Who wants to shoot Gary Bettman?
DanSC @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:56 am
The DVC Indoor Shooting Center in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. Apparently.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... --nhl.html
BartSimpson @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:25 pm
I do not approve of using silhouettes of living people. It's just wrong.
DrCaleb @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:37 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I do not approve of using silhouettes of living people. It's just wrong.
I always though they were illegal in Canada.
And Betman is just the owners' lackie.
Jonny_C @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:34 pm
Darts are OK. Bullets not so much.
RUEZ @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:42 pm
Although done in humour, it's not right. Hockey is just a game after all.
dino_bobba_renno @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:55 pm
The only problem I have with this is that both sides are being retarded.
What really kills me is that while rich players fight rich owners we the tax payers are being asked to fund new hockey arenas for them. If the players want 57% then maybe they should chip in 57% of the cost of those new rinks and same goes for the owners.
commanderkai @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:04 pm
dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
What really kills me is that while rich players fight rich owners we the tax payers are being asked to fund new hockey arenas for them. If the players want 57% then maybe they should chip in 57% of the cost of those new rinks and same goes for the owners.
Then the stadium will be funding 114%!
(yes I am being a smartass, forgive me)
dino_bobba_renno @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:09 pm
commanderkai commanderkai:
dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
What really kills me is that while rich players fight rich owners we the tax payers are being asked to fund new hockey arenas for them. If the players want 57% then maybe they should chip in 57% of the cost of those new rinks and same goes for the owners.
Then the stadium will be funding 114%!
(yes I am being a smartass, forgive me)
All the better, that means they'll have enough to build the stadium with money left over to buy us all a free beer for making us put up with this shit.
Zipperfish @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:09 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I do not approve of using silhouettes of living people. It's just wrong.
Same.
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
Regina @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:27 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I do not approve of using silhouettes of living people. It's just wrong.
I always though they were illegal in Canada.
And Betman is just the owners' lackie.
Exactly! The owners must be loving this. They make the calls and someone else takes the heat.
BartSimpson @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:30 pm
dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
What really kills me is that while rich players fight rich owners we the tax payers are being asked to fund new hockey arenas for them. If the players want 57% then maybe they should chip in 57% of the cost of those new rinks and same goes for the owners.
In Sacramento we've fought back three attempts (so far) to try to con the taxpayers into financing near 100% of the cost of a new arena for the Kings basketball team - which is owned by the billionaire Maloof family.
It's a sweet deal, really. They want us to front approximately 95% of the $500 million to $750 million for the new arena and eat 100% of the estimated $1 billion cost for required infrastructure improvements to make the arena possible. The Maloofs want to retain 100% of the profits from parking and concessions at the arena - even for events not related to basketball. Then, as if that were not a suh-weet deal they Maloofs want the city to prohibit local restaurants within 1 mile of the arena from conducting business before or after the game to force fans to eat at the overpriced concessions.
Did I mention that I hate basketball?
DrCaleb @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:45 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
It's a sweet deal, really. They want us to front approximately 95% of the $500 million to $750 million for the new arena and eat 100% of the estimated $1 billion cost for required infrastructure improvements to make the arena possible. The Maloofs want to retain 100% of the profits from parking and concessions at the arena - even for events not related to basketball. Then, as if that were not a suh-weet deal they Maloofs want the city to prohibit local restaurants within 1 mile of the arena from conducting business before or after the game to force fans to eat at the overpriced concessions.
Did I mention that I hate basketball?
Did I mention that I hate basketball?
Replace "Maloof" with "Katz".
Replace "Basketball" with "Hockey". Remove the restaraunt clause, add a 'Downtown Arena' improvement tax for businesses near the arena.
Add "also demands $6m a year in relief because the numbers didn't look profitable enough", and you have the last offer Edmonton got before City Council told him to f*&^ himself.
sandorski @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Hmm, that's close by....
Unsound @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:09 pm
commanderkai commanderkai:
dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
What really kills me is that while rich players fight rich owners we the tax payers are being asked to fund new hockey arenas for them. If the players want 57% then maybe they should chip in 57% of the cost of those new rinks and same goes for the owners.
Then the stadium will be funding 114%!
(yes I am being a smartass, forgive me)
114% sounds about right, once you factor in the inevitable cost overruns.
dino_bobba_renno @ Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:11 pm
Unsound Unsound:
commanderkai commanderkai:
dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
What really kills me is that while rich players fight rich owners we the tax payers are being asked to fund new hockey arenas for them. If the players want 57% then maybe they should chip in 57% of the cost of those new rinks and same goes for the owners.
Then the stadium will be funding 114%!
(yes I am being a smartass, forgive me)
114% sounds about right, once you factor in the inevitable cost overruns.
Or required bribes if we're talking about building in Quebec.