new CBA proposal

[simonus]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=10...580&hubName=nhl

What do y'all think about the players' proposal. I guess I have shown conclusively over the last few months that I am (uniquely) on the PA's side, but I really think this is a shocking proposal. This is a huge concession by the players. I personally think they overstated the 24% rollback to offset a weaker than desired luxury tax. If the NHL is really going to bargain on this proposal, I could see that 24% becoming 15-20% and see the luxury threshold lowered to $40 mil and the luxury tax have an extend its curve to $1 per dollar(the curve extension is almost meaningless beause so few teams would get there) and perhaps increase the starting point to 25 - 30 cents.

I've looked at some other boards and people seem to think this is a bullshit proposal from the PA. Do you agree?

[Edited on 2004-12-29 by sakiqc]

[GoHabs2002]

The NHLPA took alot of heat for their refusal to acknowldege a destructive financial environment, but yesterday, they not only acknowledged it, but they have given the owners the opportunity to right their own ship.

The players have said all along that it should be up to the owners, and not the players, to right their own businesses. And now, they have given the league a restart.

The owners have said all along that they want to create a partnership with the union to move forward, but refused to initiate communication for 3 months. They wanted acknowldegement first, and well they won that battle.

But now, there is no reason for a deal not to be made. The owners cannot throw a cap at them. The owners wanted a 53% player share, well now they have a 52% share (76-24). Obviously, Bettman and the 20 or so not-filthy rich clubs are worried that the Detroits, Rangers and LEafs will take these savings and blow any tax system out of the water within a week upon the last t being crossed, with the marquee talent available. So they will probably address that concern with a cap of some sort.

I don't necessarily belieive a cap would be the best. A linkage would be the best situation for every league. A cap does not equal a linkage.

If i were the league, I'd offer

a 1.50 tax per dollar over 40m and a 2 dollar tax per dollar over 50m.

60% qualifying offers for 6 year or less vets, 75% for every other player,

team-initated arbitration twice per career, but once per team for a player.

keep the entry-level offer as is, and

give the players unrestricted free agency after 10 years.

If the players don't like it, then i'd even scroll back the rollback to 15-20%.

Have the revenue sharing plan that the PA proposed.

And lastly, I would propose that total league-wide player compensation in a season not fall out of the range of 55%-60%. If it does, the losing side gets a reimbursement. BUT NO LIMIT ON INDIVIDUAL TEAM SPENDING. ONLY A LIMIT ON TOTAL LEAGUE SPENDING. Teams who are constantly responsible for the compensation surpassing 60% will be punished by not be a part of the reimbursement and pre-determined fine.

The key, I think, is for the NHL to build from this proposal. Obviously the PA doesn't believe they'll get the tax level they proposed. It's a bottom offer, hoping the league will see this as room for the negotiation. I hope the league bites. Because this is a good deal. The sytem will be changed, with obvious consequences for paying high salaries and the specific elements in the system will be designed to stop the automatic inflations from the expiry of the contracts.

10 years ago the league entered into real sports business for the first time. TV deals, sponsor deals and record attendance showed they were going up, but the league, the owners, the gm's and even the union handled the industry expansion horribly badly.

IF they learned from the mistakes, then they can have this system work for both sides. SO Gary and Bob, time to sign :contract:

If they can get the deal done before the new year, jan. 13th could be the first regular season day, to end later in april (17th) 94 days to complete 46 games (4 per division rival, 3 per conference rivals). Playoffs will end in mid-june, but we've done that before, this will be a good cause.

I can't wait for NHL on NBC!!

[Zowpeb]

It's a proposal that, IMO, has been made for the sole purpose of making the owners look bad in the media if they say no...

The players know full well that the current system allows high revenue teams to out bid small market teams. In 3 years, with this system, payrolls will be as high as they are now. So really, what's the point for the owners?

There may be a number of other facets to the offer that we don't yet know everything about which could answer those issues but I doubt it. I'm not sold on luxury taxes...unless they are very severe they are meaningless. A high revenue team that goes over by 10 million and gets penalized dollar for dollar only gives the other teams in the league $333,333...which is peanuts(really it just pays for one of the worst players on the team to sit in the press box). The PA will complain about any tax that is too severe because they'll whine about it essentially being a cap. I have heard that the PA is offering owners the ability to go to arbitration rather then just the players calling for it...but really, what's the big deal about that? They've also lowered the salaries for rookies and prospects which were ridiculous in the extreme before...so it's an easy give for the PA. The salary rollback is just a media ploy IMO.

In the end I believe that the owners almost have stick to their guns on a cap. The NHLPA knows this and can offer the world in every other facet knowing that owners will likely turn it down and thus look bad in the face of the media and fans. Without a system that will help the league maintain it's health long term offers like this will only prolong the inevitable.

Also, it should be noted that a 24% role back in salaries does not get to the 52% level from 76%. Basic math guys...

If your payroll is 50,000,000 a year then 24% of that is 12 million. That would roll back salaries to 38,000,000. If we can assume that the 50m payroll was 76% of revenue then total revenue was 65.79m. Therefore the payroll to revenue ratio is 57.76%...which is close to what the owners want but it's not as easy as just saying 76%-24%=52%.

[Habs77]

The 24% rollback is not as impressive as it sounds.

Not only is it a one-time occurence that does nothing to solve the systemic problems... but it's not even a true 24% in savings for the teams.

I say this because the NHLPA proposal includes, if I'm not mistaken, a reduction of the number of games from 82 to 70.

That's 14.6% less games, so 14.6% less gate revenues for the teams.... so a 14.6% in salary reduction is needed just to maintain the status quo.

The NHLPA is offering 24%... in effect only 10% in actually savings for the teams.

Which is what the NHLPA had been rumored to be willing to give up in the first place.

Classic PR the whole way around.

In the end the level of the luxury tax & at what level it kicks in is the key... and on that point the NHLPA's latest offer is ridiculously inadequate.

[Leafs Suck]

The rollback sounds good but it's hollow.

Goodenow knows their are 100+ free agents left out there, including Kariya, Murray and other guys who will drive a huge price. So basically nothing will be solved.

[puck7x]

I agree that the rollback is meaningless. Its just a PR move to make the NHLPA look like the good guys.

Plus what is the point of offering a 20% luxary tax? Do you think the rich teams care about spending an extra 20% on every dollar over 40 million? I think not...

The tax has to be at least 100%, dollar for dollar.

[habsfan88]

I don't understand the greedy players. Okay, you'll loose money with the 24% rollback, but even if you were playing for 1 million a year (which isnt alot for most nhl players) you'd still be filthy rich...so guys who are making 7-8 mil are going down to like...5 mil (just an estimate), wow...ur loosing a couple million but ur still a rich bastard! stop being greedy!! lol

[Leafs Suck]

The union can now blame Bettman if the season is lost. If I were Bettman, I'd counter-offer a hard cap and once the PA rejects it, I'd hold a press conference and claim they're the reason the season is lost.

[Habs77]

Here's a reply I made to someone on another board... regarding what system the NHL should adopt:

>MLB has

>luruxy tax and their problems only

>got worse.  

The problem with MLB is not the luxury tax system, but the low amount of the tax and the ridiculously high level at which it kicks in.

They chose a good system, then took out all the "teeth" out of that system.

It's like buying a rottweiler dog for protection, then removing his teeth.

Good strong dog, but without teeth... quite ineffective. That's MLB.

>Soft caps exist in

>the NBA and we can all see

>where that leads as well.  

The NBA is a floating hard cap if I'm not mistaken, not a soft cap per say.  

It's a hard cap that is determined based on a percentage of revenues.

There is no luxury tax.

As for where it has lead, as with most hard caps they've found ways around it.. I just read today that only 2 teams actually comply with the cap completely.

And that type of floating hard cap is hard to manage... hard to sign long-term deals when you don't what level the cap will be in 5 years.

>league with the hard cap (the

>NFL) is also, not

>coincidentally, the most

>healthy of all pro sports

>leagues.

It does have a hard cap, but it's NOTHING like the system the NHL is fighting for.

First off, the NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts... major difference.

Secondly, the NFL has a massive TV-deal which they use for revenue sharing that sets all the teams on a quasi-equal playing field.

The NHL would have neither in their proposed cap... so don't expect the same results.

>If a hard cap doesn't

>represent the best option for

>the NHL I don't know what

>system is better.

Instead of looking to adopt one of the other league's systems... the NHL needs to come up with one that meets it's specific needs and deals with it's specific issues.

Sure, learn from the other systems, where they fell short.. etc

But come up with your own.

- The MLB taught us a luxury tax is meaningless if it's not at a sufficient level.

- The NFL taught us revenue sharing is the key to keeping all teams competitive.  

It has the perfect option to share massive TV revenues, the NHL doesn't... so it has to share the wealth some other way.

The luxury tax is the answer.

A punitive enough luxury tax acts like "hard cap/revenue sharing" hybrid.

Without the headache of actually trying to enforce a hard cap, which is virtually impossible... loopholes always emerge.

>And I am also quite leery of

>revenue sharing. It sounds

>good on paper, but it assumes

>that every team is interested

>in winning and will

>automatically put that money

>into building a better team.

That's why you set a "floor" payroll under which a team is not eligible to receive their share of the luxury tax revenue.

That way they have an incentive to spend.

>My greatest fear is that the

>Habs become one of the teams

>that relies on revenue sharing

>to make ends meet. If that

>ever happens, they'll never

>even try to win anymore

>because they'll be addicted to

>that money like some kind of

>junkie.

The Habs are not one of the have-nots in this league... they'll spend as much as they can without going in the red.

Gainey is not the type to just "not even try anymore", neither is Gillett btw... and neither are Montreal fans.

- What it will do is bring the NYR, COL, DET, DAL, STL, PHI, TO... down a notch.

Payrolls in the 50s instead of 60s-70s.

- Bring the lower end payrolls up from the 20s & 30s to the high 30s or 40s.

- For teams neither insanely rich nor poor, it won't change much in their payroll... the Habs would be in this group IMO.

The result of that shift would be that Montreal remains the same, and the rich teams come down a notch... so in effect we're that much closer to competing for the Cup.

In the end there is no perfect system... but IMO the one I'm talking about is the best for the NHL, at this point & time anyway.

Along with that luxury tax system the league would have to obtain other concessions from the NHLPA.

Goodenow is willing to give up token roll-back offers, but when it comes to systemic measures that would reign in salaries... he balks every time.

One key systemic measure the NHL would need is an ability to make qualifying offers lower than what the player is making without losing his rights.

That would be one of those systemic measures Goody wouldn't be keen to give up... in fact I think it would be one of the hardest to get.

The hardest would be getting him to give up guaranteed contracts... but the NHL doesn't need that to make things work.

The easier ones would be upping the luxury tax penalty & lowering the level at which it kicks in, moving towards 2-way arbitration, entry-level limits, lowering the cost of buyouts...

[Edited on 11-12-04 by Habs77]

[simonus]

right on habs77... i don't really like the idea of unguaranteed contracts, a player is just as bound by a contract as a team. Why should teams be able to fire a player if he can't quit? People often point out that a player can retire, but that really isnt equivilent - if a player is under contract he cannot work anywhere else, it seems unfair that a contract is not binding for owners.

While I agree that the 24% rollback is not a systematic change in NHL bussiness structure, it is not nothing, it would represent very large immediate savings for all teams... personally I would rather see the top-tier players give back more and the journeymen give less (I'm a firm believer in graduated taxes)... but they're pretty much all millionaires so I'm not crying for anybody.

The luxury tax that the pa offered is probably weaker than it ought to be.... i dont think the pa would go for a dollar for dollar tax, maybe 80 cents (which is still very significant) and starting at $40mil. One thing that might be interesting to look into would be higher taxes for repeat offenders. Rangers - you want a 70 mill payroll? fine, every year we raise your luxury tax by 5%. Frankly if after five years the rangers are willing to revenue share 31.5 million dollars, more power to the idiots.

There could also be a soft-cap luxury tax with a very high hard cap above it. Soft-cap =55% league revenue per team, hard cap = 65%, lux tax in between.

Dunno, just tossing some shit around.

[Habs77]

Originally posted by simonus

While I agree that the 24% rollback is not a systematic change in NHL bussiness structure, it is not nothing, it would represent very large immediate savings for all teams... personally I would rather see the top-tier players give back more and the journeymen give less (I'm a firm believer in graduated taxes)... but they're pretty much all millionaires so I'm not crying for anybody.

No you're right it's not nothing... but if it's not accompanied by systemic changes that will prevent the salaries from coming right back up, then this whole lockout will have been for nothing.

The NHL has said that nothing short of a long-term solution will lead to an agreement... and the NHLPA fell well short of that.

That said... the NHL has to abandon this hard cap or nothing stance, get those other concessions I mentionned in exchange for forgetting the hard cap and you have yourself something both sides can live with.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think people realize just how important Tuesday will be... it's the most important day in hockey that will affect it for years to come.

If the NHL decides to forget the hard cap and negotiate off of the latest NHLPA offer.... an agreement can be made and we'll have a season.

If the NHL decides they still need cost certainty, then there will be no season, next year the league will declare an impasse.... enter scab players and eventually a dissolution of the NHLPA.

The NHLPA and their players could decide to try and start a new rival league... things could get ugly for quite some time.

The NHL can't forget cost-certainty, negotiate... not come to a final agreement, and THEN try to declare an impasse.

It wouldn't fly.

That's why Tuesday is the turning point, it'll tell us what we can expect for the NHL in the coming years.

[puck7x]

Originally posted by Habs77

If the NHL decides they still need cost certainty, then there will be no season, next year the league will declare an impasse.... enter scab players and eventually a dissolution of the NHLPA.

The NHLPA and their players could decide to try and start a new rival league... things could get ugly for quite some time.

I am not worried if this happens. Where are the NHLPA'ers going to play? Minor league cities? Minor league arenas? NHL teams usually also own their arenas, and they sure as hell arent going to let a league of NHLPA players play in it.

The WHA couldnt even get off the ground, I doubt an NHLPA league could do better, and good luck getting any fan support, the fans are pretty upset with the players right now (although less then before the 24% concession) .

If the NHL declares an impasse and brings in scabs I beleive the union will eventually break and players will cross the line.

[simonus]

I really dont see the NHLPA starting their own league. The WHA might actually start playing games eventually under that new ownership.... who knows.

i doubt a rival league would overtake the NHL in popularity, but it would force the NHL to compete for certain players are thusly moderate their position on some labour issues. I dont know if this would be a good or bad thing.

The 24% is obviously insufficient to fix hockey, some sort of luxury tax/revenue sharing system needs to be in place... they also just need more money in the sports, somehow get it more popular. The other leagues are able to cover up flaws and inneficiencies under barrels of money, the NHL can't.

[Habs77]

I said "could decide".... I don't believe there is a chance in hell that the players could start their own league here.

As you said, for staters in what arenas would they play?

But that idea has been circulating... so I mentionned it even if it's more of an empty threat.

Worse comes worse, and I mean if things get as ugly as they can get which I doubt... the best players would probably opt to play where the money is: in Europe as they're doing now.

Hell for the European players it would almost be a welcomed change.

As for the rest who can't find a gig in Europe, well things wouldn't be as rosy... they could sign with WHA or AHL teams I guess but I can't see how that would be preferable to playing in the NHL with a cap.

At the end of the day if both sides decide to take it to the very end... the owners win.

I'm more worried about what will be left after they have.

If you want to be the ultimate optimist... the lockout could turn out to be the best thing that could happen to the league even if it gets really ugly:

- there is no 04-05 season

- in 05-06 they declare an impasse and use replacement players

- NHLPA is dissolved, owners establish the system they want to fix their financial woes

- Players eventually come back with their tails between their legs

- The long lockout kills a few of the weakest franchises, good riddance

- the league is so desperate to win back it's fans it really goes all out to improve the game and it's entertainment value... take radical steps to curtail trapping (like enforcing the rulebook for real finally) and adopting the shootout during the regular season

- The players playing in Europe during the lockout sets a precedent for an NHL presence in Europe... which could eventually be expanded to the implementation of a "european conference" in the NHL.

- By doing so the NHL finds the TV money it's been so desperate for... and hockey finally goes to cities where there is actually fan interest for the sport.

Everyone lives happily ever after.

It could happen... you never know.

[Edited on 12-12-04 by Habs77]

[ryder_rocks]

A 24% rollback should breed a working system, with maybe better values in luxury tax revenue sharing. Shame on the PA if this was a PR move (why does it matter what the public thinks anyway? we aren't involved in this process), but its a good offer IMHO. Like somebody on TSN said last week, a monkey could probably work with this and make money.

One thing that bugs me about this whole thing is the NHL's position that it needs long-term, systemic changes. A collective bargaining agreement is never permanent. This particular offer is for 6 years. Bargain that number down if you think the league will be worse off before then. If things are still bad when it expires, get more money back and toughen the tax and revenue sharing.

If the PA is not going to take linkage, theres no reason why the league just can't work harder at maintaining the current system.

[Zowpeb]

Ah hell...just implement a system where each player is only guaranteed 500,000 a year and let incentives work out the rest. In case of injury pay them an average of their last 3 years...

Incentives structure would be set by the league and could be set up so that the top player earns up to 8 million a year. Since no team has more then a couple guys at that level and most fall well short we'd see players paid fairly for performance and salaries would be manageable. They would definitely need to keep better track of a lot of stats though...lol.

Done and done.

There are SO many ways they could solve their dispute if they get creative.

They really just need a way to better share revenues to curtail the top 6-7 revenue teams from outspending the bottom 6-7.

I keep hearing from people on the players side that it's owners fault for overspending. That the current system would work if they spent properly within the current CBA. It's not "their fault" owners throw money at them, etc. If they really believe that then they should be all for ownership simply sharing more revenues to balance out what each team can afford to spend. Of course, then we'd be less likely to see teams like the Rags signing 8 guys to ridiculous contracts...thus allowing arbiters to continue jacking up salaries stupidly.

Really, if they'd been talking and serious about a deal they'd have had something done 1 year ago.

[simonus]

hard caps are silly and arbitrary... the reason why the nfl works so well is because they have multi-billion dollar tv contracts. In a perfect world teams would not get public funds to build their arenas, no special tax breaks, and if they lost enough money, they would go out of bussiness thereby lowering the overall demand for players, lowering the aggregate cost of doing bussiness and getting idiotic owners who overspend out of the system. Hard caps strike me as anti-capitalist and unamerican (or uncanadian).

In the absence of a perfect world, revenue sharing is the way to go, but there has to be a payroll floor to qualify, you don't want an LA clipper or Phoenix Cardinals in the NHL.

[Edited on 12/14/2004 by simonus]

[Zowpeb]

Hard caps are not anti-capitalist at all...don't let that line of thinking get in your head. Anyone who pushes this doesn't understand that pro sports is not the same as any other industry. You talk about revenue sharing making more sense but then say the cap only works for the NFL thanks to the t.v. deal. I'd say the revenue sharing only works in the NFL thanks to the t.v. deal. Without that t.v. deal and revenue sharing scheme there is no way a team like Green Bay could even fill it's salary cap.

In what other industry are the employees the product in the same manner as pro sports? Only theatre comes close...but the production, storyline, etc. carries that through as much or more then the actors. The teams are not "franchises" in the true sense of the word. The "product" is a result of the competition of these teams...therefore the owners need to be considered as much of a partnership as anything. Once that's understood, it only makes sense that they should all be on an equal playing field in terms of what they can spend on players AND what they have to spend through revenue sharing. At that point the league will be healthy and players will still be well paid in an open market that's only limitation is the upper end of TOTAL payroll per organization. I really fail to see how a $40-45 million hard cap negatively affects the players in any great way...when combined with some increased revenue sharing it would only serve to spread the player wealth around to other teams. There are a few guys who ARE overpaid who would probably see that end but the guys that deserve their pay will still get it. IMHO.

Hard caps do not have to by "arbitrary"...especially if they are tied to league revenues.

I think the NHL has finally realised that they need all the teams to be as competitive as possible to truly run a successful league. They finally realise that a successful league is as much a partnership as it is individual organizations competing.

[simonus]

I'd generally agree that everything in the nfl works because of the tv deal (i think i said something akin to that earlier)... the main problem with the nhl is not salary levels, caps, or sharing, it is revenue. Also roster size for its revenue, The NBA is much easier to operate because we're really talking about fielding 5 top active players and 5 or so true utility players.

I'd agree that the owners' parternship makes revenue sharing necessary, but the anti-labour collusion implied in a salary cap system is not reasonable. There is no right to profit, only the pursuit thereof. give the owners more equivilant tools, dont mandate their practices. We can only protect people so much from being idiots.

There is a general logic persistent throughout capitalism (and I dont care what industry) that a perpetually subsidized industry has little right to persist. Look at the old camaro plant in quebec - it was ridiculous. A temporary subsidy to allow a bussiness to upgrade equipment, reorganize, or get through a weak period can make sense (as american government has deemed with airline subsidies, although i oppose those as well). Because the plant was essentially unviable, the subsidy kept getting larger, the economics more inneficient until it was basically cheaper for quebec to pay for the resulting unemployment and welfare than the plant subsidy.

Both revenue sharing and the cap function as effective subsidies on ailing firms. I kinda support revenue sharing because the teams play each other, are dependant on each other's existance for success and product, but the cap is beyond the pale... see, its true that the habs benefit from the existance of the pittsburgh penguins, but much less so from the florida panthers.

The panthers are really an unprofitable franchise, they have nobody to sell their games to and people in other arenas dont particularly want to see them. They average 30th in road attendance. The habs wouldnt have done any worse to play any other team. While currently apparently unprofitable, the penguins have attracted attention in the past. However, through an uncooperative local government, poor moves, an aging superstar who plays few games but commands a huge salary, and a shitty arena have diminished their current profitability. the relatively small boost provided by NHL revenue sharing could right their ship.

It is essentially unwise bussiness to prop up flagging departments. People in phoenix, miami, and carolina dont care about hockey, probably wont care about hockey and dont put money into hockey. When their teams visit other cities, that city's attendance goes down. Better to let the league contract than have habs fans subsidize their operations or to have the habs fans be curtailed from reasonable local bussiness practices in order to be 'fair' to shitty franchises with negative visibility.

Another big problem with these limits is that hockey revenue is a very subjective term. Gillette pays himself to use the bell centre, so Levitt counts that as a cost... it aint a cost! its profit! concessions are revenue... not according to levitt. Even if a cap is tied to revenue, they'll spends month arguing over the meaning of the word and then the owners will spend years ing the players with innacurate and incomplete revenue summaries.

[Zowpeb]

Oh I agree that if any sort of cap system is in place the league needs to open it's books and properly define their revenues with the NHLPA...

I don't see how revenue sharing can fully work in the NHL. The t.v. deals aren't big enough to help the smaller market teams. If that means losing 4-6 teams then I'm all for it. As a result of the little money available for revenue sharing, and the continuing, and large, disparity between team payrolls means a cap is more effective.

I don't disagree with you that the NHL should be propping up franchises that are totally unprofitable...I mean, some of these teams would be losing 10 million a year even with revenue sharing AND a $35 million salary cap. They're lost causes...let'em sink.

However, a cap is not a subsidy. It's a way to make the "playing field" of free agency even. It means the Minnesota's of the world can actually keep their better players, sign guys they need, etc. It means league parity which will allow smaller markets to build and grow their fanbases in markets that are not traditional hockey markets. The result will be a more competitive league(hopefully with 4-6 less teams and even with smaller rosters)...that will eventually result in better t.v. deals which means increased revenue sharing and therefore a cap that rises faster.

I'd like to see:

1)Increased revenue sharing

2)A cap set at 56% of league revenue, including a max and minimum payroll...and properly defined revenues with open books. The cap will also NOT drop without NHLPA approval.

3)smaller roster sizes

4)a few less games a year

5)lose 4-6 teams: Nashville, Florida, Anaheim, Pittsburgh, Carolina, and possibly one of Columbus/Washington/Buffalo

The result of less teams and players means that player salaries won't really come down. The NHLPA has shown that these player/member losses are NOT an issue to them. The talent will be better spread out making for more competitive and exciting games. There will also be stronger rivalries with less teams. Let's the players keep their pay, owners get an even playing field for all teams, the league maintains it's health, competitiveness and can grow from this, fans get a better brand of hockey with more talent per team.

The organizations should be separated by their ability to manage, develop and draft players...not by their ability to buy talent.

[Habsfan21]

Probably the most amazing part to me is the utter disregard for the intrest loss. I mean, they do treat the fans like crap (Nowhere near baseball levels in my mind, but it's close), but what's even more shocking is the sheer apathy. I mean, around here, the Bolts won the freaking Cup, and there's bumperstickers, licence plates, et al.; there was also the assurance that every game would be sold out because of season ticket buys. Now? Nobody's even sad about it, or angry. They just lost the intrest to the Buccanneers. Even when I was home in November, there was a bit of anger, but not near the level there was at, say, the "imminent" baseball strike.

I just get the picture in my head of Bettman and Goodenow fighting over a vase when the house is burning down around them.

[Edited on 2004/12/20 by Habsfan21]