HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Notices

2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-16-2012, 06:08 PM
  #126
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
Do they receive their wages with taxes taken off like employees? I promise you they do not.
Um, actually they do...

__________________


Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 06:13 PM
  #127
allan5oh
#Dive4Five #31Buyout
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,290
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
And I don't necessarily see how having the owners pay all of these perks somehow benefits the business. Each owner is doing it because he has to. Because another owner is doing it. So it's only a benefit because each owner needs to do it to maintain competitive. It's like a cold war for player perks.
Your argument is very circular. This is just the free market at work. They don't have to do this, they could shove the players in 3 star hotels and regular flights. But it would negatively affect their business.

Quote:
But to your point, that's kind of why I have no patience for the players and their "let's work together as partners" BS. IF it's not going to be a partnership, then I have no issue with a system that allows all the owners to make profits. They are taking the largest risks (financially speaking, I know the players take the physical risks. )

Off to the Bomber game!
You're looking in the wrong spot to do that. It's not in the CBA especially in the form of players salary. Maybe in the form of revenue sharing. The worst teams in the NHL would not pull a profit with the most generous CBA. That has to come from ownership, management, or relocation.

Trimming the amount of teams wouldn't hurt either.

allan5oh is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 06:42 PM
  #128
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
Your argument is very circular. This is just the free market at work. They don't have to do this, they could shove the players in 3 star hotels and regular flights. But it would negatively affect their business.



You're looking in the wrong spot to do that. It's not in the CBA especially in the form of players salary. Maybe in the form of revenue sharing. The worst teams in the NHL would not pull a profit with the most generous CBA. That has to come from ownership, management, or relocation.

Trimming the amount of teams wouldn't hurt either.
Guess who would be the first group to be in an uproar if contraction happend, ohh that's right the players. No matter how you spin it the players have a vested interest in the health of the league.


My problem with your rational is that you expect all of these markets to operate as a stand alone without taking into account the the each franchises specific market dynamics. You will always have a few juggernaut teams that will have far and away more resources then most of the others so the only way to make things work is to create a league where every team operates under roughly the same rules. Like it or not but parity is good for all teams and the growth of the league. The last round only half corrected the problem, they got the system but they didn't put in place strong enough controls to police the system. As shown by the PA's proposal the crux of the argument isn't the linkage but contract structure. Max length contracts and a better way of calculating caphits is what I believe the owners are really after. I.E. Most of the owners want more parity, they don't want to see cap circulating long term inflationary deals. Notice that the players were willing to move on the split but wanted nothing to do with max contracts. The PA wants to keep a lose control structure so you keep seeing big market teams try to prey on the weak which forces the weak to accept contracts that they can't afford (nashville).


Yes there will need to be a stronger revenue sharing program but there also needs to Stronger controls in place for the league to really prosper.

surixon is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 06:52 PM
  #129
videofarmer
thirsty
 
videofarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: ATL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,054
vCash: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
I dont agree with this
In some cases, possibly...
However, there are also markets that hockey is the 4th 5th even 6th in line for sports bucks
The greatest ownership in the world wont make a nickel there
On the other hand, hockey is such a magnificent game with its speed, sights sounds, physicality, etc. that I find it hard to believe that a well-run club couldn't win over fans anywhere. A well-run club being one that respects the fans and the potential fans, markets to them effectively, gets involved with the community, reaches out to kids in a way that encourages them to want to play, sticks around long enough for those kids to grow into 2nd generation fans and provides a quality on-ice product (a team that actually has a chance of winning the majority of its home games). Hockey is the greatest game on the planet, there's no reason it can't win over most sports fans and sometimes it seems to do even better with people who aren't really sports fans before watching some great hockey games.

videofarmer is offline  
Old
08-16-2012, 06:54 PM
  #130
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,221
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
You're looking in the wrong spot to do that. It's not in the CBA especially in the form of players salary. Maybe in the form of revenue sharing. The worst teams in the NHL would not pull a profit with the most generous CBA. That has to come from ownership, management, or relocation.
Trimming the amount of teams wouldn't hurt either
.
Short term yes... but long term no. Eventually free-market demand will raise the value of players, raising costs, raising ticket prices, lowering demand, and depending on the size of the market would eventually pushing teams under the line again.
There will always be financial winners and losers in the long term. The only way to keep the weakest afloat is via the CBA and revenue sharing. Removing the weakest only delays the problems and creates a new weakest over time.

garret9 is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 07:45 PM
  #131
Hollywood3
Bison/Jet Fan
 
Hollywood3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,929
vCash: 500
People: Never take a cut of the net. Always take a cut off the top. NHL teams write off loads of bogus expenses and the business model includes arena rents etc. which can be manipulated to a great extent.

This lockout will last for as long as it takes to get revenue sharing amongst owners. The rest is details.

Hollywood3 is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 07:59 PM
  #132
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
Short term yes... but long term no. Eventually free-market demand will raise the value of players, raising costs, raising ticket prices, lowering demand, and depending on the size of the market would eventually pushing teams under the line again.
There will always be financial winners and losers in the long term. The only way to keep the weakest afloat is via the CBA and revenue sharing. Removing the weakest only delays the problems and creates a new weakest over time.
Totally agree.

Also would love to stop seeing the "free market" crux being played. The nhl as a single entity or product operates within the free market. Operations within the nhl can operate anyway they damn well please. they aren't currently, nor should they ever be, operating as a free market as it has proven to be detremental to the overall value of the "product of the nhl" as a singular entity in the north american market economy.

This why they want revenue sharing.

Grind is online now  
Old
08-16-2012, 09:26 PM
  #133
sully1410
Registered User
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Turner Valley, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,125
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
Totally agree.

Also would love to stop seeing the "free market" crux being played. The nhl as a single entity or product operates within the free market. Operations within the nhl can operate anyway they damn well please. they aren't currently, nor should they ever be, operating as a free market as it has proven to be detremental to the overall value of the "product of the nhl" as a singular entity in the north american market economy.

This why they want revenue sharing.
You guys agree again! Wtf? So not natural.

sully1410 is offline  
Old
08-17-2012, 08:53 AM
  #134
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,141
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
Your argument is very circular. This is just the free market at work. They don't have to do this, they could shove the players in 3 star hotels and regular flights. But it would negatively affect their business.
How is it circular? The point is the owners only provide these perks because the owner down the street does. It only takes 1 owner to start giving their players flavored water before the next one decides to give their players flavored water AND gummy bears.

It wouldn't affect the business at all if all of these costs were capped, or if the players had to pay for them.

That's the point on this one. The owners are only paying for all of these perks because they have to. Remove the need for all the owners to "keep up with the Jones's", and see what happens.


Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
You're looking in the wrong spot to do that. It's not in the CBA especially in the form of players salary. Maybe in the form of revenue sharing. The worst teams in the NHL would not pull a profit with the most generous CBA. That has to come from ownership, management, or relocation.

Trimming the amount of teams wouldn't hurt either.
The CBA is the only mechanism that owners can use to try to create a system that allows them to make money.

If it doesn't come from the CBA, it's not going to come from anywhere else.

Huffer is online now  
Old
08-17-2012, 10:16 AM
  #135
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,663
vCash: 2209
You can spend your formative years debating the ins and outs of this, but it is nothing more than putting two hungry pigs in front of a bowl of slop.

The only way to have an equitable share is to have someone completely independent find a resolution.

I can't for the life of me understand why there is even a process prior to independent arbitration. Nothing will get done, and, frankly, it's pathetic watching grown men spew such garbage rather than just admitting they are motivated by greed like pretty much everyone else on Earth.

GrandChelems is offline  
Old
08-17-2012, 12:26 PM
  #136
allan5oh
#Dive4Five #31Buyout
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,290
vCash: 50
[QUOTE=Huffer;53648873]How is it circular? The point is the owners only provide these perks because the owner down the street does. It only takes 1 owner to start giving their players flavored water before the next one decides to give their players flavored water AND gummy bears.

Quote:
And I don't necessarily see how having the owners pay all of these perks somehow benefits the business. Each owner is doing it because he has to. Because another owner is doing it. So it's only a benefit because each owner needs to do it to maintain competitive. It's like a cold war for player perks.
You kind of asked a question, then answered the question a few sentences later. They need to remain competitive. That benefits the business. That's how business works.

Quote:
That's the point on this one. The owners are only paying for all of these perks because they have to. Remove the need for all the owners to "keep up with the Jones's", and see what happens.
I don't see how this could happen. The CBA is also very strict on what perks they can get. That's why not a single jet bought a car from a Chipman owned dealership.

Quote:
The CBA is the only mechanism that owners can use to try to create a system that allows them to make money.
What about selling more tickets? Or at higher prices? Increasing revenue? Some are blessed with a good market, and then it boils down to the owners and management. Look at the NJD and NYI vs. SJS. For 2010-2011 the SJS made almost as much in ticket sales as the NJD and NYI combined. This is a non-traditional market vs. a more traditional hockey market.

One thing I wouldn't mind being changed is the offer sheets to RFA's. I've never understood this. Basically it punishes lower ranking teams, do you think a team like CBJ or EDM want to make offer sheets? Their 1st round picks are much more valuable than the kings, philly, etc.. so essentially offer sheets are only a tool the most successful teams will use.

allan5oh is offline  
Old
08-17-2012, 01:41 PM
  #137
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,141
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post

You kind of asked a question, then answered the question a few sentences later. They need to remain competitive. That benefits the business. That's how business works.
I don't think you are understanding my point. Or I might not be explaining myself correctly. I am saying if you take out the need for the owners to spend more on perks than the next owner by way of CBA restrictions then that is good for all the owners as then they are all not tripping over each other to spend more than the next guy.

Then they don't need to spend more than the next owner to remain competitive, because every owner is in the same boat.

It's only providing owners marginal benefits NOW, because they need to continually outspend their fellow owners on perks (upgraded locker rooms, etc).

Tell me, do you not think that if the owners could put limits on everything from flights, to hotels, to meals, to trainers, to locker room upgrades, etc, that they would say no?

I would think that the owners would take that in a second. Because then they don't need to worry that they need to spend more than the next guy, and the escalation of non-player costs would end.

At that point there would be no need to spend more than the next guy to remain competitive, because everyone would be in the same boat.


Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
I don't see how this could happen. The CBA is also very strict on what perks they can get. That's why not a single jet bought a car from a Chipman owned dealership.
I'm not really talking about perks like that. More like non-player salary expenses. Flights, hotels, meals, support staff, upgraded facilities.

Why not have the players pay their share of these costs? Why not have the profits divided AFTER all the costs of operating the business (not counting player salaries), have been paid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
What about selling more tickets? Or at higher prices? Increasing revenue? Some are blessed with a good market, and then it boils down to the owners and management. Look at the NJD and NYI vs. SJS. For 2010-2011 the SJS made almost as much in ticket sales as the NJD and NYI combined. This is a non-traditional market vs. a more traditional hockey market.

One thing I wouldn't mind being changed is the offer sheets to RFA's. I've never understood this. Basically it punishes lower ranking teams, do you think a team like CBJ or EDM want to make offer sheets? Their 1st round picks are much more valuable than the kings, philly, etc.. so essentially offer sheets are only a tool the most successful teams will use.
Selling more tickets and at higher prices are defiantly ways to bring in more revenue.

But all that additional revenue is still subject to the distribution that is set up by the CBA that the team is operating under at that time. So if the system isn't working for a team, adding additional revenue is going help, but it might not help them enough.

Huffer is online now  
Old
08-17-2012, 02:08 PM
  #138
Hollywood3
Bison/Jet Fan
 
Hollywood3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
...

Why not have the players pay their share of these costs? Why not have the profits divided AFTER all the costs of operating the business (not counting player salaries), have been paid?

...
[mod]

These rules apply to everything, not just the CBA:

NEVER share the net. The owner can always arrange things so that there is no net to share.

ALWAYS take a share off the top.

Just ask any performer, athlete, sub-contractor, you name it.


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 08-17-2012 at 02:37 PM. Reason: flaming
Hollywood3 is online now  
Old
08-17-2012, 02:31 PM
  #139
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,141
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood3 View Post
These rules apply to everything, not just the CBA:

NEVER share the net. The owner can always arrange things so that there is no net to share.

ALWAYS take a share off the top.

Just ask any performer, athlete, sub-contractor, you name it.
I am not asking the question because I don't know the answer. I'm asking it because the answer shows that the players don't truly want to be "partners" in this negotiation.


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 08-17-2012 at 02:37 PM. Reason: qep
Huffer is online now  
Old
08-17-2012, 03:03 PM
  #140
SensibleGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,588
vCash: 50
Individual pro sports leagues aren't and can't ever be operated as "free markets." They are totally different things. In a free market, one entity is out to destroy the other. Walmart is more than happy to watch Sears crash and burn. A sports league has two fundamentally different measuring sticks of success - competitive between the teams in terms of standings, and overall league health/financial concerns - and those two things operate against one another. Its in a team's best interest to spend as much as it can, getting the best players, in order to be successful in terms of winning games/fans/trophies. However, its not in the best interest of the league as a whole for a handful of teams to constantly win and the rest never win. Its also not in the interest of the league as a whole to have franchises failing. You simply can't expect individual franchises to operate in the interest of the whole league without some outside overseeing body imposing limits on things.

SensibleGuy is offline  
Old
08-17-2012, 04:08 PM
  #141
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,147
vCash: 500
As stated by others, two key pieces in this negotiation are % of revenue (deteriming HRR included) and revenue sharing. The other items are likely give and take and non-show stoppers.

The owners will likely not accept any % more than 50/50 split, nor should they, even to the most staunch player supporter - 50/50 division seems fair. A "you get half, we get half" mentality.

Revenue sharing is where this gets very interesting. Owners or conglomerations, with shareholders, want to maximize their revenue and, consequently, profit. Any mechanism that reduces their revenues or revenue sources would be fought. Especially when its given to teams that appear to have markets that won't support hockey. So, reducing a significant operating expense (player salaries) is the quickest way to improve your bottom line, obviously. The 50/50 split is bound to happen.

NFL revenue sharing is so successful due to their large national broadcast contracts which is then split across the board to each team, allowing each team to reap the benefits. Until team and league broadcast deals are more evenly shared, it stays a league of haves and have nots. A more meaningful sharing system to allow mega broadcast deals with MSG, WGN, Comcast, NESN and Leafs TV, etc to be distributed to all teams seems to be a logical move too. But, in some markets, it wouldn't matter. They cant even giveaway tickets in some markets.
Revenue sharing seems to be a solution for small market teams like Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Calgary but likely not a fix for Phoenix or Florida. I'm wondering if contraction will eventually, seriously, be considered.

Bob E is online now  
Old
08-17-2012, 04:37 PM
  #142
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 1,388
vCash: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
NFL revenue sharing is so successful due to their large national broadcast contracts which is then split across the board to each team, allowing each team to reap the benefits. Until team and league broadcast deals are more evenly shared, it stays a league of haves and have nots. A more meaningful sharing system to allow mega broadcast deals with MSG, WGN, Comcast, NESN and Leafs TV, etc to be distributed to all teams seems to be a logical move too. But, in some markets, it wouldn't matter. They cant even giveaway tickets in some markets.
Revenue sharing seems to be a solution for small market teams like Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Calgary but likely not a fix for Phoenix or Florida. I'm wondering if contraction will eventually, seriously, be considered.
I didn't realize this until recently, but NFL teams share ticket revenue. I think home team gets 60%, visitors 40%. (this excludes luxury boxes though)

Even implementing something that simple would immensely help some teams in the NHL.

Yukon Joe is offline  
Old
08-17-2012, 05:01 PM
  #143
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 32,121
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
I didn't realize this until recently, but NFL teams share ticket revenue. I think home team gets 60%, visitors 40%. (this excludes luxury boxes though)

Even implementing something that simple would immensely help some teams in the NHL.
That would work in the nhl if they had a 4 billion dollar tv deal

Imagine the up roar of leaf and habs fans paying 200+ a game and giving 40% of that go teams that only charge 20 bucks a home game....

__________________
Most Valuable Player
Most Valuable Player

Most Valuable Player
Most Valuable Player
King Woodballs is offline  
Old
08-17-2012, 05:20 PM
  #144
mzappa
Jets fans in space
 
mzappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,793
vCash: 50
This is the fundamental flaw of revenue sharing among owners of rich and poor markets.

How happy do you think Detroit or NYR are sharing their high revenues with teams like Columbus or Carolina...especially when those poorer teams sign big free agents, which then come to play against you? Detroit would be effectively subsidizing Carolina for signing Semin Staal and Skinner to come play against them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
That would work in the nhl if they had a 4 billion dollar tv deal

Imagine the up roar of leaf and habs fans paying 200+ a game and giving 40% of that go teams that only charge 20 bucks a home game....

mzappa is offline  
Old
08-17-2012, 06:29 PM
  #145
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
I didn't realize this until recently, but NFL teams share ticket revenue. I think home team gets 60%, visitors 40%. (this excludes luxury boxes though)

Even implementing something that simple would immensely help some teams in the NHL.
True. They have a much different philosophy when it comes to sharing revenue in NFL.

If you consider ticket revenue (# games x # bums in seats x avg ticket price), the NHL and NFL would be 'similar' in gate revenue. Far less games in NFL, but far greater crowds. So ticket revenue would be 'in the same ballpark'.

Then, consider the NFL's $3 billion (with a 'b') annual deal with NBC, CBS and FOX - divided 32 ways is almost $100 million/team EACH year. That is a considerable slice of their revenue pie. Gate revenue and sponsorship, as a percentage of their revenue, is far less in NFL than it is in NHL.

Curious to see what 'meaningful' revenue sharing gets adopted, and where it comes from.

Further to Huffer's point, the players want no part of taking on any risk and are not partners at all. Guaranteed salary contracts will do that. Players want to grow profits so they can 'share' a bigger pie. I have no problem with the owners receiving a greater percentage of revenue as they are taking all the risk.

Bob E is online now  
Old
08-17-2012, 11:27 PM
  #146
allan5oh
#Dive4Five #31Buyout
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,290
vCash: 50
Here's a good article:

Don't call league, players' relationship a partnership

Call the relationship between the National Hockey League and NHL Players’ Association many things, but don’t refer to it as a partnership.

NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr couldn’t have made that more clear during a conference call with media on Friday afternoon.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/08/1...-a-partnership

allan5oh is offline  
Old
08-18-2012, 04:13 AM
  #147
ps241
The Danish Dash!
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,666
vCash: 50
Thanks allan5oh I am having trouble getting a quote from the article bolded for some reason but here goes:

“If we are partners, do we have joint control?” Fehr said after wrapping up two days of meetings with players in Chicago.

“Do we get to have an equal say on how the marketing is done, how the promotion is done, where the money is invested, where the franchises are located? Do we have an equal say when on teams are sold where the money goes? Do we get part of that? Do we have an equal say on how the television arrangements are done? Do we have an equal say on anything?

“That’s what a partnership normally implies.”

End quote

I tend to agree with Fehr's list but he left out "do we share in the owners financial investment of hundreds of millions or even billions in the cost of the franchisees?", "do the players share the risk and absorb the financial losses for teams when they add up into 10's of millions of dollars" and "do the players get their's no matter whether the owners and investors get theirs or not"?

I am not being a wise a55 but there is a fundamental flaw in the verbiage "partners" in the case of the players. On a business note many of us on this board have had partners (and investors) in businesses we own. I also am fortunate enough to work with another group of great people who have committed their professional lives and careers to us but have not invested financially. It is my opinion that unless you have "financial skin in the game" and you experience the highs of return on your investment or the lows of losing your money and even worse a dreaded "cash call" to float a business you are not a partner. As for hockey or any other physically dangerous job you do put your body on the line, and you may or may not be 100% committed to excellence, it's just you are not a partner because you don't invest and share in the risk reward of said investment.

Until your money is on the line it is my opinion you just don't get it and I am not saying that in a bad way. In some ways it's like having kids, you can talk about it all you want but until you have them you don't get "it"!

To me the players are more like high priced "executives" with lucrative bonus programs that are tied to past performance and future expected performance. Their future compensation is Gaurenteed based on a negociated contract that is derived on the timing of the supply and demand of their services (plus or minus status) and expected future performance limited by a shared revenue pool. Nowhere in "my" definition do I use any metrics of profitability.

Not that it's a bad thing it's just they aren't partners. Based on what I have seen written on the league financials outside the top 4 to 6 teams that's probably a really good thing for Mr. Fehr's constituents.


Last edited by ps241: 08-18-2012 at 07:12 AM.
ps241 is online now  
Old
08-18-2012, 10:17 AM
  #148
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,141
vCash: 50
Agree 100% PS241.

Huffer is online now  
Old
08-23-2012, 12:29 PM
  #149
Hank Chinaski
Mod Supervisor
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,277
vCash: 264
Bump.

Meeting cut short yesterday, and only lasted 90 minutes today. Bettman claiming both sides are still far apart on key financial issues. It's really starting to sound more like a game of "who will blink first" than anything resembling serious negotiation.

Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old
08-23-2012, 12:30 PM
  #150
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 32,121
vCash: 50
Only close in terms of revenue sharing.
Everything else sounds pretty far apart

King Woodballs 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 09:42 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.