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.

Professor rips NHL for treating fans as stupid

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-22-2012, 02:22 PM
  #76
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,007
vCash: 500
Moderation Note:

Please stick to the topic of THIS thread.

As always, posts that add nothing to the discussion or are 'quoted for truth' posts will be removed.




Back to the regularly scheduled programming....

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:32 PM
  #77
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Fugu, I took that number from KevFu in one of his posts. I can't remember if he posted a source for it or not. I took it on faith as he's usually pretty careful about what he posts.



Yes but that means the players would have to agree to take less for the betterment of the league. To date they've shown no real interest in doing so. Yes they'll eventually agree to take less, as long as it doesn't impact them in the process (even their latest proposal doesn't allow their share (money wise) to drop below what it is currently). So if **** happens, the NHL is still screwed.

I'm not saying this all has to be on the players, but unfortunately for them a good chunk of it will land there.

Personally if work came to me and said we want to pay you 20% less a year so that the business is healthy (which would mean no layoffs/lockouts), but would get continuous incremental raises yearly as long as revenues rise. I would absolutely take that. Especially when my other option is working for 10% of what I make today (and yes I consider myself overpaid), or getting what I make now for a few years, then perhaps taking less, or getting laid off or locked out while my union and company fight each other. One has to look at this long term... and long term the best way for me to continue to pay my mortgage is for my company to post profits and for me to hold my overpaid union job without any work stoppages.
Exactly. Players should stop taking this personaly and think about the health of the league. In "real life" if the employees refuse the deal, refuse to take less, it usualy lead to the company closing. I would like to see it happen to see how the spoiled brat players would react.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 04:32 PM
  #78
MuzikMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 674
vCash: 500
If people don't learn from history it is likely repeated. The great irony is that the NHL was born out of labour disputes, could that lead to its demise?

MuzikMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 04:45 PM
  #79
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
I disagree with his view. The NHL is not doing this to the fans, they are doing what they need to do to survive financially. In fact, they are doing this FOR the fans - without significant changes, many teams people cheer for will not exist.

Fans who are offended, make me shake my head. Be offended at the players - every one of them is making good money. They are driven by greed, 18 NHL teams are driven by survival.
This isn't about survival.
There is nothing in this proposal that changes the economics of the league.

There is a leak in the NHL. Going from 57 to 50 doesn't plug the leak... it bails out the league for a couple years.

Guess where we're going to be in 5-6 years.

Pro-owner and player-hating fans refuse to acknowledge this.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 04:47 PM
  #80
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Exactly. Players should stop taking this personaly and think about the health of the league. In "real life" if the employees refuse the deal, refuse to take less, it usualy lead to the company closing. I would like to see it happen to see how the spoiled brat players would react.
Owners should sit down with the players and talk about a new program that fixes the economics.

Since they don't, all this talk about "financial health" is purse horse crap.

Therefore, bringing this back to the subject at hand... the fans are indeed being treated as idiots.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 05:00 PM
  #81
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
This isn't about survival.
There is nothing in this proposal that changes the economics of the league.

There is a leak in the NHL. Going from 57 to 50 doesn't plug the leak... it bails out the league for a couple years.

Guess where we're going to be in 5-6 years.

Pro-owner and player-hating fans refuse to acknowledge this.
We know full well 50/50 won't fix things but the players will never agree to a system that will. It is pointless trying to get a 75/25 ratio in the owner's favor because the players really don't care about the health of the league or any of the teams - they only care about their own wallets.

The owners have to keep chipping away with each CBA like they did last time and are now and they need to get some teams out of certain markets.

Would it be best if they just gave the players the keys to the kingdom and watched teams fold?

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 05:31 PM
  #82
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
I agree with this professor. This lock-out cannot be justified at all. Record revenue during the financial crisis our lifetime, and then cry the poor house and shut the doors?

Would one more season operating while negotiating a new CBA hurt the season THAT bad?

I mean, the league is OK with hanging on to a bleeding coyotes even when guys like Basilli was willing to help the league, yet they can't keep playing during record revenues?
You sound a player who thinks that revenue is profit. You also have to remember that the NHL tried to play one more season and negotiate but the players basically gave the league the middle finger. That was the 11/12 season. If the league agreed to another season without an agreement, then A) they are at risk of strike, and B) the players simply would not negotiate. I would also argue that vast majority of fans are idiots. Have you ever heard a casual fan talk about the lockout? I have, and its all kinds of stupid that comes from their mouth.

Fish on The Sand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 06:39 PM
  #83
icerocket
Registered User
 
icerocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlantis
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,307
vCash: 500
People who blame one party more than another need to realize both sides are acting like babies. Owners need to control the contracts they give out and need to carefully consider what markets to expand in. Players need to understand they have never made this much money and have guaranteed contracts.

Honestly they make me sick.

icerocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 08:28 PM
  #84
ChillyPalmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
We know full well 50/50 won't fix things but the players will never agree to a system that will. It is pointless trying to get a 75/25 ratio in the owner's favor because the players really don't care about the health of the league or any of the teams - they only care about their own wallets.

The owners have to keep chipping away with each CBA like they did last time and are now and they need to get some teams out of certain markets.

Would it be best if they just gave the players the keys to the kingdom and watched teams fold?
Maybe they shouldn't put teams in struggling markets, or better yet, stop handing out contracts you can't afford. I'm tired of having to miss hockey because the owners need the players to save them from themselves. Revenue sharing needs to be increased, by a lot.

Or teams need to fold, and that is where I disagree with the players the most.

ChillyPalmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 02:54 AM
  #85
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChillyPalmer View Post
Maybe they shouldn't put teams in struggling markets, or better yet, stop handing out contracts you can't afford. I'm tired of having to miss hockey because the owners need the players to save them from themselves. Revenue sharing needs to be increased, by a lot.

Or teams need to fold, and that is where I disagree with the players the most.
Except that with the current system, the teams location doesn't really mean a lot. The team who's at the bottom... if they move them (say Phoenix to Toronto2), then all that does is put more pressure on the next team on the list (as TO2 now makes 40-50m more than before and thus raises the cap more).

Nor do the individual contracts matter at all. The players are guaranteed 50% (or 57%) of the total HRR. So Parise gets 14m next year... all that does is take money from another player (via escrow). Yes the contract is horrid... but that's another matter.

However I do agree completely that RS really needs to be increased - like 5-6 times (at least). In theory I don't like the idea of RS, however I don't see a sustainable NHL without RS.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 05:45 AM
  #86
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChillyPalmer View Post
Maybe they shouldn't put teams in struggling markets, or better yet, stop handing out contracts you can't afford. I'm tired of having to miss hockey because the owners need the players to save them from themselves. Revenue sharing needs to be increased, by a lot.

Or teams need to fold, and that is where I disagree with the players the most.
Funny thing is, the owners don't need the NHLPA approval for revenue sharing. If the owners want to share more money with each other just do it. Somehow this rev sharing will be blamed on the players

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 07:51 PM
  #87
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils Mike* View Post
This is one of the funniest pro-NHL owner propoganda post I've ever read. First of all, the NHL is not doing this "for the fans". The NHL is doing this to create more profit to take from the fans. The NHL actually made money in terms of profit as a whole and yet want to take more money. The fact is that if the NHL actually followed a smarter business model like other major leagues they could successfully redistribute the money to the bottom tier teams so that every franchise can survive.

The fact is that the reason why the NHL is like what it is today is because of the owners themselves. If the owners themselves didn't make the stupid decision to be greedy and go after players that they couldn't afford this would have never happened. But now because the profits aren't there for most franchises the owners are saying "wow, we screwed up so now we'll take your money we agreed to pay to you by contract". It's unbelievable. If you want a system where franchises can regularly compete with one another then you need a system where the top franchises have their money redistributed to the bottom franchises. It's that simple. But of course the greed of the owners wouldn't make that a possibility.

It's just funny because the players signed contracts that owners knew they couldn't afford. I just forget where the players are at fault for any of this?
Actually it was small market owners who payed big contracts to players because of big markets taking everything. The owners of those markets were pretty much forced to do it to get attendance/revenue.

Both owners and players are at fault. Do you think the Pens franchise would have survived if they didnt give in to Lemieuxs demands to be payed almost double the salary of the second highest payed player in the league?

Then we have situations when one owner causes a lot of trouble for the rest of them like Blues in the early 90's throwing money on any RFA they could find.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 07:52 PM
  #88
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Actually it was small market owners who payed big contracts to players because of big markets taking everything. The owners of those markets were pretty much forced to do it to get attendance/revenue.

Both owners and players are at fault. Do you think the Pens franchise would have survived if they didnt give in to Lemieuxs demands to be payed almost double the salary of the second highest payed player in the league?

Then we have situations when one owner causes a lot of trouble for the rest of them like Blues in the early 90's throwing money on any RFA they could find.

Don't forget Karmanos' astronomic offer to Fedorov.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 07:55 PM
  #89
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Don't forget Karmanos' astronomic offer to Fedorov.
I thought that was a given?

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 08:55 PM
  #90
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
We know full well 50/50 won't fix things but the players will never agree to a system that will. It is pointless trying to get a 75/25 ratio in the owner's favor because the players really don't care about the health of the league or any of the teams - they only care about their own wallets.

The owners have to keep chipping away with each CBA like they did last time and are now and they need to get some teams out of certain markets.

Would it be best if they just gave the players the keys to the kingdom and watched teams fold?
It would be best if the owners realized lockouts are not the only solution and didn't negotiate with the "lockout-first" mindset

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 08:58 PM
  #91
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post

Then we have situations when one owner causes a lot of trouble for the rest of them like Blues in the early 90's throwing money on any RFA they could find.
And that's where owners need to show intelligence and restraint.

If you know other GMs/Owners are jumping off a cliff, why would you follow?

That's why the entire idea of a salary cap is ridiculous.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 08:59 PM
  #92
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Except that with the current system, the teams location doesn't really mean a lot. The team who's at the bottom... if they move them (say Phoenix to Toronto2), then all that does is put more pressure on the next team on the list (as TO2 now makes 40-50m more than before and thus raises the cap more).

Nor do the individual contracts matter at all. The players are guaranteed 50% (or 57%) of the total HRR. So Parise gets 14m next year... all that does is take money from another player (via escrow). Yes the contract is horrid... but that's another matter.

However I do agree completely that RS really needs to be increased - like 5-6 times (at least). In theory I don't like the idea of RS, however I don't see a sustainable NHL without RS.
Eliminate the cap/floor.
debate whether or not you want to keep linkage.
Replace the cap/floor with a luxury tax

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 09:10 PM
  #93
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Funny thing is, the owners don't need the NHLPA approval for revenue sharing. If the owners want to share more money with each other just do it. Somehow this rev sharing will be blamed on the players
Actually the owners probably do need the PA's approval. Once revenue sharing was made a part of collective bargaining with the PA in the 2005 CBA the owners surrendered the right to unilaterally change revenue sharing amongst themselves. Unless they can find some novel way that wasn't covered in past collective bargaining they need the NHLPA's approval.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 10:02 PM
  #94
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
It would be best if the owners realized lockouts are not the only solution and didn't negotiate with the "lockout-first" mindset
The owners didn't start with a lockout first mentality. They had been trying to negotiate for almost a full year but the players simply refused. The lockout was the last resort. The players showed no indication of even listening to an offer, nevermind presenting one themselves until the lockout.

Fish on The Sand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 10:46 PM
  #95
ProstheticConscience
Seeing is believing
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,339
vCash: 883
Are we idiots for supporting the NHL? If we are, then does that make all the fans disguised as empty seats in Phoenix or wherever else the smart ones? I've seen it said here that we should all boycott the league, or the league should shut down (that'll show the players! yah!), and basically destroy the NHL. Is that being smart? I was thinking that membership on this site meant that a person actually liked hockey and the NHL and wanted it to be prosperous. Yes, I'm mad and frustrated. Yes, there are huge problems in the league, but I still actually want them to be worked out. If you're arguing that we should all just cease being fans...look at what you're saying. Why are you here, then? Go watch football.

Other generic lockout thoughts that I may as well put here because all the other lockout threads depress the living hell out of me:

--It blows me away that people point to Fehr's history with baseball and blather on about how his pattern fits what's going on now. Know what? There's history behind Bettman and the NHL BoG, too. It also fits a pattern. Know what it is? THE OTHER TWO BLOODY LOCKOUTS! We have almost an entirely new generation of players involved in this, new union leadership, and lookee here, the same-old same-old on the other side. What's happening? Same-old same-old. Use your heads, guys.

--I can't think of a single business model that relies entirely on your employees giving back raises to succeed. Honestly, I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I've seen in these threads who've actually been in a union or understand what unions are for, how they came about, or much less looked back through the NHL's history to understand where the NHLPA came from. All I see the owners doing is dumping all the responsibility on the players to make their business model succeed. To these guys handing out multimillion dollar contracts like candy, I say: What's your business model? Can you sustain what you're paying? If there's tumbleweeds rolling through your stadium during games, what's your plan to put butts in seats? How do you intend to market your product and increase demand for it? How do you create fans? What's the plan? If it's just: "Listen to Gary and **** the players!", hey, how's that working out for you?

--I have absolutely no reason to believe the NHL owners are concerned with anything more than their own petty pissing contests, rivalries and egos. This is a group where people like Harold Ballard and Bill Wirtz were the rule not the exception in the very recent past. When players mouth off in the media, all I hear from a lot of parties is how much it'll just steel the owners' resolve and guarantee a harder line and create more bad blood that'll simmer for years, and that just seems to be okay with everyone. It's a given that the owners are entitled to hold grudges like Sicilian bookmakers whose attitudes towards organized labour are barely into the 20th century, much less the 21st. And I'm sick of everyone being okay with that. I see nothing in the owners' behaviour that tells me that there won't be another lockout at the end of the next CBA (assuming one every gets done), especially if the players are perceived by anyone anywhere to have "won" on some point or other. Why not? They're prepared to throw record revenues in the garbage can this time, why not again? Look at the gains the NHL has made. All those are at risk. The last lockout was hailed as complete victory for the owners. The union caved. Salary Cap, contract rollbacks, the works. Now where are we? Same bloody place.

--Yes, I know Revenue =/= Profit. Some teams are raking it in. What are they doing differently than the teams who can't rub two pennies together but somehow come up with signing bonuses for UFAs that look like Liberia's national debt? Instead of looking at that, all I see is finger-pointing at the players.

Okay, I think I'm tapped out for now.

Lockouts suck. Fire Bettman.

ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 11:25 PM
  #96
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
It would be best if the owners realized lockouts are not the only solution and didn't negotiate with the "lockout-first" mindset
The reality is Donnie Fehr said there was "plenty of time" to talk and refused to start until after the Stanley Cup was handed out. Bettman wanted to talk in January.

Fehr is responsible for the lockout, he wanted to use it as leverage.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 11:29 PM
  #97
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
The reality is Donnie Fehr said there was "plenty of time" to talk and refused to start until after the Stanley Cup was handed out. Bettman wanted to talk in January.

Fehr is responsible for the lockout, he wanted to use it as leverage.

Good grief. Bettman locked out the players.

Bettman will not yield until he gets everything they've asked for. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to lock players out. Everyone else has figured that pro sports leagues will lock players out as long as it works. The NFL started well ahead of the season, and guess what? They locked their players out too.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:24 AM
  #98
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
The reality is Donnie Fehr said there was "plenty of time" to talk and refused to start until after the Stanley Cup was handed out. Bettman wanted to talk in January.

Fehr is responsible for the lockout, he wanted to use it as leverage.
Bettman wanted to talk in Nov 2011, however Fehr said they were not ready to talk. And both sides are responsible, as it takes two sides to come to an agreement. We all knew there would be a lockout if there was no CBA in place. You can blame it on Bettman all you want... but it takes two to tango.


Last edited by Riptide: 11-24-2012 at 12:37 AM.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:36 AM
  #99
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,530
vCash: 500
Even some of the pro pa guys on here think the lockout not strike talk is ridiculous.

Why do we have huge holes in the ground with trash? They aren't holes, its a landfill that was put there due to necessity and lack of alternative options. No one wants them there but the other likely outcome is worse. We have the power to fix it. Recycle.

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:37 AM
  #100
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProstheticConscience View Post
--I can't think of a single business model that relies entirely on your employees giving back raises to succeed.

All I see the owners doing is dumping all the responsibility on the players to make their business model succeed. What's your business model? Can you sustain what you're paying? If there's tumbleweeds rolling through your stadium during games, what's your plan to put butts in seats? How do you intend to market your product and increase demand for it? How do you create fans? What's the plan?

--Yes, I know Revenue =/= Profit. Some teams are raking it in. What are they doing differently than the teams who can't rub two pennies together but somehow come up with signing bonuses for UFAs that look like Liberia's national debt? Instead of looking at that, all I see is finger-pointing at the players.

Okay, I think I'm tapped out for now.
You've conveniently ignored the fact that teams are no longer allowed to set their own internal player budget (unless they're exceeding the cap floor). Which then impacts every other part of their business. If you're paying 10m more than you can afford to cover player salaries, where does that come from? Do you steal it from marketing, advertising, staff salaries, etc? Or do you get the owner to ponny it up?

Also, you're not running a team like you are running your local business (restaurant, bar, store, etc). In addition to having a business plan, you also need to have sustained on ice success. Which means spending more money that you hope will pay off.

Raising more revenue hurts, as you only get to see 43 cents for every dollar raised... at which point you have to cover the costs that it took to raise that revenue, then your regular expenses. And every penny of additional revenue raised, simply raises the cap in future years. Yes every team should be trying to do the best possible... but it's not easy. And it's certainly not as easy as saying, what are those teams doing that are raking it in? 6 of the top 12 teams (revenue wise) are Canadian teams (I'm not sure where Winnipeg ranks). They're basically a license to print money as long as they're not god awful. For the US clubs... the only ones that are raking it in, are the big clubs with tradition. The sole exception might be Colorado (at least if we trust Forbes numbers).

For a small market team to build some sort of tradition, they'd have to be very very well run (see Nashville) and that's still not a guarantee that they can break even. Teams already do as much as possible to save money where they can... however when the rules say they must spend 54m on player's salaries, that makes life difficult, and makes things a very easy target for the league to point a finger at as a cost they'd like to reduce.

I'd love to see more RS (in the 30%+ range - or 5-6 times what they're currently proposing). However for that to be viable, there needs to be more than ~240m in total profits. For that to happen, the players share needs to go down.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:38 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.