Bulls Playoff Game Thread Sign-up

[jakobeast]

RK is right, it isn't refundable. I did hear from a higher up today, and we got it figured out. He did offer to refund the money, as they saw my twitter posts and didn't want to deal with the PR nightmare that I would have brought.



And good luck calling Tracey. She ain't there anymore.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

RK is right, it isn't refundable. I did hear from a higher up today, and we got it figured out. He did offer to refund the money, as they saw my twitter posts and didn't want to deal with the PR nightmare that I would have brought.



And good luck calling Tracey. She ain't there anymore.

Glad you got out of that fiasco.



If anyone is looking to sell tickets this season for regular season games (if we have a season) let me know as I wouldn't mind going to a few, but I won't be paying more than $50 a ticket.

 

[dlrob315]

"The fundamental proposal, our initial proposal, relates to the fact that we need to be paying out less in player costs," he (Bettman) said.



How the hell can he say that with a straight face after this summer's signings?

That makes sense and Bettman isn't talking out of both sides of his neck. Paying out less in player costs, does not mean the best of the best will not still be paid the big bucks they are making now. What it mean is; the Frolik's, Montador's & Olezs' will not see that type of money they received under the old CBA if the owners get their way. It will be the 2 & 3 tier players that take the brunt of the owner's taking back more money.



After the owners get their way again...it will be the have and have not paying system.

 

[jakobeast]

yeah, thats a great way to pay the players. Morons.



If the GM's and owners had any self control, it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[EspoForever]

yeah, thats a great way to pay the players. Morons.



If the GM's and owners had any self control, it wouldn't be a problem.

If the management does restrain itself, people rag on them for not understanding that they HAVE to do something to win now.



The owners take all the financial risk, so if they make money, good for them. I think it's WAY past time for people to stop acting like there is something wrong with that.

 

[jakobeast]

If the management does restrain itself, people rag on them for not understanding that they HAVE to do something to win now.



The owners take all the financial risk, so if they make money, good for them. I think it's WAY past time for people to stop acting like there is something wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with them making money. The problem I have is, as a group, they have said they can't afford these crazy ass contracts. The 10, 12 year jobbers blatantly circumventing the cap system they locked out to get 7 years ago. While I understand it is the big guys doing it, The Hawks, Canucks, so on, the majority of the teams gm's and owners need to persuade their cohorts somehow that they are helping to destroy the very business they are in.

 

[EspoForever]

There is nothing wrong with them making money. The problem I have is, as a group, they have said they can't afford these crazy ass contracts. The 10, 12 year jobbers blatantly circumventing the cap system they locked out to get 7 years ago. While I understand it is the big guys doing it, The Hawks, Canucks, so on, the majority of the teams gm's and owners need to persuade their cohorts somehow that they are helping to destroy the very business they are in.

Yep, all it takes is 2 owners/GMs bidding on any one player to bid up the price, and the current CBA was written by morons. It's a complete no-brainier to circumvent. And with 10 or so teams profitable, it's easy to see you'll get the 2 bidders on every big UFA. They need to get the CBA / Cap rules right this time.

 

[jakobeast]

Yep, all it takes is 2 owners/GMs bidding on any one player to bid up the price, and the current CBA was written by morons. It's a complete no-brainier to circumvent. And with 10 or so teams profitable, it's easy to see you'll get the 2 bidders on every big UFA. They need to get the CBA / Cap rules right this time.

They need to be protected from themselves.

 

[Lampshade_gurl]

RK is right, it isn't refundable. I did hear from a higher up today, and we got it figured out. He did offer to refund the money, as they saw my twitter posts and didn't want to deal with the PR nightmare that I would have brought.

Good to hear you got your money back Jako.

 

[R K]

They need to be protected from themselves.

Without a doubt. They are their worst enemy. They took 22% from the players last go around, which with the CAP was supposed to solve the issue. To an extent it did. Now they want another 22% turn around, and a new CBA guideline which they will circumvent in the long run anyway.



I'm pretty much done with this. I'll watch on TV but the fiasco that is the NHL can **** off. Billionares fighting with Millionares... Taking away any growth they've acquired after losing the last season they pulled this shit.

 

[CLWolf81]

Glad you got out of that fiasco.



If anyone is looking to sell tickets this season for regular season games (if we have a season) let me know as I wouldn't mind going to a few, but I won't be paying more than $50 a ticket.

You ok with sitting in the 300s way up top? Standing Room only is the cheapest, I know that... but I think its $50 now?

 

[R K]

You ok with sitting in the 300s way up top? Standing Room only is the cheapest, I know that... but I think its $50 now?

Only if you buy it from the box office. You get it from IHN members that sell at face tickets are as low as 28 bucks per.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Only if you buy it from the box office. You get it from IHN members that sell at face tickets are as low as 28 bucks per.

Hence why I asked the members.



CLwolf, unless the game is a potential cup clincher, I won't pay $50 to sit in the nose bleeds.

 

[R K]

Hence why I asked the members.



CLwolf, unless the game is a potential cup clincher, I won't pay $50 to sit in the nose bleeds.

I got it, CL didn't.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I got it, CL didn't.

I know that.



Quoted you for truth.

 

[EspoForever]

They need to be protected from themselves.

Well, yes, but it seems like an obvious notion to me that you write a CBA with the understanding that during CBA negotiations the owners are on the same team. Once the deal is in place, however, the owners immediately are competing with one another and will (and should) do whatever they can to generate fan interest in their team. (Which either means winning or creating McHype...but that's another story)...grin.



The tough thing is that we have almost half the owners not wanting revenue sharing...the rest want it, so there is a fight there. So right now the owners are not even on the same team. And even if they could agree 100% they still don't get what they want in terms of structure because they have to get the NHLPA to sign off on it.



I am thinking that a luxury tax is the way to go where teams can pay over the cap but if they do, then they have agreed to be the team sharing their revenue. This seems like the best way to target the teams that refuse to operate with restraint.



Of course any system can be circumvented--these guys are successful business people for a reason...they figure out ways to get things done. But my God, it took me like 30 seconds after understanding the last CBA to say "Well shit, just sign a guy under 35 and front-load a contract and run it past retirement age." And I am no sharp business man either!

 

[jakobeast]

Well, yes, but it seems like an obvious notion to me that you write a CBA with the understanding that during CBA negotiations the owners are on the same team. Once the deal is in place, however, the owners immediately are competing with one another and will (and should) do whatever they can to generate fan interest in their team. (Which either means winning or creating McHype...but that's another story)...grin.



The tough thing is that we have almost half the owners not wanting revenue sharing...the rest want it, so there is a fight there. So right now the owners are not even on the same team. And even if they could agree 100% they still don't get what they want in terms of structure because they have to get the NHLPA to sign off on it.



I am thinking that a luxury tax is the way to go where teams can pay over the cap but if they do, then they have agreed to be the team sharing their revenue. This seems like the best way to target the teams that refuse to operate with restraint.



Of course any system can be circumvented--these guys are successful business people for a reason...they figure out ways to get things done. But my God, it took me like 30 seconds after understanding the last CBA to say "Well shit, just sign a guy under 35 and front-load a contract and run it past retirement age." And I am no sharp business man either!

I know they will find end arounds when it comes to the CBA. It is their job. If they didn't, they would be stupid. However, don't cry to me when you "can't afford" to pay the players.



I had floated the idea of a soft cap, like in the NBA. I think that may work, no?

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

The idea of a soft cap has been around for a while and sounds like a good option(to me). The NHL owners don't seem to be interested, otherwise would'nt they have used it by now?

 

[jakobeast]

The idea of a soft cap has been around for a while and sounds like a good option(to me). The NHL owners don't seem to be interested, otherwise would'nt they have used it by now?

Well, yeah, smart people understand. That's the problem.

 

[R K]

Well, yes, but it seems like an obvious notion to me that you write a CBA with the understanding that during CBA negotiations the owners are on the same team. Once the deal is in place, however, the owners immediately are competing with one another and will (and should) do whatever they can to generate fan interest in their team. (Which either means winning or creating McHype...but that's another story)...grin.



The tough thing is that we have almost half the owners not wanting revenue sharing...the rest want it, so there is a fight there. So right now the owners are not even on the same team. And even if they could agree 100% they still don't get what they want in terms of structure because they have to get the NHLPA to sign off on it.



I am thinking that a luxury tax is the way to go where teams can pay over the cap but if they do, then they have agreed to be the team sharing their revenue. This seems like the best way to target the teams that refuse to operate with restraint.



Of course any system can be circumvented--these guys are successful business people for a reason...they figure out ways to get things done. But my God, it took me like 30 seconds after understanding the last CBA to say "Well shit, just sign a guy under 35 and front-load a contract and run it past retirement age." And I am no sharp business man either!

Read it. **** the Board of Governors. Instead of addressing the true issue, smaller markets, they throw out bullshit. **** them and their league. They will no longer get my money for sure. Once this season is over I'm done. Infact I may not go to a game on principle. Greedy fucking idiots. All of them.



Don't fix the problem, cause more. Which is exactly what they are doing. And this go around Fuhr is NOT an idiot. Good luck with that Bettman you fucking tool/fool/midget fucking pawn.



Good article Brooksie!



http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/bettman_playing_dirty_I72It2kiVeijZpbgII0lnN