X. Benedict

Lets put it this way. If all the top 6 forwards score 10 more goals than they did last year. This is still a pretty bad team. :P

He's not that. More skilled than Weber though, less grit too.

Signed in St. Louis. Didn't he?

Lenscrafters. I knew it.

This is going to sound weird, but here goes. Teams usually don't start playing their best hockey until they know who their best players are. I don't think this group knows yet, which isn't the worst thing in the world. Just listening to broadcasts, it sounded like Cassidy really resisted naming first units for anything. Whatever his motivation as a coach, it sounded like he game-planned the tourney as an open tryout without line matching. The poor results don't bother me that much.

That's not looking like a very good team.

Disappointing, but only in the sense that you ordered pie and they served cobbler. You can learn things, but only in a movie trailer kind of way.

I still think he's got it right. Sabres tickets are under-priced. The Players get to see the books as they share that gate. Sabres have to have a plan. Unions win. Collective bargaining wins. (Fans lose in this case, but Unions win.) Done.

In those type things without a full camp, I think shot counts are more indicative of the future than final scores. Always nice to see success, though this wasn't it.

In a world where "required" means "optional" and Ted Black is simply lying about a "mandate," and players unions create oversight committees that do nothing of importance to insure their revenues, you are right. I rest too.

It is typical stuff, really. Shrink: Now, Tyler, do you feel you are seeing the ice well? Tyler: Yes, of course. Better than ever actually. Shrink: And we talked about your skating last time? Tyler: Yes, the skating feels good. Shrink: And we explored issues about the uniform.... Tyler: Yes, I know it is an NHL uniform now. .. Shrink: I hear a "but" in your tone of voice;what is the "but"? Tyler: Well, in my mind I know it says Buffalo Sabres, but I seem to play my best when I imagine it is a giant bunny suit. Shrink: Do you see yourself as a Giant Bunny, or an NHL player wearing a Bunny Suit? This is important. Tyler: Definitely an NHL player wearing a Bunny Suit. I'm human of course, but wearing a Bunny Suit.

Yes. I'm trying to deceive you. That has been my plan all along. I guess you've fatigued my ability to be helpful in the matter. Please merely accept that my initial belief that you'd get it was a form of respect. .

You asked for the page and that was correct. See 49.7 for Industry Growth Fund. The 75 percent thingy you are quoting is part of the Player Compensation redistribution package, which allows for the poorest clubs to recapture salary out of Escrow. It's a different animal.

Without looking it up. I believe it is page 219. There is a section on it.

The Players made a concession in the last CBA. In lieu of a higher percentage of the total NHL gate (revenue sharing), they agreed to have some money set aside (the players are taking a lower percentage) and placed in the Industry Growth Fund, this was Fehr's idea to offer greater incentive for clubs increasing revenue. It was a players concession to the owners. Players take a lower percentage of total revenue, and some revenue is set aside to grow the game in smaller markets. For the Sabres, who have deep pockets, it really isn't much of an incentive to get $4 million, but they have to comply with their deal with the players.

1. True. To satisfy Revenue Sharing with the Players as per the CBA. 2. Also True. To qualify for the Industry Growth Fund as per the CBA from the higher revenue clubs. (about $4 million dollars) The NHLPA players supervise the committee that reviews these. The Sabres can't opt out. It is required. That's the best I can do.

Okeedokie. At least your looking at the right stuff. The highlighted from your section is correct but misleading. Only the bottom 15 revenue producing clubs are required. Sabres are in the bottom 15 clubs in revenue, therefore required. The second highlight is sorta wrong. The Sabres have to submit a plan to qualify for revenue sharing. (as does Carolina, etc.) It is not optional. The players have a right to see that clubs are maximizing revenue. In some cases a plan to raise revenue might include raising prices, in some cases freezing prices, in some cases lowing prices (to stimulate demand and gate). The 15 bottom revenue clubs have to submit plans to increase revenue. In Buffalo's case, lowering ticket prices or freezing is not going to stimulate higher gates. The gate is already good. Season ticket sales are already good. They don't technically have to raise prices....but a simple understanding of a demand curve proves that when demand is inelastic, revenue is increased by raising prices. Here's the thing. When ALL the bottom clubs have a plan to raise revenue by 4% (e.g.) - that is potential revenue shared with the players. That's their 2% raise in the salary floor year to year, that's the lift of the salary cap. Clubs in the bottom half of revenue can't ignore this obligation to the players. Pegula and Black's weird solution to this is rather baroque. Raise ticket prices to meet the requirements, and figure out ways to give the money back. The Industry Growth Fund was a major concession by the players to get the CBA approved. I think last year it was something like 60 or 70 million dollars total league-wide. . Divide that by the 15 bottom clubs and you are talking about money only 4 million dollars per bottom club. For the Sabres there is not much incentive to qualify for the Industry Growth Fund other than the CBA obligation. The Sabres paid more money to Erhoff this summer than they received from the Growth Fund. They do however have to have a plan. Required is the contractual language. I may be poor at explaining this. But lets give the players some credit. It is what they negotiated for.

Spoken like a man who thinks players are way too stupid to negotiate and mandate Player Revenue Oversight Committees with broad powers into a CBA (what a buncha undeducated rubes!), and that Sabrespace members are too stupid to understand it. (dumber than those uneducated, rube players, for sure!).

There is a difference between having a plan ......which is required, and actually increasing revenues, which is based on predicted consumer reactions. The Sabres ARE obligated to have a plan to raise revenues. They have to have one. They can't get out of it. They need a plan. Should that plan FAIL, they are not in breech of the CBA. (Because the consumers didn't cooperate). Ergo: If they raise ticket prices according to the plan, which they have an obligation to submit and follow, but that plan subsequently fails to increase revenue, because people don't buy the tickets, then the club is not in breech of its obligations. Get it? Plan = submit business blueprint to increase revenues Revenue = Money from the consumers and ticket buyers after that plan is implemented They ARE NOT the same thing. And Buffalo can not opt out of having a plan. Can we bury this now? Or you could spend an hour reading the CBA. E O _ t _ s e

Silly. Just Damn Silly. And you know this. The Sabres have an obligation to qualify for revenue sharing as per the CBA and the player oversight committee to continue to add revenue. But we've been through this, Doesn't matter to you though. You continue to believe that the Sabres can magically opt out. In hangman you have earned an O, T, and an S. O _ t _ s _

Knobfest? Who you talking about here? Felating? Come on, you killed the Harbor Center thread because you dislike Pegula. The Harbor Center is a ###### hockey center. Oh well, I'll check in later.

"Those who read your pathological hate for anyone praised, is destined to reread it."

I was wondering about this.

Strong Bad!

I think it is hard to expect more from PK Subban.