Potentially-workable concept????

Status
Not open for further replies.

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
JohnnyReb said:
This is why linkage, without significant revenue sharing, is really just a red herring that does little to address the actual problems of the NHL. Lets take a hypothetical 2-team league, with one rich team, and one poor team:

The REAL problem with the NHL isn't high salaries (though that certainly is a problem), its the disparity between the rich teams, and the poor teams. Until that disparity is reduced, or eliminated the problems will still remain. In the NFL, this is done, more or less, through revenue sharing.

I completely agree. Linkage doesn't help the league, nor does a cap, in the immidiate future. Small market teams are going to continue to lose money without revenue sharing. The only way linkage works is if after a couple of years those small markets increase their revenues enough to cover the linkage payroll and their fixed costs. Problem is, some markets in the league don't look like they will ever do that. Unless we get revenue sharing in the league there are going to be some small market teams folding.
 

hubofhockey

Registered User
Aug 14, 2003
4,938
0
ti-vite said:
SO based on 2.1B$ in revenue, this is 58% of revenue.
BUT
based on 1.5B$ in revenue, this amounts to 80% of revenue.

Continue the lockout: VOILA!

Tiny T -- Hey, fine, then dial the dollars down even more.

How 'bout a $25M cap and a 20 percent franchise player exemption? 'Zat work for you.
So....minimum $750M....and a max of $900 M. Gee, fabulous! Wish I';d thought of that.

As for realty -- just trying to work with the $45M figure that was out there in Feb. You know, as a means of actually having a serious conversations.

But heck, you are right...let's even make it it a $15M cap and call it -- VOILA: the WHA.

I think the players long ago reached the absurd. But not the ridiculous. Not yet.

kpd/hoh
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
JohnnyReb said:
This is why linkage, without significant revenue sharing, is really just a red herring that does little to address the actual problems of the NHL. Lets take a hypothetical 2-team league, with one rich team, and one poor team:

No, Revenue Sharing is the red herring. Why do the players care where the money is coming from. You yourself used the historical observation of the owners behavours to point out the owners can't be trusted, well the players historically have cared little about where the money is coming from when they negotiate their salaries and have just pushed for as high as number as possible. That is historical proof that the players don't care where the money is coming from and will do everything in their power to make sure they continue to get as much of it as they can. So if they promote revenue sharing (the transference of revenues from big market to small market) they are getting even deeper into the pockets of the owners who have the coin.

What is really funny is that of the NHL were to guarantee the players a fixed percentage of revenues they are also guaranteeing revenue sharing. They HAVE to to maintain that percentage of revenues, especially with a cap. The guaranteed revenues MUST be distributed to allow the teams to hit the guarantees negotiated. That is why the NHL has stated that there would be thresholds and teams would guarantee making those thresholds, through sharing of revenues. So the players thumping the revenue sharing drum is nothing but a red herring meant to blur issues and confuse. It appears to be working.
 

hubofhockey

Registered User
Aug 14, 2003
4,938
0
nyr7andcounting said:
Makes no sense. Don't you want a fair deal that will last for years? Why would you want to put the cap so low, based on revenues being down for a year or two, and than when revenues are back to normal in a couple of years we are going to go through the same thing over again. Why use a projected low-revenue year to set your cap?

If revenues are down so far, than teams will cut spending. Fewer teams would spend $45 million and fewer would spend $42 million, under his plan. Either way the owners are going to have to adjust for a year or two and actually stick to a budget. So why not set the cap at the right level based on what your revenues are going to be, and owners stick to budgets for a year or two? Than as the game gets back to normal the CBA will be fine and we won't have another lockout in 5 years.

NYR -- Sounds like you get it, at least. Good for you.

kpd/hoh
 

Sanderson

Registered User
Sep 10, 2002
5,676
240
Hamburg, Germany
@JohnnyReb

I don't see anything insulting in that comment...

And I don't see how the Lecavalier-quote proves anything about the hockey knowledge of the owners. It actually seems to me like a usual comparision, just like a business man would make.
It's not like he compared two totally different sports, he was simply talking about his new prospect being one heck of a player, comparable to one of the most dominant sportstars in history.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
No, Revenue Sharing is the red herring. Why do the players care where the money is coming from. You yourself used the historical observation of the owners behavours to point out the owners can't be trusted, well the players historically have cared little about where the money is coming from when they negotiate their salaries and have just pushed for as high as number as possible. That is historical proof that the players don't care where the money is coming from and will do everything in their power to make sure they continue to get as much of it as they can. So if they promote revenue sharing (the transference of revenues from big market to small market) they are getting even deeper into the pockets of the owners who have the coin.

What is really funny is that of the NHL were to guarantee the players a fixed percentage of revenues they are also guaranteeing revenue sharing. They HAVE to to maintain that percentage of revenues, especially with a cap. The guaranteed revenues MUST be distributed to allow the teams to hit the guarantees negotiated. That is why the NHL has stated that there would be thresholds and teams would guarantee making those thresholds, through sharing of revenues. So the players thumping the revenue sharing drum is nothing but a red herring meant to blur issues and confuse. It appears to be working.

Why do you care so much if the players get the money? You a failed hockey player, or something?

If a system can be worked out, whereby there is enough revenue sharing that most, if not all, small market teams can break even, or make a profit, AND the players still get high-ish salaries, why would this be bad?

A significant and workable revenue sharing plan would see the big market clubs making less money, and the small market clubs making more money. Who cares if the small market clubs then choose to spend that money on players? As long as they are making a profit, then good on them.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
JohnnyReb said:
Then what to make of the "you're just a bunch of glorified auto-workers who should have no say in our business" comment?

What about it. If the players do not want to assume any level of partnership and assume any risk, then that's exactly what they are.

See the post just above yours. Nice shot. Unneccesary, mind you, but what the heck, one should always insult somebody that disagrees with you, right?

Sorry, but I was in the middle of writing and posting my comments when you submitted your explanation, so I apologize for that. Having said that your explanation doesn't hold water BTW. Here's exactly what you said.

"Is that not the biggest complaint against Gary Bettman? That he isn't "a hockey guy?" Remember the "Michael Jordan of hockey" comment?"

You were talking about Gary Bettman and then used that quote to support your belief that he is not a hockey guy. Try and weasel out iof it all you want, but I am not alone in reading that and believing that you attributed those comments to Bettman in an attempt to support your belief that he is not a "hockey guy". If you didn't mean that, you sure put that quote in a really strange place.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
Sanderson said:
@JohnnyReb

I don't see anything insulting in that comment...

And I don't see how the Lecavalier-quote proves anything about the hockey knowledge of the owners. It actually seems to me like a usual comparision, just like a business man would make.
It's not like he compared two totally different sports, he was simply talking about his new prospect being one heck of a player, comparable to one of the most dominant sportstars in history.

I took him to be implying that my opinion/post wasn't worth anything, because I was getting "facts" wrong, or worse, deliberately ignoring ("don't let that fact get in the way of anything."

As for the actual quote itself, at the time it was largely regarded as being rather foolish, and a pretty good indication that Williams really didn't know anything about hockey. Lecavalier himself was pretty embarrassed by, and the attention it garnered. A more appropriate comment, if you will, would have been to compare him to Gretzky, or Believeau, or something, rather than cross over into another sport. You know, show that you actually know a little something about the game, and its players and history. Nobody, for example, compares Lebron James to Joe Montana, or Peyton Manning to Roger Clemons.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
What about it. If the players do not want to assume any level of partnership and assume any risk, then that's exactly what they are.

Chicken and egg argument though. Did the owners deny them the right to be partners, or did the players refuse the opportunity to be partners? Based on the history of the group of men who are owners, one would have to think they are very reluctant to cede control of their enterprises to their employees.

The Iconoclast said:
Sorry, but I was in the middle of writing and posting my comments when you submitted your explanation, so I apologize for that. Having said that your explanation doesn't hold water BTW. Here's exactly what you said.

"Is that not the biggest complaint against Gary Bettman? That he isn't "a hockey guy?" Remember the "Michael Jordan of hockey" comment?"

You were talking about Gary Bettman and then used that quote to support your belief that he is not a hockey guy. Try and weasel out iof it all you want, but I am not alone in reading that and believing that you attributed those comments to Bettman in an attempt to support your belief that he is not a "hockey guy". If you didn't mean that, you sure put that quote in a really strange place.

Quite the backhanded apology there, accusing me of weaseling, and all. I readily admitted the quote was in the wrong place, buy hey, jump on it all you want, if it makes you feel better. As I explained above, I was merely trying to illustrate that the owners, of whom Gary Bettman is their representative, are not always seen as being the brightest of hockey minds, and used that quote as an example. Selective quoting on your part. Notice all the other owners and their questionable hockey minds I listed in the same paragraph and the paragraph directly above it? The entire post was about the owners as a group, and only once did I actually mention Bettman. But if you want to believe I actually thought Bettman said that, then fine. Won't keep me awake at night.
 
Last edited:

AM

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

JohnnyReb said:
The main problem with that is it has the players relying too much on the owners growing the game. What happens when you have owners like Wirtz, who refuses to allow Blackhawk games to be broadcast in Chicago, or Jacobs, whose only concern is the bottom line, or Leonis, who did such a bad job that his market is essentially destroyed, or Karmonos, who may very well be certifiably insane, or Ellman, who screwed up the team's new arena development project, or the Oilers, who are financially tapped out already, or Kumar, who looks like he might go to jail, or Rigas who DID go to jail, or...

Well, you get the point. There are only so many charitable functions players can attend, and even at that, hockey players are generally regarded as the most charitable around anyways. Think of all the luxury boxes players have bought and donated to hospitals and such.

In theory your idea is sound. Unfortunately, historically NHL owners as a group have shown little ability to really know what to do with their toys. Some do, but many don't. Most are only casual fans of the game (if that) with little understanding of its history, passion, or tradition. Is that not the biggest complaint against Gary Bettman? That he isn't "a hockey guy?" Remember the "Michael Jordan of hockey" comment?

If you were an employee, wouldn't you be a little leery about tying your future to a group of men who in the past have not only lied and cheated you, but who have attempted to crush you over the last year (in the player's minds), and who have shown a rather poor ability to grow and market the game anyways?

You're describing a small business owner!
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
JohnnyReb said:
Why do you care so much if the players get the money? You a failed hockey player, or something?

Because I think the players deserve their fair share. They are not slave labor and deserve to make a good living for what they do. But I also believe that those who invest millions of dollars should also see a return on their investment. Its called being fair.

If a system can be worked out, whereby there is enough revenue sharing that most, if not all, small market teams can break even, or make a profit, AND the players still get high-ish salaries, why would this be bad?

It's not bad. It's a good thing, and it's called linkage. This isn't a tough concept to understand but you're making it a lot tougher than it has to be. Which is better? A guarantee of 55% of revenues and all teams having to meet these levels, or a system where there is an unreachable salary cap for most teams and a likelihood that not more than three or four teams are going to reach that level?

A significant and workable revenue sharing plan would see the big market clubs making less money, and the small market clubs making more money. Who cares if the small market clubs then choose to spend that money on players? As long as they are making a profit, then good on them.

And that's exactly what linkage does.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
JohnnyReb said:
I took him to be implying that my opinion/post wasn't worth anything, because I was getting "facts" wrong, or worse, deliberately ignoring ("don't let that fact get in the way of anything."

As for the actual quote itself, at the time it was largely regarded as being rather foolish, and a pretty good indication that Williams really didn't know anything about hockey. Lecavalier himself was pretty embarrassed by, and the attention it garnered. A more appropriate comment, if you will, would have been to compare him to Gretzky, or Believeau, or something, rather than cross over into another sport. You know, show that you actually know a little something about the game, and its players and history. Nobody, for example, compares Lebron James to Joe Montana, or Peyton Manning to Roger Clemons.

I think Williams comments were perfect for the audience he was speaking to. He was trying to drum up support for a team in a new market that was not exactly hockey savvy. He used a player that the majority of his market knew very well and the imopact he had on his sport. That was smart. Unfortunately it placed an unreasonable expectation on the player. That was stupid. But Williams' comments were better than saying that Lecavalier would be the next Beliveau, having people in Tampa wondering who the hell Beliveau was, and not generating half the buzz the selection of Lecavalier did.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
Revenue sharing ensures that the price of Bettman's bungling is not taken solely out of the players' pockets.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
Because I think the players deserve their fair share. They are not slave labor and deserve to make a good living for what they do. But I also believe that those who invest millions of dollars should also see a return on their investment. Its called being fair.

I agree completely. Where we disagree, is on how to reach this noble goal.

The Iconoclast said:
It's not bad. It's a good thing, and it's called linkage. This isn't a tough concept to understand but you're making it a lot tougher than it has to be. Which is better? A guarantee of 55% of revenues and all teams having to meet these levels, or a system where there is an unreachable salary cap for most teams and a likelihood that not more than three or four teams are going to reach that level?

As I illustrated above, linkage alone will not ensure profitabilty, nor will minimum thresholds. You need a significant revenue sharing plan, that goes above and beyond the needs to meet certain payroll levels.

And that's exactly what linkage does.[/QUOTE]

The owners have said that they will share enough money to ensure that all teams meet minimum payroll thresholds. Great. Does that ensure that these teams will make returns on their investments?

Take our favorite example, Pittsburgh. $22 million payroll, say, losing, again say, $2 million per year. They have to reach a $32 million minimum threshold. So the other owners give them $10 million and they turn around a give it to the players.

They still lose $2 million.

As for the hard salary cap idea, its never been a favorite of mine. Not because I am philosophically opposed to a salary cap, but because I don't see it as being of any use to the teams that its supposed to help. Again, in my opinion the biggest problem facing the NHL isn't the highest salaries (not to say that isn't a problem, just not the biggest one), its the disparity between the rich and poor. Revenue sharing, along the lines of the NFL system, would go a long ways towards fixing that, but I am fully aware that its not really a great option for the current set of NHL owners. Hard to fathom taking money away from retired Ontario teacher to give to a billionaire like Peter Karmonos, for example.

Which is why I have always been in favor of a stiff luxury tax. Its voluntary revenue sharing. If you want to spend money, if you have money to spend, then go for it. That money then goes to teams that don't have it, allowing them to either turn a profit, or go after other players. You spend $60 million on players, then its going to cost you another $15 million in taxes, if not more. I think I worked out once, where based on last season's payrolls, a stiff luxury tax would have generated something like $200 million for distribution around the league. That's a significant number, and probably more than what the owners would otherwise share.

Its not a perfect system by no means, but in my opinion its one that addresses the major needs of all parties (small and big market owners, AND the players) in a more suitable fashion than simply propping up the small markets at a barely sustainable level.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
PepNCheese said:
Revenue sharing ensures that the price of Bettman's bungling is not taken solely out of the players' pockets.

Get past who screwed things up. Everyone is responsible and that no longer matters. People have to start focusing on the problems and the solutions and stop playing the blame game.

:shakehead
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
JohnnyReb said:
Which is why I have always been in favor of a stiff luxury tax. Its voluntary revenue sharing. If you want to spend money, if you have money to spend, then go for it. That money then goes to teams that don't have it, allowing them to either turn a profit, or go after other players. You spend $60 million on players, then its going to cost you another $15 million in taxes, if not more. I think I worked out once, where based on last season's payrolls, a stiff luxury tax would have generated something like $200 million for distribution around the league. That's a significant number, and probably more than what the owners would otherwise share.

Its not a perfect system by no means, but in my opinion its one that addresses the major needs of all parties (small and big market owners, AND the players) in a more suitable fashion than simply propping up the small markets at a barely sustainable level.

I would agree with that system iff tax revenues go anywhere except toward player salaries. Taxation used for more spending that would normally not take place is inflationary. If those tax revenues were ear marked for other cost centers I would be okay with a taxation system (I proposed one myself in a comprehensive hybrid system a while back). If tax revenues were used to grow the game rather than just funneled back into the player's pockets in a short term fix, then I would be supportive of that position. I think big picture and long term. Taxation systems are short term and very small picture IMO.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
Get past who screwed things up. Everyone is responsible and that no longer matters. People have to start focusing on the problems and the solutions and stop playing the blame game.

:shakehead

Its not a question of blame, its a question of who to trust to move forward. Would you allow Kenneth Lay to manage your retire portfolio?

In my opinion, both Bettman and Goodenow should have been gone long ago. If only for symbolic reasons.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
I would agree with that system iff tax revenues go anywhere except toward player salaries. Taxation used for more spending that would normally not take place is inflationary. If those tax revenues were ear marked for other cost centers I would be okay with a taxation system (I proposed one myself in a comprehensive hybrid system a while back). If tax revenues were used to grow the game rather than just funneled back into the player's pockets in a short term fix, then I would be supportive of that position. I think big picture and long term. Taxation systems are short term and very small picture IMO.

I agree, partly. I would be in favor of tax money being used however a team sees fit, AND some OTHER money-generating systems that would be used to grow and/or fix the game. Arena funds come to mind. Have the players contribute 1% of their salaries to an arena fund, and the owners 1% of their total revenues for example. Or something like that.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
The Iconoclast said:
Get past who screwed things up. Everyone is responsible and that no longer matters. People have to start focusing on the problems and the solutions and stop playing the blame game.

:shakehead
I agree that sums up Bettman's position pretty accurately alright ..

" Lets not focus on the mistakes that got us to this point, lets focus on how much we can get back from the players to cover them up going forward "

I couldn't have put that better myself ..
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
JohnnyReb said:
Its not a question of blame, its a question of who to trust to move forward. Would you allow Kenneth Lay to manage your retire portfolio?

In my opinion, both Bettman and Goodenow should have been gone long ago. If only for symbolic reasons.

I dunno, does Kenneth Lay guarantee your union 55% of revenues and 50% of profits above a $115 million threshold, all of which is auditted by a mutally agreed to third party auditor?

Frankly I can live with both keeping their jobs if those they represent wish to keep them. If the players feel that Goodenow has done them a service by what he has done, then he should remain. If the owners feel Bettman is doing them a service, then he should remain. They are representatives. IMO I think Goodenow has done a brutal job and should be sacked by his constituents, but that's my just opinon. Others can argue the other way and are likely correct in their opinion. I wouldn't be upset if either disappeared.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
JohnnyReb said:
As for the actual quote itself, at the time it was largely regarded as being rather foolish, and a pretty good indication that Williams really didn't know anything about hockey. Lecavalier himself was pretty embarrassed by, and the attention it garnered.

“Foolish†would be an understatement. Not only did it embarrass the player (as you pointed out), it put an incredible amount of pressure on a kid to immediately be the best player in a league populated by mostly older, vastly more experienced players. (I see many similarities to the same pressure being heaped on Sidney Crosby and hope his eventual GM and coaches don’t make the same mistakes as ours did with Lecavalier.)

Mr. Williams was not a hockey guy, no question about it, and remarks such as this were demonstrative of that. However, he did do a couple of very good things for our franchise: (1) paid off 100% of the team’s debts immediately after purchasing it, getting us out of a pretty bad financial bind; and, (2) selling the team to Palace Sports & Entertainment, which had the sports background and financial wherewithal to get us – and keep us - on the right track. That has brought us to the point of having extremely stable ownership, steadily increasing fan base (even when we had a death grip on last place for years) and an obviously successful on-ice product. For that we owe that non-hockey guy a debt of gratitude.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
JohnnyReb said:
This is why linkage, without significant revenue sharing, is really just a red herring that does little to address the actual problems of the NHL. Lets take a hypothetical 2-team league, with one rich team, and one poor team:

Say you then wanted to implement a 50% linkage salary cap, based on total revenues.

New League, with 50% salary cap/linkage:

Team 1:

Revenues: $100 million
Salary: $37.5 million
Percentage of salary to revenues: 37.5%

Team 2:

Revenues: $50 million
Salary: $37.5 million
Percentage of salary to revenues: 75%

The REAL problem with the NHL isn't high salaries (though that certainly is a problem), its the disparity between the rich teams, and the poor teams. Until that disparity is reduced, or eliminated the problems will still remain. In the NFL, this is done, more or less, through revenue sharing.

What disparity? There is *NO* disparity in your example, you have two perfectly matched teams:
Team 1 Salary: $37.5 million
Team 2 Salary: $37.5 million

The percentage of revenues is irrelevant. That just affects how big their bank accounts are.

The Iconoclast said:
I think Williams comments were perfect for the audience he was speaking to. He was trying to drum up support for a team in a new market that was not exactly hockey savvy. He used a player that the majority of his market knew very well and the imopact he had on his sport. That was smart. Unfortunately it placed an unreasonable expectation on the player. That was stupid. But Williams' comments were better than saying that Lecavalier would be the next Beliveau, having people in Tampa wondering who the hell Beliveau was, and not generating half the buzz the selection of Lecavalier did.

Absolutely. And note that a couple of years later, "Michael" has already led them to the Cup once. Doesn't look too stupid now, does it? :)
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
PecaFan said:
What disparity? There is *NO* disparity in your example, you have two perfectly matched teams:
Team 1 Salary: $37.5 million
Team 2 Salary: $37.5 million

The percentage of revenues is irrelevant. That just affects how big their bank accounts are.

Ummm.. Isn't that the whole point of the lockout?

So their payrolls are equal. One team is making money hand over fist, because they are only spending 37.5% of their revenues on labour costs, while the other is losing money hand over fist, because they are spending 75% of their revenues on labour costs... this is good because...?

If the percentages of revenues is irrelevant, why the insistence on "linkage?"
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
JohnnyReb said:
Ummm.. Isn't that the whole point of the lockout?

So their payrolls are equal. One team is making money hand over fist, because they are only spending 37.5% of their revenues on labour costs, while the other is losing money hand over fist, because they are spending 75% of their revenues on labour costs... this is good because...?

If the percentages of revenues is irrelevant, why the insistence on "linkage?"

This is good because as a whole, they're no longer losing money. Linkage guarantees that salaries can't put them into the red.

You didn't state profitability in your example, let's look at it. Team 1 went from 100/50 to 100/37.5, presumably they're making money. Team 2 went from 50/30 to 50/37.5. I presumed they were making money, otherwise they wouldn't have raised their salary. If they were losing money before, they would have just stayed at 50/30. But note they still get benefits from a linkage cap in this situation. One, they're now more competitive, because their $30 million can compete much better against a $37.5 million team, instead of a $50 million team. So they're much more likely to perform better, make the playoffs, get extra revenue from it. And two, the linkage cap will hold player costs down in the future, allowing them a better chance of profitability down the road.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
PecaFan said:
This is good because as a whole, they're no longer losing money. Linkage guarantees that salaries can't put them into the red.

You didn't state profitability in your example, let's look at it. Team 1 went from 100/50 to 100/37.5, presumably they're making money. Team 2 went from 50/30 to 50/37.5. I presumed they were making money, otherwise they wouldn't have raised their salary. If they were losing money before, they would have just stayed at 50/30.

Not according to Gary Bettman. He insists that cap levels act as "magnets" that draw teams to there level, regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

PecaFan said:
But note they still get benefits from a linkage cap in this situation. One, they're now more competitive, because their $30 million can compete much better against a $37.5 million team, instead of a $50 million team. So they're much more likely to perform better, make the playoffs, get extra revenue from it.

That's an assumption that really isn't born out by history. Take the New York Rangers, or AK Bars, or Calgary Flames, or Tampa Bay Lightning, or what have you.

PecaFan said:
And two, the linkage cap will hold player costs down in the future, allowing them a better chance of profitability down the road.

Perhaps. But I don't think a "chance at profitability" is what they are going for here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->