Weber on 102.5 today said he always thought Nashville would match the offer sheet.

His name is Snider.

Also, you continue to make political comments on a hockey forum followed by phrases such as "No need to discuss that" which is a snarky way (or code, if you prefer) of what I see as stating an out-of-place opinion while simultaneously attempting to close off replies, asserting said opinion as the be-all to end-all, kind of like those who precede their opinions with the phrase "make no mistake".

Most of us here are quite adept in reading between the lines and we see where you are attempting to go, not only concerning the Preds but in other areas as well. We're not quite the stereotyped dumb hicks that appear to be imprinted on your brain.
- blueline

It's one of the main reasons I've stayed out of the discussions this time. I don't have any tolerance for people talking down to others with the snarky attitude that you've mentioned. I would have been no help in any of the recent post as I was quick to go to "OH NO HE DIDN'T!!!!" *snap snap* mode...lol

I'll continue to let D and yourself be the brains of the operation

It's one of the main reasons I've stayed out of the discussions this time. I don't have any tolerance for people talking down to others with the snarky attitude that you've mentioned. I would have been no help in any of the recent post as I was quick to go to "OH NO HE DIDN'T!!!!" *snap snap* mode...lol

I'll continue to let D and yourself be the brains of the operation
- Van~Damage

I purposely stayed out for the longest and did so for about a dozen valid reasons. Then "D" tried to be reasonable and polite, expending a lot of time answering the same subjectively loaded questions yet again. I finally had all I could take. I managed to keep my response toned down but it was work to do so

It's one of the main reasons I've stayed out of the discussions this time. I don't have any tolerance for people talking down to others with the snarky attitude that you've mentioned. I would have been no help in any of the recent post as I was quick to go to "OH NO HE DIDN'T!!!!" *snap snap* mode...lol

I'll continue to let D and yourself be the brains of the operation
- Van~Damage

LOL...I'm with you there, I don't do snarky very well! That guy was being a douche but then most of them have been lately! And I'm not wasting my time talking to a wall!!

His name is Snider.

Also, you continue to make political comments on a hockey forum followed by phrases such as "No need to discuss that" which is a snarky way (or code, if you prefer) of what I see as stating an out-of-place opinion while simultaneously attempting to close off replies, asserting said opinion as the be-all to end-all, kind of like those who precede their opinions with the phrase "make no mistake".

Most of us here are quite adept in reading between the lines and we see where you are attempting to go, not only concerning the Preds but in other areas as well. We're not quite the stereotyped dumb hicks that appear to be imprinted on your brain.
- blueline

On one hand, you must be an incredibly clairvoyant person to determine all of this from a few posts. I said "no need to discuss that" because I did not want to discuss politics. You may or may not have an idea of the man's politics, but I do not fully and I did not want to discuss them. You can discuss them if you wish. How can I cut off comment on a post. That makes no logical sense.

I am not sure what other alleged political views you are referring to either. A reference to the "NHL Welfare System" is an analogy that describes revenue sharing, not a comment about welfare or politics. You clearly must not agree, but that does not make the comment political. The Reagan comment was a pretty clear analogy about the Preds and teams participating in that system. You may not like the analogy, but I can't think of a better one. I simply do not see how a team with such a wealthy owner or two, as you have stated numerous times, should have the right to take money from the NHL simply because they want to pick and choose when and how much they put into the Preds. If Nashville can't support the Preds, move on, just like the NHL should do in other places. Nothing disguised there and no need to read between the lines. It is my opinion. You apparently do not agree, but that is your right.

On the other hand, your reference to "dumb hicks" suggests that you could have a serious inferiority complex. I never suggested that and to the extent you inferred that from my comments, I apologize, but I see that as your issue, not mine. I asked legitimate questions. I guess you'd rather read those previous posts such as WTF, GTFOH and posters calling others idiots and the like. That can't be true.

If we disagree, fine. However, please don't make baseless allegations that really reflect shallow thought on your part--to be blunt.

On one hand, you must be an incredibly clairvoyant person to determine all of this from a few posts. I said "no need to discuss that" because I did not want to discuss politics. You may or may not have an idea of the man's politics, but I do not fully and I did not want to discuss them. You can discuss them if you wish. How can I cut off comment on a post. That makes no logical sense.

I am not sure what other alleged political views you are referring to either. A reference to the "NHL Welfare System" is an analogy that describes revenue sharing, not a comment about welfare or politics. You clearly must not agree, but that does not make the comment political. The Reagan comment was a pretty clear analogy about the Preds and teams participating in that system. You may not like the analogy, but I can't think of a better one. I simply do not see how a team with such a wealthy owner or two, as you have stated numerous times, should have the right to take money from the NHL simply because they want to pick and choose when and how much they put into the Preds. If Nashville can't support the Preds, move on, just like the NHL should do in other places. Nothing disguised there and no need to read between the lines. It is my opinion. You apparently do not agree, but that is your right.

On the other hand, your reference to "dumb hicks" suggests that you could have a serious inferiority complex. I never suggested that and to the extent you inferred that from my comments, I apologize, but I see that as your issue, not mine. I asked legitimate questions. I guess you'd rather read those previous posts such as WTF, GTFOH and posters calling others idiots and the like. That can't be true.

If we disagree, fine. However, please don't make baseless allegations that really reflect shallow thought on your part--to be blunt.
- Patrickj

**Yawn**

I purposely stayed out for the longest and did so for about a dozen valid reasons. Then "D" tried to be reasonable and polite, expending a lot of time answering the same subjectively loaded questions yet again. I finally had all I could take. I managed to keep my response toned down but it was work to do so


- blueline

Agreeeeeed. And yet the opportunity to strike back presents itself yet again. Honestly, this is why i've retired PF95 and have stuck with the current persona so that I may talk honky tonky hawkey and sling a little mud when necessary

**Yawn**
- Section106

No kidding.

He's certifiable.

Go Preds!

Agreeeeeed. And yet the opportunity to strike back presents itself yet again. Honestly, this is why i've retired PF95 and have stuck with the current persona so that I may talk honky tonky hawkey and sling a little mud when necessary
- Van~Damage

Yowza!

Ah, the NHL Welfare System. . . Article 49 of the CBA. The first line of which reads, “The NHLPA has conditioned its agreement to the Team Payroll Range System, set forth in Article 50 of this Agreement, on the NHL’s agreement to establish this Player Compensation Cost Redistribution System.”

NHLPA does not stand for NHL Small Market Teams.

The players got a 57% split of league revenue. The teams got a salary cap. The players’ reps understood that not all 30 franchises are going to generate equal revenue (do the top thirty franchises in any business endeavor all generate equal revenue?). With a salary cap in place, for them to get their 57%, while leaving teams money to operate, redistribution was necessary. And while the top 10 revenue generating teams are one source that may have to contribute to the pot – they are the 4th and last option that is looked to, if the 3 options ahead of them do not fulfill the redistribution requirement. The third option is revenue from the playoffs which all playoff teams must pay into. Thus, while the Predators may receive revenue sharing, they have also directly paid into it in all but 1 year it has existed. (Not saying they don’t get back more than they pay in . . .)

Ah, the NHL Welfare System. . . Article 49 of the CBA. The first line of which reads, “The NHLPA has conditioned its agreement to the Team Payroll Range System, set forth in Article 50 of this Agreement, on the NHL’s agreement to establish this Player Compensation Cost Redistribution System.”

NHLPA does not stand for NHL Small Market Teams.

The players got a 57% split of league revenue. The teams got a salary cap. The players’ reps understood that not all 30 franchises are going to generate equal revenue (do the top thirty franchises in any business endeavor all generate equal revenue?). With a salary cap in place, for them to get their 57%, while leaving teams money to operate, redistribution was necessary. And while the top 10 revenue generating teams are one source that may have to contribute to the pot – they are the 4th and last option that is looked to, if the 3 options ahead of them do not fulfill the redistribution requirement. The third option is revenue from the playoffs which all playoff teams must pay into. Thus, while the Predators may receive revenue sharing, they have also directly paid into it in all but 1 year it has existed. (Not saying they don’t get back more than they pay in . . .)
- SmokyMtn

Yeah.....um.....I was just gonna tell the guy to "shut up."


...and then I was gonna say:
Reagan Rules!!!!! F-you, troll!!!!!