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.

Phoenix LXXII: Send in the Clowns

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-10-2013, 06:46 PM
  #801
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
^ I just don't see a Western team going to QC in view of realignment.

Mork is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 07:00 PM
  #802
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I'm also in that camp. Has nothing to do with "revenge". Has everything to do with Seattle being a much more desirable market for the head office than QC is.

IMO, etc.

 
Old
03-10-2013, 07:36 PM
  #803
Acesolid
The Illusive Bettman
 
Acesolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,223
vCash: 500
MOD
Anyways, we'll see what happens (or we'll watch nothing happen, more ''owners'' come out of nowhere, and another year extension to the ''deadline'', or 10).

I just hope it ENDS at that point!


Last edited by Fugu: 03-10-2013 at 08:07 PM. Reason: qdp
Acesolid is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 07:50 PM
  #804
DJ Omnimaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Québec City area
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
MOD

But regardless of what city each of us prefers the team to be in, everything the NHL and Glendale did so far goes against all logic, so we could very well see the team stay in Glendale forever, while an expansion or an unexpected, quick relocation of another team (in the same fashion as Atlanta) will suddenly occur.

Then if Quebec and/or Seattle gets a team again, they'll still be stuck hearing about this Coyotes soap opera for a few more years.


Last edited by Fugu: 03-10-2013 at 08:08 PM. Reason: off topic, personal discussions :)
DJ Omnimaga is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 08:28 PM
  #805
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Omnimaga View Post
... Then if Quebec and/or Seattle gets a team again, they'll still be stuck hearing about this Coyotes soap opera for a few more years.
I dont think so DJ. Leaving a mordant deader than dodo franchise parked in Glendale for another season just doesnt seem likely to me. The NHL needs some more "Good News" on the heels of yet another Lockout. How much better than a return of the Nordiques could it get? Reactive. This is how they operate... Never mind the potential expansion fee's are lost forever, stupidly, foolishly, another penny spent; dramatic effect should supercede common sense, retreat from the South & Southwest. All I can say is Thank Christ Almighty I didnt invest anywhere in the NHL over the years. What. A. Farce. Totally lost. No direction. If Home is Canada, Winnipeg included, totally screwed. Without vision. Understanding. Teams belong in Manitoba, QC, Hamilton, Cincy & elsewhere. But c'mon here. Joke. No one behind the wheel. You cant build without foundations. Two steps forward, three steps back.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 08:55 PM
  #806
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 9,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesamonster View Post
So the prospect of another year in the Valley has found its way into the discussion! Presuming the new mayor and Council do not fund future subsidies, and if they do they will be small, what is the NHL willing to lose in one more completely lame duck season? The lie that GB has perpetuated over the past few years with his surrogate parade of clowns will no longer be acceptable. Not to mention his cast of characters to fill the leading role will be greatly diminished. Do the fans and/or the community completely dump the concept of support in the final year? nothing would please me more than to see GB scramble in the next few weeks for anew location, determine no site is ready yet and have to bite the NHL`s bullet for one more year. Let the fans squash the ATP and watch GB and the BOG take it big time in the shorts! A fitting end for a complete jerk of a human being!

CF your comments above are spot on! the idea that this Franchise has business viability is a complete pipe dream, perpetuated by those who cant bear the thought that just maybe they are dead wrong!
This franchise has never been viable and honestly the CoG backers on council writing the checks , that want the team to stay, don't care if its viable either. All they want in something in the arena that they can point to and say " see, we have an anchor tenant" , so Westgate doesn't implode in their opinion.

Some 30,000 posts ago I posted an article that was in the Arizona papers, where all the players in this deal said the same thing... This is a real estate deal and having a successful hockey team on the ice or at the bank makes no difference, as long as the team stays. This is not about winning the Stanley Cup, it's about Westgate.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 09:19 PM
  #807
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
This is not about winning the Stanley Cup, it's about Westgate.
... yes of course. Never was about hockey per se', all about real estate, commercial & residential development. The team merely a pawn for sure. The 'hook. But once installed cbc, do you not feel its caretakers had or have a responsibility to insure its success? That obviously they went beyond the pale in attempting to retain the team, when the teenager turned into a nightmare, no question about it. I dont know. But Im somewhat more reserved in my judgement than others. Maybe Im just too willing to turn the other cheek one too many times, whatever. I just find the whole mess so riddled with incompetence, able to see daylight thought them, that it befuddles. Same mistakes over & over. It truly is insane. Absolutely no acceptance of responsibilty, zero performance from the NHL. That right there is what really bothers me, continues to draw my attention to this thread, file.


Last edited by Killion: 03-10-2013 at 09:26 PM.
Killion is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 09:22 PM
  #808
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I dont think so DJ. Leaving a mordant deader than dodo franchise parked in Glendale for another season just doesnt seem likely to me . . .
This is what I would have thought until realignment was announced, Killion. However, I can't picture the NHL moving Detroit and Columbus to the East only to move one of them back to the West in the foreseeable future. Surely even the NHL couldn't be that stupid (I know this is a very sweeping statement that covers a lot of ground)!

If there is a relo opportunity for next season, it is the best kept secret ever. Not saying it won't happen; just that it would be a very big surprise.

The least surprising thing in my mind would be another year of the status quo. I think the NHL may have painted themselves into a corner on this one, and to get out they will just have to wait for the paint to dry.

That could be why folllowing this story lately is a little like watching paint dry.


Last edited by Mork: 03-10-2013 at 09:28 PM.
Mork is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 10:47 PM
  #809
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
MOD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Would it not be an even greater 'offset' if the team was transferred for $70 MM, a figure somewhat close to Reinsdorf's original offer (give or take a few million)?
Reinsdorf's offer consisted mostly of rolling over existing debt. Debt that the NHL had to pay out to assume ownership of the team. So you are comparing apples and cheesecake.


Last edited by Fugu: 03-10-2013 at 11:18 PM. Reason: hyperbole, stick to the point w/o the melodrama
aqib is offline  
Old
03-10-2013, 11:17 PM
  #810
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 36,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
Reinsdorf's offer consisted mostly of rolling over existing debt. Debt that the NHL had to pay out to assume ownership of the team. So you are comparing apples and cheesecake.
No, I'm not actually. The structure of the deal was not the point.

Fugu is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 07:03 AM
  #811
JMT21
I Give A Dam!
 
JMT21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My House
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Omnimaga View Post
MOD

I'm personally thinking that Seattle has chances to get the team if the NHL doesn't mind their 12K non-obstructed seats arena and that the new arena project is 2 years behind Quebec, but I think Quebec has chances to get it too if Péladeau doesn't mind playing in the Pacific division for a year before the 2014-15 re-alignment. Detroit asked way before Columbus to be moved to the East, so Columbus can suck it and move back to midwest.
As a Jets STH I will vouch that given the choice between playing in the SE division or not having a team...... the answer there is obvious.

I highly doubt PKP would mind playing out of the Pacific Division for a year or two if it meant getting an NHL franchise...... as long as the league doesn't try to gouge PKP with some crazy relocation fee and premium overtop the Yotes worth.

JMT21 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 08:24 AM
  #812
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 42,531
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT21 View Post
as long as the league doesn't try to gouge PKP with some crazy relocation fee and premium overtop the Yotes worth.
Oh, they will.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 09:00 AM
  #813
HamiltonFan
bettman's a Weasel
 
HamiltonFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Would it not be an even greater 'offset' if the team was transferred for $70 MM, a figure somewhat close to Reinsdorf's original offer (give or take a few million)?

I think the league in essence ran into problems with their own requirements, the personal guarantee from an owner, and sufficient liquidity to operate the team should revenues and subsidies fail to cover all costs.

I still think that the current league model forces operating costs to fall within a range that simply is too high for about a third of the current teams. If your starting point then is a team that's already in financial trouble, it's hard to achieve a league average fueled by the top teams, let alone surpass that revenue growth average. The model is forced spending, plain and simple.
Yes, and it would be quite comical as well as it would imply an intrinsic franchise value of NEGATIVE $100 million for the coyotes in glendale. If you do the math, the $320 million subsidy over 20 years does translate into a value of about $170 million in todays dollars, which of course is equal to the reported asking price of the team. If you reduce that $170M asking price to $70M, then you're left with a NEGATIVE $100M intrinsic value of the team in glendale.

Personally, I still think that this is too much. I doubt the deal gets done even at $70M. Why would anyone buy at $70M? Your $70M 'equity' would effectively evaporate faster than the ink dries on the contract. How long does it take for $30M or more in annual compounding losses to chew up your $70M 'investment'?

If a deal somehow did manage to get done this way for $70M, does anyone have any doubt whatsoever that the greedy little liar bettman would claim that the coyotes are worth $70M, and that Forbes would report a franchise value of $70M for the coyotes? What a joke.

HamiltonFan is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 09:22 AM
  #814
mesamonster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Define "business viability".
The ability for an enterprise to make a profit for its owner! Looking at the financial metrics of the Coyote franchise, and presuming a buyer pays the leagues asking price ($170MM), there is NO possible way of turning a profit. Therefore, this business opportunity, if you want to call it that, has no financial viability!!

mesamonster is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 09:25 AM
  #815
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonFan View Post
Yes, and it would be quite comical as well as it would imply an intrinsic franchise value of NEGATIVE $100 million for the coyotes in glendale. If you do the math, the $320 million subsidy over 20 years does translate into a value of about $170 million in todays dollars, which of course is equal to the reported asking price of the team. If you reduce that $170M asking price to $70M, then you're left with a NEGATIVE $100M intrinsic value of the team in glendale.

Personally, I still think that this is too much. I doubt the deal gets done even at $70M. Why would anyone buy at $70M? Your $70M 'equity' would effectively evaporate faster than the ink dries on the contract. How long does it take for $30M or more in annual compounding losses to chew up your $70M 'investment'?

If a deal somehow did manage to get done this way for $70M, does anyone have any doubt whatsoever that the greedy little liar bettman would claim that the coyotes are worth $70M, and that Forbes would report a franchise value of $70M for the coyotes? What a joke.
This is reasoning I can understand, although I am not a finance guy.

And, to take the same idea and put it in another context,
How much is a franchise worth anywhere?
So, for example, I am thinking about the realities of Seattle. I think it's great that they look like they will be getting an NBA team, and Hansen will get an arena built. Now, the question for us here is, How does NHL fit into that? Most workable arrangements in the US for NHL have lots of lease rights to $$$ from the arena in one way or another. I have not seen that Hansen is 'offering' to share that if the NHL comes along, too, although the gov't there apparently will sweeten the whole pot for the arena by 80M if NHL comes, too.
So, Seattle, How does that look to an owner? Remember, it's not just "The NHL puts a franchise here." Someone has to own it. I know there are many posters here who claim that Seattle is hot for hockey. I can't disagree, I have never been there. But, if I were looking to buy and move to Seattle, how much would I pay? For that matter, if it's not PHX, how much would I pay for an expansion franchise there? How much is the team really worth? IDK, but I think if I were buying, I would be really careful. That's not bashing Seattle, it's just the way it looks. Buying a team is a big investment, and "is it worth it?"
And, that problem is compounded, in my mind, as a potential owner, by the vagueness and the veiledness of Bettman and the League in general. They know that PHX Coyotes aren't worth 170M there. But, they are so dishonest about that, and all franchise values. So, would I buy, knowing that I might have to keep the team there 20 or 30 years (I think it's 30 IIRC)? Not when I am looking at the realities of NHL $$, and wondering when the curtain is going to be pulled back, and all of the machinations of the decades are revealed, and it's known that really, the franchises aren't worth that much, the don't make $$ (except a few), and the value isn't likely to go up.

So, that's my rant for the day. They expanded too fast. Many of the franchises aren't worth as much as Bettman, et al would have you believe. So, collectively, the future is dicey. Wisdom would likely cause potential owners with real $$ to shy away. And, in this environment, it doesn't seem like expansion is a smart idea. Who would buy a team? Wouldn't that be funny? Announce the possibility of expansion, and no one bids?

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 09:27 AM
  #816
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesamonster View Post
The ability for an enterprise to make a profit for its owner! Looking at the financial metrics of the Coyote franchise, and presuming a buyer pays the leagues asking price ($170MM), there is NO possible way of turning a profit. Therefore, this business opportunity, if you want to call it that, has no financial viability!!
not all businesses are designed to make a profit.

just like not all asking prices are designed to make a sale.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 11:16 AM
  #817
checkerdome
Registered User
 
checkerdome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 991
vCash: 500
"The NHL is confident of finding a local ownership solution to the Coyotes issue.

All interested parties continue to work towards realizing a postive resolution to this situation; the elements of which we believe to currently be in place.

Although a favorable outcome of the Coyotes issue is nearly at hand, we do not believe the issuance of a hard deadline date would be helpful at this point in time; rather we would submit that all interested parties are working with dispatch to formulate a postive resolution as quickly as possible."

checkerdome is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 11:21 AM
  #818
gifted88
Dante the poet
 
gifted88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
This is what I would have thought until realignment was announced, Killion. However, I can't picture the NHL moving Detroit and Columbus to the East only to move one of them back to the West in the foreseeable future. Surely even the NHL couldn't be that stupid (I know this is a very sweeping statement that covers a lot of ground)!

If there is a relo opportunity for next season, it is the best kept secret ever. Not saying it won't happen; just that it would be a very big surprise.

The least surprising thing in my mind would be another year of the status quo. I think the NHL may have painted themselves into a corner on this one, and to get out they will just have to wait for the paint to dry.

That could be why folllowing this story lately is a little like watching paint dry.
Daly came out and said this realignment does not take into consideration future expansion or relocation.
source: http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...if-it-happens/

gifted88 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 11:22 AM
  #819
GF
Registered User
 
GF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by preissingg View Post
"The NHL is confident of finding a local ownership solution to the Coyotes issue.

All interested parties continue to work towards realizing a postive resolution to this situation; the elements of which we believe to currently be in place.

Although a favorable outcome of the Coyotes issue is nearly at hand, we do not believe the issuance of a hard deadline date would be helpful at this point in time; rather we would submit that all interested parties are working with dispatch to formulate a postive resolution as quickly as possible."
In plain english: we have no clue what we are gonna do with this team, hopefully someone will buy this mess of a franchise off our hands so we can carry on with being the worst managed professional sport association in north america.

GF is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 11:23 AM
  #820
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 36,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonFan View Post
Yes, and it would be quite comical as well as it would imply an intrinsic franchise value of NEGATIVE $100 million for the coyotes in glendale. If you do the math, the $320 million subsidy over 20 years does translate into a value of about $170 million in todays dollars, which of course is equal to the reported asking price of the team. If you reduce that $170M asking price to $70M, then you're left with a NEGATIVE $100M intrinsic value of the team in glendale.

Personally, I still think that this is too much. I doubt the deal gets done even at $70M. Why would anyone buy at $70M? Your $70M 'equity' would effectively evaporate faster than the ink dries on the contract. How long does it take for $30M or more in annual compounding losses to chew up your $70M 'investment'?

If a deal somehow did manage to get done this way for $70M, does anyone have any doubt whatsoever that the greedy little liar bettman would claim that the coyotes are worth $70M, and that Forbes would report a franchise value of $70M for the coyotes? What a joke.
I'll add more below mesa's post, but the context here was market viability, and business viability (which Dado may have restricted to the current situation and Yotes' baggage).


Quote:
Originally Posted by mesamonster View Post
The ability for an enterprise to make a profit for its owner! Looking at the financial metrics of the Coyote franchise, and presuming a buyer pays the leagues asking price ($170MM), there is NO possible way of turning a profit. Therefore, this business opportunity, if you want to call it that, has no financial viability!!

MNN expands further so I won't belabor the point, but there is a hypothetical point where a market can be viable, given the right mix of inputs-- including the owner's willingness to invest along with the right type of arena situation. Reinsdorf's original offer put together a package where someone was willing to run the franchise with the transfer price at that time + COG subsidies. Most posters focused on just the local issues, partially overlooking the cost of doing business in the NHL at the time the Yotes went bankrupt. When the cap floor is roughly equivalent/or greater than the local revenue-- the definition of a viable market changes quickly.

It's a relative measure, not absolute.

The league and owners chose a strategy that ignored local costs and revenues, putting forth their parity based on what the big markets can spend strategy instead. It's like burning at both ends-- we want $170 MM and your labor spending will be dictated by league averaged revenues. That's a tough business model unless you solely cater to the lowest common denominator. A cap distributes spending/costs, as the league tends to focus on the total figure (which imo is asinine).

There are scenarios that make a team there viable, but the key inputs would be the entry cost, and then of course, the operational costs given the league model in place.

Fugu is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 11:32 AM
  #821
yotesreign
Registered User
 
yotesreign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Goldwater Blvd
Country: United States
Posts: 1,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by preissingg View Post
"The NHL is confident of finding a local ownership solution to the Coyotes issue.

All interested parties continue to work towards realizing a postive resolution to this situation; the elements of which we believe to currently be in place.

Although a favorable outcome of the Coyotes issue is nearly at hand, we do not believe the issuance of a hard deadline date would be helpful at this point in time; rather we would submit that all interested parties are working with dispatch to formulate a postive resolution as quickly as possible."
Is that a quote from 2 or 3 years ago? Or 4 or 5 years ago?

yotesreign is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 11:40 AM
  #822
checkerdome
Registered User
 
checkerdome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yotesreign View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by preissingg
"The NHL is confident of finding a local ownership solution to the Coyotes issue.

All interested parties continue to work towards realizing a postive resolution to this situation; the elements of which we believe to currently be in place.

Although a favorable outcome of the Coyotes issue is nearly at hand, we do not believe the issuance of a hard deadline date would be helpful at this point in time; rather we would submit that all interested parties are working with dispatch to formulate a postive resolution as quickly as possible."
Is that a quote from 2 or 3 years ago? Or 4 or 5 years ago?
Although the statement in question could have been generated through a variety of outlets, it is, in fact, from a single source; and not from any of the other points of origin which could very well be considered at this particular point in time.

No further comment will be forthcoming. In the short term.


Last edited by checkerdome: 03-11-2013 at 11:49 AM.
checkerdome is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 11:57 AM
  #823
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
MNN expands further so I won't belabor the point, but there is a hypothetical point where a market can be viable, given the right mix of inputs-- including the owner's willingness to invest along with the right type of arena situation. Reinsdorf's original offer put together a package where someone was willing to run the franchise with the transfer price at that time + COG subsidies. Most posters focused on just the local issues, partially overlooking the cost of doing business in the NHL at the time the Yotes went bankrupt. When the cap floor is roughly equivalent/or greater than the local revenue-- the definition of a viable market changes quickly.

It's a relative measure, not absolute.

The league and owners chose a strategy that ignored local costs and revenues, putting forth their parity based on what the big markets can spend strategy instead. It's like burning at both ends-- we want $170 MM and your labor spending will be dictated by league averaged revenues. That's a tough business model unless you solely cater to the lowest common denominator. A cap distributes spending/costs, as the league tends to focus on the total figure (which imo is asinine).

There are scenarios that make a team there viable, but the key inputs would be the entry cost, and then of course, the operational costs given the league model in place.
Thanks, Fugu. Actually, this matter you mentioned, may be a big problem for Bettman, et al right now.

Let's say they realize there is no buyer for Coyotes in PHX (likely, I think, to be true). We have rumors of Levin in Seattle, but he was working on his own arena for Bellevue, not Hansen's deal in SoDo, so we really don't know who might be interested there in the current situation. In QUE, we know PKP is interested. Right now, I am sure he is the most visible option for the team. If you are PKP, are you interested? At what cost? You have the same issues that you, Fugu, mentioned: the player costs will always be according to league average, which is skewed by Tor, Mont, NYR. Can local revenue in QUE keep pace with that? If you are PKP, that's your question. I know he has a RSN to fill with programming. How lucrative is that really? He is the one who knows. Maybe he thinks "This could work, but not at 230M purchase cost." There might actually, literally, be no one anywhere to unload this thing for at the price the League wants.

And, let's be honest, the reason they want that price is two-fold.
1) Greed
2) Optics of franchise values.

So, they might be stuck.

I think hockey is a great game. I would prefer it without fighting, myself. I would prefer tougher penalty calling. I would prefer it with slightly smaller goalie equipment, and with soft pads, not hard one, for the players. Pads, not armor.
I would prefer it to be a game of skill primarily, not physical intimidation.
But, those are my preferences. In any case, it's a great game.

Unfortunately, the guys running the NHL hurt the game at every turn. It's sad.

Someday, it will all crash for them, and the Columbuses, Tampas, Miamis, etc will fold because the local handouts from governments won't be enough anymore, the whole league will look foolish, and then what? I want to see what happens then.

Meanwhile, it's just a waiting game. I hate train wrecks, but I can't quit watching them.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 12:02 PM
  #824
halligan10
Registered User
 
halligan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Palm Harbor
Country: United States
Posts: 431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by preissingg View Post
Although the statement in question could have been generated through a variety of outlets, it is, in fact, from a single source; and not from any of the other points of origin which could very well be considered at this particular point in time.

No further comment will be forthcoming. In the short term.
Is this Greg Jamison??

halligan10 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 12:13 PM
  #825
checkerdome
Registered User
 
checkerdome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by halligan10 View Post
Is this Greg Jamison??
Although that is indeed a possibility, if fails to be a unique one as many interested parties familiar with the various elements in this equation are capable of issuing statements seeking to clarify the source of the current impasse.

checkerdome 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 06:31 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.