.
After what Skinner and Hall received, the B's had no choice.

Doesn't matter anyways considering the contract is a steal. Can't wait for the NHL to start up again and to see Tyler rip up the league.

The Last Baron* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 03:00 PM
  #148
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,955
vCash: 500
Kimota is right if one is to believe that many of the teams are in despair most on american side then the model must be changed.Montreal and Toronto have big local tv deals but if not enough sponsors on the south of the border want to get involved than how can nhl players make so much.As ted Linsday told a media person a few days ago the players should be fortunate and not be nasty too bettman because they have no idea how the players were treated decades ago

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 04:09 PM
  #149
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I'm with Jacobs: cancels the season, break the union completly and rebuild a complete new business model for the NHL. It's ridiculous for the NHL who barely has a tv deal to pay their players like MLB, the NFL and even the NBA when they generate next to nothing. NHL players have always been overpaid. It's especially true since more than the others, hockey is a team sport and talent doesn't necesseraly make you win championships. So you pay big money for guys that are making questionable difference in the outcome. And the deal the NHL is proposing, even that deal is too generous to the players. Like in 2004 where the owners thought the Cap was enough and were easy on the rest of the stuff, it came to bite them in the butt later on, again this time, they'll settle for one victory (50-50) and let the rest pass and it will hurt them again because they don't have the balls to throw the killing blow. Wheras the whole landscape needs to be restructured.
You (and Jacobs, if that's his game plan) may well get your wish with decertification cause the teams that are not doing well economically will sure not keep up with the teams that can pay big dollars for talent. Problem is, how does the league pay for failed franchises both in dollars or in loss of credibility? Cause they sure won't be talking about expansion anytime soon if decertification results in the loss of any number of franchises.

moosehead81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 04:12 PM
  #150
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosehead81 View Post
You (and Jacobs, if that's his game plan) may well get your wish with decertification cause the teams that are not doing well economically will sure not keep up with the teams that can pay big dollars for talent. Problem is, how does the league pay for failed franchises both in dollars or in loss of credibility? Cause they sure won't be talking about expansion anytime soon if decertification results in the loss of any number of franchises.
Money does not equal wins. How often does this need to be repeated? Lots of teams spend and get nowhere with the Leafs leading the list. Many teams have been more than competitive on a low budget.

SJeasy is offline   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 05:47 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.