HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Jan 6/13: CBA reached to end the Lockout. Rejoice! (Post#783)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2012, 11:40 AM
  #401
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
From a moral standpoint, I agree with the union's stance. The league is immensely successful. Why should the players shoulder the financial burden to solve a problem that exists because of wealth disparity across markets?

That's not fair. I don't blame the NHLPA for being outraged at the prospect of having to agree to such a blatantly lop-sided offer. They're angry. I get that.

But given the situation, from a purely strategic standpoint, they should only care about what they can reasonably expect to get given the lay of the land. How far can they push things before it's a net negative and what triggers and clauses can they work into the new cba to strengthen their position going forwards? That's the logical position to take. That's the position I expect a cold-eyed professional like Fehr to take.

Leave the dying on the hill/Alamo mentality to the rank and file members.


What clauses do you think can strengthen their position going forward? I think this was a major reason why it turned out the players actually "won" the last CBA while still seemingly to have been beaten by Bettman.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:31 PM
  #402
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
people say the NHL isn't negotiating in good faith, but the PA is using sham legal tactics to try and force the issue.
aahahahahahahahahaha

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:02 PM
  #403
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
What clauses do you think can strengthen their position going forward? I think this was a major reason why it turned out the players actually "won" the last CBA while still seemingly to have been beaten by Bettman.
The main thing the PA has to avoid in the next go-around is a unilateral decision by the league to lockout the players at the expiration of the CBA. Instead, have the league put it's leverage on the line in return for fulfilling the purported objectives they wish to accomplish: economic viability and competitive parity.

For example, there could be agreed upon objective monetary and growth targets determined and regularly reported by an outside body that decides whether the CBA is working or not. Should those targets be met, there must be assent by both parties before the CBA can be dissolved outright otherwise both parties are forced to continue negotiations. It would effectively prevent the league from instituting a lockout at predetermined date as a matter of course.

It accomplishes three things: it brings a certain degree of transparency to the process, it forces both parties to negotiate based on well-defined metrics, and it takes the biggest stick out of the hands of the owners unless its justifiable.

My two cents.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:09 PM
  #404
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
people say the NHL isn't negotiating in good faith, but the PA is using sham legal tactics to try and force the issue.
aahahahahahahahahaha
Still picking sides?

We're beyond that. Anything to end this dispute.

Wisp is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:15 PM
  #405
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
The main thing the PA has to avoid in the next go-around is a unilateral decision by the league to lockout the players at the expiration of the CBA. Instead, have the league put it's leverage on the line in return for fulfilling the purported objectives they wish to accomplish: economic viability and competitive parity.

For example, there could be agreed upon objective monetary and growth targets determined and regularly reported by an outside body that decides whether the CBA is working or not. Should those targets be met, there must be assent by both parties before the CBA can be dissolved outright otherwise both parties are forced to continue negotiations. It would effectively prevent the league from instituting a lockout at predetermined date as a matter of course.

It accomplishes three things: it brings a certain degree of transparency to the process, it forces both parties to negotiate based on well-defined metrics, and it takes the biggest stick out of the hands of the owners unless its justifiable.

My two cents.



That's a great idea, but the owners would never agree to it. Why would they? Right now, with every successive CBA "negotiation" they've taken more and more away from the players. They are already recognized to be winners here. Why would they risk losing that leverage? When they can again pound the players for more concessions under the current standard?



I think it's a solid idea, but idealistic. The only way to ensure that the owners don't continually use their considerable leverage is to decertify early as a matter of course. Have all your ducks in order. Understand the process in the courts intimately, and be prepared to operate under that context. That's the only way IMO.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:48 PM
  #406
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
That's a great idea, but the owners would never agree to it. Why would they? Right now, with every successive CBA "negotiation" they've taken more and more away from the players. They are already recognized to be winners here. Why would they risk losing that leverage? When they can again pound the players for more concessions under the current standard?



I think it's a solid idea, but idealistic. The only way to ensure that the owners don't continually use their considerable leverage is to decertify early as a matter of course. Have all your ducks in order. Understand the process in the courts intimately, and be prepared to operate under that context. That's the only way IMO.
I'm not sure that they would reject it outright. It would really depend on what the metrics are and how they would be evaluated because at the end of the day they really do want to see their business model succeed and it's evidenced by their desire to make the next CBA last as long as possible.

Of course what I'm proposing would take literally the entire offseason to sort out, so there goes the season. Although given the call to vote for decertification, it's tough to see how the season could be salvaged at this late stage.

As to your idea of immediate decertification upon lockout, it's a risky strategy because the courts could easily reject it outright. If Fehr were really intent on playing hardball, he should have floated the idea of a strike at the beginning of last season and ratcheted up the rhetoric as the playoffs approached in order to precipitate a serious offer from Bettman. That would have short circuited the lockout option altogether.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:52 PM
  #407
west in the east
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,456
vCash: 500
At this point I am not sure what a disclaimer will accomplish if the parties are as close as reported. There will be a net loss to most players by this step even if they win on contracting issues if the season is lost. If they're putting this to a vote, should they not also put the owners last offer to a vote, or a bridge the gap offer to a vote?

west in the east is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:18 PM
  #408
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by west in the east View Post
At this point I am not sure what a disclaimer will accomplish if the parties are as close as reported. There will be a net loss to most players by this step even if they win on contracting issues if the season is lost. If they're putting this to a vote, should they not also put the owners last offer to a vote, or a bridge the gap offer to a vote?
If I read it correctly, what they are putting to vote is if the NHLPA should explore a disclaimer... So, if the NHLPA should press the download link on the PDF Disclaimer of Interest Information package on the website...

Personally, I don't think there is much to be concerned about (as a hockey fan), yet... I think this is actually a good thing, at this point in time. The NHL will bend and give in the final details if a disclaimer become formal and serious, IMO...

With this rumbling, and with the rumbling that Bettman could be close to setting a drop dead date, I think both sides are laying all their cards on the table... Emptying the bullets from their guns... At least, threatening to... Hopefully, the threat is enough to allow enough bending...

I can't see how the NHLPA disappearing (NHLPA bullet), or the season ending (NHL bullet), or a combination of both in a crossfire, is good for either/or side... IMHO, they are threatening to apply the final pressure they have... Threatening the "end game" for both, to squeeze the final pieces - before a deal is reached...

It's about time...

If the players vote that Fehr has the authority to dissolve the NHLPA, then a deal gets done real quick, IMHO... The reported final sticking points are just not worth it... And if Fehr is granted power to do it, I'm not convinced that Fehr wouldn't follow through for whatever personal reason he might have... My prediction is the NHL gives in on the final details before or soon after a pro-"get more info" vote... If the NHL doesn't, it would just be silly... Is the difference in a few years between wanted CBA length, wanted contract length, and buyout particulars really worth the fall out if Fehr has the authority to blow up the union?

*tin foil hat on* I think Fehr may be fully prepared to blow up NHL hockey as a warning to the other leagues, that this is what could happen to you... to get even more favourable pro-player professional CBA's in the future across North American pro sport... The NHL is both big and small enough to be a good target to nuke... I think that Fehr may want to leave this legacy, and he'd sacrifice hockey (being the lesser of the major sports) to achieve it... *tin foil hat off*

I cannot see the NHL allowing this to get that far that Fehr has his finger on the red button... If the NHL does, IMO, the NHL deserves to go to hell...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 12-14-2012 at 02:24 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:44 PM
  #409
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
I'm not sure that they would reject it outright. It would really depend on what the metrics are and how they would be evaluated because at the end of the day they really do want to see their business model succeed and it's evidenced by their desire to make the next CBA last as long as possible.

Of course what I'm proposing would take literally the entire offseason to sort out, so there goes the season. Although given the call to vote for decertification, it's tough to see how the season could be salvaged at this late stage.


Cocoa, you're proposing that a bunch of cut-throat savages adopt a big picture approach to their business model, when all they've done is scratch and claw for every penny and plunge 10 teams into continual losses because they didn't understand where to expand? I don't see it.



These guys are dregs. The owners will continue to leverage advantage wherever possible and the only thing they understand is open warfare. These guys aren't "partners" in any sense of the word.




Quote:
As to your idea of immediate decertification upon lockout, it's a risky strategy because the courts could easily reject it outright. If Fehr were really intent on playing hardball, he should have floated the idea of a strike at the beginning of last season and ratcheted up the rhetoric as the playoffs approached in order to precipitate a serious offer from Bettman. That would have short circuited the lockout option altogether.


Yes, strike first, and then shift gears to decertify as a secondary tactic. As long as Fehr does his due diligence by getting the mediators involved and other third party evaluators, he's fine to decertify. It needs to happen - as a point of first resort. Just like how the owners use the lockout.


Play hardball with these guys because they don't understand anything else.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:57 PM
  #410
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye View Post
If I read it correctly, what they are putting to vote is if the NHLPA should explore a disclaimer... So, if the NHLPA should press the download link on the PDF Disclaimer of Interest Information package on the website...

Personally, I don't think there is much to be concerned about (as a hockey fan), yet... I think this is actually a good thing, at this point in time. The NHL will bend and give in the final details if a disclaimer become formal and serious, IMO...

With this rumbling, and with the rumbling that Bettman could be close to setting a drop dead date, I think both sides are laying all their cards on the table... Emptying the bullets from their guns... At least, threatening to... Hopefully, the threat is enough to allow enough bending...

I can't see how the NHLPA disappearing (NHLPA bullet), or the season ending (NHL bullet), or a combination of both in a crossfire, is good for either/or side... IMHO, they are threatening to apply the final pressure they have... Threatening the "end game" for both, to squeeze the final pieces - before a deal is reached...

It's about time...

If the players vote that Fehr has the authority to dissolve the NHLPA, then a deal gets done real quick, IMHO... The reported final sticking points are just not worth it... And if Fehr is granted power to do it, I'm not convinced that Fehr wouldn't follow through for whatever personal reason he might have... My prediction is the NHL gives in on the final details before or soon after a pro-"get more info" vote... If the NHL doesn't, it would just be silly... Is the difference in a few years between wanted CBA length, wanted contract length, and buyout particulars really worth the fall out if Fehr has the authority to blow up the union?

*tin foil hat on* I think Fehr may be fully prepared to blow up NHL hockey as a warning to the other leagues, that this is what could happen to you... to get even more favourable pro-player professional CBA's in the future across North American pro sport... The NHL is both big and small enough to be a good target to nuke... I think that Fehr may want to leave this legacy, and he'd sacrifice hockey (being the lesser of the major sports) to achieve it... *tin foil hat off*

I cannot see the NHL allowing this to get that far that Fehr has his finger on the red button... If the NHL does, IMO, the NHL deserves to go to hell...
I'm really curious where this idea that Fehr has some personal vendetta or is a loose cannon ready to blow everything up out of some sense of spite came from? I guess he's supposed to just cave in to Bettman and the owners when things get difficult? I'm sure the players knew what they were getting when they hired him and thats why they hired him. He's not intimidated by bullying owners and thats what the players were looking for.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:06 PM
  #411
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I'm really curious where this idea that Fehr has some personal vendetta or is a loose cannon ready to blow everything up out of some sense of spite came from? I guess he's supposed to just cave in to Bettman and the owners when things get difficult? I'm sure the players knew what they were getting when they hired him and thats why they hired him. He's not intimidated by bullying owners and thats what the players were looking for.
Agreed...this 'legacy' talk is, for no better words, RIDICULOUS...oh, and completely fabricated.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:20 PM
  #412
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I'm really curious where this idea that Fehr has some personal vendetta or is a loose cannon ready to blow everything up out of some sense of spite came from? I guess he's supposed to just cave in to Bettman and the owners when things get difficult? I'm sure the players knew what they were getting when they hired him and thats why they hired him. He's not intimidated by bullying owners and thats what the players were looking for.
For me, it stems from how he was hired, by whom, and who he replaced... Also, if I recall, he came out of retirement from a good, final gig... To me, he wants to do something special... He's in good with Goodenow, and my impression is that he's a hardliner who disguises himself as a negotiator...

Personally, I like him... I think he's right for the job and was a good hire for the NHLPA... But, given that I don't hold the owners to good or reasonale regard, I see both sides having it in them to blow it up, and in retrospect, wonder how they let it go so far, when they were so close...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:36 PM
  #413
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Agreed...this 'legacy' talk is, for no better words, RIDICULOUS...oh, and completely fabricated.
This "legacy" talk is also good for the players... if the threat of decertification (disclaimer) is all the players are really after (to pressure the owners)... and not actually follow through...

If I was a true player supporter, I'd embrace conspiracy posts such as parts of my last one... not brush them off as ridiculous... It would be better for all hockey stakeholders (fans included) to think that Fehr has it in him to do his part to blow up hockey, and not back down when having a staring match with the owners... especially if the follow through isn't the desired outcome - but rather, getting more out of simply the threat... To make the owners think that they would be wise to stand down - because Fehr doesn't mind if he does hurt hockey for personal reasons...

Do you think the majority of the players truly want to decertify? Why or why not?

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:41 PM
  #414
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I'm really curious where this idea that Fehr has some personal vendetta or is a loose cannon ready to blow everything up out of some sense of spite came from? I guess he's supposed to just cave in to Bettman and the owners when things get difficult? I'm sure the players knew what they were getting when they hired him and thats why they hired him. He's not intimidated by bullying owners and thats what the players were looking for.
I think it comes from his history with MLBPA. 6 of 8 negotiations resulted in work stoppages. And now this. He's definitely not afraid to gum up the works in order to prove a point. Whether that makes him recklessly irresponsible, well, that depends on the sanity of the PA members who get a vote on whatever he proposes.

My issue with him isn't so much his willingness to play hardball so much as how effective his tactics are in the long run. My interests are in the long term health of the game. Hockey isn't baseball. It's much more fragile.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:54 PM
  #415
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
He's definitely not afraid to gum up the works in order to prove a point. Whether that makes him recklessly irresponsible, well, that depends on the sanity of the PA members who get a vote on whatever he proposes.

My issue with him isn't so much his willingness to play hardball so much as how effective his tactics are in the long run. My interests are in the long term health of the game. Hockey isn't baseball. It's much more fragile.
The players have been serious about addressing the long term financial considerations of the league, they aren't trying to bankrupt them. It's hard to argue that Fehr's "tactics" don't work given the results he has achieved.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:29 PM
  #416
west in the east
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,456
vCash: 500
Betman puffs his chest. Don't agree with the class action. Just more fuel on the nuclear fire. Poor call in response to a poor call.

west in the east is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:37 PM
  #417
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Oh yes, Fehr has accomplished a ton. The players have lost half their pay this season and the owners have as of the last players offer the NHL has gotten almost everything they wanted.

Good going Fehr lol!

Jay Cee is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:08 PM
  #418
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Cee View Post
Oh yes, Fehr has accomplished a ton. The players have lost half their pay this season and the owners have as of the last players offer the NHL has gotten almost everything they wanted.

Good going Fehr lol!
This is inaccurate. The players went to a 50/50 but only with a soft landing, denied the owners when they attempted to re-define HRR, forced the owners hand on revenue sharing, got pensions beefed up, and are currently still fighting to lessen restrictions on contracting rights. I actually think they've been pretty smart and controlled about the battles they've chosen and how hard they've fought them. The PA has clearly won the messaging war, as well.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:14 PM
  #419
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
This is inaccurate. The players went to a 50/50 but only with a soft landing, denied the owners when they attempted to re-define HRR, forced the owners hand on revenue sharing, got pensions beefed up, and are currently still fighting to lessen restrictions on contracting rights. I actually think they've been pretty smart and controlled about the battles they've chosen and how hard they've fought them. The PA has clearly won the messaging war, as well.
They've won the PR war for the most part but they really haven't gotten anything of substance out of the owners...they've lost, but its a matter of mitigating the long term losses....but a loss was expected from the outset, it was just a matter of how much they were going to be able to get back in contracting rights in exchange for their monetary loss.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:21 PM
  #420
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
They've won the PR war for the most part but they really haven't gotten anything of substance out of the owners...they've lost, but its a matter of mitigating the long term losses....but a loss was expected from the outset, it was just a matter of how much they were going to be able to get back in contracting rights in exchange for their monetary loss.
I agree, and I think that was pretty much inevitable from the outset. But what they've tried to do (mostly successfully) is ensure that the transition doesn't actually involve players losing money -- aside from the obvious loss of salary from losing half a season.

The thing that's irked me from day 1 is that the league could have probably had the deal they're going to end up with by November 1st if they'd wanted to. The hard-line position they've taken hasn't seemed to earn them much of anything that the PA weren't willing to give at the start of the year (in my opinion, anyway). The league is basically throwing away revenue and risking future growth on a fool's errand. Is Bettman just trying to out-do his old pal David Stern from last year?


Last edited by Proto: 12-14-2012 at 05:32 PM.
Proto is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:31 PM
  #421
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,036
vCash: 500
Say goodbye to the season....World juniors and Spengler Cup cover the holiday season, we just need the networks to start picking up more AHL and CHL games.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:39 PM
  #422
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
I agree, and I think that was pretty much inevitable from the outset. But what they've tried to do (mostly successfully) is ensure that the transition doesn't actually involve players losing money -- aside from the obvious loss of salary from losing half a season.

The thing that's irked me from day 1 is that the league could have probably had the deal they're going to end up with by November 1st if they'd wanted to. The hard-line position they've taken hasn't seemed to earn them much of anything from the PA that they weren't willing to give at the start of the year (in my opinion, anyway). The league is basically throwing away revenue and risking future growth on a fool's errand. Is Bettman just trying to out-do his old pal David Stern from last year?
I don't know...I still think Bettman is Jeremy Jacobs' little puppet. Initially I thought, yeah, the players are going to have to give back some money and, sure they are going to have to close some of the loopholes but there really isn't a lot to be fighting over if the players concede those things...the owners are putting the squeeze on and the players are steadfastly denying them and I'm not sure why anyone would percieve them as being in the wrong to do so? Except for selfish fans who just want their hockey back.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:53 PM
  #423
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The players have been serious about addressing the long term financial considerations of the league, they aren't trying to bankrupt them. It's hard to argue that Fehr's "tactics" don't work given the results he has achieved.
You tell me. How effective has it been? At the very least half a season is lost. They've conceded basically everything the owners wanted. We lose the rest of the season over his slow-rolling concessions and I'd say the sport will suffer a setback because of it.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:06 PM
  #424
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
the owners are putting the squeeze on and the players are steadfastly denying them and I'm not sure why anyone would percieve them as being in the wrong to do so? Except for selfish fans who just want their hockey back.
Selfish, like those hockey fans (including children) in hospices across North America, who would love to forget about their problems for a few hours a day? Watch the Canucks for a final season?

There is more than enough selfishness to go around... Owners, players, dying fans... There is no excuse for hockey not to be played January, IMHO... Up until this point, I totally understand the labour dispute, and the need for pressure points to get everything you can, out of everything you have... But if the owners and the players can't figure it out by January (and a season is cancelled), the owners and players both put themselves above everything else, selfishlessly...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:46 PM
  #425
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,041
vCash: 250
What I don't get is why the union heads won't be holding a general player's vote on the owners' last proposal, yet it seems they're willing to do so on decertification? Am I just missing something here, or does this seem fishy?

vanuck 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 06:40 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.