HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

2012 CBA/Lockout talk, Part the Fifth

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-04-2012, 11:18 AM
  #201
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
And near bankrupted the NHL... don't forget that one.
The owners did that.

They spent money they didn't have.

If I give you a check for 200,00 dollars and then declare bankruptcy is that your fault?

(Keep in mind, the league was going broke in 04 and the owners needed protection from themselves and I suppored that, but it was their fault. You guys love to call them business owners. Well they were ****** businessmen who couldn't control their own spending and did a bad job selling their product.)

EverettMike is online now  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:18 AM
  #202
BruinsBtn
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BruinsBtn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithformeragent View Post
If Jacobs is the driving force behind cancelling the season, I'm jumping ship to root for the Jets!
I'm kind of coming around to Jacobs' view.

He is just trying to build a sustainable league. You can't have a system where some hotshot owner buys a team every few years and then blows all his money on ridiculous contracts and then sells the team 3 years later because he's losing money. I think Jacobs has see that too many times.

When they put in a cap, he spent to the limit every year.

BruinsBtn is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:21 AM
  #203
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
I just don't get this... Jacobs is a bad man so I am going to root for the players.

Well, JJ is here to stay (as he has been since 1974) and we saw what a big player victory did to the Bruins (Jacobs voted against the CBA).

But I am sure the player cheerleaders (snicker) sure enjoyed 1994-2004 based on all the revenue people they did not know were generating. Yet the team they spent time cheering for, sucked.
Morris, you are right, it has been better being a Bruins fan during this last CBA.

But sucking versus being good has all been about the owner. He chose to not use his financial resources from 94-04. When he knew he could compete and make money he did.

Okay, fine, whatever, but just acknowledge that the Bruins didn't suck because of the old CBA, they sucked cause their owner didn't care about winning. Now he can still care about making his money and winning, so he does.

Yup, great for us fans, and better than the old way. But Jacobs is still to blame for the old way sucking.

EverettMike is online now  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:22 AM
  #204
sooshii
Living the dream
 
sooshii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Philly burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 50
so, puck daddy has

Quote:
The 10-or-so players including Sidney Crosby, Jonathan Toews, Ryan Miller and George Parros, reportedly
any word on who the others are?

sooshii is online now  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:22 AM
  #205
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
The owners did that.

They spent money they didn't have.

If I give you a check for 200,00 dollars and then declare bankruptcy is that your fault?

(Keep in mind, the league was going broke in 04 and the owners needed protection from themselves and I suppored that, but it was their fault. You guys love to call them business owners. Well they were ****** businessmen who couldn't control their own spending and did a bad job selling their product.)
If only there were smarter owners at the time who were more frugal with their expenditures instead of caving to players contract demands and blowing all their money trying to make their teams competitive. It would be interesting to see how that owners fan base would react to such .... wait now...

Kaoz is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:24 AM
  #206
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Wood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 34,532
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
Would rather it be a massive player victory like in 1994 which resulted in a decade of suck from the Bruins?

Man, I miss those days.
Yeah I miss the days when the RedWings and Rangers spent close to 80 mil per year and the Bruins always hung around league average 30-40mil) because there was absolutely no cost certainty...

Love JJ being the poster child for the Lockout.... Our team is hated on the ice, isn't it only fitting we are hated off it as well?

Jacobs Bruins have been the absolute model franchise during this past CBA... The envy of 29 other fanbases, GMs, players an owners...

I wonder if JJ being such a villian will hinder us in signing UFA's....I know we never would have been able to get Big Z and Savard had he been a doosh during the last negotiations.... Oh wait

WBC8 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:25 AM
  #207
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,834
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
Morris, you are right, it has been better being a Bruins fan during this last CBA.

But sucking versus being good has all been about the owner. He chose to not use his financial resources from 94-04. When he knew he could compete and make money he did.

Okay, fine, whatever, but just acknowledge that the Bruins didn't suck because of the old CBA, they sucked cause their owner didn't care about winning. Now he can still care about making his money and winning, so he does.

Yup, great for us fans, and better than the old way. But Jacobs is still to blame for the old way sucking.
Indeed he is.. but he is not going anywhere.

So we might as well be selfish and hope for a Jacobs friendly CBA.

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:26 AM
  #208
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Wood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 34,532
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsBtn View Post
I'm kind of coming around to Jacobs' view.

He is just trying to build a sustainable league. You can't have a system where some hotshot owner buys a team every few years and then blows all his money on ridiculous contracts and then sells the team 3 years later because he's losing money. I think Jacobs has see that too many times.

When they put in a cap, he spent to the limit every year.
Yep, God forbid he looks out for his business. He sees renegades all the time come in and flame out.

WBC8 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:27 AM
  #209
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
If only there were smarter owners at the time who were more frugal with their expenditures instead of caving to players contract demands and blowing all their money trying to make their teams competitive. It would be interesting to see how that owners fan base would react to such .... wait now...
You can't have it both ways.

You just can't.

You defend Jacobs by syaing he has a right to make money. Okay. Then run your business like a business. If you don't like the business, sell it.

Now, if an owner decided it was more important to win a title at any costs, then that is his decision too, but he shouldn't get to cry broke when that is the decision he made.

I'll defend either guys right, but you keep crossing the two sides together and creating this circular logic.

(Of course, the truth is that pro sports is such a unique business that it defies black and white statements, which is why I get frustrated with people that just 100% blame the players and defend the owners against the other extremes too.)

Oh, and I support a cap in every league. That is a very pro-owner position. But its sports, so it is different.

EverettMike is online now  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:28 AM
  #210
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
Indeed he is.. but he is not going anywhere.

So we might as well be selfish and hope for a Jacobs friendly CBA.
So long as you take a shower afterwards.....

EverettMike is online now  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:29 AM
  #211
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Wood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 34,532
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
Morris, you are right, it has been better being a Bruins fan during this last CBA.

But sucking versus being good has all been about the owner. He chose to not use his financial resources from 94-04. When he knew he could compete and make money he did.

Okay, fine, whatever, but just acknowledge that the Bruins didn't suck because of the old CBA, they sucked cause their owner didn't care about winning. Now he can still care about making his money and winning, so he does.

Yup, great for us fans, and better than the old way. But Jacobs is still to blame for the old way sucking.
So he should have spent double and took a loss because several other teams were doing that? The Bruins became what they are today in part because of the rules Jacobs fought for..They are the NHL's model franchise right now.

WBC8 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:33 AM
  #212
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,834
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
So long as you take a shower afterwards.....
I watched Its a wonderful life last Saturday.. that old man Potter.. such a visionary Naming the town after himself.

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:40 AM
  #213
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,692
vCash: 500
Some interesting thoughts from Elliotte Friedman:

Quote:
In conversations leading to writing this blog, I was surprised at the number of people who wanted to steer me away from suggestions there are divisions among ownership and players. And it wasn't for the reasons you think. Everyone understands there are teams who want to get started and players who've had enough.

We have reached a point where the vast majority of people employed in the NHL think this is stupid. But two team executives in particular pointedly argued that stories like that damage the process. They both cringed when they saw Roman Hamrlik's anti-Don Fehr comments.

Why?

"That just gives strength to the hardliners," one said. "It gives them reason to hold out and not make a deal."

Same thing, they said, when reports of ownership division surface.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...-nhl-fray.html

Artemis is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:41 AM
  #214
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
So he should have spent double and took a loss because several other teams were doing that? The Bruins became what they are today in part because of the rules Jacobs fought for..They are the NHL's model franchise right now.
You missed the point of my post. Not trying to be rude, but can't restate it now. Sorry if I did a bad job the first time.

(I have given him all of the credit for his handling of the bruins post-Thornton trade. Many times. I have been incredibly fair to him in these threads.

I just think now he is helping to destroy this game because of his greed.)

EverettMike is online now  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:43 AM
  #215
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,708
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by sooshii View Post
so, puck daddy has



any word on who the others are?
Craig Adams, David Backes, Michael Cammalleri, Sidney Crosby, B.J. Crombeen, Mathieu Darche, Shane Doan, Ron Hainsey, Shawn Horcoff, Jamal Mayers, Manny Malhotra, Andy McDonald, Ryan Miller, George Parros, Brad Richards, Martin St. Louis, Jonathan Toews and Kevin Westgarth.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:43 AM
  #216
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Wood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 34,532
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
You missed the point of my post. Not trying to be rude, but can't restate it now. Sorry if I did a bad job the first time.

(I have given him all of the credit for his handling of the bruins post-Thornton trade. Many times. I have been incredibly fair to him in these threads.

I just think now he is helping to destroy this game because of his greed.)
OK gotcha.... I'm a little cranky from missing my FF play-offs because of Ahmad Bradshaw's 100 yard bonus ...

WBC8 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:45 AM
  #217
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Wood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 34,532
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Craig Adams, David Backes, Michael Cammalleri, Sidney Crosby, B.J. Crombeen, Mathieu Darche, Shane Doan, Ron Hainsey, Shawn Horcoff, Jamal Mayers, Manny Malhotra, Andy McDonald, Ryan Miller, George Parros, Brad Richards, Martin St. Louis, Jonathan Toews and Kevin Westgarth.
Nice to see the Bruins well represented..Darche doesn't even have a contract and he is there.....

WBC8 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:47 AM
  #218
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
You can't have it both ways.

You just can't.

You defend Jacobs by syaing he has a right to make money. Okay. Then run your business like a business. If you don't like the business, sell it.

Now, if an owner decided it was more important to win a title at any costs, then that is his decision too, but he shouldn't get to cry broke when that is the decision he made.

I'll defend either guys right, but you keep crossing the two sides together and creating this circular logic.

(Of course, the truth is that pro sports is such a unique business that it defies black and white statements, which is why I get frustrated with people that just 100% blame the players and defend the owners against the other extremes too.)

Oh, and I support a cap in every league. That is a very pro-owner position. But its sports, so it is different.
Or make it a better business.

What I don't understand about the flip side is when in one breath it is said that owners need to manage their own finances, that they are the ones responsible for rising player costs and the financial hardships the league is going through, and how they need to stop overspending.... but then in the very next breath getting on a guy like Jacobs because he did exactly that. That is circular logic.

If someone can't understand why it would be in the owners best interest to control rising player costs through the CBA instead of simply by doing it of their own volition while other owners are free to spend to the cap unchecked, they need to look harder at how Jacobs is perceived by this fan base. He did control his own costs and kept his franchise salient while others spent more then double on player salaries and near bankrupted themselves, and he did so at the expense of competitiveness and positive public opinion. He became hated for doing exactly that and is still to this day even though he has spent to the maximum limit and beyond under a hard cap limit and brought home a cup.

There will always be players making the maximum allowed, that's just the way of the business. If it's available players and agents will and should strive to reach that mark. You need to control maximum salaries because of that. This is why owners want a 50/50 split, because 57/43 max salaries were simply too high. This is what Jacobs and the other owners haven't come away from and likely won't.

Lately, as this has progressed it seems like people actually believe Jacobs is pushing for a lost year in revenues. He isn't, as that would be stupid, he's pushing for a CBA with a very specific set of guidelines that will allow all clubs to be competitive (and the fact that it will put more money in his pocket) and the league to thrive as a whole.

I'm not pro-owner or pro-player. I could give two sweet turds about either honestly when not talking in relation to the way the Bruins are playing or being run. I'm pro fan, and I do NOT want to see the NHL go to a system that prompts Jacobs and/or any other owner to spend well below the cap ceiling, that asks them to sacrifice either competitiveness or profit just so that player JimBob Joe Johnson can bring home 14 million a year instead of 12 million.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:50 AM
  #219
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,914
vCash: 500
It amuses me how Jacobs has morphed from the devil into a man "looking out for the league".

As someone who would pay his own money to have Jacobs go away, I'll give him his props for spending to the cap once he got it. Further, I'll defend his right to run his business as he chooses, despite the fact it screwed me as a fan for 25 years. And I'll even thank him for helping to railroad the players into a cap system that is better for the league, but I will not accept that Jacobs lobbied for the cap, and is lobbying for the current owners' proposal, because he has the interest of all owners in mind. The extent to which he "cares about the league" as some would suggest, is only to ensure there IS a viable league within which he can continue to make a profit. So let's be clear about that.

He's got no interest in making this a profitable league through aggressive profit sharing. He has no interest in giving up any upside to players in exchange for guaranteed solvency for other franchise owners. He wants as much money as he can get for himself. And he wants the league to exist so he can make more of it, period. In that sense, not at all unlike the players' current position. So again, there is nothing wrong with that position per se, but the guy's no Guardian Angel for the league.

bp13 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:53 AM
  #220
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
>>If I give you a check for 200,00 dollars and then declare bankruptcy is that your fault?

Let's try it and find out!

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:55 AM
  #221
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Or make it a better business.

What I don't understand about the flip side is when in one breath it is said that owners need to manage their own finances, that they are the ones responsible for rising player costs and the financial hardships the league is going through, and how they need to stop overspending.... but then in the very next breath getting on a guy like Jacobs because he did exactly that. That is circular logic.

If someone can't understand why it would be in the owners best interest to control rising player costs through the CBA instead of simply by doing it of their own volition while other owners are free to spend to the cap unchecked, they need to look harder at how Jacobs is perceived by this fan base. He did control his own costs and kept his franchise salient while others spent more then double on player salaries and near bankrupted themselves, and he did so at the expense of competitiveness and positive public opinion. He became hated for doing exactly that and is still to this day even though he has spent to the maximum limit and beyond under a hard cap limit and brought home a cup.

There will always be players making the maximum allowed, that's just the way of the business. If it's available players and agents will and should strive to reach that mark. You need to control maximum salaries because of that. This is why owners want a 50/50 split, because 57/43 max salaries were simply too high. This is what Jacobs and the other owners haven't come away from and likely won't.

Lately, as this has progressed it seems like people actually believe Jacobs is pushing for a lost year in revenues. He isn't, as that would be stupid, he's pushing for a CBA with a very specific set of guidelines that will allow all clubs to be competitive (and the fact that it will put more money in his pocket) and the league to thrive as a whole.

I'm not pro-owner or pro-player. I could give two sweet turds about either honestly when not talking in relation to the way the Bruins are playing or being run. I'm pro fan, and I do NOT want to see the NHL go to a system that prompts Jacobs and/or any other owner to spend well below the cap ceiling, that asks them to sacrifice either competitiveness or profit just so that player JimBob Joe Johnson can bring home 14 million a year instead of 12 million.
See, this is just revisionist history made easier because the sting of no Cup is gone.

Yeah, everything you say about him maintaining a solvent business is right. But back then it was 100% clear, with no cap, that you had to spend to win. He was hated because despite the fact he charged the most for tickets (in the crappiest building no less (may it rest in peace)), despite the fact he charged the most for concessions, he wouldn't eat into his outrageous profit for a winner. THAT is why he was hated. To make it sound like he chose profit over loss and that's why he was hated is absurd. He chose egregious profit over less egregious profit and THAT is why this team never made the next step. And THAT is why he's hated.

Further, yeah he has spent to the cap. But let's not make that out to be anything more than the PR move it had to be. He's shrewd enough to know he couldn't railroad that cap system, as an already despised owner, and then NOT spend to the cap short term. We'll see if he's spending to the cap in 10 years. the fact he did immediately was not only not a surprise, but downright mandatory considering how badly he had mismanaged fan relations, upper management, player relations, etc.

bp13 is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:56 AM
  #222
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
It amuses me how Jacobs has morphed from the devil into a man "looking out for the league".

As someone who would pay his own money to have Jacobs go away, I'll give him his props for spending to the cap once he got it. Further, I'll defend his right to run his business as he chooses, despite the fact it screwed me as a fan for 25 years. And I'll even thank him for helping to railroad the players into a cap system that is better for the league, but I will not accept that Jacobs lobbied for the cap, and is lobbying for the current owners' proposal, because he has the interest of all owners in mind. The extent to which he "cares about the league" as some would suggest, is only to ensure there IS a viable league within which he can continue to make a profit. So let's be clear about that.

He's got no interest in making this a profitable league through aggressive profit sharing. He has no interest in giving up any upside to players in exchange for guaranteed solvency for other franchise owners. He wants as much money as he can get for himself. And he wants the league to exist so he can make more of it, period. In that sense, not at all unlike the players' current position. So again, there is nothing wrong with that position per se, but the guy's no Guardian Angel for the league.
You're exactly right, except for the bolded and I have little doubt that is true of all major sports franchise owners. Not many are willing to take a loss in order to give their fanbase a championship, and when they do it's likely because they've made enough money to cover it the years previous.

It is completely unlike the players current position however because with Jacobs and every other owner looking out for themselves, they are in turn making the league as a whole more profitable. If an owner can make money at this more owners will be interested. If the NHL as a whole can profit more the game grows.

Were the players to get what they wanted, the league in turn would suffer. They have every right to look out for themselves and with short career expectancies why shouldn't they only look out for the immediate future. Yes that's exactly what owners do, but to completely different ends. It doesn't matter if both are ridiculously selfish in seeking what they are seeking in this CBA, only one being so makes the NHL a stronger league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
See, this is just revisionist history made easier because the sting of no Cup is gone.

Yeah, everything you say about him maintaining a solvent business is right. But back then it was 100% clear, with no cap, that you had to spend to win. He was hated because despite the fact he charged the most for tickets (in the crappiest building no less (may it rest in peace)), despite the fact he charged the most for concessions, he wouldn't eat into his outrageous profit for a winner. THAT is why he was hated. To make it sound like he chose profit over loss and that's why he was hated is absurd. He chose egregious profit over less egregious profit and THAT is why this team never made the next step. And THAT is why he's hated.

Further, yeah he has spent to the cap. But let's not make that out to be anything more than the PR move it had to be. He's shrewd enough to know he couldn't railroad that cap system, as an already despised owner, and then NOT spend to the cap short term. We'll see if he's spending to the cap in 10 years. the fact he did immediately was not only not a surprise, but downright mandatory considering how badly he had mismanaged fan relations, upper management, player relations, etc.
I'm not privy to the numbers pre 2004 lockout for the Bruins financials (I'm not privy to the current ones either but at least Forbes gives us a ballpark). I honestly doubt many here were either. Looking at the numbers we have now however it doesn't look to me like he is turning an egregious profit now even though the ticket prices are high, the building is bigger, and the Bruins are just coming off a SC win. Are you sure of those numbers in regards to the Bruins profits and expenditures are has everyone just simply accepted the fact that this must have been what happened?


Last edited by Kaoz: 12-04-2012 at 12:02 PM.
Kaoz is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:57 AM
  #223
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,204
vCash: 500
WBC I love reading your posts, but I think you're suffering from a little stocholm syndrom with JJ at this point- he's kept us hostage so long you're starting to feel for the guy. He's Mr Burns, not Geroge Bailey.

JMiller is online now  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:58 AM
  #224
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Craig Adams, David Backes, Michael Cammalleri, Sidney Crosby, B.J. Crombeen, Mathieu Darche, Shane Doan, Ron Hainsey, Shawn Horcoff, Jamal Mayers, Manny Malhotra, Andy McDonald, Ryan Miller, George Parros, Brad Richards, Martin St. Louis, Jonathan Toews and Kevin Westgarth.
And the meeting is at 2 p.m.

Artemis is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 12:00 PM
  #225
BlueChip01
Registered User
 
BlueChip01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
The owners did that.

They spent money they didn't have.

If I give you a check for 200,00 dollars and then declare bankruptcy is that your fault?

(Keep in mind, the league was going broke in 04 and the owners needed protection from themselves and I suppored that, but it was their fault. You guys love to call them business owners. Well they were ****** businessmen who couldn't control their own spending and did a bad job selling their product.)
You are right. All I know is that even though it is a dumb GM there or here being desperate, the PA and agents have never missed a chance to put the screws to any one of them to get the most money out of them.

They have squeezed too much out of them and now hopefully the owners get a system in place where both sides prosper and is more "idiot proof" which is pretty much what needs to happen.

BlueChip01 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 11:14 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.