HFBoards

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

2012 CBA/Lockout talk, Part the Fifth

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 02:25 PM
  #26
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
It's funny that Thornton would say something like that. The guy just signed what's likely his last deal that pays him 1.1M per year for the next 2 years. 1.1M for a guy who plays around 8mins a game, that's a huge bone if you ask me. If I were him I'd be on the PA to hurry this **** up, because he stands to lose quite a bit of money and will be lucky to get another deal.
Yeah, it's curious how it works. I know a lot of the guys talk about fighting this battle for future players, but who doesn't believe the next CBA will be contentious (hopefully not at the level of this or the last one though)? The league and PA have shown a willingness to burn it down. They're fighting about how things will be for the next 5 years, that's all. This noble battle is a red herring IMO. So when you say a guy like Thornton loses out and its a little hard to see the rationale. I think I understand what he would say, I'm just not sure I believe the presumed result is really there.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:30 PM
  #27
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
Yeah, it's curious how it works. I know a lot of the guys talk about fighting this battle for future players, but who doesn't believe the next CBA will be contentious (hopefully not at the level of this or the last one though)? The league and PA have shown a willingness to burn it down. They're fighting about how things will be for the next 5 years, that's all. This noble battle is a red herring IMO. So when you say a guy like Thornton loses out and its a little hard to see the rationale. I think I understand what he would say, I'm just not sure I believe the presumed result is really there.
I don't believe that for one minute when they say it. And really, who would want their union to fight for people who aren't even paying members yet? Let alone potentially lose the membership $1.8B?

They want to 'win' this CBA. Even though it appears they won the last one. They want a win no matter how much money they lose, which isn't really a win, but don't tell them that.

patty59 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:36 PM
  #28
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
2 last questions:

1. I would really like to know what Fehr tells the players about the deal he believes he can bring to fruition. The lockout the players are enduring and the losses they are incurring, I'd sure like to know how you fill in the blank about "This is worth it because..." I understand the battles over "we get this or we get that," but I wonder how he articulates what they're fighting for. I mean, it can't be that he says "we could get $200M more per year" when they are losing $1.5B in this year alone.

2. I think I heard this as recently as a few weeks back. The players were looking for the league to pony up for the losses caused by the lockout. If the lockout erased 30% of the season or whatever and presumably 30%+ of the typical revenues, they want the owners to make up that loss - damages, essentially. When they talk about "make whole," that seems to mean only not losing money on existing contracts due to a change in the revenue splitting. This is another form of "make whole" that seems buried in the woodwork. I'm pretty sure this was part of their demands. I see 0% chance they get a single $ on that front. I'm wondering if this has dropped out of the NHLPA demands. There are several areas of major disagreement but this seems like one of the least realistic and kind of dopey, frankly. Anybody know if this was just mis-reported or I have it wrong or it's dead or it's alive? It would really stink to finally settle revenue divide, player contracts, etc., only to die on this hill.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:41 PM
  #29
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
I don't believe that for one minute when they say it. And really, who would want their union to fight for people who aren't even paying members yet? Let alone potentially lose the membership $1.8B?
I agree. It just seems like part of the formula for roping guys into staying with the program and "not being selfish." At the same time, I'm not in a union so at some level it's not fair for me to judge union member behavior, etc. Like I said, maybe I just don't get something they do and/or are privy to that I'm not. But they sure do make a lot of money to be as bent out of shape as they seem to be.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:43 PM
  #30
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
I think the players are thinking of this as Occupy the NHL. lol

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:58 PM
  #31
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckdobbins View Post
So essentially you're saying decertification suits the owners quite well? Player share gets cut more than half, and then it's business as usual? Weird
and not even remotely true.... by why let that ruin a good rant!

Number8 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:01 PM
  #32
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
I agree. It just seems like part of the formula for roping guys into staying with the program and "not being selfish." At the same time, I'm not in a union so at some level it's not fair for me to judge union member behavior, etc. Like I said, maybe I just don't get something they do and/or are privy to that I'm not. But they sure do make a lot of money to be as bent out of shape as they seem to be.
Who knows what they're being told? It seems to be working though. You'd think with how these guys' careers are relatively short they'd want to get out there and make money while it's there to be made. Perhaps that's why Fehr has guys like Toews, Staal and Crosby out front, the guys who are going to be around longer than most and make a pile of money?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
I think the players are thinking of this as Occupy the NHL. lol
It would be nice if they could all stick together and work on getting a deal done. But right now it's more like 'Occupy' other peoples jobs for the time being.

patty59 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:07 PM
  #33
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
>>You'd think with how these guys' careers are relatively short they'd want to get out there and make money while it's there to be made

It would be fascinating to conduct a blind poll of the players to see how many really support the current union strategy. The majority probably do but I'll bet a meaningful number would like to get back to playing ASAP and take the best deal available. Publicly... only a few dissenters will step forward.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:11 PM
  #34
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27,492
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
I think the players are thinking of this as Occupy the NHL. lol
Black Eye what day do you think the owners have in mind to pull the plug?

There has to be a specific day....December 15th? January 1st? January 15th?

also, since this board is overwhelmingly convinced there will not be a season what do those think the landscape looks like next year?

1. how many teams go out of business?

2. do the Bruins lose their fan base and return to 12-15,000 per game?

3. what do you expect the 3.3 B gross revenue to drop to next year

A) increase
B) same or close to it
C) drop 10 %
D) drop over 25%

my answer is without a deal on 1 three or four teams; 2 they'll still sell out but it will be an easy ticket to get; 3 D

DKH is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:33 PM
  #35
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
Mr. DKH -

>>Black Eye what day do you think the owners have in mind to pull the plug? There has to be a specific day....December 15th? January 1st? January 15th?

I think last time it was in early February? I think there's plenty of time to go. My skepticism is due to 1) Fehr, 2) the hard line posturing and bitterness. But this could turn around, there's got to be a good 6 weeks before it's totally dire. The signs don't look good to me but they're not out of time yet.


>>also, since this board is overwhelmingly convinced there will not be a season what do those think the landscape looks like next year?
1. how many teams go out of business?

Same as last time. 0. Maybe 1-2 teams move due to lease issues but I don't expect contraction.


>>2. do the Bruins lose their fan base and return to 12-15,000 per game?

I'd say they probably stay where they've been. Decent building, good team, media likes the team these days, usually a good brand of hockey being played. It would surprise me if 25% of the fans really tune out the team. I expect people to come back in the major markets.


>>3. what do you expect the 3.3 B gross revenue to drop to next year

That's hard to say. One thing that has helped the league grow is parity. If the new CBA continues to create parity, with a lot of teams having a shot at the Cup, revenues probably stay in good shape. I really have no way of telling how much fan venting is frustration and emotion versus a real resolve to turn away from the NHL. For me, I hate this lockout and the fact that it seems like part of the NHL reality every 7 years now, but I'll be back. I'm the sucker. Not getting any younger, like Shawn Thornton, any hockey I miss I ain't getting back. So just let me have some NHL hockey again please.

My only frame of reference is what happened after the last lockout. Overall, the league bounced back just fine. There are some rule changes that I think have not really been good for the game/players, but they are all still making lots of money. I can't say why it would not play out the same way again after this lockout. The decertification move is the wild card. I have read the doomsday stories about what that could mean, but who knows if it happens or what it causes if it does.

My current view is that they could lose this season but the league will ultimately survive just fine when they finally sort things out.


Last edited by DOGSTARMAN: 11-30-2012 at 06:14 PM.
DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:47 PM
  #36
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
The lessons of last time: Couple other questions, related to the last lockout.

1) It seems like Jacobs and other hard liners were somewhat taken off guard with the results of the 2004 lockout. Do you think Jacobs in particular is hard over about getting things exactly the way he wants this time as a result of the last lockout?

2) Do you believe that the fact the players "lost" the last CBA has emboldened the owners this time to just hold out and force the PA to cave eventually? They'll wait 6, 12, more months but believe deep down then can win "again" and have the upper hand.

I do believe the owners are confident that their tough stance will pay off for them and use last time as both reinforcement of that belief and motivation to get what they left on the table last time.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:18 PM
  #37
Shaun
beauty
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 21,294
vCash: 50
@JoshYohe_Trib

Consensus from players: They don't care if Bettman is around or not. They do care if Jacobs and same old owners are present at next meeting.


Plugs like Westgarth and Parros are upset

Shaun is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:23 PM
  #38
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amherst, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 12,518
vCash: 500
As much as I don't think JJ is "orchestrating" the lockout like some, I do think if the players don't want him there then that's fine. The guy isn't tactful. The comment he made about Neely during the parade speech said it all

KnightofBoston is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:36 PM
  #39
5Minutes4Fighting
Killer B's!
 
5Minutes4Fighting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
Where I'm at with the lockout:

6. I think I must not understand something. But isn't it the case that there is a pretty simple equation in effect whereby the players will lose so much money from not ending the lockout from their side that whatever gains they are fighting for on an annual basis will never equal the lost top line revenue? I mean, if they lose $1.5-$1.8BN this year alone, how do they ever make up that ground? It seems to me they are fighting for a bigger share of a smaller pie. At what point do they realize, "oh, *****, we are just heading deeper and deeper into the red every week?" I guess I am not understanding this part of the players' strategy in not finding a resolution, even if it's not best case or even close to it for their side.
You must obviously be pro-Owner. Don't the Owners realize that they are doing long term damage to the sport and alienating the fan base, and especially the season ticket holders?

Don't you realize that the Owner's, by sticking to their guns on the make whole, have blatantly negotiated contracts with the players in bad faith....that they made agreements with no intention of paying them in full. The players are willing to go 50/50 on all monies forward as long as the Owners honor the existing contracts (i.e. they made those deals, they should be on the hook for them). Add to that the fact that the Owners insist on keeping struggling franchises in Southern markets that don't support hockey and then are trying to make the players foot the losses for those non-profitable teams while the big boy Owners are still making money hand over foot.

Unlike the last time when the players were doing a money grab, this time...it's the Owners who caused and are continuing to cause the financial problems.

5Minutes4Fighting is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:40 PM
  #40
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
2 last questions:

1. I would really like to know what Fehr tells the players about the deal he believes he can bring to fruition. The lockout the players are enduring and the losses they are incurring, I'd sure like to know how you fill in the blank about "This is worth it because..." I understand the battles over "we get this or we get that," but I wonder how he articulates what they're fighting for. I mean, it can't be that he says "we could get $200M more per year" when they are losing $1.5B in this year alone.

2. I think I heard this as recently as a few weeks back. The players were looking for the league to pony up for the losses caused by the lockout. If the lockout erased 30% of the season or whatever and presumably 30%+ of the typical revenues, they want the owners to make up that loss - damages, essentially. When they talk about "make whole," that seems to mean only not losing money on existing contracts due to a change in the revenue splitting. This is another form of "make whole" that seems buried in the woodwork. I'm pretty sure this was part of their demands. I see 0% chance they get a single $ on that front. I'm wondering if this has dropped out of the NHLPA demands. There are several areas of major disagreement but this seems like one of the least realistic and kind of dopey, frankly. Anybody know if this was just mis-reported or I have it wrong or it's dead or it's alive? It would really stink to finally settle revenue divide, player contracts, etc., only to die on this hill.
I actually enjoy reading your questions more then most answers. I'm not sure what Fehr's angle of approach is on this that has players so convinced whatever concessions they win in the CBA is worth a year of lost revenues. The only thing I can think of honestly is the worry of possibly setting a precedent? I don't know exactly how that would work as there was a salary roll back during the last CBA and that didn't prevent owners from offering "make whole" this time around.

In regards to the players asking the owners to take responsibility, this is something bp13 touched on briefly in the last thread. I don't believe players are coming right out and saying "we expect you to the foot the bill for this lockout" anymore, but rather seem to include concessions in their offers that would put that onus on the owners regardless. For instance in their last offer, setting a lower limit for a salary cap at 67.5 million that it can never dip below for the duration of the CBA. I believe bp called this "backside protection", and I think that is how the players referred to it in their offer as well. The also put a concession in there that apart from year 1 the players share could never be lower then it was the year before for the duration. This is a slap in the face to owners in my opinion as it seems to be meant to give the appearance that players are accepting some responsibility for the lockout and possible lost revenues due to it in the immediate future, but then when you couple it with the minimum cap ceiling concession you quickly realize they are offering absolutely nothing.

It seems to me players are trying to win this fight through public perception and trying to force the owners hand in this way. People can look at their latest offer and say "see, they're offering a 50/50 split... wtf?!". Look deeper though and you quickly see all the concessions they have added a ton of risk they expect the owners to take on fully, not the least of which is the possible ramifications on overall revenue of yet another lockout. I'm not sure what the end game for the players is here because if they ever did get the concessions they seem to be looking for it could potentially hurt the NHL in a serious way. Revenues could drop drastically or at the very least, the momentum the NHL has built could easily be lost. Yes they'd have won the battle, but in the end they would have lost the war.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:57 PM
  #41
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,005
vCash: 500
I've been asked a few times to provide an example of what I mean when I say that tax payers support the cap. sadly looking up the specific information is difficult. now that the Phoenix has approved there 320,000,000 dollar subsidy to the owners there I can give a specific example. the money works out to 16,000,000 dollars a year that is supposed to keep the Phoenix team viable. now the players are going to want 50 percent off at which is 8,000,000 dollars a year. this works out to an average increase of over 10,000 dollars per player. this money is coming directly out of the tac psyer pocketd not from the owners. this is what I mean when I say the taxpayers deserve to have someone sitting at the bargaining table when a new CBA is being negotiated.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 06:02 PM
  #42
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Minutes4Fighting View Post
You must obviously be pro-Owner. Don't the Owners realize that they are doing long term damage to the sport and alienating the fan base, and especially the season ticket holders?.
You're saying that my questioning of the union's strategy must mean I'm pro-owner. But you don't answer the question about how the path the players have chosen puts them ahead in the end. I would not dispute several of the points you made about the state of the league, etc., but that's neither here nor there when it comes to understanding the end game the players are fighting for. You are talking about "what's right" and "what's fair," "what makes sense," etc. That's great. But when it comes to raw $, how do the players come out ahead if their priority is making sure that things turn out "right" and "fair" and "fixed?" That remains my question. If the answer is that the players care more about those matters than they do about pure $, that's fine, that's very noble if true - but I doubt that is the true goal of the NHLPA. Lastly, do you think the outcome of this next CBA has more than 0.000% chance of pulling teams out of the south, contracting a few teams, or otherwise addressing systemic problems with the league? Cuz that's not going to be part of the mix.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 06:08 PM
  #43
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Minutes4Fighting View Post
You must obviously be pro-Owner. Don't the Owners realize that they are doing long term damage to the sport and alienating the fan base, and especially the season ticket holders?

Don't you realize that the Owner's, by sticking to their guns on the make whole, have blatantly negotiated contracts with the players in bad faith....that they made agreements with no intention of paying them in full. The players are willing to go 50/50 on all monies forward as long as the Owners honor the existing contracts (i.e. they made those deals, they should be on the hook for them). Add to that the fact that the Owners insist on keeping struggling franchises in Southern markets that don't support hockey and then are trying to make the players foot the losses for those non-profitable teams while the big boy Owners are still making money hand over foot.

Unlike the last time when the players were doing a money grab, this time...it's the Owners who caused and are continuing to cause the financial problems.

The owners definitely understand there maybe repercussions for the lockout. Which is why they put their best offer on the table in time for a 82 game season and why they will not accept without linkage. The players know this but refuse to make an offer with linkage, my question to you is why?

Orrthebest is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 06:09 PM
  #44
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
I've been asked a few times to provide an example of what I mean when I say that tax payers support the cap. sadly looking up the specific information is difficult. now that the Phoenix has approved there 320,000,000 dollar subsidy to the owners there I can give a specific example. the money works out to 16,000,000 dollars a year that is supposed to keep the Phoenix team viable. now the players are going to want 50 percent off at which is 8,000,000 dollars a year. this works out to an average increase of over 10,000 dollars per player. this money is coming directly out of the tac psyer pocketd not from the owners. this is what I mean when I say the taxpayers deserve to have someone sitting at the bargaining table when a new CBA is being negotiated.
Michael, I'm not sure I understand how you add that up. Yes, some teams are partially subsidized with public funds. But I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "tax payers support the cap." Also, I'm not sure what a practical implementation of "taxpayers deserve to have someone sitting at the bargaining table" would look like. Towards what end? It seems like the matter of public funds being used to fund private businesses is best fought in town halls and legislatures and parliaments, not at a union bargaining table. At that point, the money is committed and owners and players are going to carve it up in some percentages they fight over, but the horse is out of the barn. What is the taxpayers interest aside from seeing some benefit from the investment and how does the CBA specifically impact that, aside from the general health of the league and individual teams, which is already the crux of the negotiation in general?

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 06:15 PM
  #45
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27,492
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
the 1994-95 lockout brought several changes including rookie salary cap and two way contracts- Winnipeg and Quebec I think moved following the playoffs.

The lockout ended on Jan 11 1995 and games started the 20th and the season ended on May 3rd. (hey, nothing like the old Gah-den in warm weather) back then they played 84 a season and they inverted the number and played 48. They now play 82 so I can see 28 game season

The playoffs went till June 24th and thats only because the Devils swept Detroit. I noticed 99% of the playoff games unless building conflicts were with a day off between.

so, we may have some time to go before they pull the plug

I love summer hockey so if its a July day night double header with the Sawx and Broons, awesome- Cask and Grille,,,,Big Papi and Big Z

DKH is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 06:26 PM
  #46
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
so, we may have some time to go before they pull the plug
I hope so! I'm discouraged but maybe a thaw happens or somebody steps up with some fresh ideas. Bettman and Fehr are proving that neither will blink but now what?

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 10:01 PM
  #47
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
Michael, I'm not sure I understand how you add that up. Yes, some teams are partially subsidized with public funds. But I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "tax payers support the cap." Also, I'm not sure what a practical implementation of "taxpayers deserve to have someone sitting at the bargaining table" would look like. Towards what end? It seems like the matter of public funds being used to fund private businesses is best fought in town halls and legislatures and parliaments, not at a union bargaining table. At that point, the money is committed and owners and players are going to carve it up in some percentages they fight over, but the horse is out of the barn. What is the taxpayers interest aside from seeing some benefit from the investment and how does the CBA specifically impact that, aside from the general health of the league and individual teams, which is already the crux of the negotiation in general?
I guess what I'm thinking is the tax benefits tha cities give out are for things like buildings and rezoning land and these benefits continue to be eaned even during a lockout. Sometimes those benefits are paid to a team like atlanta, and even after they collect the money and enjoy the benfits of the tax handout, they move anyhow.

Meanwhile players from rich teams are getting their salary boosted because of handouts from some poor cities just desperate to keep their beloved team. ultimately this money is shifted around so much that it becomes hard to track which Penny goes here, and which penny goes there... but the basic complaint I have is that the teams arguement that they should be getting the extra money is claiming that they cannot make it without the city stepping up to build the buildings or provide the other considerations... and then instead of the money going only to the health of the team, the players take half of it. You might argue that the players dont take half of this specific money... but they do get half of HRR so whatever goes into HRR is always given half to the players {or 57% last year}

sounds like I only blame the players for this but i will admit that is is the owners using the excuse that the can't make enough money that is the trigger here to make this happen. So the owners need to own up for their share of the blame here too... and since both the owners and the players are screwing us taxpayers over when they take these huge handouts and then move teams or disband teams or shut down seasons with strikes/lockouts... this is why i think us taxpayers do have skin in the game and do deserve a seat at the negotition table. OR i would just support the goverment not doing handouts in the first place.

The argument that teams bring business to a city is a dumb argument. They are supposed to. So do strip clubs... so do tire shops. So do walmarts and music concerts and all sorts of other operations. I dont support socialized handouts to any of these businesses so i cant for hockey either. Sink or swim on your own merits. If cities need to pay to build arenas... then the cities should own the arenas too.

cant have the cake and eat it too. Either stop taking handouts from the taxpayers... or give us some rights for the millions and millions of dollars the average team takes


Last edited by Alberta_OReilly_Fan: 12-01-2012 at 12:37 AM.
Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:21 PM
  #48
Lordstanley
Playoffs!
 
Lordstanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Loge - 4 + Sec -316
Country: United States
Posts: 2,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightofBoston View Post
As much as I don't think JJ is "orchestrating" the lockout like some, I do think if the players don't want him there then that's fine. The guy isn't tactful. The comment he made about Neely during the parade speech said it all
Totally agree with you on that jackass remark he made . I lost what respect I have left for him that day. I'm surprized Camster didnt toss him off the stage


Last edited by Lordstanley: 12-01-2012 at 09:18 PM.
Lordstanley is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:41 PM
  #50
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amherst, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 12,518
vCash: 500
If revenue actually drops off next year from 3.3, this whole thing is going to look even more pathetic that it already does

I understand certain teams were going to lose money anyways, but both sides have got to realize how much they are going to lose if this thing goes past December 25th and or the season is cancelled. It's amazing how they can't see it

KnightofBoston 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 09:23 PM.

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.