• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NHL Lockout With Your Cock Out |OT|

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
The problem with that is then its just another windfall when you change that definition. Leafs keep charging shittons. The players see none of it and it never gets factored in to how much the players are making their teams. Of course the league sponsors that. It doesn't "spread the money around." It just takes money out of the shared pool. The Coyotes had to be in Toronto on that night so they could have a game and the leafs could charge you $500 to get drunk and depressed.

You can't spread the money around, though.

That's their merchandise in their building with hires that they made and selling to people that are in the arena. The merchandise isn't related to the game of hockey so it should not be counted.

Nothing on those cups and bottles relate to hockey and none of it tastes like hockey.

If it has an nhl logo on it, it should be. Otherwise it shouldn't be, ever. It's a ridiculous inclusion to HRR

The players currently see 57% of leafs revenue in the arena, and as a technicality the leafs only see 30 cents from every beer sold there go to the NHLPA

If say between the rest of the league the other 29 teams do half the business, the leafs would make about $6.50 per beer

And the other teams like $3.50 per beer

And per 30 beers sold, LA Kings lose $4 just because they don't have the revenue stream

My math is sketchy here but I hope that gives you an idea what I'm talking about
 

Marvie_3

Banned
I don't really disagree with you, but how long do you give it? That team doesn't look poised to start winning anytime in the immediate future and just traded away the one marketable "star" player they had for role players.

I honestly don't think you can put a timetable on it. Given the proper footing, I think Columbus has the potential to be a solid market in the NHL. They haven't be a spectacular failure like Phoenix but they have missed a lot of opportunities to succeed.
 

Heretic

Member
Question: Why can't players join the AHL now? League rules were under the old CBA, right? So there is no CBA therefore waivers should not come into play. Am I wrong in thinking this? Are there certain rules I don't know about in the AHL?
 

ZeroGravity

Member
Question: Why can't players join the AHL now? League rules were under the old CBA, right? So there is no CBA therefore waivers should not come into play. Am I wrong in thinking this? Are there certain rules I don't know about in the AHL?
I don't know whether it's possible or not, but I'm pretty sure they'd have to sign an AHL contract (which wouldn't be worth the money for most players, when they could get more in Europe). Unless you have a two-way contract, you don't have an AHL salary, and no NHL team is going to pay a player an NHL salary to play in the minor during a lockout.
 

Acid08

Banned
Why does hand egg have to be so fucking boring?

So I'm still going to Michigan for New Years since the plane tickets were already purchased. Instead of being at the Winter Classic I'm going to be going to a Pistons game with my cousin. Disappointment total.
 

Red_Man

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
This thread

4Xthm.gif
 
All teams in the NHL should be ABLE to profit- oh boy we should punish Phoenix and Columbus because New York, toronto and Montreal are raking in the money!

Teams should be ABLE to advertise in their markets, be ABLE to afford every player in the league and be ABLE to do all the things the big teams can do.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then you should stop posting in this thread and go back to school.
So by your logic, if Gary Bettman granted an expansion franchise to Scranton Pennsylvania (would probably still outdraw Phoenix, but regardless) and due to the immeasurably stupid location, the Scranton Office Kings could only make a profit if the salary cap was around $10 million, then the NHL should have the moral right to declare all recently signed contracts null and void (or hell, let's just honor half of the money agreed) - including contracts signed days before the impending lockout... all because the Scranton Office Kings and a few teams are losing massive money due to either inept management or baffling hockey-related geological location?

Look, I think everyone's in agreement that the current revenue sharing model probably isn't going to work out given how things are (especially since the NHLPA seems to be willing to come down to 50/50)... but absolute weight of this all being the fault of the GREEDY MILLIONAIRE PLAYERS WHO MAKE MORE THAN I DO AND MAN I'D KILL TO JUST BE ON THE PRACTICE SQUAD MAKING SIX FIGURES GUYS and not, you know, the man who fucking put franchises in Atlanta and Phoenix, or the owners who offered signed these contracts days before the lockout (it wasn't their fault; they needed to stay competitive!!) is baffling.
 
You can't spread the money around, though.

That's their merchandise in their building with hires that they made and selling to people that are in the arena. The merchandise isn't related to the game of hockey so it should not be counted.

Nothing on those cups and bottles relate to hockey and none of it tastes like hockey.

If it has an nhl logo on it, it should be. Otherwise it shouldn't be, ever. It's a ridiculous inclusion to HRR

The players currently see 57% of leafs revenue in the arena, and as a technicality the leafs only see 30 cents from every beer sold there go to the NHLPA

If say between the rest of the league the other 29 teams do half the business, the leafs would make about $6.50 per beer

And the other teams like $3.50 per beer

And per 30 beers sold, LA Kings lose $4 just because they don't have the revenue stream

My math is sketchy here but I hope that gives you an idea what I'm talking about

I'd want to know whether other leagues are including these types of sales in their cap #'s.

Second, its still ridiculous. Not "having to do with hockey" is irrelevant. The teams still need the other teams in order to have the opportunity to make those sales. The leafs franchise is only valuable because they have the league to play in. On top of that the NHL gets a legal monopoly that fosters that environment.

And to Marvie's "no timetable" comment, what makes hockey teams diffeerent from other businesses that they should be able to operate at a loss forever? The only way they're even able to do that is through an artificial economic system.
 
So by your logic, if Gary Bettman granted an expansion franchise to Scranton Pennsylvania (would probably still outdraw Phoenix, but regardless) and due to the immeasurably stupid location, the Scranton Office Kings could only make a profit if the salary cap was around $10 million, then the NHL should have the moral right to declare all recently signed contracts null and void (or hell, let's just honor half of the money agreed) - including contracts signed days before the impending lockout... all because the Scranton Office Kings and a few teams are losing massive money due to either inept management or baffling hockey-related geological location?

Look, I think everyone's in agreement that the current revenue sharing model probably isn't going to work out given how things are (especially since the NHLPA seems to be willing to come down to 50/50)... but absolute weight of this all being the fault of the GREEDY MILLIONAIRE PLAYERS WHO MAKE MORE THAN I DO AND MAN I'D KILL TO JUST BE ON THE PRACTICE SQUAD MAKING SIX FIGURES GUYS and not, you know, the man who fucking put franchises in Atlanta and Phoenix, or the owners who offered signed these contracts days before the lockout (it wasn't their fault; they needed to stay competitive!!) is baffling.
The owners have to grant those types of contracts if not it is collusion. Fehr attacked the MLB for such a move.
 

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
So by your logic, if Gary Bettman granted an expansion franchise to Scranton Pennsylvania (would probably still outdraw Phoenix, but regardless) and due to the immeasurably stupid location, the Scranton Office Kings could only make a profit if the salary cap was around $10 million, then the NHL should have the moral right to declare all recently signed contracts null and void (or hell, let's just honor half of the money agreed) - including contracts signed days before the impending lockout... all because the Scranton Office Kings and a few teams are losing massive money due to either inept management or baffling hockey-related geological location?

Look, I think everyone's in agreement that the current revenue sharing model probably isn't going to work out given how things are (especially since the NHLPA seems to be willing to come down to 50/50)... but absolute weight of this all being the fault of the GREEDY MILLIONAIRE PLAYERS WHO MAKE MORE THAN I DO AND MAN I'D KILL TO JUST BE ON THE PRACTICE SQUAD MAKING SIX FIGURES GUYS and not, you know, the man who fucking put franchises in Atlanta and Phoenix, or the owners who offered signed these contracts days before the lockout (it wasn't their fault; they needed to stay competitive!!) is baffling.

I didn't know Columbus or Phoenix were comparable in size to Scranton. Or how my logic applies to Scranton? Because my logic applies to the NHL as it exists, not an imaginary scenario. Besides. My logic simply was they should be able to make a profit, not have it handed to them. I'm not saying that a team shouldn't lose money- I'm just saying that even if they have the best performance of a life time, their crowds show up, they get key FAs and put a very competitive product on the ice, they should be able to profit. The fucking Winnipeg Jets supposedly made very little money last year. Nope. We can't ensure that NHL teams have a fair chance at operating at a profit. In a couple years under the old CBA... Jets would be absolutely fucked and relocated from canada once again.

And it's not a few teams losing money, it's about 18. I dunno about you but that's not "a few", that's "a lot" and did you ever stop and think that the Phoenix market is bad because of the inability to market the product? Oh no. That must not be the reason at all. They get enough exposure on the 3am news reel of a high school run news network which mistaking my put the wrong logo up for them. No. Let's blame location. Lets just outright say US job recovery slow? Let's blame Obama instead of congress. You know who the biggest relocation cheerleaders on NHL-GAF is? It's Marvie and I. THEN WHY ARE WE BOTH DEFENDING THE NHL? (Hint: because as much as we want to kick Phoenix and other teams to the curb and relocate them, we also know they are right) fuck I'd even pay money to kick Bettman in the nuts for an hour.

Oh and when you are talking about teams signing players, you mean the GMs, right? You do realize GMs have little to no input on the CBA process, right?

You know that it doesn't matter what team they ended up on, they were all going to face the same scenario. No! Let's just assume that the players would have made 50% everywhere else they signed!

The CBA is a conduit for those deals. It controls the exact percentage players earn on said contracts. The CBA is negotiated solely by the owners and the players. Not the GMs and players.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
To sit here and act like you wouldn't do the same thing if you were an owner is pure bullshit and you know it.

Also, lets not forget the fact that if nobody offered these guys contracts or if they would have offered them mid-level contracts, the PA would be screaming "collusion" right now.
 
To sit here and act like you wouldn't do the same thing if you were an owner is pure bullshit and you know it.

To say if you were a union leader who wouldn't aggressively bargain for the best deal for your membership and not get strong armed is equal bullshit. These deals don't exist in a vacuum. This deal affects the next and the next and so on. They can't just cave every time.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Why does hand egg have to be so fucking boring?

So I'm still going to Michigan for New Years since the plane tickets were already purchased. Instead of being at the Winter Classic I'm going to be going to a Pistons game with my cousin. Disappointment total.

Oh, wow. From a hockey spectacle to watching the worst NBA team?
 
Why does hand egg have to be so fucking boring?

So I'm still going to Michigan for New Years since the plane tickets were already purchased. Instead of being at the Winter Classic I'm going to be going to a Pistons game with my cousin. Disappointment total.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

I am so sorry

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

No seriously, watching paint dry is more entertaining, bring entertainment or something to do
 

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
To say if you were a union leader who wouldn't aggressively bargain for the best deal for your membership and not get strong armed is equal bullshit. These deals don't exist in a vacuum. This deal affects the next and the next and so on. They can't just cave every time.

You do know the only time the players "caved" happened to be 2004... Which they won quite handily. People don't realize they didn't cave. They lost a year. They earned a massive amount of money.

The other CBAs have been constantly in the players favor. And it shows when you compare the old CBA to the other leagues.

The players in the NHL are treated like fucking gods compared to the other leagues. What the NHL was offering was still going to make them have the best CBA in pro sports (with a few exceptions)

Sorry, if the NHL is the 4th league in North America... And I'm a union boss... I say what's wrong and how can we fix it going forward so the nhlpa will be far better positioned for years to come? Like I said from the start, nhlpa mindset going in should have been just to nudge for a 48-49% but claw the fuck out of player rights- not contract limits, those make sense. But I'd be pushing for RFA years, ELC years, bonuses, a fat fucking pension, and a transfer to fixed percentages instead of contract values. If growth occurs, all players gain - not the teams. There's risk but very little. A player could have signed for 10% cap in 2005-06 and would have made $2.9 million. Today that would be $7 million. This way it ensure all revenue gained is used effectively - I would have fought for any unused cap to be divided among teams equally and all teams HAVE to pay to the cap. Even at a cap of 44% just to grease their wheels. That would set cap at 48 million, that would also mean that percentage guy from 05-06 earned $4.8 million. This also helps eliminate cap growth which can push players down to being able to sign more players.

What's eventually going to happen? They are going to lose in every fucking area. The way this has been handled by the nhlpa has been outright stupid. They could have had made out like bandits. Money side, no. But that is going to be an inevitable loss. Player rights, though? They are the most important function. That's where you see if its for now or later. Fighting over fucking hotel rooms? Lawwwllllll they want more personal care afterwards? Like. Fuck. There is no semblance of priorities outside of money. Fucking greed. And eventually they will lose out.

Ovechkin crying about slashed salaries

Here's some hard math for those stupid ass players.

$88 million left on his contract

Two year lockout is $18 million

That's a 20% reduction

Or NHLs last offer for a whole season? $9.8 million, an 11% reduction

That's right.

With a lost season, in order to make more than the NHLs last proposal he'd need 56.4% for the rest of his contract. And theirs was 50/50

Now it's going to be like 54-52-50 onwards.

Which is looking like his contract will be $5.4 mil (50 game season with make whole), $8.2 mil, and $8.77 onwards

$13 million, a 15% reduction... Which would be roughly equatable to taking 48% from the beginning. (Actually likely worse due to league growth... It would have continued with no labor disruption. but after a lengthy lockout... Numbers get worse when they are clawed back to correct for lower revenue)

Just to provide an example of that:

His contract could look like: (15% loss, 5% gain, 10% gain, 10% gain, 10% gain, etc)

$5.4 million, $6.97, 7.89, $8.68, $8.77 onwards

Loss of $15.2 million, 17.3% reduction

Under my percentages plan if it was done from the start? We will estimate 44% cap with 5% gain every year.

$6.95 million, $7.3 million, $8.5 million, $9 million, $9.4 million, $9.85 million, $10.35 million, $10.85 million and $11.4 million

A net loss of $4.4 million

NHLPA expects 7% growth, so to show what their dummy projections would have netted under my proposed system...

$6.95 million, $7.43 million, $8.84 million, $9.45 million, $10.11 million, $10.82 million, $11.58 million, $12.4 million and $13.26 million

A gain of $2.8 million.

Lack of forward thinking? For sure!

They are actively making their numbers worse while losing on everything else. Idiots. All of them.
 
To say if you were a union leader who wouldn't aggressively bargain for the best deal for your membership and not get strong armed is equal bullshit. These deals don't exist in a vacuum. This deal affects the next and the next and so on. They can't just cave every time.

The result being that both sides start negotiating on "principles" rather than finding an agreeable middle ground in a timely manner that doesn't forfeit games / seasons and no one wins, most of all the fans.

This passive aggressive "bargaining" is just going to make the next round of CBA fuckery all the worse.
 
Dude I'm joking. Last seasons Admirals had nothing to do with this seasons.

My emotional connection to the 2012 Admirals roster is as much as my emotional connection with the 2012 Vancouver Canucks. Non-existent.
 
Question for you guys:

Where do you think is the best place to sit at a hockey game?

Right up on the glass, or perhaps back a few rows to get a little better elevation and a more overhead view of the ice?
 
You do know the only time the players "caved" happened to be 2004... Which they won quite handily. People don't realize they didn't cave. They lost a year. They earned a massive amount of money.

The other CBAs have been constantly in the players favor. And it shows when you compare the old CBA to the other leagues.

The players in the NHL are treated like fucking gods compared to the other leagues. What the NHL was offering was still going to make them have the best CBA in pro sports (with a few exceptions)

Sorry, if the NHL is the 4th league in North America... And I'm a union boss... I say what's wrong and how can we fix it going forward so the nhlpa will be far better positioned for years to come? Like I said from the start, nhlpa mindset going in should have been just to nudge for a 48-49% but claw the fuck out of player rights- not contract limits, those make sense. But I'd be pushing for RFA years, ELC years, bonuses, a fat fucking pension, and a transfer to fixed percentages instead of contract values. If growth occurs, all players gain - not the teams. There's risk but very little. A player could have signed for 10% cap in 2005-06 and would have made $2.9 million. Today that would be $7 million. This way it ensure all revenue gained is used effectively - I would have fought for any unused cap to be divided among teams equally and all teams HAVE to pay to the cap. Even at a cap of 44% just to grease their wheels. That would set cap at 48 million, that would also mean that percentage guy from 05-06 earned $4.8 million. This also helps eliminate cap growth which can push players down to being able to sign more players.

What's eventually going to happen? They are going to lose in every fucking area. The way this has been handled by the nhlpa has been outright stupid. They could have had made out like bandits. Money side, no. But that is going to be an inevitable loss. Player rights, though? They are the most important function. That's where you see if its for now or later. Fighting over fucking hotel rooms? Lawwwllllll they want more personal care afterwards? Like. Fuck. There is no semblance of priorities outside of money. Fucking greed. And eventually they will lose out.

Ovechkin crying about slashed salaries

Here's some hard math for those stupid ass players.

$88 million left on his contract

Two year lockout is $18 million

That's a 20% reduction

Or NHLs last offer for a whole season? $9.8 million, an 11% reduction

That's right.

With a lost season, in order to make more than the NHLs last proposal he'd need 56.4% for the rest of his contract. And theirs was 50/50

Now it's going to be like 54-52-50 onwards.

Which is looking like his contract will be $5.4 mil (50 game season with make whole), $8.2 mil, and $8.77 onwards

$13 million, a 15% reduction... Which would be roughly equatable to taking 48% from the beginning. (Actually likely worse due to league growth... It would have continued with no labor disruption. but after a lengthy lockout... Numbers get worse when they are clawed back to correct for lower revenue)

Just to provide an example of that:

His contract could look like: (15% loss, 5% gain, 10% gain, 10% gain, 10% gain, etc)

$5.4 million, $6.97, 7.89, $8.68, $8.77 onwards

Loss of $15.2 million, 17.3% reduction

Under my percentages plan if it was done from the start? We will estimate 44% cap with 5% gain every year.

$6.95 million, $7.3 million, $8.5 million, $9 million, $9.4 million, $9.85 million, $10.35 million, $10.85 million and $11.4 million

A net loss of $4.4 million

NHLPA expects 7% growth, so to show what their dummy projections would have netted under my proposed system...

$6.95 million, $7.43 million, $8.84 million, $9.45 million, $10.11 million, $10.82 million, $11.58 million, $12.4 million and $13.26 million

A gain of $2.8 million.

Lack of forward thinking? For sure!

They are actively making their numbers worse while losing on everything else. Idiots. All of them.

1.) Let's start to get actual comparisons as to how NHL players are treated so much better rather than just stating it. When you're comparing caps use bargained for cap rates, like the 49.5 in the NBA rather than money going out.

2.) Yes players are losing money on this. So are the owners. The owners are just as stupid for not just agreeing to one a more generous 50/50 split and making money this year rather than throwing out lost profits.

3.) Again, these deals affect the following ones. If they just agree to this reduction next time it will be worse.

Also, I was thinking about something: Can anyone else think of an industry that can make record profits in a year (which the NHL did) and then enter labor unrest? The league is using the poor teams as a shield to pretend like they're not making money. It's bullshit. The PA isn't bargaining with the Phoenix. They're dealing with an organization that is making more money than it ever has before. You want the PA to start dealing with each team? Fine, but don't expect the Leafs to get the same treatment as the Coyotes. The PA is gonna treat the league as one organization because that's what the league wants. And the league is making record profits.
 

Acid08

Banned
Question for you guys:

Where do you think is the best place to sit at a hockey game?

Right up on the glass, or perhaps back a few rows to get a little better elevation and a more overhead view of the ice?

I actually like sitting in the upper section on the right or left side. Full view of the ice and no netting to look through.
 
Also, I was thinking about something: Can anyone else think of an industry that can make record profits in a year (which the NHL did) and then enter labor unrest? The league is using the poor teams as a shield to pretend like they're not making money. It's bullshit. The PA isn't bargaining with the Phoenix. They're dealing with an organization that is making more money than it ever has before. You want the PA to start dealing with each team? Fine, but don't expect the Leafs to get the same treatment as the Coyotes. The PA is gonna treat the league as one organization because that's what the league wants. And the league is making record profits.

3.3B in revenues and only about $200M in profits by a handful of the top teams is good(I imagine MLSE is close to half of that) ?

If the league was doing so well there wouldn't be a lockout, since the league would lose than they would hope to gain.
 
3.3B in revenues and only about $200M in profits by a handful of the top teams is good(I imagine MLSE is close to half of that) ?

If the league was doing so well there wouldn't be a lockout, since the league would lose than they would hope to gain.
The profits are sooo bunched up at the top. The league is literally dependant on three teams to keep afloat. The Leafs, Rangers and Habs. They make the overwhelming bulk of NHL profits. The drop-off after that is insane. The most profitable team is the Leafs, the Habs make just over half of that at 2nd place, the Rangers a little less at 3rd. The Canucks at 4th just make over half of the Ranger's profits and the Hawks make a 3rd of what the Canucks make 3 places down.

You take out the Leafs, Rangers and Habs, and the NHL wouldn't exist.
 
The profits are sooo bunched up at the top. The league is literally dependant on three teams to keep afloat. The Leafs, Rangers and Habs. They make the overwhelming bulk of NHL profits. The drop-off after that is insane. The most profitable team is the Leafs, the Habs make just over half of that at 2nd place, the Rangers a little less at 3rd. The Canucks at 4th just make over half of the Ranger's profits and the Hawks make a 3rd of what the Canucks make 3 places down.

You take out the Leafs, Rangers and Habs, and the NHL wouldn't exist.

And yet somehow another Canadian team rather than PHX or CBJ is gonna drive the cap through the roof....
 

ShaneB

Member
Question for you guys:

Where do you think is the best place to sit at a hockey game?

Right up on the glass, or perhaps back a few rows to get a little better elevation and a more overhead view of the ice?

I hate any seats close to the ice. It's not like any hockey arena is that big anyway, so give me a seat in an upper section so I can get a great view of the whole rink.
 

Socreges

Banned
In defense of the lower bowl:

It's pretty awesome being that close to the players. Watching Ovechkin skate into the zone and wire one off the post and in, from not all that far away, marks as one of my favourite live hockey moments. Being able to heckle the visiting goaltender is also great.
 
Tangent: Having myself appear on the Rogers Arena jumbotron in full Ducks gear and get booed the fuck out was one of the greatest moments of my life. Upper bowl too.
 
Hmm, thanks for the info, everyone. :)

I'm hoping to attend my first hockey game soon, maybe Friday night. Granted, it's just a local minor league team, but it should be fun!
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/s...ct-issues-are-final-hurdle-in-talks.html?_r=0

A surprisingly positive article that seems to contradict almost everything I read recently.

The issue of finding a way to pay players with existing contracts in full under a lower salary cap — or settling on a “make whole” provision, in the language of the negotiations — had been a stumbling block in previous weeks. But by Sunday, the two sides were $2 million to $3 million apart per team, per year, an amount the delegate described as “within spitting distance.”

The league and union are even closer to agreement on revenue sharing among clubs, with a plan described as basically done except for administrative details. The system will be significantly expanded compared with the N.H.L.’s current system, with more teams qualifying for revenue sharing and more money distributed.

The system will include a small fund, similar to baseball’s industry growth fund, that Bettman can specially earmark for the neediest franchises — presumably teams like Phoenix, the Islanders, Columbus and Florida.

But big obstacles remain on the issue of contract rights.

But the union delegate also stressed the “very professional” tenor of the negotiations on both sides.

Reports emerged Friday of a shouting match between players and owners at the end of that day’s meeting. But the delegate said the exchange was “extremely brief” and stood out only because of its rarity.

The exchange was between the free-agent defenseman Chris Campoli and Winnipeg defenseman Ron Hainsey on one side, and the owners Murray Edwards of Calgary and Craig Leipold of Minnesota on the other.

The delegate called descriptions of the incident a “major exaggeration.”

“No one would have noticed it but for the fact that these meetings are very, very professional — no one even raises their voice,” he said.

Don't know who to believe anymore, it seems like they're very close.
 

Socreges

Banned
So that's been the problem this entire time. Chris fucking Campoli sabotaging negotiations. What reason would he have to want hockey back? He won't even be playing.
 

RC

Banned
Been drunk the past 5 nights on the streets of Berlin. Only to finally be sober in Vancouver, and realize there's still a fucking lockout.
 
So that's been the problem this entire time. Chris fucking Campoli sabotaging negotiations. What reason would he have to want hockey back? He won't even be playing.
Wait a second. We need a list of all the defenseman injuries during the lockout. I know Gudbranson had a shoulder injury from "training," and there were a few others. I think this whole lockout could be cover up by Campoli to ensure he gets a contract.


We've been after the wrong person this whole time.
 

Smiley90

Stop shitting on my team. Start shitting on my finger.
Wait a second. We need a list of all the defenseman injuries during the lockout. I know Gudbranson had a shoulder injury from "training," and there were a few others. I think this whole lockout could be cover up by Campoli to ensure he gets a contract.


We've been after the wrong person this whole time.

Aren't pretty much ALL of Philly's D-men injured? Or are they healthy now?
 
Top Bottom