HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VIIII: "We're Close" "We're Not Close" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 11:06 PM
  #126
gravey9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
Im curious here...what exactly have the players done to move to the owners side since all this began a few days ago?

Owners added 100 million dollars.

Owners back off on almost all player contract rules.

Owners back off on pension plan.


From what i'm reading and hearing it sure sounds like owners moved a helluva lot and the players didnt really do much at all.
everything you just mentioned as gives are STILL gives on the players side. Just less steep gives. that 100 mil that owners added is just making how much the players are giving the owners slightly smaller over a 10 year deal. going 50-50 from 57-43 is still more than a billion dollar give, even with the all of the current contracts honored at full value. now the owners are holding the players hostage over how the players 50% is divided amongst the players. GM's have be responsible for some decision making, no?

gravey9 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:16 PM
  #127
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
Im curious here...what exactly have the players done to move to the owners side since all this began a few days ago?

Owners added 100 million dollars.

Owners back off on almost all player contract rules.

Owners back off on pension plan.


From what i'm reading and hearing it sure sounds like owners moved a helluva lot and the players didnt really do much at all.
The players' contention is that it's all them making the concessions... Which to a point is true. When u make a universally unfair 57% and then drop to 50% you've conceded. The owners wanted it to drop to 47% initially so the owners have moved on that... But it's all the players losing.

That being said, they have a lot to give on & for the health of their league, and the teams they play for they should drop to 50/50.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:19 PM
  #128
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Per Daly... The buyout money would come from the owners (more $ they're spending) and it wouldn't be included "in the system" ie not part of the 50/50 split, not from escrow... But directly from the owners' pockets.
That's really dumb. Just getting the right to one compliance buyout doesn't mean the owner has to exercise it. There aren't that many teams around the league who would even need it, especially with a $70m transition year.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:20 PM
  #129
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
The players' contention is that it's all them making the concessions... Which to a point is true. When u make a universally unfair 57% and then drop to 50% you've conceded. The owners wanted it to drop to 47% initially so the owners have moved on that... But it's all the players losing.

That being said, they have a lot to give on & for the health of their league, and the teams they play for they should drop to 50/50.
Letting players keep what they already have isn't conceding anything. The owners own the leverage here, so any deal is going to favor them. However, it isn't necessary to try to screw the NHLPA, nominally your partner, to the wall in the process.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:22 PM
  #130
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Owners of the World Unite?

Normally, I'm all up for the capitalist argument, but here's a problem here: in a regular union-owner negotiations, the union wants cost certainty. The union demands deals with corporations and governments that guarantee them things 40 years into the future (like pensions) regardless of what happens with company profits or government tax revenue.

But here it is different. It isn't the union that is demanding guarantees. If it were up to the union, there would be a libertarian-style free market.

Instead, it is the owners who are demanding cost certainty and guarantees that they can never fail, no matter how miserably they run their operations. Socialism at its best.

I'm not fond of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, but listening to these rich guys demand socialism makes me understand that OWS argument. These billionaires talk about capitalism and the American Way when it comes to paying nothing to their middle class workers, and then turn around and pull this socialist crap on the players.

What hypocrites! If we have a socialist guarantee that these owners can't fail, then how about they give a guarantee to their workers that they can never get fired and must make enough money to cover all their expenses, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable?!

How about from now on they pay enough taxes that nobody will ever fail in life? Why should they be guaranteed to make a profit, but not to guarantee an income to the homeless and all others? If anything, billionaires are more able to take a loss that the guy sleeping on the street now.

These owners are the socialist ones. I'm a Republican. I'm very active in Republican politics. But holy crap, the wealthy need to stop demanding corporate welfare and guarantee of success every time it benefits them.


Last edited by Fitzy: 12-06-2012 at 11:44 PM.
Beacon is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:33 PM
  #131
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,880
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
Normally, I'm all up for the capitalist argument, but here's a problem here: in a regular union-owner negotiations, the union wants cost certainty. The union demands deals with corporations and governments that guarantee them things 40 years into the future (like pensions) regardless of what happens with company profits or government tax revenue.

But here it is different. It isn't the union that is demanding guarantees. If it were up to the union, there would be a libertarian-style free market.

Instead, it is the owners who are demanding cost certainty and guarantees that they can never fail, no matter how miserably they run their operations. Socialism at its best.

I'm not fond of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, but listening to these rich guys demand socialism makes me understand that OWS argument. These billionaires talk about capitalism and the American Way when it comes to paying nothing to their middle class workers, and then turn around and pull this socialist crap on the players.

What hypocrites! If we have a socialist guarantee that these owners can't fail, then how about they give a guarantee to their workers that they can never get fired and must make enough money to cover all their expenses, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable?!

How about from now on they pay enough taxes that nobody will ever fail in life? Why should they be guaranteed to make a profit, but not to guarantee an income to the homeless and all others? If anything, billionaires are more able to take a loss that the guy sleeping on the street now.

These owners are the socialist ones. I'm a Republican. I'm very active in Republican politics. But holy crap, the wealthy need to stop demanding corporate welfare and guarantee of success every time it benefits them.
Here here!

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:33 PM
  #132
Groot
I am Groot.
 
Groot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ridge, New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,351
vCash: 500
#OccupyNHL

Groot is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:36 PM
  #133
17futurecap
Registered User
 
17futurecap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 6,786
vCash: 500
Got Bill Simmons and Bob McKenzie going at it on twitter, this is what the lockout has come to haha.

17futurecap is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:39 PM
  #134
Florida Ranger
Bring back Torts!
 
Florida Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tampa, FLA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,000
vCash: 500
I love Bobby Mac

Florida Ranger is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:42 PM
  #135
robwrx04
Registered User
 
robwrx04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
Normally, I'm all up for the capitalist argument, but here's a problem here: in a regular union-owner negotiations, the union wants cost certainty. The union demands deals with corporations and governments that guarantee them things 40 years into the future (like pensions) regardless of what happens with company profits or government tax revenue.

But here it is different. It isn't the union that is demanding guarantees. If it were up to the union, there would be a libertarian-style free market.

Instead, it is the owners who are demanding cost certainty and guarantees that they can never fail, no matter how miserably they run their operations. Socialism at its best.

I'm not fond of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, but listening to these rich guys demand socialism makes me understand that OWS argument. These billionaires talk about capitalism and the American Way when it comes to paying nothing to their middle class workers, and then turn around and pull this socialist crap on the players.

What hypocrites! If we have a socialist guarantee that these owners can't fail, then how about they give a guarantee to their workers that they can never get fired and must make enough money to cover all their expenses, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable?!

How about from now on they pay enough taxes that nobody will ever fail in life? Why should they be guaranteed to make a profit, but not to guarantee an income to the homeless and all others? If anything, billionaires are more able to take a loss that the guy sleeping on the street now.

These owners are the socialist ones. I'm a Republican. I'm very active in Republican politics. But holy crap, the wealthy need to stop demanding corporate welfare and guarantee of success every time it benefits them.
I'm as libertarian/free market as you can get, but the problem with this situation is, the NHL is pretty much a monopoly. Players can't just decide to play in another league if they don't like their checks. Yeah they can go to Russia/Europe, but most would rather play in the NHL, even for less money.

I hate unions, I believe the best union is no union. But when there are no other alternatives that are readily available, then without a union, players would be taken advantage of.

robwrx04 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:47 PM
  #136
Groot
I am Groot.
 
Groot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ridge, New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,351
vCash: 500
Bobby Mac really didn't have to jump down Simmons's throat like that though, that was pathetic, Simmons wasn't being malicious at all, he was just speaking the truth, hockey isn't covered the same way in the States. He's one of the ESPN guys besides Bucci, Levy, and Melrose obviously, that doesn't make a complete joke out of everything that is hockey. Good thing to be hostile though, guess he gets it from the people he's been covering.

Groot is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:54 PM
  #137
Groot
I am Groot.
 
Groot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ridge, New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Steve Zipay ‏@stevezipay
RT @adater: From deep inside players: "We were ready to play again. But Don came in (Wed.) told us we could get more and to hold out
**** Fehr.

Groot is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:55 PM
  #138
Florida Ranger
Bring back Torts!
 
Florida Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tampa, FLA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYGRYK21 View Post
Bobby Mac really didn't have to jump down Simmons's throat like that though, that was pathetic, Simmons wasn't being malicious at all, he was just speaking the truth, hockey isn't covered the same way in the States. He's one of the ESPN guys besides Bucci, Levy, and Melrose obviously, that doesn't make a complete joke out of everything that is hockey. Good thing to be hostile though, guess he gets it from the people he's been covering.
I agree.

Florida Ranger is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:06 AM
  #139
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robwrx04 View Post
I'm as libertarian/free market as you can get, but the problem with this situation is, the NHL is pretty much a monopoly. Players can't just decide to play in another league if they don't like their checks. Yeah they can go to Russia/Europe, but most would rather play in the NHL, even for less money.

I hate unions, I believe the best union is no union. But when there are no other alternatives that are readily available, then without a union, players would be taken advantage of.

And what the owners are doing is not a union? In real life this would've been illegally. Imagine if all the car companies in the US and Canada ganged up on their workers to make sure that no auto-engineer and other workers would be able to get a job in their field of work anywhere in North America. Imagine if engineers were locked out and forced to move to France to get another job.

Or imagine if the State of New York "locked out" all its employees during the last negotiations, refused to pay them and made sure that they could never get another government job anywhere in North America. How 'bout them apples now?!

This is complete BS. The owners united into a monopoly and are forcing players to choose between surrender and Siberia.

Beacon is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:07 AM
  #140
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYGRYK21 View Post
**** Fehr.
You don't take that to mean the negotiation on contract years and variance? Is asking for a few years that bad?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:09 AM
  #141
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger de FLA View Post
I agree.
Is it gone? I can't find it.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:14 AM
  #142
Florida Ranger
Bring back Torts!
 
Florida Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tampa, FLA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Is it gone? I can't find it.
It's still on McKenzie's feed. Try that. I just checked and it's still there.

Florida Ranger is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:19 AM
  #143
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Let me add this. The average player makes about $5 million after-tax profits in his NHL career. It was significantly less when they first got locked out in 1994 when the average lifetime NHL earnings for a player was about $1.5M after taxes. This was enough to live decently while in the NHL and to buy and furnish a house, but then players had to go look for middle class jobs, usually coaching some junior team. Even today, many players like Eminger and Haley make only $1-$2 in lifetime post-tax salary.

But $5M in lifetime salary isn't that much either. A player needs to get a job post-hockey and live only a slightly higher than middle class lifestyle. They can have fun in their 20s, buy a nice house, and still have a couple of million in the bank when they retire. But a couple of million doesn't take you far when you have to survive another half a century, especially with annual inflation.

The players, other than the stars, are merely trying to make sure they set themselves up for a decent lifestyle post-hockey. No yachts, no private jets. Sure they can afford more than a Honda, but the average NHLer can't afford a Bentley, unless he's financially reckless. So yeah, at the age of 40, he has a 5-bedroom home instead of a 3-bedroom that his friends have, he drives a BMW instead of a Honday, eats at Ruth's Chris instead of a diner. But nothing special. It's essentially the same lifestyle as everyone else, but slightly nicer.

And if you are a low-end player, you probably have little to no savings at the end of your career, save maybe for a house if they are good at not wasting money.

Meanwhile, the owners are flying everywhere on private jets that cost tens of thousands of dollars in fuel and staff per flight. They wouldn't eat at Ruth's Chris if you held a gun to their head. They don't know what a supermarket looks inside unless they own one. Cry me a river about your losses!

If you don't like owning a hockey team and think you are losing money, then give it to me. How can a business that allegedly loses money every year somehow increase in value? Who are they kidding?

Am I supposed to believe that that Eminger and Haley are worse off financially than the owners? I don't begrudge people making money. That's the American Way. That's why the U.S. is so successful - we get compensated for getting educated, working hard, investing, inventing. But why do I have to hear whining about poverty coming inside a private jet?


Last edited by Beacon: 12-07-2012 at 12:26 AM.
Beacon is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:28 AM
  #144
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
Let me add this. The average player makes about $5 million after-tax profits in his NHL career. It was significantly less when they first got locked out in 1994 when the average lifetime NHL earnings for a player was about $1.5M after taxes. This was enough to live decently while in the NHL and to buy and furnish a house, but then players had to go look for middle class jobs, usually coaching some junior team. Even today, many players like Eminger and Haley make only $1-$2 in lifetime post-tax salary.

But $5M in lifetime salary isn't that much either. A player needs to get a job post-hockey and live only a slightly higher than middle class lifestyle. They can have fun in their 20s, buy a nice house, and still have a couple of million in the bank when they retire. But a couple of million doesn't take you far when you have to survive another half a century, especially with annual inflation.

The players, other than the stars, are merely trying to make sure they set themselves up for a decent lifestyle post-hockey. No yachts, no private jets. Sure they can afford more than a Honda, but the average NHLer can't afford a Bentley, unless he's financially reckless. So yeah, at the age of 40, he goes from having a 3-bedroom home to having a 5-bedroom home, from driving a Honda to driving a BMW, from eating in a diner to Ruth's Chris. But nothing special. It's essentially the same lifestyle as everyone else, but slightly nicer.

And if you are a low-end player, you probably have little to no savings at the end of your career, save maybe for a house if they are good at not wasting money.

Meanwhile, the owners are flying everywhere on private jets that cost tens of thousands of dollars in fuel and staff per flight. They wouldn't eat at Ruth's Chris if you held a gun to their head. They don't know what a supermarket looks inside unless they own one. Cry me a river about your losses!

If you don't like owning a hockey team and think you are losing money, then give it to me. How can a business that allegedly loses money every year somehow increase in value? Who are they kidding?

Am I supposed to believe that that Eminger and Haley are worse off financially than the owners?
an average person making 50,000 a year from the age of say 22 (out of college) till say 65 makes a total of 2,150,000 over their entire lifetime.

Steve Eminger at the ripe old age of 29 had already earned 4.25 million dollars. hes got another 750k coming to him next season, assuming its a full season.


Most of these guys don't have college loans to pay either.


6 year contract lengths, 10 year CBA, and 50% divide, etc, effects those guys pretty much nil. It effects guys like RNH, Taylor Hall, etc. The next generation of star who really hasnt cashed in just yet.

Inferno is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:32 AM
  #145
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,031
vCash: 500
i love how 5 million in a lifetime isnt really all that much.

My dad who died in 2008 made maybe 1/4th of that in his entire lifetime, commuting 90 mins from NJ to JFK every day.

the average NHL player makes something like 2 mil a season. The average nhl player plays what. 5-7 years? they make 5-7 times what an average american makes in their entire lifetime.....in 1/8th the time.

Inferno is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:35 AM
  #146
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger de FLA View Post
It's still on McKenzie's feed. Try that. I just checked and it's still there.
appears to be gone now

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:36 AM
  #147
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,031
vCash: 500
you give me 5 million dollars right now, and i can retire, comfortably for the rest of my life.

Inferno is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:54 AM
  #148
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
an average person making 50,000 a year from the age of say 22 (out of college) till say 65 makes a total of 2,150,000 over their entire lifetime.

Steve Eminger at the ripe old age of 29 had already earned 4.25 million dollars. hes got another 750k coming to him next season, assuming its a full season.


Most of these guys don't have college loans to pay either.

Eminger is paying higher taxes more than double the rate of the average person. His take home is, what, $2.5M over the course of his career? Like I said, it's not bad money, it puts the guy ahead of the Average Joe, but Eminger is MUCH close to the Average Joe than he is to Dolan or Wang.

Eminger will maintain a similar lifestyle to the Average Joe. Both will have cars, but one will have a somewhat nicer one. Both will have houses, but one will have a somewhat bigger one. Meanwhile, the others are not in the same stratosphere as either Eminger or the Average Joe... or Brad Richards, for that matter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
you give me 5 million dollars right now, and i can retire, comfortably for the rest of my life.
Exactly. On $5M, you can retire "comfortably", but nothing particularly special. No jets, no yachts, no thousand dollar dinners several times a week. Nothing that resembles the owners' lifestyle.

Beacon is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:57 AM
  #149
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,978
vCash: 500
Tell me if I have this pretty close to right:

Some of the owners got their way and got the hard liners to give them a chance to end this fiasco. They lay their cards on the table. But Fehr sees that as blinking. He steps in and tells the players that they need to take advantage of that opportunity. Bettman may say that stuff is off the table but Fehr figures he knows whats really important to the owners now and how far they were willing to go to end this.

A very ballsy move....but a dangerous one. All the owners have been hard lined now. I think I'm pretty close. This will be interesting.

Pizza is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:58 AM
  #150
Cresto
In the pantry
 
Cresto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
Let me add this. The average player makes about $5 million after-tax profits in his NHL career. It was significantly less when they first got locked out in 1994 when the average lifetime NHL earnings for a player was about $1.5M after taxes. This was enough to live decently while in the NHL and to buy and furnish a house, but then players had to go look for middle class jobs, usually coaching some junior team. Even today, many players like Eminger and Haley make only $1-$2 in lifetime post-tax salary.

But $5M in lifetime salary isn't that much either. A player needs to get a job post-hockey and live only a slightly higher than middle class lifestyle. They can have fun in their 20s, buy a nice house, and still have a couple of million in the bank when they retire. But a couple of million doesn't take you far when you have to survive another half a century, especially with annual inflation.

The players, other than the stars, are merely trying to make sure they set themselves up for a decent lifestyle post-hockey. No yachts, no private jets. Sure they can afford more than a Honda, but the average NHLer can't afford a Bentley, unless he's financially reckless. So yeah, at the age of 40, he has a 5-bedroom home instead of a 3-bedroom that his friends have, he drives a BMW instead of a Honday, eats at Ruth's Chris instead of a diner. But nothing special. It's essentially the same lifestyle as everyone else, but slightly nicer.

And if you are a low-end player, you probably have little to no savings at the end of your career, save maybe for a house if they are good at not wasting money.

Meanwhile, the owners are flying everywhere on private jets that cost tens of thousands of dollars in fuel and staff per flight. They wouldn't eat at Ruth's Chris if you held a gun to their head. They don't know what a supermarket looks inside unless they own one. Cry me a river about your losses!

If you don't like owning a hockey team and think you are losing money, then give it to me. How can a business that allegedly loses money every year somehow increase in value? Who are they kidding?

Am I supposed to believe that that Eminger and Haley are worse off financially than the owners? I don't begrudge people making money. That's the American Way. That's why the U.S. is so successful - we get compensated for getting educated, working hard, investing, inventing. But why do I have to hear whining about poverty coming inside a private jet?
I'd like to protest to the math. The described lifestyle and situation is that of an AHLer perhaps. 3 seasons in the NHL, even at $700K before tax should set anyone up in life. Everyone wants a nice lifestyle and it's never good enough. While a lot of guys do get paid <$1M, a majority get paid more than that.

They're trying to set themselves for up yes but for a much nicer lifestyle than what you ascribed above.

I'm not sure why jets or yachts are being brought into the mix for. The lack of jets or yachts does not imply they're not living extravagantly. Also, the stuff on taxes, everyone pays taxes and I'm sure they pay more but it's just. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "securing themselves financially" or "ensuring their livelihood after their career and their family's livelihood.

Owner's are greedy and they should be, they're business men. Bad? yes. Players want more money because they too like all people are greedy. Those who do not make $5M+ a year want to make sure they're getting their share in their career. Anyone who gets paid $5M before taxes in their career and ends up with less than $1M in a savings policy at the end of their career is an idiot.


Last edited by Cresto: 12-07-2012 at 01:05 AM.
Cresto 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 02:22 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.