Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

NHLPA memo: the lockout is indeed a ‘cash grab’

Update: Macramalla offered a summation of the NHLPA's memo in article form on TSN.

If you haven't already read the CBC's Elliotte Friemdan's slightly mind-numbing but also incredibly necessary explanation of hockey-related revenues, you need to do so, because it provides excellent context for the following Tweets. Ottawa's Team 1200's resident sports lawyer, Eric Macramalla, reports that NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr sent a memo out to his players, suggesting that an NHL which the PA already believes shares only 51% of its HRR with players is engaging in exactly what those of us who support the PA have suggested:

A pay-to-play CBA that addresses absolutely none of the NHL's 30-team business model's problems, and instead demands a gigantic cash grab now and going forward, in addition to massive concessions in player mobility, for the simple sake of being afforded the luxury of playing NHL hockey sometime this season. Or put more bluntly: this entire lockout is about a cash grab by the owners, and is nothing more and nothing less than a cash grab.

You might argue that the NHLPA's memo is just as "irrelevant" a those 100,000+ pages of audited NHL books that the PA was presented with in late July--which represented the only way by which CBA negotiations could really "begin"--but I'd argue that the NHLPA's rationale here is rock solid.

Filed in: | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

redxblack's avatar

This lockout illustrates the need for an NHLPA. Way to go, management!

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 09/20/12 at 04:07 PM ET

Keyser S.'s avatar

No hockey? Fine by me.

Salary cap goes up every year due to the league making a profit and now they say reduce salaries? *cough*bullsheet*cough*

How about maybe a “lets keep salaries the same for awhile”.

What are these reality tv shows all about? Might be time to look for a new hobby.

Posted by Keyser S. on 09/20/12 at 04:11 PM ET

Avatar

Okay, so the NHL’s proposal was to lower salaries from 57% to 49, 48 and then 47.

The NHLPA’s proposal appears to be… 120 more million out of the overall kitty to go to struggling teams, which monies would then be used to pay for players.  And then players get 57% of what’s left.

Is this still all the owners fault?  Seems like there’s a reasonable deal to be made at 50-52% of HRR for players with an increase in profit sharing. 

Here’s the question, if Fehr came back with that offer do you think the NHL would take it?  I do.  There’s little value in locking out over 1% of HRR.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/20/12 at 04:15 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

I beg to differ HHD, the owners have all kinds of staff they have to pay for, all encompassing, so to say the players are going to get all of the money that’s used to subsidise struggling clubs is innaccurate by your own arguements, not to mentioned that that 57% isn’t of the WHOLE HRR pie.  The current HRR number isn’t actually all the revenue the league brings in, just from those areas the league has determined are “sharable”

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 09/20/12 at 04:25 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The NHLPA’s proposal appears to be… 120 more million out of the overall kitty to go to struggling teams, which monies would then be used to pay for players.  And then players get 57% of what’s left.

Wrong.

Revenue-sharing is a back-end process. Once that money is shared, there’s no “would then be used” portion that has anything to do with how much the players are paid.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/20/12 at 04:31 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Also, the NHLPA claims that with what is considered “Direct Costs” and “Benefits” by the current CBA, that the actual percentage of revenue they get right now is about 51%.

The NHL has so far proposed front-end redefinitions which take away from the 57%. 

If 57% up front turns out to equal 51% on the back end, then you can imagine why the players aren’t interested in moving the front-end definition to 47-49%.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/20/12 at 04:33 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

GREAT read btw, great read.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 09/20/12 at 04:51 PM ET

Red Winger's avatar

At this rate let’s not get greedy and hope there will be a season in 2012-2013, as right now the 2013-2014 season looks to be in jeopardy.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 09/20/12 at 05:38 PM ET

Avatar

I beg to differ HHD, the owners have all kinds of staff they have to pay for, all encompassing, so to say the players are going to get all of the money that’s used to subsidise struggling clubs is innaccurate by your own arguements

But the teams already pay their staffs.  Those are fixed costs.  What isn’t a fixed cost is player salaries.  That’s why there is a salary cap range.

Also, operational costs are dwarfed by player salary costs.  I bet you could ring up the staff payroll for a whole bunch of franchises and not add up to what their top paid player earns.  Heck, I’d bet player salaries account for 65-75% of total team operating expenses, although that’s just a total guess.

So, assuming I’m at least close there, I think that at the very least it’s fair to say the biggest expense will receive the majority of additional funds.  It’s not like all the hot dog sellers are all going to get 2 dollar an hour bumps in their pay, you know what I mean?

Revenue-sharing is a back-end process. Once that money is shared, there’s no “would then be used” portion that has anything to do with how much the players are paid.

Oh come on, JJ.  RS money is collected from teams.  RS money is disbursed to teams.  The teams who receive RS then disburse it internally according to need.  There is an interim between step 1 and step 2.  Regardless of how the accounting is handled, in terms of actual time flow RS is paid out in arrears to those teams who qualify, and those teams then budget that RS money into their upcoming season (unless in some cases like Phoenix where the NHL advanced struggling teams a portion of their RS share early to make payrolls).

Also, the NHLPA claims that with what is considered “Direct Costs” and “Benefits” by the current CBA, that the actual percentage of revenue they get right now is about 51%.

The NHL has so far proposed front-end redefinitions which take away from the 57%.

The phrase “the NHLPA claims” makes me less that assured of the veracity of the statement that follows.  I am similarly skeptical of accepting at face value whatever Bettman et al might suggest as given fact, as well.

IMO a big issue is determining what goes into the pot.  IIRC, however, the NHL tabled that issue and allowed the previous CBA’s definitions to carry forward, offered to go to 190 on RS, and was at whatever their percentages were.  Slightly south of 50, again IIRC.

What was the players response?  This is just my impression, but I don’t recall seeing the NHLPA come substantively off their current rate of 57%.  Given what the NHL proposed, if the NHLPA came back with 220 to RS and a HRR split of 51 or 52% to the players… doesn’t that get a deal get done?

I mean, what’s the best offer the NHLPA has put forward to date?  Essentially status quo, with more money into RS, which is a pot of money that’s going to go towards players salaries anyway.

 

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/20/12 at 06:37 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Oh come on, JJ.  RS money is collected from teams.  RS money is disbursed to teams.  The teams who receive RS then disburse it internally according to need.  There is an interim between step 1 and step 2.  Regardless of how the accounting is handled, in terms of actual time flow RS is paid out in arrears to those teams who qualify, and those teams then budget that RS money into their upcoming season (unless in some cases like Phoenix where the NHL advanced struggling teams a portion of their RS share early to make payrolls).

Part of the overall kitty is money taken back from the players in Escrow. You said

which monies would then be used to pay for players.  And then players get 57% of what’s left.

All the players have been paid their entire salary by the time revenue sharing dollars come. Even teams that have to either budget planning for that or even have to borrow against it. The money has already been counted by the time there’s “what’s left” to be considered.

IMO a big issue is determining what goes into the pot.  IIRC, however, the NHL tabled that issue and allowed the previous CBA’s definitions to carry forward, offered to go to 190 on RS, and was at whatever their percentages were.  Slightly south of 50, again IIRC.

Right, the NHLPA claims that even under old definitions, the real amount of dollars they got paid equated to 51%.  So the players said status quo. There is your 50-52% offer. The owners rejected this offer.  If you don’t believe the NHLPA’s math then fine, that’s the entire disconnect. You’re waiting for an offer they’ve already made by their definition.  Would they be objectively any less at fault in your eyes if they just front-end redefined everything to get to the same result?  The dollars would all still be exactly the same.

with more money into RS, which is a pot of money that’s going to go towards players salaries anyway.

Player pay is set by the applicable percentage, so any change to revenue sharing doesn’t change what the players are paid. The players’ proposal changes which teams’ responsibilities it is to pay that.

Essentially, the way it currently works is that the players are guaranteed 57% of revenues, but teams aren’t guaranteed to have to put 57% of their individual revenues to player salaries. The Maple Leafs bring in about $200M in revenues, but when all is said-and-done, the real accounting figure of what they pay to make sure the players get their share (their own salaries and what’s paid into RS) does not equal $110M.

Meanwhile, the lower-end teams are forced to pay the player salaries up front and then can be selectively disqualified from revenue sharing dollars by various means.  The leafs can end up paying 52% of revenues to the players’ pot, and the Coyotes can end up paying 65% of revenues to players (forced by the salary floor) and as long as the overall salary added up equals 57%, then the system is done.

The players’ proposal attempted to address that inequity more-severely than the owners’ proposal did. Asking for more revenue sharing dollars does not change how much they’re paid.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/20/12 at 07:04 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

HD, no

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 09/20/12 at 11:15 PM ET

Avatar

All the players have been paid their entire salary by the time revenue sharing dollars come. Even teams that have to either budget planning for that or even have to borrow against it. The money has already been counted by the time there’s “what’s left” to be considered.

Money collected in year x is paid out in year x + 1.  Escrow is only a net factor if player salaries exceed their portion of HRR, otherwise they receive escrow reimbursements as, I believe, they did from this past season.

I am not seeing what distinction you are trying to draw here.

Right, the NHLPA claims that even under old definitions, the real amount of dollars they got paid equated to 51%.  So the players said status quo. There is your 50-52% offer.

Again, ‘the NHLPA claims’ is not a precursor to what I would consider fact.  Neither would be ‘the NHL claims’.

The old CBA had the players share of HRR at 57%.  That’s a real number, not an ‘NHLPA claims’ or ‘NHL claims’ situation.  My position is that given previous definitions of HRR, a 50-50ish split is a totally fair point of accomodation, and I haven’t seen the players be willing to go anywhere near that.

The players’ proposal attempted to address that inequity more-severely than the owners’ proposal did. Asking for more revenue sharing dollars does not change how much they’re paid.

Of course it does.  I don’t understand why this issue is under debate.  As a general example, if a team is at a break even point with a 48 million dollar payroll under existing RS guidelines, a more lucrative RS program would push that break-even point higher by adding more to their revenue side while not changing their liability side.

Again, unless your suggestion is that teams who receive RS are just going to pocket the money as profits and leave team payrolls where they are, or that in-house organization staff will receive gigantic pay raises,  where else can 5-15 extra million dollars a year in money go, exactly?

That aside, I agree that the NHLPA’s idea of RS is more substantive than the NHL’s.  This is why I’ve apportioned (so far) a larger share of the ‘blame’ for the creation of this impasse to the NHL.

If, however, the NHLPA isn’t going to come substantively off of 57% of HRR under previous definitions, then they’ll need to assume a majority of the blame for the lockout continuing.  57% of HRR in a league where gate is at least half of revenue is an absurd disparity.

HD, no

So you think the NHL would lose a years worth of revenue over a difference of 2ish million bucks per year per team?

Give me a break.  That’s crazy talk.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/21/12 at 08:24 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Money collected in year x is paid out in year x + 1.  Escrow is only a net factor if player salaries exceed their portion of HRR, otherwise they receive escrow reimbursements as, I believe, they did from this past season.

I am not seeing what distinction you are trying to draw here.

Because escrow and revenue sharing are not the same thing.

Again, ‘the NHLPA claims’ is not a precursor to what I would consider fact.  Neither would be ‘the NHL claims’.

The old CBA had the players share of HRR at 57%.  That’s a real number, not an ‘NHLPA claims’ or ‘NHL claims’ situation.  My position is that given previous definitions of HRR, a 50-50ish split is a totally fair point of accomodation, and I haven’t seen the players be willing to go anywhere near that.

Not sure why the point of what I said had to be reworded without the question being addressed, but I guess I have my answer regardless. You’d feel better if they eliminated the “net of direct costs” language from the CBA and the players asked for what they’re already getting. It wouldn’t change the dollars one bit, but it would at least make you feel better.

You haven’t seen the players go near a 50/50 split because you don’t believe when they tell you the net of direct costs accomplishes that which they’re saying it does. They’re saying they’re standing directly where you want them to stand and you’re saying you don’t believe they’re standing there.

Of course it does.  I don’t understand why this issue is under debate.  As a general example, if a team is at a break even point with a 48 million dollar payroll under existing RS guidelines, a more lucrative RS program would push that break-even point higher by adding more to their revenue side while not changing their liability side.

So the problem is that you don’t understand how the revenue sharing system is set up and apparently believe that teams receive revenue sharing regardless of need and/or use… and that the salary cap isn’t built on projections for leaguewide revenue.

Here’s a handy primer:

If the Toronto Maple Leafs pay $5M into the revenue sharing pool and that money goes entirely to the Coyotes, the players make 57% of $3B ($1.71B).

If the Toronto Maple Leafs pay $40M into the revenue sharing pool and that money goes entirely to the Coyotes, the players make 57% of $3B ($1.71B).

This is what I meant about revenue sharing being a back-end process.  The Coyotes don’t go out and spend that money on player salaries, that money was already spent. It doesn’t change their break-even point, it’s designed to make sure they get to that point before the league gets to the magic number where they can say the sum total of all player commitments have met the sum total of revenues and if a team wasn’t made whole on the transaction of revenue sharing covering the salaries they were forced to pay by the floor, then that’s too bad for them.

This is the entire purpose as to why there’s a calculated midpoint and the salary range extends above and below that. Teams who need revenue sharing are disqualified from receiving their full share if they spend over the midpoint, so that’s become the de-facto small market cap.

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/21/12 at 09:23 AM ET

Avatar

The Leafs can end up paying 52% of revenues to the players’ pot, and the Coyotes can end up paying 65% of revenues to players (forced by the salary floor) and as long as the overall salary added up equals 57%, then the system is done.

This is why the league imposed salary cap system from the last CBA did more to harm small market teams than help them. It forced teams to pay up to the salary floor with no hope of becoming more competitive or of sharing in the increased revenue from the teams on top of the pyramid.

Let’s take a typical punching bag team, the Islanders, they are paying to the floor money they don’t have, are not qualified for revenue sharing and are taking on losses that they should be saving for when the young talent they have is ready to be paid.  They meet the floor through buy-outs not actual talent, so the product suffers, they still have to pay the money and the have no new revenue sources in sight. In large part because the local municipality doesn’t want them to build an economically sustainable arena project. They are then set to compete against the Rangers who own their arena, share the market and then get the large market benefits like the Winter Classic that the NHL would not “waste” on teams that need the revenue boost in the first place.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 09/21/12 at 10:16 AM ET

Avatar

Because escrow and revenue sharing are not the same thing.

Obviously.  But money and money are the same thing.  Trying to nitpick that this kind of money won’t be used for this or that doesn’t strike me as a terribly compelling argument, mostly because there are a series of presumption one has to make to get there that I don’t think are very impressive.

It seems fairly obvious to me that an increase in RS receipts to a team would be used primarily to adjust their largest expenses, specifically player salaries.  Heck, any increase in any revenue stream would be used largely for player salaries, be that a local TV deal, a larger cut from a bigger national deal, increased in-arena ticket/peripheral sales, whatever.

Yes, some of any increase is going to be applied to profit, which it should, but more money in almost always means more money to spend.

Not sure why the point of what I said had to be reworded without the question being addressed,

Because you used the claim of one side in a negotiation as a ‘fact’ in support of a position.  I don’t find that terribly persuasive given the nature of negotiations.

You’d feel better if they eliminated the “net of direct costs” language from the CBA and the players asked for what they’re already getting. It wouldn’t change the dollars one bit, but it would at least make you feel better.

You’re not making much sense.  My position is that given the same definitions of HRR under the previous CBA where the players received 57% of that pot, I would be comfortable with a there being a split much closer to 50-50.

If you would like to believe those revenue definitions are such that players aren’t actually getting 57% of that pot, there’s obviously little I can do to persuade you otherwise.  I mean, it’s not like Fehr has any vested interest in this debate, right?  He’s got no real reason to release smudged ‘facts’ out to the public in order to sway public opinion, right?

And just to restate because I’m sure the first time I don’t you’ll howl about it, it’s not like I’d swallow the NHL’s opinion on HRR hook line and sinker either.

So the problem is that you don’t understand how the revenue sharing system is set up and apparently believe that teams receive revenue sharing regardless of need and/or use… and that the salary cap isn’t built on projections for leaguewide revenue.

The problem you are having here, I think, is that you are leaping back and forth between micro and macro interpretations of impact without very much consistency.

Obviously I am aware that there are (or were under the old CBA at any rate) guidelines under which teams had to perform in order to receive RS.  That’s not the issue here, though.  The issue I was referring to was what teams would do with RS once they received it.  Your second accusation re; the salary cap looks disconnected from what I’ve been talking about, so aside from it being a handy term with which to wrap a goofy insult around, I don’t see what you think you’re trying to illustrate.

RS money does not impact overall league spending because of the CBA-appointed share.  RS money does impact individual team spending, because a team with 60 million in receivable income can spend more on their players than a team with 45 mil can.

This is the entire purpose as to why there’s a calculated midpoint and the salary range extends above and below that. Teams who need revenue sharing are disqualified from receiving their full share if they spend over the midpoint, so that’s become the de-facto small market cap.

I don’t have a particular problem with that, though.  The point of an RS system should be to make the year to year operating budgets of small market teams financially sustainable, not to artificially compress the competitive imbalance of a league even further than a cap already does by allowing teams to spend towards the upper end of the cap with other teams’ money.

This is why the league imposed salary cap system from the last CBA did more to harm small market teams than help them. It forced teams to pay up to the salary floor with no hope of becoming more competitive or of sharing in the increased revenue from the teams on top of the pyramid.

I 90% agree.  My one area of disagreement may be in that I am fine the NHL implemented a salary floor, I just think their means of calculating it is idiotic.  What I don’t want to see in the NHL is what has happened in MLB, where without a salary floor teams pull in pretty significant profits but have payrolls so low that their teams never have a chance to win.

So I like the floor, I would just like to see it spread out farther from the ceiling through means of changing the way it is calculated from a straight dollar number to a percentage.  In 2006 the floor was around 59% of the ceiling.  Had their been NHL hockey this year under the old CBA, the floor would have been just over 77% of the ceiling.

Make the floor 60-65% of the ceiling perennially and you’ve just given small market teams around 10 million dollars in room where they can still be CBA compliant but also possibly revenue neutral or even slightly profitable.  It also would spread the league out a little bit on the ice, making things like the trade deadline matter, rather than being a parking lot of 26 teams all being within 3 games of the playoffs.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/21/12 at 12:17 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

You’re not making much sense.  My position is that given the same definitions of HRR under the previous CBA where the players received 57% of that pot, I would be comfortable with a there being a split much closer to 50-50.

If you would like to believe those revenue definitions are such that players aren’t actually getting 57% of that pot, there’s obviously little I can do to persuade you otherwise.  I mean, it’s not like Fehr has any vested interest in this debate, right?  He’s got no real reason to release smudged ‘facts’ out to the public in order to sway public opinion, right?

The thing preventing Fehr from releasing all the facts he has is the same non-disclosure threat that the owners have in speaking about the lockout. When it comes time to believe one side or the other, I lean towards the side that CAN’T release all of the information over the side that WON’T.

When it comes down to it, the concept of “net of direct costs” means something significantly different and inherently important here.

If the two sides split $100M straight down the middle in grosses, the league gets $50M and has to pay for all overhead and the players get $50M without helping to cover a dime of that overhead.

If the two sides split $100M 57/43, but do so “net of direct costs” (which for arguments sake, let’s say is $10M), then the players don’t get $57M, they get $51.3M and the owners get $38.7M.

That seems like an extreme difference until you realize that the $10M in direct costs is still actually there in the original proposal and in that proposal, the owners are still only “up” $40M.

If you change direct costs in this scenario to $20M, then the players get $45.6M and the owners $34.4M. They’re better off writing off more direct costs than they would have been with a 50/50 split of the gross, because for every dollar they write off for direct costs, the players spend 57 cents to the owners’ 43 cents doing so. When the owners find ways to surreptitiously pay themselves for direct costs, that’s money straight in the bank.

Believe what you want, in the end neither your beliefs nor mine are going to have any impact.

Trying to nitpick that this kind of money won’t be used for this or that doesn’t strike me as a terribly compelling argument, mostly because there are a series of presumption one has to make to get there that I don’t think are very impressive.

What presumptions are those? The way I’m defining how everything works is based completely off of articles 49 and 50 in the current CBA. To say that 57% of revenue sharing dollars go to players is factually wrong and to assume that revenue sharing dollars change a team’s break-even point is backwards to how the system for revenue sharing is actually figured.

I don’t have a particular problem with that, though.  The point of an RS system should be to make the year to year operating budgets of small market teams financially sustainable, not to artificially compress the competitive imbalance of a league even further than a cap already does

which is precisely why the revenue sharing system is set up as a back-end process that only pays those teams to get them to their targeted revenue/salary point rather than to increase their break-even point.

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/21/12 at 12:41 PM ET

Avatar

The thing preventing Fehr from releasing all the facts he has is the same non-disclosure threat that the owners have in speaking about the lockout. When it comes time to believe one side or the other, I lean towards the side that CAN’T release all of the information over the side that WON’T.

First off, what?  Who is threatening the head of the NHLPA with non-disclosure violations?  Fehr doesn’t release specifics for the most part because as an experienced negotiator he understands that negotiating in the press is about as stupid as you can be.  Owners can’t talk because Bettman, as Commissioner, will fine their asses off.  There is no corrolary to that for Fehr, beyond being Paul Kelly’d.

That aside, if the NHL came out and said ‘Fehr’s full of shit, players get at least 57% of HRR” you’d believe him?  I don’t think I would, at least not without having the actual numbers released.

Which neither side would ever, ever do.

If you change direct costs in this scenario to $20M, then the players get $45.6M and the owners $34.4M. They’re better off writing off more direct costs than they would have been with a 50/50 split of the gross, because for every dollar they write off for direct costs, the players spend 57 cents to the owners’ 43 cents doing so. When the owners find ways to surreptitiously pay themselves for direct costs, that’s money straight in the bank.

So you’re trying to make the case that being the side of the equation which gets 57% of the pot is somehow the less advantageous side to be on?

That aside, my interpretation of the CBA language is that a lot of the HRR categories which are split up are after direct expenses.  It’s not like the two sides split the 9 dollars for a tall beer, they split whatever is left of that 9 dollars after the owners pay all the direct overhead in selling it.  I don’t believe the indirect overhead is included in these calculations (hiring, HR, admin, etc.)

What presumptions are those? The way I’m defining how everything works is based completely off of articles 49 and 50 in the current CBA. To say that 57% of revenue sharing dollars go to players is factually wrong

This is yet another instance of you being wildly inaccurate and attempting to re-assign meaning to what I said.  To clarify, I think that RS moneys are going to be allocated to player salaries in roughly the same percentage as all other funds are allocated to player salaries.  Money is money.  IMO player salaries make up a pretty huge portion of total team liabilities.  Therefore…

and to assume that revenue sharing dollars change a team’s break-even point is backwards to how the system for revenue sharing is actually figured.

I don’t care how RS is figured.  You’re not talking about the same thing I am.  I am talking about how RS money is spent, which is the same way any other kind of revenue is spent.

which is precisely why the revenue sharing system is set up as a back-end process that only pays those teams to get them to their targeted revenue/salary point rather than to increase their break-even point.

So the NHL sets up it’s salary cap range based on the profit-loss pictures of small market teams?  Come on.  That’s absurd.  The cap range is something that is set next to independently of what happens in small markets, given how little revenue they generate.

The RS system is set up so that specific teams can afford to meet and get past the (idiotically designed) cap floor, JJ.  Per Capgeek there are 8 teams at or near the 54 million dollar floor.  The point of RS is to make a 54ish million dollar payroll more affordable, not to allow those teams to spend 70 million dollars.

You’re trying to create a distinction where one doesn’t exist, it seems.  RS funds increase the threshold at which a team can spend money and not end up as a net loss.  That’s such an obvious, 1+1=2 kind of thing I can’t imagine you’re arguing it… which leaves me a little confused as to what you’re trying to say, exactly.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/22/12 at 09:49 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Well the system is eating comments now, so I’ll go with the short-short version.

Every valid point you’ve made about how RS works and now about how net of direct costs works is a digested and reprocessed version of something I’ve already said.  Thank you.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/22/12 at 10:24 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image