|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 27, 2002 11:14:33 GMT -5
Habs, our small market Habs, unable to compete in the free agent market, would be $16 million over it. Indeed, 20 of the 30 teams would be over the cap.
While of course this is just an opening negotiating ploy, I wonder how much higher the league can go, and still "save" itself. Even if the league says, "okay, we'll accept a $42 million" cap, can teams like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc. survive long term with that? At what point does a cap become irrelevant, because teams can't spend that much anyways?
Gonna be tough to get a cap through. I can't see teams (let alone the players) willlingly cutting $20 million from their payrolls, and if the cap is set too high, to accomodate these teams, then it is useless to the very teams it is supposed to save.
If I am not mistaken, in order to pass anything through the NHL board of governors, a 2/3 majority is needed, meaning 20 of 30 teams must vote in favor of a resolution. Anyone think they can get 20 NHL owners to vote for a $32 million cap?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the league might not even be able to get a cap accepted by the owners, let alone the players...
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 27, 2002 11:57:06 GMT -5
Bettman is dreaming if he thinks he can get a 32 million$ cap installed. I can see the Wings cutting 30 million of their payroll
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 27, 2002 12:24:42 GMT -5
Hockey is the most like baseball when it comes to "player-friendly" CBA's, but at least in baseball there are real revenues beyond what teams take in at the gate and luxury suited. Local media is the biggest swing factor, but even the Rangers only take in about $13MM annually (compared to the $70MM for the Yankees). I think the Habs local media revenue is maybe US$8MM. The disaprity between rich and poor exists in hockey, but nowhere near the way it does in baseball. The currency exchange is brutal, however.
A hard salary cap will be tough to get. National broadcast rights (ESPN) are already divided equally among all the teams; the most you can probably do is take 50% of each team's local media revenue and divide it evenly among the 30 teams, with each team keeping the other 50%. Baseball's latest CBA did this but on a sliding scale which maxed out at 35%, I think. You can then have a "luxury tax" on payrolls above a certain threshold.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Nov 27, 2002 12:29:44 GMT -5
I get the posturing both sides normally like to pull before these kind of things, but 32 mil? Who are you fooling, Gary? It's ridiculous... how can anyone take this clown seriously? "32 mil Gary, yeah, sure, whatever ".... cap should be around 45-50 mil, I'd put it at 50. The point of the cap is not to stop teams from spending, but from over-spending. 50 mil reels in the big boys spending 60, 65, 70 mil on payrolls but still allows teams to spend more if they choose, because for every small market team that can't spend, there is a large-market owner who won't spend because he wants to pocket the cash himself. I don't want this cap to line the pockets of tight asses like Jacobs and Wirtz.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Nov 27, 2002 12:31:32 GMT -5
Hockey is the most like baseball when it comes to "player-friendly" CBA's In some ways this is true, but not in others.... hockey has by far the most restrictive FA system of the big 4.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Nov 27, 2002 12:33:53 GMT -5
You can then have a "luxury tax" on payrolls above a certain threshold. This isn't a bad idea either..... so long as they do it better than baseball's. Stupid MLB is only out to punish the Yankees with their luxury tax, it's ridiculous. I'm no Yankee fan (hate them) but they were clearly unfairly targeted by the new CBA, which will solve none of baseball's problems.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 27, 2002 13:27:29 GMT -5
I get the posturing both sides normally like to pull before these kind of things, but 32 mil? Who are you fooling, Gary? It's ridiculous... how can anyone take this clown seriously? "32 mil Gary, yeah, sure, whatever ".... cap should be around 45-50 mil, I'd put it at 50. The point of the cap is not to stop teams from spending, but from over-spending. 50 mil reels in the big boys spending 60, 65, 70 mil on payrolls but still allows teams to spend more if they choose, because for every small market team that can't spend, there is a large-market owner who won't spend because he wants to pocket the cash himself. I don't want this cap to line the pockets of tight asses like Jacobs and Wirtz. The problem with a $50 million cap is that it does nothing to save the very teams that a cap is designed to save. The teams that can spend $50 million, are not the teams that need a cap. If you look at the weaker teams in the league, pretty much all of them are maxed out already. Ottawa at $30 million, Calgary at $33 million, Pittsburgh at $31 (and with a superstar owner, paying himself peanuts - where would they be if they had to pay him $10 million?), Edmonton at $30 million, Anaheim at $39 million and on the sales block, Tampa, Buffalo, Vancouver... Can any of these team afford a $50 million cap? Since they can't, then we end up with the same problem; they can't keep their stars, because it will cost them an extra $10 million to do so, which they don't have. No stars, poor team, less fans, less revenue... The downward spiral we are witnessing now... Hockey is in a lot of trouble right now...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Nov 27, 2002 13:44:33 GMT -5
I have a reply to that but I don't have enough time to type it out, gotta get to class. The parade is over now, yes? Don't particularly want to have to deal with the crowds. I'll get back to you later Company...
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 27, 2002 14:56:03 GMT -5
The problem with a $50 million cap is that it does nothing to save the very teams that a cap is designed to save. The teams that can spend $50 million, are not the teams that need a cap. If you look at the weaker teams in the league, pretty much all of them are maxed out already. Ottawa at $30 million, Calgary at $33 million, Pittsburgh at $31 (and with a superstar owner, paying himself peanuts - where would they be if they had to pay him $10 million?), Edmonton at $30 million, Anaheim at $39 million and on the sales block, Tampa, Buffalo, Vancouver... Can any of these team afford a $50 million cap? Since they can't, then we end up with the same problem; they can't keep their stars, because it will cost them an extra $10 million to do so, which they don't have. No stars, poor team, less fans, less revenue... The downward spiral we are witnessing now... Hockey is in a lot of trouble right now... I agree, but like I said above, unlike baseball where the rich and poor gap is just enormous, the gap in hockey is smaller because even the rich teams like Dallas, Detroit, and the Rangers don't take in mega-bucks for local media... hockey just doesn't command the same $$$. And there is a limit to how much rich owners will empty their pocketbooks. So in theory, the problems should be easier to fix since you don't need as much wealth transfer from the rich teams to subsidise the poor teams. To me a salary cap is not as crucial in hockey given the lower revenue ceilings for the big teams, so it mostly comes down to equitable revenue sharing. Best case is 50% of local media revenue gets shared, and you have a luxury tax on payrolls beyond a certain amount. The other issue is to somehow compensate the CDN teams for the currency differential, which at over 30% is horrendous.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 27, 2002 15:34:12 GMT -5
The problem with a $50 million cap is that it does nothing to save the very teams that a cap is designed to save. The teams that can spend $50 million, are not the teams that need a cap. If you look at the weaker teams in the league, pretty much all of them are maxed out already. Ottawa at $30 million, Calgary at $33 million, Pittsburgh at $31 (and with a superstar owner, paying himself peanuts - where would they be if they had to pay him $10 million?), Edmonton at $30 million, Anaheim at $39 million and on the sales block, Tampa, Buffalo, Vancouver... Can any of these team afford a $50 million cap? Since they can't, then we end up with the same problem; they can't keep their stars, because it will cost them an extra $10 million to do so, which they don't have. No stars, poor team, less fans, less revenue... The downward spiral we are witnessing now... Hockey is in a lot of trouble right now... A 50 million dollar cap would do wonders. The idea is not to have payrolls all at the same level, but merely to close the gap between the biggest spenders and the smaller market and canadian teams. With a cap, fewer teams would be in the bidding for free agents, and the dollar figures would tend to be lower -- on account of cap considerations -- with the result being that some players looking at free agency would not get a great deal more from NY or Dallas than they would from Edmonton. And a more competitive league (in terms of a realistic shot at the holy grail) would reduce the ufa shopping for cup-friendly locales. All of the bad stuff wouldn't disappear, but it would be much reduced. In short, a fair and reasonable number for a cap is not a figure that all of the league's teams could afford. To me, 32 would be too low, and 65 would be too high. Somewhere in the 45 to 50 range would be appropriate and would have most of the desired effects. By the way, Montreal is not a small market team. Not by any standard.
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Nov 27, 2002 15:43:35 GMT -5
the owner's gave an inch and the player's have taken miles. Somehow the role needs to be reversed if the player's give up an inch the owner's can start clawing back the insanity that they created in the first place. I hate talking money and hockey what used to be a great game where everyone had a shot at winning through good management now is just a mockery of itself so many player's are not in it for the game anymore and a whole nation of children and parent's are playing the game because of money matter's. when i was a kid you very rarely heard a parent tell a kid to play hard someday you'll make lots of money nowaday's i hear that too often. What a mess
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 27, 2002 16:23:54 GMT -5
the owner's gave an inch and the player's have taken miles. Somehow the role needs to be reversed if the player's give up an inch the owner's can start clawing back the insanity that they created in the first place. You know, Viper, it's squarely on the shoulders of management. No one has ever put a gun to anybody's head and said "pay that mediocre guy 5.5 milliion a year". They do it of their own free will. Then some of them lie through their teeth about how much they're making or losing, and cook the books in various ways. The owners are the ones who can't get their sh*t together and come up with a plan for the game's future that makes sense for most of the teams and most of the fans. And in the end, the fans are responsible for never saying "enough". Everytime we drink the beer, buy the $35 caps or watch a game on TV, we contribute to the process by which the game moves farther down the road that takes it away from its truest fans. In a way, the whole thing has nothing to do with real people anymore: the owners are millionaires, the players are millionaires, and the guys who sit and watch them play live (the way the game really needs to be watched) are millionaires or at least connected to banks and law firms. Regular folks just watch from afar. So you can be sure of one thing, no matter what the players and owners agree to down the road, the NHL game will continue to recede from the heartland and the people who love it most. It will seem more and more like Hollywood, and that won't be a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Nov 27, 2002 16:24:52 GMT -5
$ 32 million is never gonna happen IMO the league has gone far above that figure. They have dug themselves such a deep hole it will be difficult to get out of it. Where you place a cap I don't know but regardlews not every team is gointgto be able to spend the full amount unless the NHL can come up with a solution much like the NFL where all the teams through complete revnue sharing can cover the salaries. The problem there is the NHL will never get a billion dollar TV deal.This league is gate driven and unfortunately the owners who created this mess never had the foresight. The day may come where they will have to contract some teams plain and simple. I say the hell with the US bring the Cup to Canada and we can put together our own 12 team league with all the revenues in $$ Can. BC you are probably right about the NHl not being able to pass their own resolution to this problem something I'm sure the NHLPA is counting on. HFTO
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Nov 27, 2002 16:45:01 GMT -5
You know, Viper, it's squarely on the shoulders of management. No one has ever put a gun to anybody's head and said "pay that mediocre guy 5.5 milliion a year". They do it of their own free will. Then some of them lie through their teeth about how much they're making or losing, and cook the books in various ways. The owners are the ones who can't get their sh*t together and come up with a plan for the game's future that makes sense for most of the teams and most of the fans. And in the end, the fans are responsible for never saying "enough". Everytime we drink the beer, buy the $35 caps or watch a game on TV, we contribute to the process by which the game moves farther down the road that takes it away from its truest fans. In a way, the whole thing has nothing to do with real people anymore: the owners are millionaires, the players are millionaires, and the guys who sit and watch them play live (the way the game really needs to be watched) are millionaires or at least connected to banks and law firms. Regular folks just watch from afar. So you can be sure of one thing, no matter what the players and owners agree to down the road, the NHL game will continue to recede from the heartland and the people who love it most. It will seem more and more like Hollywood, and that won't be a coincidence. I miss our game
|
|
|
Post by mrhand on Nov 27, 2002 18:06:48 GMT -5
I think that the best way to go about leveling the playing field is to not only introduce a team salary cap but also a player salary cap. This could be done in the same manner as in the nba where players are only elgible to make a certain amount with veterans being allowed to make more. an example of how this would work is this: rookie: 650 000 2 year: 700 000 3 year: 900 000 4 year:1 250 000 5 year:2 500 000 6 year:3 500 000 7 year:4 500 000 8 year:5 500 000 9 year:6 300 000 10 year:6 750 000 11 year+:7 500 000 Therefore small market teams would be able to retain their stars at a reasonable price for at least 8 years. A hard cap should be implemented along with this in order to keep teams from filling up their rosters with expensive players. The cap should be set at about 42 million. In exchange for this concession the players could achieve UFA status after 8 yrs.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 27, 2002 18:13:56 GMT -5
I think that the best way to go about leveling the playing field is to not only introduce a team salary cap but also a player salary cap. This could be done in the same manner as in the nba where players are only elgible to make a certain amount with veterans being allowed to make more. an example of how this would work is this: rookie: 650 000 2 year: 700 000 3 year: 900 000 4 year:1 250 000 5 year:2 500 000 6 year:3 500 000 7 year:4 500 000 8 year:5 500 000 9 year:6 300 000 10 year:6 750 000 11 year+:7 500 000 Therefore small market teams would be able to retain their stars at a reasonable price for at least 8 years. A hard cap should be implemented along with this in order to keep teams from filling up their rosters with expensive players. The cap should be set at about 42 million. In exchange for this concession the players could achieve UFA status after 8 yrs. Players will never agree to it and I wouldn't blame them: Careers can be very, very short in this business. If I'm an outstanding player after 3 years, and my GM wants to tie me up for 4 years, I shouldn't be subject to a ceiling for what I can be paid. A rookie cap is a very limited exception to this general rule. The cap is a way of forcing teams to be more fiscally responsible, it is not intended to limit what a particular player can make.
|
|
|
Post by mrhand on Nov 27, 2002 18:34:03 GMT -5
They agreed to it in the NBA. Like I said, that is just a guide the real figures would probably be higher. I guess that there would also have to be clauses that ensured that player salaries would inflate as league revenues inflate. While I admit that the players would be reluctant to sign such a CBA but if the NHL is serious about the lockout then this plan is at least slightly possible.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 27, 2002 21:11:06 GMT -5
Lets see if we could do some math.
According to The Hockey News Bucks and Pucks issue. 1) NY Rangers: $69,177,085 2) Detroit: $68,005,506 3) St. Louis: $63,100,000 4) Dallas: $61,685,169 5) Colorado: $60,070,926 6) Philadelphia: $56,045,833 7) Toronto: $54,329,200 8) New Jersey: $52,372,626 9) Washington: $50,677,458 10) Montreal: $48,647,360 11) San Jose: $47,760,000 12) Chicago: $44,525,000 13) Phoenix: $44,341,775 14) Los Angeles: $43,317,434 15) NY Islanders: $41,690,935 16) Carolina: $39,198,787 17) Anaheim: $39,004,500 18) Boston: $37,325,00 19) Calgary: $33,272,500 20) Florida: $32,743,000 21) Vancouver: $31,825,000 22) Pittsburgh: $31,159,500 23) Buffalo: $31,079,166 24) Edmonton: $30,931,100 25) Ottawa: $30,315,000 26) Tampa Bay: $28,585,439 27) Columbus: $28,212,500 28) Atlanta: $25,985,000 29) Nashville: $25,242,500 30) Minnesota: $20,491,250
So here is a “penalty” based solution. Much more palatable to rich (and stupid) owners. 10% between 40 and 50 20% between 50 and 60 50% above 60
Benefit for 40 million and under. under 40----30% to a maximum of 5 million
Example: 1) NY Rangers: $69,177,085 1 million for between 40 and 50 2 million between 50 and 60 4.5 million above 60 (-7.5 million) penalty.
2) Detroit: $68,005,506…..(-7.0 million) 3) St. Louis: $63,100,000…..(-4.5 million) 4) Dallas: $61,685,169…….(-3.8 million) 5) Colorado: $60,070,926…(-3.0 million) 6) Philadelphia: $56,045,833……(-2.2 million ) 7) Toronto: $54,329,200….…( -1.8 million) 8) New Jersey: $52,372,626….…(-1.4 million ) 9) Washington: $50,677,458….…(- 1 million) 10) Montreal: $48,647,360….…( -0.86 million) 11) San Jose: $47,760,000….…( -0.77 million) 12) Chicago: $44,525,000….…(-0.45 million ) 13) Phoenix: $44,341,775….…(-0.45 million ) 14) Los Angeles: $43,317,434….…( -0.33 million) 15) NY Islanders: $41,690,935….…( -0.16 million) …………………………………Collected: 35.2 million
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Target payroll = 40 million ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
30% for anything under 40 million
16) Carolina: $39,198,787….…(+0.24 million ) 17) Anaheim: $39,004,500….…( +0.30 million) 18) Boston: $37,325,00….…( +0.80 million) 19) Calgary: $33,272,500….…( +2.04 million) 20) Florida: $32,743,000….…( +2.19 million) 21) Vancouver: $31,825,000….…( +2.46 million) 22) Pittsburgh: $31,159,500….…(+2.67 million ) 23) Buffalo: $31,079,166….…(+2.68 million) 24) Edmonton: $30,931,100….…(+2.73 million ) 25) Ottawa: $30,315,000….…(2.91 million ) 26) Tampa Bay: $28,585,439….…(+3.45 million) 27) Columbus: $28,212,500….…(+3.54 million ) 28) Atlanta: $25,985,000….…(+4.20 million ) 29) Nashville: $25,242,500….…(+4.44 million) 30) Minnesota: $20,491,250….…(+5.00 million ) ............................amount paid out 39.7 million
The first few years the plan would run into a deficit but that can be adjusted by the mill rate.
This sliding scale will be very expensive when you start to get into very large numbers. Example is that if the payroll hits 90 million there will be 18 million in "taxation". On the other hand it does not limit the idiot owners from spending their brains out.
The bottom is capped. You don't want to have an NHL franchise in Walla Walla, Texas.
The biggest effect is in the top 4 or 5 spenders. Coincidently, they are the ones that blow the salary structure to hell.
This has a dampening effect on salaries but it does not curtail the superstar salaries. On the other hand, Holik type signings will cost 14 to 15 million dollars, including "taxation".
The parity clause for Canadien teams still in effect.
This could be sold legally under the "parity" banner. A hard cap can be taken to court as "collusion" to keep salaries down. On the other hand, so can this but it's more palatable.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 27, 2002 21:12:32 GMT -5
I guarantee you some teams will go well over that cap and pay the taxes...the Rangers come to mind. Stars as well. Maybe even us and the Leafs.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 27, 2002 21:17:32 GMT -5
I'm really not that familiar with the NBA set-up, but the fact that Sacramento and Toronto were able to keep Webber and Carter, respectively, certainly suggests that it's paying some dividends. There are probably a lot of ways (combinations of cap and tax for example) to have the desired effect, and you're probably right that in principle, some sort of limits could be agreed to. One thing's for sure, though, and it's that the players will be tough bargaining partners. First the owners need to get on the same page, and then they have to hang tough with Goodenow. Bettman is certainly talking tough -- having already come out and said that they'll do whatever's necessary in order to make sure that the smaller market and canadian franchises can be operated other than in the red....
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 27, 2002 21:18:13 GMT -5
I guarantee you some teams will go well over that cap and pay the taxes...the Rangers come to mind. Stars as well. Maybe even us and the Leafs. That's fine. Stupidity has not limits. All the other teams will be laughing their heads off and enjoying their (or our) money. It serves as a deterence and a benefit to the lower income teams. The other thing, the higher money you pay in taxation, the more you benefit the other teams. Strangely logical but expensive.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 27, 2002 21:20:23 GMT -5
Damn the Wild's team salary is 20M? Wow that's impressive. Boston, Ottawa, Vancover are all getting a great return for their money. Poor NYR, spend spend spend, it's got to get a playoff round sooner or later. Maybe they should stop buying big money players, and try buying off the refs instead.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 27, 2002 21:21:14 GMT -5
They did last March against us at MSG. F'in McGough
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 27, 2002 22:29:07 GMT -5
Damn the Wild's team salary is 20M? Wow that's impressive. The wild spent their money wisely...on a coach.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Nov 28, 2002 18:28:55 GMT -5
Company...... part of my reply has already been posted by others, so I won't repeat those parts... but for one, a 50 mil cap is not the only part of the CBA that would change. Things like the Canadian Economic Assistance Plan, some limited revenue sharing, different programs, there are a number of other things that can be done to help the struggling teams. Part of the 50 mil cap, as someone else touched upon I believe, is that by capping the amount that the high-bidding teams usually pay, you are taking away a market that stars from lower-bidding teams would normally look to to get a big payday. By simply not having teams like NYR, NJ or TOR be willing to pay a guy like Holik 9 mil, his market value will be forced to fall more in line with that which a greater number of teams could afford.
Another point we should consider is that the cap should not be looking to "save teams" so much as "help teams" compete. Frankly, if you're franchise can't even afford a 30 mil dollar payroll maybe you shouldn't have a franchise. This is still a business, and you're only as strong as you're weakest link.
Also...... HabsAddict, I totally disagree with your proposed system of fining teams over and rewarding teams under. Well, not totally.... teams over should be fined, but they should NEVER EVER EVER reward teams for not spending. In fact, I also think they should institute a base cap which you would have to spend over, something like 25 mil or whatever, but no teams should be rewarded for not spending. It only gives further incentives for "fiscally prudent" owners to put a big ol' clamp on their butts and not provide the best on-ice product they can. To me, it makes much less sense to reward teams that don't try to win than to fine teams that do, even if they overspend.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 28, 2002 18:52:15 GMT -5
Also...... HabsAddict, I totally disagree with your proposed system of fining teams over and rewarding teams under. Well, not totally.... teams over should be fined, but they should NEVER EVER EVER reward teams for not spending. In fact, I also think they should institute a base cap which you would have to spend over, something like 25 mil or whatever, but no teams should be rewarded for not spending. It only gives further incentives for "fiscally prudent" owners to put a big ol' clamp on their butts and not provide the best on-ice product they can. To me, it makes much less sense to reward teams that don't try to win than to fine teams that do, even if they overspend. And what is wrong with that? If a team can be competitive with a 25 million dollar payroll then so much rthe better for them. In fact, it givews an incentive NOT to hiire expensive mercenaries. Example: If you are the Rangers and Savage is availabe for 3 million but he will cost you 4.5 million, would you hire him? Now another team that gets 5 million in subsidies has that 3 million to help them hire someone like Salvage. Salvage is not the best example because he suck lemon but you get the drift. This system rewards prudence and deflates salaries. I LIKE THAT.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 28, 2002 18:57:35 GMT -5
And what is wrong with that? If a team can be competitive with a 25 million dollar payroll then so much rthe better for them. In fact, it givews an incentive NOT to hiire expensive mercenaries. Example: If you are the Rangers and Savge is availabe for 3 million but he will cost you 4.5 million, would you hire him? Mpw anptjher team that gets 5 million in subsidies has that 3 million to help them hire someone like Salvage. Salvage is not the best example because he suck lemon but you get the drift. This system rewards prudence and deflates salaries. I LIKE THAT. I agree a system that rewards smart spending is good. Thats all I got to say about that. ;D
|
|
|
Post by GoMtl on Nov 28, 2002 19:00:52 GMT -5
i agree with having a salary cap and hope the players association will accept one. as for how high it should be, i'm not quite sure but somewhere around 40 million would be ok i think. i think it might help the habs, instead of making big free agent signings, teams would have to work more from within their systems, and our prospects are among the top in the league as a whole. a problem that could occur: ((thinking as if caps were introduced next season)) we would be stuck with guys like audette and mckay making over 1/8 of the payroll and doing squat for us, and no team would be able to afford to take them off our hands. lets just hope AS doesn't sign anymore long term big money deals, or it could be even harder to make the trades needed to improve the team if things don't work out.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 28, 2002 19:02:41 GMT -5
I agree a system that rewards smart spending is good. Thats all I got to say about that. ;D Wait until you see what I can do with the world economy........... I am always surprised how a team like the Rangers pisss away money. Forthe cost of one Bury they can have two farm teams and a dozen scouts scouring the planet.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 28, 2002 19:06:29 GMT -5
Wait until you see what I can do with the world economy........... I am always surprised how a team like the Rangers pisss away money. Forthe cost of one Bury they can have two farm teams and a dozen scouts scouring the planet. And I am just as surprised that Glen Slather can miss the playoffs and have sub .500 teams for the last 6-8 years and still have a job. Talk about job security. He keeps doing a crappy job, and the rangers just keep spending more money. Make sense to me. Montreal, you have a pm (mail) HA
|
|