ny CT and NJ as well..climate change lol
- hello it's me 2050

Its a sign that Pitt will make the playoffs.

Its a sign that Pitt will make the playoffs.
- WhiskeyMan

hope they do and flyers do not.

hope they do and flyers do not.
- hello it's me 2050

Yes. At this point that would provide maximum entertainment. The meltdown for those that have bought in would be very amusing.

Yes. At this point that would provide maximum entertainment. The meltdown for those that have bought in would be very amusing.
- StepfordSam

100% entertainment. or pens win the lottery as well.

there is more benefit in the flyers missing than making. if your looking long term.

Earthquake in Philly
- PT21

Thanks Obama.

100% entertainment. or pens win the lottery as well.

there is more benefit in the flyers missing than making. if your looking long term.
- hello it's me 2050

On the other hand, if the Flyers make playoffs it would make for a more amusing offseason. There is no chance they take a step backwards next season, so we will see them load up for bear.

TK extension
Not moving Laughton
Make a move for Dman for sure
Maybe even a center

There is now way, under any circumstances, that the players and their union is going to agree to a 12% pay cut, no matter how many fewer games they would be playing. Your argument is pointless and ridiculous. The players are plssed about the amount of escrow they have been paying since Covid...so now you think they would casually accept a 12% paycut because you think they play too many games?

It will never happen.
- TheFreak

wtf are you even talking about. I never said it would happen. All I stated regarding reduction is the product would be better for fans.

As far as players never accepting a reduction you are wrong. That is the weakest players union on the planet. If the owners wanted less games AND less salary to make it happen what would players do? Say no? Lmao they’d be locked out and forced oh wait this has happened.

Please don’t pretend the players have any power. They don’t. What are they gonna do? Go play in Siberia?

Earthquake in Philly
- PT21

He's here for Wrestlemania this weekend.

He's here for Wrestlemania this weekend.
- Flyerz74

not bad though he is dead dead dead

His point was to try and prove me wrong. Which he failed to do. He tried to use two completely different and unrelated situations to show that the players salaries could be reduced. One the lockout, which the players had no choice. Players were earning around 70% of revenue do to the teams overspending on players. Reducing to a 50/50 share. That was fair and something the players had no choice but to accept. The other was COVID. Which caused the players escrow deficit to heavily increase to the point where it was just paid back to the owners this season. The reason the league could do that was because there is a provision in the CBA, that allows the league to reduce player salaries in case of an issue that the league can't control. Such as a pandemic or a war. That would not be the case with the league wanting to reduce games played. The players would never agree to it. He also ignorantly believes that just cutting player salaries would cover the reduced revenue and profit. It wouldn't. Less games played would see less TV revenue, less ad revenue and less on site game revenue. Many franchises which are poorer would be devastated. The league would be devastated. There is no talk of it for those reasons. In fact I read that the league would actually like to increase the season to 84 games.
- MJL

You are wrong. Explain asshat how team couldn’t survive if 1 game is reduced.

You stated “it’s impossible to reduce games… the the nhl could not survive financially”

Explain how the nhl folds if they reduce 1 game.


If you can’t explain how the fold by reducing 1 game then your statement is WRONG.

Then what is the point?

You guys are talking about cutting games. IT will never happen. The players, the union, the owners and the fans would not allow it.

You are pushing a bs thought that has as much chance of happening as ND scoring 6 goals tonight.
- TheFreak

The whole point was mjl stated in response to jd50 wanting reduction of games that “ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE LEAGUE TO REDUCE GAMES BECAUSE THE NHL COULD NOT SURVIVE FINANCIALLY “

I simply proved him wrong that yes the league could survive very easily. That if league reduced 1 game how could they NOT SURVIVE.

The whole player reduction in pay was just example of obvious need to happen if games reduced. Like coming out of lockout when player had to reduce salary. It was just example of what is obvious that would happen if reduction of games to show him how dumb his statement was league could not survive financially. He acts like all the factors would be same just lost revenue by reduction when in reality cost would obviously go down to.

Instead of admitting he’s a tool and saying PROFITS. WOULD BE LOWER. And owners wouldn’t want that he used excuse that was stupid and got called out because he’s never wrong. Or admit he’s wrong. He doubles down then twist.

not bad though he is dead dead dead
- hello it's me 2050

True, just glad someone got the reference.

You are wrong. Explain asshat how team couldn’t survive if 1 game is reduced.

You stated “it’s impossible to reduce games… the the nhl could not survive financially”

Explain how the nhl folds if they reduce 1 game.


If you can’t explain how the fold by reducing 1 game then your statement is WRONG.
- Stayin alive

I'll refer you back to the original context of the discussion which you applied reducing the season to 70 games. You're now moving the goalposts to one game simply because it has been shown how ridiculously uninformed and wrong you are. Your entire argument including the ridiculously absurd claim that I did not specify PROFITS is incoherent and unintelligent. Obviously when talking about how the league would fare financially, PROFITS fall under that umbrella to anyone with any common sense. That was your last chance. You're wrong. End of story. Conversation is over.