X. Benedict

Lucic took the bait. All he needed to say in the presser afterwords was. "That stays on the ice. I'd like to congratulate the Montreal Canadiens on their win."

What a series. Thoughts: Marc Bergevin picked up Briere, Wiese, and Vanek for a basket of week-old peaches. Not bad work for a GM. I wonder if Duds had much to do with that.

It just occurred to me that now Garth Snow's return for Vanek is at best pick #57.

Lovely silence. Danny. Wow.

http://giant.gfycat....liriousEeve.gif So Hank waters Crosby for $5000.

Grassy knolls....?

:lol: You can't fire me. I'm quitting. Now hand me that non-disclosure.

Parade committee, eh? When have I been cheering. Before you ascribe any emotions to me. Who you talking about? My own feeling on the matter is that I would much rather see season tickets killed altogether and give the arena back to a fan base that cares, rather than the library section of the lower bowl that know they can recoup most of their tickets on the secondary markets. I just don't see season ticket holders playing the martyr, or getting screwed here. They are smart enough to know what they are buying. And maybe I'm the cynical enough to think that no fan base "deserves" a cup winner more than any other. If they aren't happy with the deal, give em up, and I hope they do. Maybe we can get some energy in an overly gentrified arena. So I guess I can't stand the "whoa is me crap." Terry promised me this. Boo-hoo. It's hockey. 29 teams lose. We ain't winning next year either. If you can't enjoy hockey knowing that. Don't buy em. There's your parade.

Some loose accounting - maybe parts of 4 seasons. Okay if you need it that way. If tickets are under-market value (which they are), it is the season ticket holders that are being subsidized. That doesn't make the team any better, the team has stunk, but that's the direction of the subsidy in economic terms. Fans are paying relatively cheap prices for a bad team - but no subsidy.

It's a fine May day. So give me Khrushchev, red banners, and olive drab. That's a parade!

Better save this one so you can re-post it next year, when they have to raise ticket prices again because of the CBA. Fact check: though. He's had the team since Feb 2011. 3 years and 3 months. He didn't say: "I don't need to raise ticket prices, if I want to make money I will go drill another well." He said: "If I wanted to make money, I will go drill another well." So far Pegula is doing a pretty good job of not making money on the Sabres. I don't think there is any evidence of an accounting profit or an economic profit in the strict sense of the definition. If anything the fact they have to submit a plan for a revenue short-fall is a pretty good indication that revenue is under-performing. Not liking Pegula is fine. But blaming him or the organization for living up to minimum contractual obligations with players is the wrong thing to spit ball him for. And that's my point. Let parades ensue.

Ticket hikes suck. But, so not seeing sinister motives in something structurally inevitable is a "parade"? Geez. :rolleyes: Here's the parade: The Sabres are CBA compliant. Waahoooo!

What about the players? Why would the players approve of any plan that doesn't maximize revenue? The Sabres don't have to have a plan to submit to other owners, the owners don't care,, they have to have a plan to submit to the players union. They need a plan to submit to account for revenue shortfallls. What exactly do you want Pegula to do here? Submit a plan to the players union that suggests that they will make up for any revenue shortfalls with a new stream of bumper sticker and T-shirt sales? What ideas do you have for compliance? If I'm in the players union I'm making damn sure ticket prices reflect demand. Half that revenue stream belongs to mine and me.

The kid is a beast on the puck. Reminds me of Foppa.

Thanks iknowphysics, Great summary. What some here don't realize is the revenue oversight committee is made by the players. This isn't a voluntary program. Failure to maximize revenues hurts the players, that's why it is in the CBA. Buffalo can't just opt out, or not have a plan to increase revenue, or the club would be in breach.

You have revenue sharing convoluted into some-kind of charitable idea. Why do they think Buffalo is in need of help? They don't. Revenue sharing isn't charity. It is the league framework.

And somebody would be in line to buy them locking you out of a chance to buy in when the tides turn. Frustrating - but just a sign that season tickets in Buffalo are probably more than 4% under-market.

They have a responsibility to try to meet the targets is the best way to put it. And these have strong monetary incentives.

WNY really is an anomaly. In the rest of the country drinking 8-10 beers in a relaxed evening isn't considered normal.

Think of nhl revenue as one big pie. Half that pie goes to players. The other half is divided up by the owners and clubs, but not evenly. The big revenue teams never wanted a salary cap. The agreement to share league revenue is contingent upon small market teams to meet benchmarks to expand their own revenues. That involves ticket sales and attendance benchmarks. The team has to try to reach these benchmarks in good faith. As a consumer you are free to hate it, but it really makes for a competitive league ensuring that the salary cap works league-wide.

15. Why would they? The system was designed for the health of the entire league. Complying with the revenue sharing scheme is a cap and CBA matter. It is more than just grabbing money.

As far as loaded questions go, you can write some doozies.

I sorta followed the Bills and listened to the Habs-Bruins at the same time.

A decent owner would inspire us to a foie gras and diff-eq thread. Not that seed and slide rule crap.

Inkman, I hear you, man. I don't have any wisdom in the way of advice, but best people I know are ex-drunks. They are just awesome people to hang out with, as I imagine you would be.