HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Linden feels the NHLPA was INSULTED,feels the season is over

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-23-2005, 12:43 AM
  #201
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balk
I don't understand why people disagree with the owners going for a cap. Each owner has a significant investment in the team and after putting up that money, they would like to see a return on their investment which they were promised when they signed in.
You mean like franchise values going up. Look no further than the Canucks sale, John McCaw has recovered the money he paid for the team and more by just selling half the franchise.

vanlady is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 01:04 AM
  #202
TopOfTheWorld
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 62
vCash: 500
I dont even know what to think of this bull**** anymore. I'm an angry fan. I used to think the WHA idea was ludacris now I can't wait for something fresh to start so we don't have to put up with anymore lies from both sides.

I'm seeing a lot of good points from both the NHL and NHLPA....Im going to rant on now! Feel free to shoot down my thoughts, I'm getting used to it...

- This problem was created by the owners and there is no question about that. No one twisted their arms and forced them to sign the 6, 7, 8 million dollar contracts that they now think are ridiculous.

- The players are employees thing......well seeing as I'm an employee somewhere I'll try to make a comparison, people come into the store I work in because they like the clothes, do I have anything to do with the sales? Very little, but I work off comission, I'm making more money the more I sell, the players are the reason the fans are buying tickets, your Steve Yzerman is filling seats everywhere, think of it with a "commission" type attitude

- Dont even compare to NBA and NFL salary caps because a low payed player in the NBA still makes more than the average NHL player does right now (Kobe Bryant, 20 million a season UNDER a cap? Thanks but I think thats still ridiculous)

- I wont sit around and say "whats wrong with making a million dollars a year its more than I will ever make" because then I'd only be saying it because I'm jealous that I cant be the one making a million dollars. It'd be nice to have that kind of talent, I know many hockey players personally who arent even at the NHL level and the amount of time and commitment they put into it is huge.

I know I sound pro players right now, but I'm actually confused about which side I support, there have been many contracts get out of control lately, theres no question about it, but the sides need to move. I think the main problem is Bettman and Goodenow, neither can swallow their pride and save the game, all they care about is winning. And now I'm extremely pissed off because all you hear from players all the time is "i play because I love the game, not for the money" and the big issue here is money.

Just bring back hockey already.

Just thought a little more, one sport I'm beginning to love is Nascar, a canadian kid who loves Nascar, yes bring me back my hockey, anyways.....Nascar's teams are all on the same playing field every weekend, theyre given the same amount of tires, same amount of fuel, theyre cars must be exactly the same, etc....Nascar goes OUT OF THEIR WAY to make sure that EVERY team is on equal terms for every race. The teams that survive are the teams that win, and sell merchandise, etc....

This is where I support the cap, I dont like revenue sharing because youre basically telling the stronger teams ok youre not only responsible for your team, but youre also responsible for less financially stable teams, its like freaking hockey welfare I dont like it.

If theres a hard team cap, every team is initially on level playing grounds. and every team has the right to spend that money how they feel. In my opinion, if a team still cannot bring in enough money under a cap to stay afloat, then I'm sorry, why should other teams who are better marketed, better sponsored, able to fill more seats have to take care of the little guy? If you cant play with the big boys, then you shouldnt be here. And who knows, maybe in a few years with a cap teams will even out as far as star players are concerned.


BAH SCREW THE LOCKOUT if the nhl ever returns, we should show them and HAVE A FAN STRIKE (dont laugh, im tired)


Last edited by TopOfTheWorld: 01-23-2005 at 01:24 AM.
TopOfTheWorld is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 01:27 AM
  #203
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 13,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balk
they would like to see a return on their investment which they were promised when they signed in.
You're never promised anything in an investment of any kind. Its called investment risk and theres risk that you may lose money. I'm not saying its bad they want a cap to stop the losses, but if these guys are smart buisnessmen then they know that with any investment there is a risk of losing money.

Hockeyfan02 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 02:53 AM
  #204
Ar-too
Registered User
 
Ar-too's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 10,129
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ar-too
For me, when you boil this all down, when negotiating, players are allowed to get together and say they won't accept a salary less than x - and they call it a union. When owners get together and say they won't pay players more than x, it's called collusion and the owners get sued.

Am I for a hard cap? Yes, but not without a salary floor as well.

The argument for sports teams being part of free markets always is lost on me. Someone else mentioned the fact that Coke would love to completely obliterate Pepsi and remove it from the free market altogether. That's a true free market. NHL teams can't survive without each other.

The players must understand at some point that escalating salaries, while good for the individuals who receive them, are Big Macs to an obese league that's going to have a heart attack one of these days if it keeps eating them. Are owners primarily at fault? Sure. That doesn't mean that it's in the players' interest to rub their noses in it and dig in their heals against a cap.

To quote Spock, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Ar-too is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 02:57 AM
  #205
Lady Rhian
St. McQuaid he aint
 
Lady Rhian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lakes Region, NH
Posts: 22,659
vCash: 500
Just saw this article now:

Linden to players: Prep for long haul


Canadian Press



1/22/2005

TORONTO (CP) - NHL Players' Association president Trevor Linden has told players to be prepared for the lockout to continue well into next season, according to The Hockey News.



The NHLPA posted an audio message on its internal website last night from Linden, who said he sees no basis for further meetings with the league, according to a story on the hockey publication's website.



Linden initiated talks with the league this week, but after Thursday's session in Toronto it was clear no progress had been made.

For the rest of the article, read here:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...42&hubName=nhl


Lady Rhian is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:22 AM
  #206
Luc Labelle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TopOfTheWorld
people come into the store I work in because they like the clothes, do I have anything to do with the sales? Very little, but I work off comission, I'm making more money the more I sell, the players are the reason the fans are buying tickets, your Steve Yzerman is filling seats everywhere, think of it with a "commission" type attitude
Good post TopOfTheWorld, but I am greatly annoyed by the above point you made.

This comparison does not work. Your product is the clothes, you get a commission for selling the clothes. The players are the product, if there was no league putting together the marketing infrastructure the product would not be as well known or successful. If we followed your argument then the people making the clothes would stop making the clothes because they want most of the commission you are receiving.

A more suitable comparison would be the music industry. I have heard many independent bands that are infinitely better than most mass-marketed pap that hits the airwaves. Unfortunately, their talent alone gets them nothing... they need to be noticed by someone who can get them into the marketing and distribution stream. This would be a connection to some sort of music label with some amount of clout.

The NHLPA membership has the good fortune of having been drafted or signed into the most recognized brand of hockey in the world - the NHL. A new system with cost certainty is needed because the current system is definetly flawed.

As far as the owners getting themselves into this mess. Well it is true that many teams are owned by billionaires. There is a select group of the billionaires who enjoy wrecklessly spending on spoiled, greedy, underachieving brats in the hopes of winning and getting the worldwide recognition that winning in professional sports can bring. While these owners are well known within their business environment, they are virtually unknown beyond. Yes, the whole ownership bit is an ego trip for some of the owners. Unfortunetly the current systems makes the smart owners suffer under the current CBA which does not have any controls in place in order for the smart owners to say no to the bullying of the NHLPA that pushes every member to request the amounts given by the foolish owners.

Can you say holdout? The new CBA should have a rule that all contracts be signed by lets say September 1 of each season. If not the players are ineligble until the following season. I think this would reduce the number of holdouts significantly and give some true clout to the owners that are trying to run their hockey teams as a business.

Luc Labelle is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 11:07 AM
  #207
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,541
vCash: 500
I guess there will not be any new meetings in the early part of this week

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 06:54 PM
  #208
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc Labelle
This comparison does not work. Your product is the clothes, you get a commission for selling the clothes. The players are the product, if there was no league putting together the marketing infrastructure the product would not be as well known or successful.
The players are not the product. The game is the product. The players are interchangeable. One day X is on your team, next day Y. Players leave constantly, and are replaced by other players. Even the great ones, like Gretzky and Orr.

The analogy works in that the salesman is simply the agent of delivery of the product, the clothes. If you go to shop tomorrow, and the salesman is different, you don't refuse to buy the product.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:30 PM
  #209
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
I agree the game is the product. The NHL product is that it is the most elite level of hockey competition. Because the product has the worlds best players. What all the scouting done at hf is for, to find the cream of the crop for the best league wherever it may be found in the world.

The players have their product value enhnaced greatly because of the NHL brand the owners have. THere is a definite symbiosis there. But if all the top players, including each years top draft picks, chose to play in another league, that was run by visionary entrpreneurs, who did make it work, which league would scouting on these boards be directed to

thinkwild is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 11:26 PM
  #210
ChiHawks468
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Aurora, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
I agree the game is the product. The NHL product is that it is the most elite level of hockey competition. Because the product has the worlds best players. What all the scouting done at hf is for, to find the cream of the crop for the best league wherever it may be found in the world.

The players have their product value enhnaced greatly because of the NHL brand the owners have. THere is a definite symbiosis there. But if all the top players, including each years top draft picks, chose to play in another league, that was run by visionary entrpreneurs, who did make it work, which league would scouting on these boards be directed to
The answer is it would be directed to whatever new league was created which, unfortunately, dispells your overall point. You said it yourself, the NHL is the elite level of competition because of the PLAYERS. Take them out and you have nothing. That makes them the product. The game is the sum of the player parts. With out the marquee players, you have nothing to sell. No way to generate interest. Look at the marketing efforts of the teams. They center around the players--the product. Sure players are "interchangeable" but just watch your attendance plummit when you ship out player X and bring in player Y and start to lose more than win. I think the NHL is of the same opinion as you guys are about the product being the game. That's why nhl hockey has become a second tier sport on the verge of blowing itself off the map.

ChiHawks468 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 11:29 PM
  #211
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,432
vCash: 500
If the players are the product, then they should share with the 300 million dollar loses. After all no one watches them on TV.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 02:35 AM
  #212
quat
intheDanRusseljungle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,919
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiHawks468
The answer is it would be directed to whatever new league was created which, unfortunately, dispells your overall point. You said it yourself, the NHL is the elite level of competition because of the PLAYERS. Take them out and you have nothing. That makes them the product. The game is the sum of the player parts. With out the marquee players, you have nothing to sell. No way to generate interest. Look at the marketing efforts of the teams. They center around the players--the product. Sure players are "interchangeable" but just watch your attendance plummit when you ship out player X and bring in player Y and start to lose more than win. I think the NHL is of the same opinion as you guys are about the product being the game. That's why nhl hockey has become a second tier sport on the verge of blowing itself off the map.

This makes absolutely no sense. Others have posted why, so I won't bother going over it again... however I would like to add that even if it were so, does it still make any sense to have escalating player salaries destroying some teams? How is it good for the players to end up in a league of eight teams, or twenty teams, or twenty five teams if you'd rather? It means less jobs for them overall with a pay structure that unlikey rises much from where it is now for any but the top 1%.

Cutting a decent deal now with some kind of relationship between revenue and salary is good for the health of the league, which used to be where the players actually earned their money. If the players were being sold a giant bill of goods I could certainly understand their postition.. but taking a fairly balanced approach to this negotiation certainly doesn't reveal the players to be very offering much in the way of helping what is wrong with the league today.

quat is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:24 AM
  #213
Luc Labelle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
The players are not the product. The game is the product. The players are interchangeable. One day X is on your team, next day Y. Players leave constantly, and are replaced by other players. Even the great ones, like Gretzky and Orr.

At worst the players are a very important part of the product. Just like the clothes the players are not interchangeable X for Y. Move Crosby off of Rimouski and I am pretty sure the Y you receive would not garner as much interest. Rimouski featuring Sidney Crosby is the top draw in the Quebec league, without him I am sure fewer would go to see games against Rimouski.

The game itself is the vehicle to deliver the product. This is where the sport suffers since expansion. On the one hand the league has bowed to the pressures from individual markets that certain star players are the attraction and have tried to schedule at least one visit from each team. In doing so, bitter rivalries have been watered down due to the usually long gaps between matchups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
The analogy works in that the salesman is simply the agent of delivery of the product, the clothes. If you go to shop tomorrow, and the salesman is different, you don't refuse to buy the product.
I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. Likewise if the NHL changed marketing managers we wouldn't immediately stop watching the games. In both cases there could be an influence in the longterm on whether or not we buy the product. A bad salesperson could convince me never to shop in that store again, and a marketing initiative in the NHL that would insult me would convince me not to watch the sport.

Something the NHLPA is currently doing is insulting the fan base. I am sure they have lost a good number of fans. Merchandise sales are currently down 80%. I know if I had a Canucks jersey with the name Linden on it I would burn it.

Luc Labelle is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 10:47 AM
  #214
HockeyCritter
Registered User
 
HockeyCritter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafer4Life
UGH, things are going from bad to worse. I especially feel angered by this remark:

"We want the right deal," Devellano said. "The hockey's not important. ... "My hope and wish is (these talks) start us toward a deal for next season."

Not important?!?!?!? Well thanks a lot buddy. Thanks for nothing. Obviously this guy doesn't give a rats @ss about the sport(like most of them), he just wants his dirty old money. Doesn't care about the fans either, I'll bet. Can't stand this. The whole thing is making me sick....... :mad: :mad: :mad:
I interpreted that comment as “getting a season under way isn’t as important as getting the right deal done" - - so the hockey (as in this season) isn't as important as the deal.

And in a way, I agree . . . . if it takes missing an entire season to ensure a proper CBA is in place . . . so be it. I don't what the NHL/NHLPA rushing into any deal just to salvage part of the season

HockeyCritter is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 10:56 AM
  #215
HockeyCritter
Registered User
 
HockeyCritter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
That's bull it's not just 4 or 5 teams.

Carolina, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Washington, Anaheim and Boston all contributed heavily to the ridiculous contracts given out in recent years.
I understand Carolina because of the offer sheet extended to Federov, Anaheim becasue of Kayria's contract, and maybe Pittsburgh because of Jagr's deal (and didn't they give Kovalev a huge contract as well), but I don't understand why Washington (who only extended Jagr's contract - they didn't add money) is on this list (both Bondra and Kolzig played for less money to stay in Washington)

You could argue Boston because of the Thornton's entry level contract . . . that reset the bar for all entry contracts (witness the Nash contract)

The problem isn't with UFA contracts . . . it's with RA contracts and the arbitration system.

Tampa's offer to Richards reset the salaries for all RA players with similar stats . . . and that's what needs to be fixed.


Last edited by HockeyCritter: 01-24-2005 at 11:02 AM.
HockeyCritter is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 03:50 PM
  #216
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc Labelle
At worst the players are a very important part of the product. Just like the clothes the players are not interchangeable X for Y. Move Crosby off of Rimouski and I am pretty sure the Y you receive would not garner as much interest. Rimouski featuring Sidney Crosby is the top draw in the Quebec league, without him I am sure fewer would go to see games against Rimouski.
Did fans not watch Rimouski before Crosby? Will fans go to see them after Crosby is gone? Of course. Crosby is just one of thousands of faces to pass through. The fans have always gone to see Rimouski, and they will always continue to do so.

At best, the greatest players causes a small "blip" in attendance. The vast majority of players have *zero* affect on attendance. Go down the list of players on any roster, and genuinely ask yourself, "Ok, if *this* one player wasn't on the team, how many fans would say 'that's it, I'm not paying for tickets any more'?"

A far bigger factor is team performance. Here in Vancouver, few went to see Pavel Bure, Alex Mogilny and Mark Messier because the team was lousy. Yet Pavel and the Courtnall brothers played to packed houses.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 05:06 PM
  #217
John Holmes*
Spuds MacLean™
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,214
vCash: 87
I think you missed the point.

Sure people in Rimouski will always go watch Rimouski, but when the Crosbyless Oceanic roll into Gatineau next year, do you think amyone will care, or have to buy a ticket package to see them?

John Holmes* is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 05:07 PM
  #218
Luc Labelle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Did fans not watch Rimouski before Crosby?
I didn't say they had no interest in their team without Crosby. I just indicated fewer fans would come out if Crosby was not in the lineup. Check out last years attendance figures for the QMJHL 2003-2004
Quote:
l’Océanic de Rimouski (157 539 spectateurs : +21 243)
Rimouski had an increase of 21,243 in Crosby's rookie season.
Quote:
Sur la route, l’Océanic de Rimouski représente l’équipe ayant fait conserver la meilleure moyenne des assistances à l’ensemble des équipes adverses, soit une moyenne de 5 040 spectateurs par partie.
Translation: Rimouski was the top road draw of the league with an average attendance of 5040 per game.

Current QMJHL attendance figures for 2004-2005
reflect more of the same. Rimouski is up 302 per game this year which will give them an increase of just short of 10,000 for the year.
Quote:
Furthermore, the Rimouski Océanic was the team who attracted the most fans (87,841) when they played on the road. In the arenas that the Océanic visited in 2004-05, the local team had an average of 4,392 fans per game.
Rimouski played in the Colisee last year drawing over 15,000 to one game. Rimouski also drew the most again this year at the Quebec Colisee, drawing just over 10,000.
Quote:
and the Rimouski Oceanic (163,867 vs. 170,162 in 1996-97) are a few fans close to beating their own assistance record for one season.
Looks like Rimouski won't quite break their single season record, though the stretch run should boost the average closer to the record. 1996-97 was Vincent Lecavalier's rookie season. Neither this season, nor that year were Rimouski challenging for the top of the league standings, 9th in 96-97 and currently 5th.

Luc Labelle is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 05:08 PM
  #219
Icey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
But its not just attendance that theses top players help, its merchandising. How many Sakic, Yzermann, Iginla, Belfour etc. jersey's do you think are out there? All those make money for the teams. As one team president said earlier this year "we not only need people to buy tickets, we need them to park their cars in our lots, buy the food in the concession stands and buy our merchandise." Top players draw people to a game. In Calgary they are not going to see Dave Lowry, they are going to see Jerome Iginla and Mikka Kipursoff. The top players put butts in the seats and $$$ in the owners pockets.

Without the draw of the top players, fans stop attending games. Don't think so? Just look what happens to attendance when Joe Sakic or Mike Modano is out on injuried reserve. When Eddie Belfour doesn't play how many people are rushing to that game? Not as many as when they play.

Icey is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 05:19 PM
  #220
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Holmes
Sure people in Rimouski will always go watch Rimouski, but when the Crosbyless Oceanic roll into Gatineau next year, do you think amyone will care, or have to buy a ticket package to see them?
So, the stands will be completely empty then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luc Labelle
Rimouski is up 302 per game this year which will give them an increase of just short of 10,000 for the year.
Exactly my point. The best of the best provide a small attendance blip. The vast majority provide nothing.

Fans ultimately come out to watch the *game*. Sure, they have favourites, and buy their jerseys etc. But what happens when those guys are gone? They get new favourites.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 05:31 PM
  #221
Matty
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Strawberry Fields
Posts: 2,396
vCash: 500
It's not about who is right or wrong. Both sides have the right to negotiate the best deal for themselves. It's not about communism or free market. Neither system really applies in the NHL.

It's about who has the most power and, IMO, it certainly seems that the NHL owners have the power right now. What is sad is the NHLPA's lack of recognition. 'Cause ultimately, I believe there will be a cap and there really is no reason to lose a season over it...

Matty is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 07:39 PM
  #222
barnburner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty
It's not about who is right or wrong. Both sides have the right to negotiate the best deal for themselves. It's not about communism or free market. Neither system really applies in the NHL.

It's about who has the most power and, IMO, it certainly seems that the NHL owners have the power right now. What is sad is the NHLPA's lack of recognition. 'Cause ultimately, I believe there will be a cap and there really is no reason to lose a season over it...
Excellent post. That's the whole deal. The owners are holding 4 aces, and the nhlpa only has a pair of deuces. You can bluff and talk, but ultimately, you have to lay your cards down, and when that happens - the players lose.
The players have pushed this thing as far as they can. It should be obvious to them by now that the owners are not going to move away from a cap.
The only choice the players have, is -
a. cap now
b. cap a year from now.

It's just a matter of how much bad money the players want to throw after good.

barnburner is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:07 PM
  #223
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnburner
Excellent post. That's the whole deal. The owners are holding 4 aces, and the nhlpa only has a pair of deuces. You can bluff and talk, but ultimately, you have to lay your cards down, and when that happens - the players lose.
The players have pushed this thing as far as they can. It should be obvious to them by now that the owners are not going to move away from a cap.
The only choice the players have, is -
a. cap now
b. cap a year from now.

It's just a matter of how much bad money the players want to throw after good.
I mostly agree, but here's the wildcard: the players' best bargaining position, timing wise, is right now because the owners are loathe to kill the season.
This doesn't mean the owners will completely back off cost certainty as a concept, but they may leave a little more wiggle room (soften the cap, so to speak) to get something done. If it's not done now, the players won't be getting a better offer anytime soon. The "taboo" of canceling a season would have come and gone and the owners wouldn't really have too much to lose by that point.
If the PA is smart - which I've doubted for a couple months now - they strike the best deal possible now and live to fight another day (like in about eight years).

CarlRacki 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 01:44 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.