Get rid of Jeremy Jacobs

Status
Not open for further replies.

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
mooseOAK said:
The NHL's counter offer came with a cap which the NHLPA immediately rejected which proves that they had absolutely no intention of the 24% rollback being a permanent fixture. Despite their changes to arbitration and entry level contracts, the NHLPA controls the price of the product.

What NHL counter offer? They are still proposing the $31Mil 54% they origianlly did. Thats what the hard line Jacobs position is. With guaranteed profits, the interest rate on their line of credit and bonuses for the lawyers are higher.

The NHLPA controls the price of the product? Thats a laugh

There is no free market in the NHL, one would have to be terrifically dense not to have that figured out by now.

You have to be terrifically dense to still not get this. There is a marketplace for labour. Its a highly regulated marketplace that takes away a lot of the players rights and allows the owners to own the players as property and sell their rights for profit. The owners completely set this marketplace.

The players want the protection of the CBA, they want their minimum salary, their arbitration rights, and their guaranteed salaries. Or as you would word it , players want an IDIOT PROOF CBA that gives them a GUARANTEED contract to protect INCOMPETENT players who then don't have to worry about DOING THEIR JOB RIGHT.

What a load of nonsense.

A guaranteed contract? As opposed to what type of contract. Why is it necessary to put the word guaranteed in front of contract. Isnt that somewhat redundant? Are you saying that if you sign a player to a contract, he can just leave in the middle of it for a better offer if he gets it? After all, there's no guarantee.

The owners have all the power to make the decisions they need to manage their budgets and build their teams. No, every team, cant afford every player, any time they want. They have to operate as a business making business decision. Horrors. How can the owners be expected to do that? How unfair. What an unfair standard we hold them to.

What you want is to gather all the players in an arena at the end of the year, drop a billion dollars from the ceiling and make them fight over it. I know sounds appealing doent it? How can that not be a good idea?
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
thinkwild said:
What NHL counter offer? They are still proposing the $31Mil 54% they origianlly did. Thats what the hard line Jacobs position is. With guaranteed profits, the interest rate on their line of credit and bonuses for the lawyers are higher.
Their proposal in February was $44.7 million including benefits. Documented fact. It has gone down since then but everyone was warned that would happen.
The NHLPA controls the price of the product? Thats a laugh
No, another documented fact. Remember the agent that got decertified for telling everyone how it worked?

You have to be terrifically dense to still not get this. There is a marketplace for labour. Its a highly regulated marketplace that takes away a lot of the players rights and allows the owners to own the players as property and sell their rights for profit. The owners completely set this marketplace.
Maybe you don't understand the "Collective" part of the CBA.
What a load of nonsense.

A guaranteed contract? As opposed to what type of contract. Why is it necessary to put the word guaranteed in front of contract. Isnt that somewhat redundant? Are you saying that if you sign a player to a contract, he can just leave in the middle of it for a better offer if he gets it? After all, there's no guarantee.

The owners have all the power to make the decisions they need to manage their budgets and build their teams. No, every team, cant afford every player, any time they want. They have to operate as a business making business decision. Horrors. How can the owners be expected to do that? How unfair. What an unfair standard we hold them to.

What you want is to gather all the players in an arena at the end of the year, drop a billion dollars from the ceiling and make them fight over it. I know sounds appealing doent it? How can that not be a good idea?

Again, the owners do not have all the power, see CBA comment above.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
mooseOAK said:
There is nothing that I can see in there that would have kept the 24% rollback in place. That is because they didn't want one.
Of Course you don't .. because some GM's and Owners are as stupid as a rock and the players can't control the level of stupidity they will go to in order to blow their budgets, but somehow the NHL wants to find a system at the players expense to harness that stupidity and capture it in a bottle that allows them not to overspend..

Also If the NHL hated the idea so much how come every NHL proposal after that one they include the players 24% rollback ??.

If the league gets it league Hard Cap and Linkage at 54% all based on League Revenue, then there is Zero reason on the NHLPA part to give back 24% ... The 2 league controls GUARANTEE the same thing ..

Think of all the money the NHL can save on GM's salaries in the new hard Cap world.. During the off season, particularly the big market ones would spend every penny of the Hard Cap , sign all the players come training camp and then get LAID OFF until next UFA season begins.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Of Course you don't .. because some GM's and Owners are as stupid as a rock and the players can't control the level of stupidity they will go to in order to blow their budgets, but somehow the NHL wants to find a system at the players expense to harness that stupidity and capture it in a bottle that allows them not to overspend..

Yes, the whole league doesn't want a system where a few stupid owners and GM's can screw up the whole salary structure of the NHL. You're exactly correct.

Also If the NHL hated the idea so much how come every NHL proposal after that one they include the players 24% rollback ??.
Because the rollback is only effective if it stays rolled back.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
mooseOAK said:
Yes, the whole league doesn't want a system where a few stupid owners and GM's can screw up the whole salary structure of the NHL. You're exactly correct..
Sure

So ignore the obvious solution of the NHL removing the Owners/GM's that are doing bad jobs, spending freely, and acting irresponsible with money they don't have and firing them. Making the team accountable for the people they hire as being competent businessmen, and able to do the job they are hired and paid to do, is asking too much I guess.

Lets turn our attention away from who is responsible and blame the people they are spending the money foolishly on ..

Makes sense ..

If I go out a buy a new fancy sports car and blow the family budget and the kids college fund, and the Wife is furious with me when I get home ..

I will simply say its not my fault that the Sports Car costs so much, after all I am only following the NHL example here. My wife should take up her concerns with the GREEDY Auto Dealership not me, and I will even offer to drive her down there in the new car so she can speak to them directly..
 
Last edited:

R0CKET

Registered User
Jul 2, 2004
320
0
The Misogynist said:
See this is where your plan falls a part..

The Players made over 70% in the old CBA, and it may have been as high as 75% in fact. The players acknowledged that and in their very first offer at the beginning of the dispute offered to give back 24% of their Salaries to bring those costs in line..

When they did that the Greedy statement was no longer a valid response ever..

If you take 75 % (original costs) and subtract (24% rollback) then player costs are reset to 51% after the rebate, a little below the owners 54% they are hoping for now ..

Making any future statement about player greed unfounded and extremely biased.

If you went into your Bosses office and offered to have your current Salary cut by 24% to help out the Owner with his costs .. I guarantee you that your Boss will NOT ACCUSE you of being GREEDY by your actions ..

Yo Misogynist:

Oh give it up, your nothing but a shill for those who want to wreck this game.

The phoney 24% rollback was a complete sham..."to bring it more back in line", yeah more than nothing. It would have a minority affect on salaries at this point had the game played this season. Its just simple minded drivel for morons to believe it was something significant. Strike 1.

The players held the majority of all revenues for years on end and they seek to continue that stranglehold and have ended this sport due to their conniving back-stabbing of 2 of this game's greatest players. They were greedy then and their greed prevented this year from being played. Strike 2.

Your intellect isn't really so small as to attempt to convince people that it’s the players 51% of the revenues PLAN that they want vs. the owners 54% PLAN?!

This is undoubted the most simplistically ignorant thing that I think I have read to justify this standoff. Simply unmitigated ignorance. Strike 3.

Here's a piece of advice...go to the bank, get a loan and BUY a clue.

These players don't give one shiat about garnering ONLY 51% of the revenues. It was their greed that stuck it to the owners for years on end and now they have given the royal shaft to the fans as well.
 

R0CKET

Registered User
Jul 2, 2004
320
0
nyr7andcounting said:
This is a lockout, it's not logically possible to put all of the blame on the players. The only blame to the players is that they tried, and succeeded, in making as much money as possible under a CBA that was tilted in their favor. But the owners are just as much to blame for that as the players.

A new system is needed and the players have acknowledged that. With that said they aren't the only ones screwing the fans over.

Well I have to say that my mind was fairly well made up when they under-cut Gretz & Mario. There was a real chance then that a comprimise was possible. The players showed up and basically stormed out , stunning Gretzky, and sending this thing spinning out of control.

The players (or at least thier leadership) intends to do all that they can to prevent any real reform of this system while they are in such a majority position of the revenue in their favor.
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
R0CKET said:
Yo Misogynist:

Oh give it up, your nothing but a shill for those who want to wreck this game.

The phoney 24% rollback was a complete sham..."to bring it more back in line", yeah more than nothing. It would have a minority affect on salaries at this point had the game played this season. Its just simple minded drivel for morons to believe it was something significant. Strike 1.

The players held the majority of all revenues for years on end and they seek to continue that stranglehold and have ended this sport due to their conniving back-stabbing of 2 of this game's greatest players. They were greedy then and their greed prevented this year from being played. Strike 2.

Your intellect isn't really so small as to attempt to convince people that it’s the players 51% of the revenues PLAN that they want vs. the owners 54% PLAN?!

This is undoubted the most simplistically ignorant thing that I think I have read to justify this standoff. Simply unmitigated ignorance. Strike 3.

Here's a piece of advice...go to the bank, get a loan and BUY a clue.

These players don't give one shiat about garnering ONLY 51% of the revenues. It was their greed that stuck it to the owners for years on end and now they have given the royal shaft to the fans as well.


What an angry, bitter, person you are. The players greed that stuck it to the owners? How aboout the owners who couldn't control themselves and paid the players what they asked for. And if the players don't care about the fans, the owners care about the fans even less.
 

R0CKET

Registered User
Jul 2, 2004
320
0
Icey said:
What an angry, bitter, person you are. The players greed that stuck it to the owners? How aboout the owners who couldn't control themselves and paid the players what they asked for. And if the players don't care about the fans, the owners care about the fans even less.

How is it Greedy to overspend on players salaries?

I may be bitter, and honestly you should be also for what this game has decended to, but I am at least still able to form some logic.

Some fool on a BB wants to make a claim that the players actually wanted a 51% revenue system and that is why they refuse to sign onto the owner's 54% CBA and I am simply not going to let it go by without a clear dressing down.

But, if the owners were greeedy then they would be the ones upping prices and skimping on expensive players salaries. THAT would make them greedy. What greed is there to losing money on a business, even whit extravegant labor costs?

None.

Its the players who are the greedy ones.

The owners WERE stupid, on this there is NO dispute, to have payed those prices. But now they can be viewed in some measure as protecting the fans from these fat, ugly, pigs who would use 2 of the games personalities of the highest integrity to be simple pawns used in their quest for a stranglehold on well over the majority of its entire revenue stream.

You know WHY this game is completely without a voice, as in nobody cares anymore?

Its because there aren't enough peoiple LIKE ME who are extremely vocal in making thier anger/whatever KNOWN. The game's fans don't care enough to even get pissed. I find that disgustiung to allow this crap to go on, and take the reputation of bitter and angry as a good thing. If more of us WERE pissed maybe this thing would have been solved by now?
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
R0CKET said:
Well I have to say that my mind was fairly well made up when they under-cut Gretz & Mario. There was a real chance then that a comprimise was possible. The players showed up and basically stormed out , stunning Gretzky, and sending this thing spinning out of control.

The players (or at least thier leadership) intends to do all that they can to prevent any real reform of this system while they are in such a majority position of the revenue in their favor.

Well the major topic that stopped those meetings was revenue sharing...up until that part the owners wanted no part of it what-so-ever. Are the players to blame for that? Certainly not.
 

R0CKET

Registered User
Jul 2, 2004
320
0
nyr7andcounting said:
Well the major topic that stopped those meetings was revenue sharing...up until that part the owners wanted no part of it what-so-ever. Are the players to blame for that? Certainly not.

Honestly do ANY of us really know what was THE reason?

Some have gone on record as saying that revenue sharing is a non-issue.

I feel like the biggest issue is the Cap and where it will end up.

IMO if that were agreed to the remainder would go forward like shiat thu a goose.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
sure

The Messenger said:
See this is where your plan falls a part..

The Players made over 70% in the old CBA, and it may have been as high as 75% in fact. The players acknowledged that and in their very first offer at the beginning of the dispute offered to give back 24% of their Salaries to bring those costs in line..

When they did that the Greedy statement was no longer a valid response ever..

If you take 75 % (original costs) and subtract (24% rollback) then player costs are reset to 51% after the rebate, a little below the owners 54% they are hoping for now ..

Making any future statement about player greed unfounded and extremely biased.

If you went into your Bosses office and offered to have your current Salary cut by 24% to help out the Owner with his costs .. I guarantee you that your Boss will NOT ACCUSE you of being GREEDY by your actions ..

Yah, weve been raping you hard. I guess well stop for a while now.

But we want to keep the same circumstances so we can **** you in the future again.

Sound fair to you?
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
players have never

The Messenger said:
You are wrong again and I see you have not been reading those CBA news links I provided ... The NHLPA offered lower Entry Level Contracts with lower bonuses, 2-way Salary Arbitration, eliminated the automatic increase on Qualifying offers, imposing a Payroll Tax system with penalties all to put a future drag on Player Salaries.

Basically made the first attempt to correct the Systemic issues that the owners claimed were the biggest factors that increase Salaries outside of their own control.

Here is the NHLPA Dec 9th Proposal so you don't have to take my word for it but can read it for yourself directly ..

Link to Proposal : http://www.nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3398

So only the young and naive that continue to object, without getting any facts on the subject keep this alive on the notion of player greed despite the offer to give back 1/4 of their salaries.

However the whole CBA is another problem that is not covered by the Greedy Statement ..

No one said it addressed all the problems, but certainly a good starting point to begin negotiating on.. The NHLPA never expected the NHL to take that offer at face value and accept it, but a counter proposal that tightened the numbers and addressed the issues certainly was not have been out of the question to expect.

The reason the Dispute goes on is because it has shifted from player greed to OWNER/GM stupidity constraints...

The focus now is to come up with an IDIOT PROOF CBA that would allow even a TRAINED CHIMP to do the GM job .. They need a CBA that now Polices their future Contract mistakes, and spending and in fact controls OWNERS GREED. They need a CBA limiting them from competing against each other on the free market by using free spending (often blowing up their own budgets) in an attempt to win the STANLEY CUP at any cost, in turn sending many Franchises into financial ruin and a mounting loss situation by their own feeding frenzy.

Addressed both overall cost and competative balance.

Ever ever ever .....

Plus, they are paranoid with this, I dont trust the owner stick. They shouldnt have taken that tact. When you make over 50% of the gross in a business, you cant hide your head and say, just pay me. You have to look at what pressures the other fellow is in. If you dont, you wont have a good relationship and you're just going to be hurting yourself.

"How can we trust these guys.... so we cant be in a partnership with them!"

"We cant trust these guys so we arnt even going to try to look at the books"

Wake up, you are in a partnership.

Stupid and greedy fits them like the italian leather shoes they've grown accustomed to.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
AM said:
Addressed both overall cost and competative balance.

Ever ever ever .....

Plus, they are paranoid with this, I dont trust the owner stick. They shouldnt have taken that tact. When you make over 50% of the gross in a business, you cant hide your head and say, just pay me. You have to look at what pressures the other fellow is in. If you dont, you wont have a good relationship and you're just going to be hurting yourself.

"How can we trust these guys.... so we cant be in a partnership with them!"

"We cant trust these guys so we arnt even going to try to look at the books"

Wake up, you are in a partnership.

Stupid and greedy fits them like the italian leather shoes they've grown accustomed to.
But you certainly can understand why the NHLPA would have no interest in this idea ..

First they are suppose to give back 24% of their Salaries ..

Then since the big market teams will be CAPPED OUT, they will be forced to shop their services to non-traditional Hockey markets at rock bottom prices when they become UFA just to continue to play hockey to the CASH STRAPPED ..

These same teams that have Cap room now NEED meaningful Revenue Sharing to even cover these drastically reduced salaries, and the very thing that the NHL to date has put very little effort into securing in any NHL proposal to date ..

The poor teams though have nothing to offer the rich teams in return for the revenue sharing money they are holding their hands out for, so it remains a tough sell and not surprisingly so. When its in the best interest of the rich teams that the poor teams fold instead which eliminates the need to continue revenue sharing and taking from their profits .. Now the problem is not just the NHLPA any longer but the 30 owners are now divided on the Revenue Sharing issue..

You can still play Hockey after all and make money with 20 strong teams, rather then a league watered down to 30 teams.. NO ??

Logically suggesting that without meaningful revenue sharing these players will remain unemployed in the NEW NHL, by capping the rich and affordability issues with the poor preventing employment .. Really not a whole lot different then sitting out when you think about it .. Unemployed or locked out puts the same money in their pockets ..

The most common response here at HF after reading your post is GREEDY Players .. Why are they not jumping at the opportunity and why to them does it seem better to lose a years wages then to hitch themselves to that wagon.

From the NHLPA point of view there is very little difference between HARD CAPPED OUT, CASH STRAPPED OUT or LOCKED OUT ..
 
Last edited:

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
saying

they dont want to have a relationship with the owners is like saying they dont want to play hockey.

Thats why everyone thinks they sound like crabby little babies.

Also, I do understand that the NHLPA believe that they deserve the salaries that the richest teams can pay....

yes, that is the core problem.

If they had abit of vision and leadership, they could go forward and market the NHL.

Unfortuneately, their leadership has none of that... they have gotten into a tug of war for the scraps of the NHL dream.

The NHLPA leadership has to have a goal.... cutting their membership down to the figure you'd need to stay in just the richest markets shouldnt be their sole goal.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
R0CKET said:
Honestly do ANY of us really know what was THE reason?

Some have gone on record as saying that revenue sharing is a non-issue.

I feel like the biggest issue is the Cap and where it will end up.

IMO if that were agreed to the remainder would go forward like shiat thu a goose.

They've gone on record with that after the season was cancelled and it became more clear the union was going to push for it. In February it certainly wasn't a non-issue.

Supposedly at that meeting they didn't even get to talking about the cap. But, they definetly didn't spend 6 hours talking about how 2-way arbitration would work. It's pretty clear that they wanted to get some of the major issues settled(revenue sharing being one of them) and they couldn't do it.

And the cap is not all the players fault either...neither side moved from their previous cap on the day the season was cancelled OR at the meeting 2 days after. The players wouldn't budge from soft-$50m or whatever it was, and the owners wouldn't budge from $42.5M...and it's all the players fault?
 

R0CKET

Registered User
Jul 2, 2004
320
0
nyr7andcounting said:
They've gone on record with that after the season was cancelled and it became more clear the union was going to push for it. In February it certainly wasn't a non-issue.

Supposedly at that meeting they didn't even get to talking about the cap. But, they definetly didn't spend 6 hours talking about how 2-way arbitration would work. It's pretty clear that they wanted to get some of the major issues settled(revenue sharing being one of them) and they couldn't do it.

And the cap is not all the players fault either...neither side moved from their previous cap on the day the season was cancelled OR at the meeting 2 days after. The players wouldn't budge from soft-$50m or whatever it was, and the owners wouldn't budge from $42.5M...and it's all the players fault?

In the sense of what the key elements were to estalishing this fiasco, then sure the owners are at fault no doubt.

But I mean simply look at the main issue that was thrown around from september up to when the deal almost got done...no cap, no how, no way. Every good union thug was riding the party line then, oops. Don Goodneow suddenly proclaims that the cap wasn't the real issue rather, it was the amount of the cap? His own members were caught by surprise as was the entire hockey universe because IF this WAS true then why didn't he, umm they, start working this from day 1?

Yes they do not agree on many things but if Don Goody has his way they never will cuz its his Hockey Unverse and we are all just living in it.

What he does and who he answers to are a complete mystery. He's out of control and has no plan. At this point its all about his ego.

A SMART negotiator wouldn't wait that long to begin to negotiate on 1 basic issue when all the others may also be contentious...but then nobody's ever really accused Don Goodenow of being smart. Powerful yes, for the time being. But that will change.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
R0CKET said:
But I mean simply look at the main issue that was thrown around from september up to when the deal almost got done...no cap, no how, no way. Every good union thug was riding the party line then, oops. Don Goodneow suddenly proclaims that the cap wasn't the real issue rather, it was the amount of the cap? His own members were caught by surprise as was the entire hockey universe because IF this WAS true then why didn't he, umm they, start working this from day 1?
Why do you think? Because during negotiations you don't start with something you think the other side is going to accept, you don't get the best deal for yourself that way. It's the same reason the owners started with the $31M linkage cap.

Besides, the PA accepted a cap only AFTER the NHL dropped linkage. It was more a move to stay away from a possible impasse than a calculated concession by the union. Sure, I wish negotiations would have moved quicker, but they didn't because BOTH sides started with a radical system and didn't want to budge until the season was almost lost.

R0CKET said:
A SMART negotiator wouldn't wait that long to begin to negotiate on 1 basic issue when all the others may also be contentious...but then nobody's ever really accused Don Goodenow of being smart. Powerful yes, for the time being. But that will change.
You mean a smart negotiator wouldn't wait as long as Bettman waited to drop linkage? I agree, if the NHL had a more flexible commish something could have gotten done a long time ago. Bettman should have realized that linkage was the last thing the players wanted at that point and he wasn't realistically going to get it without cancelling the season. Dropping it would have gotten him a concession on the cap from the PA (as it did, but not until Feb.) while losing the owners almost nothing (because a cap can have the same affect as linkage if owners act somewhat smart). Bottom line is it goes both ways and you can't blame the PA alone for there being no CBA right now.
 

FlyersFan10*

Guest
I'll say it before and I'll say it again. It's time to go to binding arbitration. Have an arbitrator hear each side's argument and have the arbitrator decide on the final outcome. If either side has such a strong argument, then neither side should worry on how the arbitrator will rule.

The fact that neither side is interested in binding arbitration clearly indicates that both sides have something to hide. For the owners, it's a statement that revenue losses have been over exaggerated. For players, it a statement that losses have been more than anticipated.

So, both sides are to blame for this mess and when you consider that both sides have shot down the binding arbitration process, it's clear that this has become nothing more than a pi$$ing match between Bettman and Goodenow.
 

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
nyr7andcounting said:
Yea but we need a deal first, and when it comes to that, Jacobs is obviously the bigger problem.

I cant see Jacobs as a bigger problem than Bob Goodenow and the NHLPA not negotiating for the better part of last season instead waiting until the last minute for the NHL to blink.

I can see where JJ's anger is coming from. The owners lost last time by a wide margin with the CBA. He is trying to do more than his fair share to make sure that doesnt happen again. Can you blame him? If more teams (both at the top and bottom) ran their teams like his (middle of the road type spending) we would not have this mess. Jacobs sometimes tries to be too much of a hawk, but if he doesnt he probably fears that other owners will sway the moderates. Bottom line no matter how much money either side has is that this is a business. Nothing but the bottom line should matter to the owners. It certainly is all that matters to the players.

I also think that JJ is an easy target because he has been the leader of the hawk group of owners, but he is speaking the same things many teams are thinking. Think about it people, if he was making soooo much money, why is he so insistant on not getting back to business until things are fixed? IMO the way JJ is so adament about this is a true testament to how bad things really are.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Bruwinz37 said:
I cant see Jacobs as a bigger problem than Bob Goodenow and the NHLPA not negotiating for the better part of last season instead waiting until the last minute for the NHL to blink.

I can see where JJ's anger is coming from. The owners lost last time by a wide margin with the CBA. He is trying to do more than his fair share to make sure that doesnt happen again. Can you blame him? If more teams (both at the top and bottom) ran their teams like his (middle of the road type spending) we would not have this mess. Jacobs sometimes tries to be too much of a hawk, but if he doesnt he probably fears that other owners will sway the moderates. Bottom line no matter how much money either side has is that this is a business. Nothing but the bottom line should matter to the owners. It certainly is all that matters to the players.

I also think that JJ is an easy target because he has been the leader of the hawk group of owners, but he is speaking the same things many teams are thinking. Think about it people, if he was making soooo much money, why is he so insistant on not getting back to business until things are fixed? IMO the way JJ is so adament about this is a true testament to how bad things really are.

I have a question. Can anyone prove that this has not been Jeremy Jacobs style of negotiation from day 1. And if it has would you go into "partnership" with someone who treats you like that?
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
vanlady said:
I have a question. Can anyone prove that this has not been Jeremy Jacobs style of negotiation from day 1. And if it has would you go into "partnership" with someone who treats you like that?
the crux of the matter - and the other hardline owner's as well - and the debate continues over who has the better plan to - save the league -
 

OlTimeHockey

Registered User
Dec 5, 2003
16,483
0
home
mr gib said:
the crux of the matter - and the other hardline owner's as well - and the debate continues over who has the better plan to - save the league -[/QUOTE]

Is that what all this talky-talky has been about? Saving the LEAGUE?

I thought they were slapping one another trying to race to get into our wallets first.

I thought one side was trying to protect the rights of the poor, humbled $9m 20 goal scorer and one side was fighting for the disinfranchised fan's right to pay $120/seat.

I guess I gotta take it easy on the ginseng......I'm thinking too much?
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
OlTimeHockey said:
mr gib said:
the crux of the matter - and the other hardline owner's as well - and the debate continues over who has the better plan to - save the league -[/QUOTE]

Is that what all this talky-talky has been about? Saving the LEAGUE?

I thought they were slapping one another trying to race to get into our wallets first.

I thought one side was trying to protect the rights of the poor, humbled $9m 20 goal scorer and one side was fighting for the disinfranchised fan's right to pay $120/seat.

I guess I gotta take it easy on the ginseng......I'm thinking too much?
sorry - well not save the league - but find the common ground to grow the league so everyone is happy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->