HFBoards

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

Lockout Thread: I told myself I wouldn't do this| Part IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2012, 09:33 PM
  #426
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Do you believe the unreasonable Owners demands were any better 9 months ago for the NHLPA?

The way talking earlier would have had any benefit on this current lockout situation is if the Owners would have demanded less take backs, otherwise we would be in the exact position we are today.

I'm dubious to believe 9 months earlier the owners would have accepted less than 50% of HRR, and were willing to honour current contracts and didn't want UFA age raised and contract terms lessened and arbitration removed. Do you?
I think the players could have already decertified by now because we know the owners really don't care if there is a season.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 10:06 PM
  #427
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
The NHLPA closed the doors by refusing to talk to NHL about CBA for 9 months

And the NHL had no other option as 92 NHLPA strike and Fehr 94 baseball strike show why you cant go into a season without a CBA (Especially when a union refuses to even discuss with management CBA issues)
What a crock.

Bettman and the owners have offered the players precisely nothing in exchange for a decrease across the board in salary and player rights.

That is not bargaining, and until that changes we aren't going to be playing hockey.

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 10:14 PM
  #428
Kingstonian84*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
I think the players could have already decertified by now because we know the owners really don't care if there is a season.
I highly doubt they will, the players want their contracts honored and if they decertify it means ALL contracts are null and there is no gurantee 750 players will be signed by the 30 teams.

Kingstonian84* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 01:20 AM
  #429
Jerkini
Registered User
 
Jerkini's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingstonian84 View Post
I highly doubt they will, the players want their contracts honored and if they decertify it means ALL contracts are null and there is no gurantee 750 players will be signed by the 30 teams.
See, I don't think it ever gets that far. No team will be willing to give up the rights to their superstars IMO.

Jerkini is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 09:55 AM
  #430
asdf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country:
Posts: 2,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
And yet the owners were considered clear winners of the last lockout. This is why I don't get why so many people side with the owners?
And yet the players are making more than they ever have, not to mention more than others in the industry, and are more than willing to play under the last CBA that they supposedly lost.

Maybe, and this goes especially for the PA, this winner/loser adversarial mentality needs to be forgotten. The PA is saying they are fighting the good fight for future generations, but I don't buy it. They apparently did the same thing the last time yet it accomplished nothing except a lost season.

Take it back even further to 1994 and if they had been more willing to work with something based on a cap, the league would probably be even better off than it is now. Instead they hire Goodenow, a Fehr clone, who only looked out for the short-term interest of his players and turned everything into a negotiation. And now here we are, the PA wants to portray itself as so saintly for giving back so much the last 8 years, and completely ignore the reason behind it is because they took so much even before that.

At the beginning of this is I was more neutral, slightly leaning towards the owners. But after seeing Fehr (much like Goodenow) do nothing but stall, his antagonistic pressers, and the moronic player tweets, I don't know how anybody can side with the players.

asdf is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 11:27 AM
  #431
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
The executive board of the NHL Players' Association authorized a $10,000 stipend to every player on Saturday as the lockout continues. The labour stalemate is in its 77th day with no talks currently scheduled between the NHL and the players. Full Story.

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 11:49 AM
  #432
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdf View Post
At the beginning of this is I was more neutral, slightly leaning towards the owners. But after seeing Fehr (much like Goodenow) do nothing but stall, his antagonistic pressers, and the moronic player tweets, I don't know how anybody can side with the players.
How can you say that when you compare those statements to the what the owners are saying?

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 05:42 PM
  #433
Penalty Kill Icing*
Fire Carlyle
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,972
vCash: 500
Leafs owner amongst the six owners attending players/owners only meeting on Tuesday. Others are Winnipeg, Calgary, Pittsburgh, Boston (sigh! Jacobs!) and Tampa.

Out of 30, Leafs owner would be in minority when asking for other owners to resume hockey. However, in this scenario, Winnipeg would be desperate to resume given that they just moved last year and wouldn't want their fan base to get upset.

Probably unrealistic, but Leafs should just threaten to quit NHL (and maybe ask Molson to join in) if things aren't sorted out quickly. Surely, NHL can't afford to lose billion dollar franchise.

He he.. pipedream over.

Penalty Kill Icing* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 06:57 PM
  #434
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penalty Kill Icing View Post
Leafs owner amongst the six owners attending players/owners only meeting on Tuesday. Others are Winnipeg, Calgary, Pittsburgh, Boston (sigh! Jacobs!) and Tampa.

Out of 30, Leafs owner would be in minority when asking for other owners to resume hockey. However, in this scenario, Winnipeg would be desperate to resume given that they just moved last year and wouldn't want their fan base to get upset.

Probably unrealistic, but Leafs should just threaten to quit NHL (and maybe ask Molson to join in) if things aren't sorted out quickly. Surely, NHL can't afford to lose billion dollar franchise.

He he.. pipedream over.
Winnipeg wants to resume hockey as well. Calgary would be considerate moderate, not sure about Pittsburgh or Tampa, but Boston's owner doesn't believe NHL hockey players are any different than labourers you can pick up on the street corner.

Funny his father started the company that made him so nepotism. Entitlement is part of his vocabulary.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:23 PM
  #435
achtungbaby
Registered User
 
achtungbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
How can you say that when you compare those statements to the what the owners are saying?
Because ultimately, it's their business. The players are paid a handsome sum every year whether they perform to the agreed standard or not. It's hard to watch a bunch of guys who probably barely finished high school, tell a bunch of businessmen how to run their affairs. If they want a true free market system, they could go to Europe like they have been and see what they'll pay for their talents.

Playing two years in the NHL shouldn't be a lottery ticket to take it easy for the rest of your life.

achtungbaby is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 01:19 AM
  #436
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
So, is Larry T. our knight in shining armour? He was a big part of bringing together the Raps and Leafs in a showdown to mutually assured destruction over competing arenas 15 years ago, brought together Rogers and Bell.. man has a habit of brokering sensible deals in spite of measuring contests. The arena near-fiasco in particular was at least as stupid in the face of an easy solution as this mess is.

Yes, grasping at straws.

__________________
bWo: If you don't know, you should know... Buds WORLD Order Constitution
Adj: "Squiffy" - stupefied by a chemical substance (esp. alcohol)

R.I.P. Darryl buddy... it was too soon.. too soon
Squiffy is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 02:17 AM
  #437
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achtungbaby View Post
Because ultimately, it's their business. The players are paid a handsome sum every year whether they perform to the agreed standard or not. It's hard to watch a bunch of guys who probably barely finished high school, tell a bunch of businessmen how to run their affairs. If they want a true free market system, they could go to Europe like they have been and see what they'll pay for their talents.

Playing two years in the NHL shouldn't be a lottery ticket to take it easy for the rest of your life.
Where are you living?

I don't where you can take it easy on $8k a year?

And since you cant get the pension until 45 yrs old just what are the 161 gamers to do for the 20 years where they need an income?

I can only conclude you know absolutly nothing about what you posted.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 09:44 AM
  #438
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achtungbaby View Post
Because ultimately, it's their business. The players are paid a handsome sum every year whether they perform to the agreed standard or not. It's hard to watch a bunch of guys who probably barely finished high school, tell a bunch of businessmen how to run their affairs. If they want a true free market system, they could go to Europe like they have been and see what they'll pay for their talents.

Playing two years in the NHL shouldn't be a lottery ticket to take it easy for the rest of your life.
I agree the Association should decertify and create a free market system.

That way these owners could negotiate individually with players and the owners would have to take responsibility for the contracts they sign. Owners seem kind of dumb to have signed cheques they can't cover.

Unless of course the owners never had any intention of honouring those contracts, which of course would be illegal, so we can't go there.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 09:52 AM
  #439
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanologist View Post
What a crock.

Bettman and the owners have offered the players precisely nothing in exchange for a decrease across the board in salary and player rights.

That is not bargaining, and until that changes we aren't going to be playing hockey.
This isn't a bargaining session. It's a negotiation. A negotiation isn't specifically defined as giving something in return for asking for something. I agree that until the players feel that owners are giving them something in return for their give back, there won't be hockey, but I've seen the sentiment that 'this isn't a negotiation because there is no give back by the owners' far too often and it's incorrect.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 09:56 AM
  #440
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
This isn't a bargaining session. It's a negotiation. A negotiation isn't specifically defined as giving something in return for asking for something. I agree that until the players feel that owners are giving them something in return for their give back, there won't be hockey, but I've seen the sentiment that 'this isn't a negotiation because there is no give back by the owners' far too often and it's incorrect.
Actually, it isn't really negotiation either. They owners have made an offer, and the players have declined.

CBA - Collective Bargaining Agreement.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 09:59 AM
  #441
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Anyone have any ideas on where Tannebaum may stand in these negotiations. Realistically speaking, I don't see why the Leafs would be hard pressed to miss any games when they know that their team is money in the bank for them. I've also heard good things about Tannebaum's ability to broker deals and he did recently open up his home to the Raptors for a dinner and got each play expensive swag bags. I know a dinner and swag bags may not mean much on this scale of things but I get the impression that he is a personable guy that treats his employees well - which leads me to hope that even if nothing comes out of this, Tannebaum tries to be a voice of reason and not a Jacobs 2.0.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 12:02 PM
  #442
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Anyone have any ideas on where Tannebaum may stand in these negotiations. Realistically speaking, I don't see why the Leafs would be hard pressed to miss any games when they know that their team is money in the bank for them. I've also heard good things about Tannebaum's ability to broker deals and he did recently open up his home to the Raptors for a dinner and got each play expensive swag bags. I know a dinner and swag bags may not mean much on this scale of things but I get the impression that he is a personable guy that treats his employees well - which leads me to hope that even if nothing comes out of this, Tannebaum tries to be a voice of reason and not a Jacobs 2.0.
Well GM Burke has attended previous CBA meetings and we all know he has pushed hard for short-term 5 year contracts prior to the lockout. We also know that this player rights issue is a huge sticking point infringement for NHLPA beliefs in opposition.

So as a representative of MLSE you would have to believe his boss Tanenbaum would have to be on the same page as Burke otherwise you have one organization arguing both sides depending on who is attending the bargaining session.

Mess is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 12:29 PM
  #443
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
This isn't a bargaining session. It's a negotiation. A negotiation isn't specifically defined as giving something in return for asking for something. I agree that until the players feel that owners are giving them something in return for their give back, there won't be hockey, but I've seen the sentiment that 'this isn't a negotiation because there is no give back by the owners' far too often and it's incorrect.
During the last lockout, the players lost a full season (of wages) and accepted a 24% rollback and agreed to a hard salary cap system and in order to make that sacrifice they in turn earned/fought for current individual player rights they have now in UFA age, contract length etc. The final CBA agreement was viewed as a big win for the Owners to get cost certainty, and a few minor victories for the NHLPA as trade-offs.

The players this time aren't even demanding something in return for meeting at 50/50 HRR. The only thing the players are fighting for is honouring of existing contracts they've already signed (and Owners agreed to), and keeping their individual player rights AS IS now, with the exception of fixing the few that the Owners feel are cap circumventing deals. So players asking to keep it the same is hardly unreasonable considering they've agreed to become 50/50 partners in the business.

People expecting the NHLPA to roll over and agree to all current NHL demands AS IS, without any benefit going forward for future generations would negate everything the previous players sacrificed in the past to earn them those rights in the first place.

Mess is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 01:02 PM
  #444
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Actually, it isn't really negotiation either. They owners have made an offer, and the players have declined.

CBA - Collective Bargaining Agreement.
I know what CBA stands for.

The terms are rather synonymous though people usually think bargaining as in it is defined by give and take. It's not which is why I denounced the negotiations as a bargaining session. The act of bargaining or negotiating is not exclusively defined by applying the method of bartering. That's just one way to do it so. Negotiating is about discussion that leads to mutual agreement. Just because the offers haven't resulted in a mutual agreement doesn't mean that there isn't any negotiating. I'd say it's more fair to say that there isn't enough constructive negotiating going on to get things done. Both sides are giving and taking, but both sides want more than what the other side is offering and that has led them to this point.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 01:11 PM
  #445
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
During the last lockout, the players lost a full season (of wages) and accepted a 24% rollback and agreed to a hard salary cap system and in order to make that sacrifice they in turn earned/fought for current individual player rights they have now in UFA age, contract length etc. The final CBA agreement was viewed as a big win for the Owners to get cost certainty, and a few minor victories for the NHLPA as trade-offs.

The players this time aren't even demanding something in return for meeting at 50/50 HRR. The only thing the players are fighting for is honouring of existing contracts they've already signed (and Owners agreed to), and keeping their individual player rights AS IS now, with the exception of fixing the few that the Owners feel are cap circumventing deals. So players asking to keep it the same is hardly unreasonable considering they've agreed to become 50/50 partners in the business.

People expecting the NHLPA to roll over and agree to all current NHL demands AS IS, without any benefit going forward for future generations would negate everything the previous players sacrificed in the past to earn them those rights in the first place.
Like it or not, after a CBA expires, the players aren't OWED anything. The owners aren't owned anything either. The players asking for existing contracts to be honoured (regardless of the new HRR split) IS a DEMAND and CONCESSION that they are asking from the league. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it's the fair or right thing to do but in regards to the structure of the previous CBA and their contracts, they are making a demand. And further, the players haven't guaranteed a 50/50. They want linkage when it comes to league growth (where they get 50/50) and they want delinkage if the league revenue drops. That would suggest that if the league revenue drops (and given the state of this lockout, it should be expected), the players will be getting more than 50/50. You can spout the PA line all you want but the devil is in the details. The players haven't given a true 50/50 split which is why even if the league will loosen their grip on contract rights, they sure as hell won't do it until they get the HRR split they want.

Most people I've come across don't expect the PA to give in to everything as presented by the league. I think people expect the PA to be realistic and find a reasonable way to find some common ground by imploying a less destructive method in getting there. If you're coming across people who think that the players should just take the owner's offer as is, then save that comment for them. I'm not one of those people.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 02:39 PM
  #446
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
I bet the players who insisted on front loaded contracts are happy.

Can you imagine if Richards signed a flat line deal with Burke instead of his front loaded, huge signing bonus with Sather?

Can't claw back money already paid out.

Kovalchuk OTOH is going to get royally done over.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 03:36 PM
  #447
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Like it or not, after a CBA expires, the players aren't OWED anything. The owners aren't owned anything either. The players asking for existing contracts to be honoured (regardless of the new HRR split) IS a DEMAND and CONCESSION that they are asking from the league. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it's the fair or right thing to do but in regards to the structure of the previous CBA and their contracts, they are making a demand. And further, the players haven't guaranteed a 50/50. They want linkage when it comes to league growth (where they get 50/50) and they want delinkage if the league revenue drops. That would suggest that if the league revenue drops (and given the state of this lockout, it should be expected), the players will be getting more than 50/50. You can spout the PA line all you want but the devil is in the details. The players haven't given a true 50/50 split which is why even if the league will loosen their grip on contract rights, they sure as hell won't do it until they get the HRR split they want.

Most people I've come across don't expect the PA to give in to everything as presented by the league. I think people expect the PA to be realistic and find a reasonable way to find some common ground by imploying a less destructive method in getting there. If you're coming across people who think that the players should just take the owner's offer as is, then save that comment for them. I'm not one of those people.
See I realize that the last CBA agreed to a 57% NHLPA and a 43% NHL HRR split. While the last CBA was still active players signed contracts that complied with their 57% portion, that the Owners legally agreed to pay.

The Owners by demanding 50% split in year 1 now, and not honouring existing contracts results in a 7 point (~12% drop in player salaries) immediately .. That means that the Owners are actually not only trying to effect this next new CBA, but rather trying to attempt clawbacks of the previously completed one, by cutting into the players 57% legally bargained and ratified in the past CBA by their proposals.

For that the NHLPA is telling them to go pound sand and rightfully so, as moving to 50/50 spit in time with new future revenue will guarantee the Owners are still honouring past debts incurred from past revenue during the last binding CBA process. Negotiating new rights in the expired CBA is different then manipulating the situation so you get reimbursed for the past one now completed.

Can't have their cake and eat it to as the damage being incurred by their lockout to clawback $$ and rights from the players is all at their own actions. The NHLPA would be playing hockey right now under the terms of the old agreement, with no loss of revenue to either side nor damage to the industry, but then the Owners couldn't try to clawback $$ from the last CBA (as explained above) by continuing to honour existing contracts until a new deal is reached.

Mess is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 05:28 PM
  #448
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
See I realize that the last CBA agreed to a 57% NHLPA and a 43% NHL HRR split. While the last CBA was still active players signed contracts that complied with their 57% portion, that the Owners legally agreed to pay.

The Owners by demanding 50% split in year 1 now, and not honouring existing contracts results in a 7 point (~12% drop in player salaries) immediately .. That means that the Owners are actually not only trying to effect this next new CBA, but rather trying to attempt clawbacks of the previously completed one, by cutting into the players 57% legally bargained and ratified in the past CBA by their proposals.

For that the NHLPA is telling them to go pound sand and rightfully so, as moving to 50/50 spit in time with new future revenue will guarantee the Owners are still honouring past debts incurred from past revenue during the last binding CBA process. Negotiating new rights in the expired CBA is different then manipulating the situation so you get reimbursed for the past one now completed.

Can't have their cake and eat it to as the damage being incurred by their lockout to clawback $$ and rights from the players is all at their own actions. The NHLPA would be playing hockey right now under the terms of the old agreement, with no loss of revenue to either side nor damage to the industry, but then the Owners couldn't try to clawback $$ from the last CBA (as explained above) by continuing to honour existing contracts until a new deal is reached.
If you also realized that contracts that go beyond the life of the previous CBA will then be affected (good or bad) by the new CBA that is replaced, you would have saved your 4 paragraph response. I never denied that the PA has a right to fight for the money on their existing contracts. You're free to use your tunnel vision to frame your argument, I'm also free to challenge you on them. I'm not arguing about fair, right, wrong or principles. I'm arguing about the legality of the CBA and the contracts signed under previous and future CBAs. The players aren't owed dollars at face value from a previous CBA. I could just as well argue that if the players cared so much about new CBAs affecting the dollars on their contracts, they could just as easily not sign a contract longer than the current CBA length...you know, it's about just as easy as everyone who say that owners shouldn't hand out these kind of contracts to players, competition and improving your roster be damned. Players can't have their cake and eat it too I guess.

You said the players weren't asking for anything in return for their hypothetical 50/50 split. You fail to acknowledge that their split isn't a guaranteed 50/50. You also fail to acknowledge (and still failed to acknowledge) that no CBA in places means that neither side is owed anything. Anything asked by either side is a concession and there are some topics that neither side has threatened (which would be a discretionary concession - salary cap, guaranteed contracts).

And for the record, the PA HAS asked for things that the league has agreed to. We would all probably agree that the requests by the PA that were agreed to by the league are not equal to what the league is asking from the PA. However, unless you or anyone else here is working on a modern reinvention of math where something equals nothing, then the PA has in fact made demands which makes your initial comment I responded to an incorrect statement by you.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 08:16 PM
  #449
WeWantACup
HFB Partner
 
WeWantACup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
No Confidence

Where to begin…shall we recap the events of another wasted week, in which talks of mediation and subsequent decertification dominated the front pages of sports sections around the continent? Should we focus on the latest brainstorm, in which players and owners are supposed to meet without the presence of either Fehr brother, without Gary Bettman, and without Bill Daly?


http://www.wewantacup.com/headlines/1078-no-confidence


WeWantACup is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 09:00 PM
  #450
Penalty Kill Icing*
Fire Carlyle
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,972
vCash: 500
Word out of Boston is announcement about new deal to save the season could be made tomorrow or wednesday. Reported by Steve Burton of WBZ, who is a highly respected sports figure in Bean town. He said this on-air not some random nut on twitter.

Hoping its true. But too good to be true.

Penalty Kill Icing* 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 08:40 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.