HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Lockout III: So close, and yet so far (Moderated: see post #295)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 03:38 PM
  #76
rt
CoolWhiskyHotGravy
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: County Cork
Country: Ireland
Posts: 54,141
vCash: 500
Just to clarify (the megathread is too insane to find any info, and I'm not Twitter savvy)

Is this what's on the table?

-Immediate linked 50/50
-300m make whole
-ELC, UFA, and Arb all unchanged
-Drastically increased club to club revenue sharing (30-40% more than last CBA?)
-5% limit on annual variance on individual contracts(only NEW contracts)
-5yr limit on NEW individual contracts (only when player is changing teams)
-7yr limit on NEW individual contracts (when player remains with current team)

Is that about it?

How many of the current 725 union members that don't already have back diving contract or contracts greater than five years in length can reasonably expect to have a contract like that in the future? Ten guys? Fifteen guys? Hell, even twenty guys is only THREE PERCENT of the union membership. They are getting all current contract honored and an HRR share adjustment to 50% (industry standard) and only about THREE PERCENT of union members impacted in any way by contracting rights issues.

Is that accurate? Why is there a lock-out? Why aren't they starting training camp on Monday?

If the players lose one single additional paycheck, that will have more impact on 97% of union members than simply accepting the deal on the table.

Am I wrong?

__________________
All of it is Dave Tippett's fault. He's the worst.
rt is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:40 PM
  #77
Freudian
Clearly deranged
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 40,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Just to clarify (the megathread is too insane to find any info, and I'm not Twitter savvy)

Is this what's on the table?

-Immediate linked 50/50
-300m make whole
-ELC, UFA, and Arb all unchanged
-Drastically increased club to club revenue sharing (30-40% than last CBA?)
-5% limit on annual variance on individual contracts(only NEW contracts)
-5yr limit on individual contracts (only when player is changing teams) (only NEW contracts)
-7yr limit on individual contracts (when player remains with current team) (only NEW contracts)

Is that about it?

How many of the current 725 union members that don't already have back diving contract or contracts greater than five years in length can reasonably expect to have a contract like that in the future? Ten guys? Fifteen guys? Hell, even twenty guys is only THREE PERCENT of the union membership. They are getting all current contract honored and an HRR share adjustment to 50% (industry standard) and only about THREE PERCENT of union members impacted in any way by contracting rights issues.

Is that accurate? Why is there a lock-out? Why aren't they starting training camp on Monday?

If the players lose one single additional paycheck, that will have more impact on 97% of union members than simply accepting the deal on the table.

Am I wrong?
It's conditional on the CBA being 10 years long, with an opt out opportunity for both sides in year 8.

That NHLPA doesn't seem to want the players to vote on this is doing the players a great disservice. In who's interest is NHLPA leadership acting?

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:41 PM
  #78
HockeyShack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 427
vCash: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Just to clarify (the megathread is too insane to find any info, and I'm not Twitter savvy)

Is this what's on the table?

-Immediate linked 50/50
-300m make whole
-ELC, UFA, and Arb all unchanged
-Drastically increased club to club revenue sharing (30-40% than last CBA?)
-5% limit on annual variance on individual contracts(only NEW contracts)
-5yr limit on individual contracts (only when player is changing teams) (only NEW contracts)
-7yr limit on individual contracts (when player remains with current team) (only NEW contracts)

Is that about it?

How many of the current 725 union members that don't already have back diving contract or contracts greater than five years in length can reasonably expect to have a contract like that in the future? Ten guys? Fifteen guys? Hell, even twenty guys is only THREE PERCENT of the union membership. They are getting all current contract honored and an HRR share adjustment to 50% (industry standard) and only about THREE PERCENT of union members impacted in any way by contracting rights issues.

Is that accurate? Why is there a lock-out? Why aren't they starting training camp on Monday?

If the players lose one single additional paycheck, that will have more impact on 97% of union members than simply accepting the deal on the table.

Am I wrong?
AS the one mod will say, the players are giving too much and the owners aren't giving anything. (Though the owners are, better hotels, doctors, travel, and some other things)

HockeyShack is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:41 PM
  #79
NJDevs26
Moderator
No more status quo?!
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 39,518
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Just to clarify (the megathread is too insane to find any info, and I'm not Twitter savvy)

Is this what's on the table?

-Immediate linked 50/50
-300m make whole
-ELC, UFA, and Arb all unchanged
-Drastically increased club to club revenue sharing (30-40% than last CBA?)
-5% limit on annual variance on individual contracts(only NEW contracts)
-5yr limit on individual contracts (only when player is changing teams) (only NEW contracts)
-7yr limit on individual contracts (when player remains with current team) (only NEW contracts)

Is that about it?

How many of the current 725 union members that don't already have back diving contract or contracts greater than five years in length can reasonably expect to have a contract like that in the future? Ten guys? Fifteen guys? Hell, even twenty guys is only THREE PERCENT of the union membership. They are getting all current contract honored and an HRR share adjustment to 50% (industry standard) and only about THREE PERCENT of union members impacted in any way by contracting rights issues.

Is that accurate? Why is there a lock-out? Why aren't they starting training camp on Monday?

If the players lose one single additional paycheck, that will have more impact on 97% of union members than simply accepting the deal on the table.

Am I wrong?
Other than the immediate 50/50 HRR (fact is we haven't heard word one about what the HRR structure would be in the owners' offer or 'anything' at all about the players' offers) I'd say that's about right.

And yeah like someone else said, the owners want a 10-year long CBA with an eighth-year opt-out while the players want a five-year CBA. And the players are mad about having pensions funded primarily out of their share of HRR.

NJDevs26 is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:41 PM
  #80
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisp Breakout View Post
Isn't it only $250M make whole with the other $50M going toward pensions for Canadian teams?
Yes. Original NHL offer was 211m, while the PA's was 389 - which I'm sure was planned so that 300m was in the middle. NHL moved, but not quite how the PA was hoping.

Perhaps another 25m, and dropping the variance would seal the deal.

__________________
I've been looking for trouble... but trouble hasn't been cooperating!
Riptide is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:43 PM
  #81
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
-5% limit on annual variance on individual contracts(only NEW contracts)
-5yr limit on NEW individual contracts (only when player is changing teams)
-7yr limit on NEW individual contracts (when player remains with current team)
You don't see a problem with this, rt?

In fact, I don't think GMs would support that difference in term limit either, with the 7 yrs handicap to the current team. It further restricts player movement--- where all the parity supporters now?


Furthermore, if you get the 5% variance limit, you do NOT need the contract term limit, at least to curb cap circumvention.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:46 PM
  #82
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 35,714
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisp Breakout View Post
Isn't it only $250M make whole with the other $50M going toward pensions for Canadian teams?
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...intensify.html

Seems to be the case

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:52 PM
  #83
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
It's conditional on the CBA being 10 years long, with an opt out opportunity for both sides in year 8.

That NHLPA doesn't seem to want the players to vote on this is doing the players a great disservice. In who's interest is NHLPA leadership acting?
How about we put the last PA offer to an NHL vote

AND
we dump the Bettman Rule that requires 22 votes to overrule him?

You're criticisms of the PA is unreasonable considering the blind faith you put in the owners.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:55 PM
  #84
castle
Registered User
 
castle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You don't see a problem with this, rt?

In fact, I don't think GMs would support that difference in term limit either, with the 7 yrs handicap to the current team. It further restricts player movement--- where all the parity supporters now?
Half of them probably think is precisely to create parity. Parity by retention, rather than parity by movement.

castle is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:56 PM
  #85
rt
CoolWhiskyHotGravy
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: County Cork
Country: Ireland
Posts: 54,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
It's conditional on the CBA being 10 years long, with an opt out opportunity for both sides in year 8.

That NHLPA doesn't seem to want the players to vote on this is doing the players a great disservice. In who's interest is NHLPA leadership acting?
Eight year PA opt out is perfect.

Apparently the PA is only acting in the interest of Donald Fehr's philosophical beliefs about labor, and his own preconceived notions he had when he took the job. Obviously he had his own ideas about how he'd like this to play out. De certification, lawsuits, full nuclear warfare and the decimation of a hard cap league. That's why he took this job. He didn't take this job to accept a deal that 97% of his constituency would be satisfied with. Too boring. Not political enough.

Players cannot complain about 50/50. They can't. That's just the way of the world. Beyond the 7% reduction in share, what can the players complain about? They'll be paid their contracts and at least 90% of them will suffer no contracting rights impact of any kind.

NHLPA needs to revolt and take this deal before they miss another paycheck. They need to ouster the Fehrs and the blind hardline fools like Ryan Miller and Ron Hainsey. They need to choose a voice that actually represents what 9/10 players are feeling. That guy and that ninety percent would be insane not to take this deal before another check doesn't come.

MOD


Last edited by Fugu: 12-06-2012 at 08:23 PM. Reason: was better before the edit
rt is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:58 PM
  #86
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You don't see a problem with this, rt?

In fact, I don't think GMs would support that difference in term limit either, with the 7 yrs handicap to the current team. It further restricts player movement--- where all the parity supporters now?


Furthermore, if you get the 5% variance limit, you do NOT need the contract term limit, at least to curb cap circumvention.
I'm not sure how much of a restriction on player movement it is. This will affect only a very small percentage of the players in a league - guys that will actually get a contract over 5 years long at UFA. It makes it slightly easier for teams to keep their homegrown stars, that's about it.

This will have a small effect on parity, but as it will increase it, I don't see it as a problem. As it is now, UFA movement increases the gap between teams as the best UFA players usually want to go to teams that are already good and have a shot at winning. The good get better and the struggling get weaker. This gives teams a slight edge when trying to re-sign their players and gives a bit of a reward to teams who are good at identifying, drafting, and developing their own players.

I do think that a limit on contract lengths like this will make for more interesting trades. Long contracts can effect a players worth positively or negatively, I would be curious to see how values would change.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:59 PM
  #87
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You don't see a problem with this, rt?

In fact, I don't think GMs would support that difference in term limit either, with the 7 yrs handicap to the current team. It further restricts player movement--- where all the parity supporters now?


Furthermore, if you get the 5% variance limit, you do NOT need the contract term limit, at least to curb cap circumvention.
No I do not see an issue with it. I understand why the players may not like it... but c'est la vie. But I agree there's no reason for both the limit and the 5% variance. If I was the league, I'd be dropping the variance, and see how much more of make whole is needed for a deal.

As for the 5 yrs/7yrs, I like it. It allows players a bit more security if they're going to remain with their existing club. Kind of like the player giving their team a discount. The team can offer a couple more years than if the player left via FA. However it player is still always free to leave via FA.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:02 PM
  #88
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
I'm not sure how much of a restriction on player movement it is. This will affect only a very small percentage of the players in a league - guys that will actually get a contract over 5 years long at UFA. It makes it slightly easier for teams to keep their homegrown stars, that's about it.

This will have a small effect on parity, but as it will increase it, I don't see it as a problem. As it is now, UFA movement increases the gap between teams as the best UFA players usually want to go to teams that are already good and have a shot at winning. The good get better and the struggling get weaker. This gives teams a slight edge when trying to re-sign their players and gives a bit of a reward to teams who are good at identifying, drafting, and developing their own players.

I do think that a limit on contract lengths like this will make for more interesting trades. Long contracts can effect a players worth positively or negatively, I would be curious to see how values would change.
This is BS.
There's no reason why the HOMETOWN team should have a leg up.

If you've played in a city for 8 years and it hasn't done enough to make you want to stay, why should CBA make it harder for a player to get a fair offer.

This is just more BS. More artificial limits on an employee's freedom.

The NHL is clamping down on individual employment rights... and fans worried that a player might not want to live in Nashville for 20 years or Winnipeg for 20 years are supporting this BS.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:04 PM
  #89
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,652
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpp9 View Post
Someone needs to start #putittoavote on twitter. This is ridiculous. Superstar players aren't representative of the average joe in the league.
Just putting it out there... since these superstar players are going to be the ones most affected by this deal (in absolute and relative) shouldn't they have more say?

Obviously it's a union so each voice should matter equally but having the "superstar" players at the forefront is kind of how it should be IMO.

YogiCanucks is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:05 PM
  #90
Hivemind
We're Touched
 
Hivemind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 23,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Just to clarify (the megathread is too insane to find any info, and I'm not Twitter savvy)

Is this what's on the table?

-Immediate linked 50/50
-300m make whole
-ELC, UFA, and Arb all unchanged
-Drastically increased club to club revenue sharing (30-40% more than last CBA?)
-5% limit on annual variance on individual contracts(only NEW contracts)
-5yr limit on NEW individual contracts (only when player is changing teams)
-7yr limit on NEW individual contracts (when player remains with current team)

Is that about it?

How many of the current 725 union members that don't already have back diving contract or contracts greater than five years in length can reasonably expect to have a contract like that in the future? Ten guys? Fifteen guys? Hell, even twenty guys is only THREE PERCENT of the union membership. They are getting all current contract honored and an HRR share adjustment to 50% (industry standard) and only about THREE PERCENT of union members impacted in any way by contracting rights issues.

Is that accurate? Why is there a lock-out? Why aren't they starting training camp on Monday?

If the players lose one single additional paycheck, that will have more impact on 97% of union members than simply accepting the deal on the table.

Am I wrong?
While the general point that a minority of players are not going to be impacted by the term lengths or back diving contracts, the number is certainly a lot higher than 20. Think of all of the quality players on ELCs or their first RFA deal. There's four on the Oilers alone. All of them have the potential to try for a mega-deal when they hit UFA age.

Hivemind is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:08 PM
  #91
castle
Registered User
 
castle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
This is BS.
There's no reason why the HOMETOWN team should have a leg up.

If you've played in a city for 8 years and it hasn't done enough to make you want to stay, why should CBA make it harder for a player to get a fair offer.

This is just more BS. More artificial limits on an employee's freedom.

The NHL is clamping down on individual employment rights... and fans worried that a player might not want to live in Nashville for 20 years or Winnipeg for 20 years are supporting this BS.
how does the difference make it harder for a player to get a fair offer? Or restrict their freedom. if a player doesn't t like it in timbuktu, don't sign. nobody is being forced to sign a contract jsut because it has two more years.

The interesting thing would be to see teams sign a player for 7 and then trade them somewhere. Hopefully they've thought about the portability of that 7 year contract, when otherwise it could only be 5. I could see some shenanigans there.

castle is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:10 PM
  #92
DonthaveaCOWEN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Ugh...Where to start?

Fact - Majority of Fans were in the players corner at the start of this lockout. We lost a complete season in 04-05 so that the owners could have cost-certainty and establish a cap-system/business model that would allow parity and success for all of its teams. It's not the players fault that the NHL apparently had a bunch of community college accountants and lawyers put together the last deal and not get it right the first time.

Today, I think that sentiment has completely evaporated...at least it has for me. The players have a great deal in front of them now and they know it. The NHL has given, given, given since October/November and I guess the players want and expect them to keep giving. Like I said, the deal on the table makes sense and is a good deal.

What infuriates me about #theplayers...

The players are now being snotty brats and stubborn on their principals. These "principals" are the reason a CBA has not been signed yet. The players are standing pat on their BS principal that "we will not be bullied by our greedy/wealthy owners". This is where the disconnect that people always say lies between the players and the average joe/real world. Its a fact of life that we all have managers, bosses and owners that we do not like but we deal with it on a daily basis. It's the nature of the game. The players need to get off this fictional principal/their egos and sign the damn deal.

As for the 8-10 year term that they are disputing over, I find it simply indisputable that the players (and owners) OWE that term to the fans. In this CBA the owners are getting 50/50 sharing and a safe-guard for cap-circumventing contracts. The NHLPA are retaining most of the contractual rights that they hold so dearly (arbitration, early UFA, etc.). The TERM of the CBA is something that is OWED to the fans and needed for us to regain trust and give the game stability it so desperately needs.

DonthaveaCOWEN is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:10 PM
  #93
NJDevs26
Moderator
No more status quo?!
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 39,518
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
This is BS.
There's no reason why the HOMETOWN team should have a leg up.

If you've played in a city for 8 years and it hasn't done enough to make you want to stay, why should CBA make it harder for a player to get a fair offer.

This is just more BS. More artificial limits on an employee's freedom.

The NHL is clamping down on individual employment rights... and fans worried that a player might not want to live in Nashville for 20 years or Winnipeg for 20 years are supporting this BS.
It's an artificial distinction. The player could just as easily agree in principle with another team and have that team work out a sign-and-trade with the team he just left NBA-style, so he can get his money/seven years AND go elsewhere. It's obvious the NHL wants to emulate the NBA and this is just another big step towards it. But even the 'hometown' rule doesn't keep guys from going to LA or Miami in the NBA, and getting max contracts to boot.

And if a guy wants to leave at 28, what's stopping him from signing one five-year deal, than another five-year deal at 33? It's not restricting 'anything' other than term.

NJDevs26 is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:11 PM
  #94
chasespace
Registered User
 
chasespace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gator Nation
Posts: 9,946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by castle View Post
how does the difference make it harder for a player to get a fair offer? Or restrict their freedom. if a player doesn't t like it in timbuktu, don't sign. nobody is being forced to sign a contract jsut because it has two more years.

The interesting thing would be to see teams sign a player for 7 and then trade them somewhere. Hopefully they've thought about the portability of that 7 year contract, when otherwise it could only be 5. I could see some shenanigans there.
Could make it so if a player signs a 'hometown' deal then any of the years over the normal 5 are treated as NTC's, player has to sign off on it before he can be traded.

Speaking of NTC's, didn't the league allow the concession that when a player signs an extension with an NTC in it the NTC takes place immediately instead of waiting for the extension to kick in? Thought I saw that somewhere a while back.

chasespace is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:12 PM
  #95
mpp9
Registered User
 
mpp9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 26,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
Just putting it out there... since these superstar players are going to be the ones most affected by this deal (in absolute and relative) shouldn't they have more say?

Obviously it's a union so each voice should matter equally but having the "superstar" players at the forefront is kind of how it should be IMO.
They can say whatever they want. Still should be put to a vote. Otherwise the PA doesn't have a leg to stand on if we're still facing a lockout come next round of cancellations.

mpp9 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:13 PM
  #96
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by castle View Post
how does the difference make it harder for a player to get a fair offer? Or restrict their freedom. if a player doesn't t like it in timbuktu, don't sign. nobody is being forced to sign a contract jsut because it has two more years.

The interesting thing would be to see teams sign a player for 7 and then trade them somewhere. Hopefully they've thought about the portability of that 7 year contract, when otherwise it could only be 5. I could see some shenanigans there.
LOL
If it didn't make it harder, then why would they demand it

[mod]


Last edited by mouser: 12-06-2012 at 08:57 PM. Reason: No need for generalized flames
RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:13 PM
  #97
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 17,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
Just putting it out there... since these superstar players are going to be the ones most affected by this deal (in absolute and relative) shouldn't they have more say?

Obviously it's a union so each voice should matter equally but having the "superstar" players at the forefront is kind of how it should be IMO.
That's why it's a PA not a union...no union puts one member ahead of another...supposedly.

Just sign the deal, and start playing!!!

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:15 PM
  #98
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
It's an artificial distinction. The player could just as easily agree in principle with another team and have that team work out a sign-and-trade with the team he just left NBA-style, so he can get his money/seven years AND go elsewhere. It's obvious the NHL wants to emulate the NBA and this is just another big step towards it. But even the 'hometown' rule doesn't keep guys from going to LA or Miami in the NBA, and getting max contracts to boot.

And if a guy wants to leave at 28, what's stopping him from signing one five-year deal, than another five-year deal at 33? It's not restricting 'anything' other than term.
It's another articifical creation that is KILLING the chance of having an NHL season.

You want to support? Fine.

It's pretty stupid place to cut your throat, if you ask me. But these owners have cut their throats over stupid issues in the past.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:17 PM
  #99
NJDevs26
Moderator
No more status quo?!
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 39,518
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
It's another articifical creation that is KILLING the chance of having an NHL season.

You want to support? Fine.

It's pretty stupid place to cut your throat, if you ask me. But these owners have cut their throats over stupid issues in the past.
Contract limits affect 5% of players. If 100% of players want to go off the cliff to protect the 'top' 5%, be my guest. This issue isn't neccesary enough to lose a season over but both sides seem to be willing to fall on this sword.

NJDevs26 is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 04:17 PM
  #100
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 17,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
It's another articifical creation that is KILLING the chance of having an NHL season.

You want to support? Fine.

It's pretty stupid place to cut your throat, if you ask me. But these owners have cut their throats over stupid issues in the past.
But the players just want to play, they don't care about the other stuff, they just want to play...

BLONG7 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 07:35 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.