Lockout

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: Lockout

Postby tfrizz on Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:46 pm

Idoit40fans wrote:
tfrizz wrote:
mikey287 wrote:Why can we only negotiate off of the players' offers? That sounds like the definition of "stubborn" and "[careless]"


Because it's the most recent offer. If they aren't willing to work off each others' proposals, then there is no giving-and-taking (or back-and-forth) going on. AFAIK the NHL still won't consider proposals that weren't based off their's from last month which is a clear indicator that there's absolutely no progress being made.


Yeah, thats a good question. Maybe we should ask the owners who wouldn't do anything until the players put a comprehensive offer out there.


Well, the NHLPA put together a comprehensive offer last week and all we've heard from the league so far is "we appreciate it, but no thanks".
tfrizz
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,176
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:49 am
Location: Freddy Beach

Re: Lockout

Postby no name on Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:58 pm

interstorm wrote:
tfrizz wrote:The only issue I have here is that studies have shown that 78% of NFL players go bankrupt or are in financial distress within 2 years of retirement.


uh-uh. nope. it is their money and they can save or spend as they feel fit.

don't penalize the owners for players not having good spending habits.
don't penalize the players for owners not having good spending habits.


Got to agree with Interstorm on this one.

Well, the NHLPA put together a comprehensive offer last week and all we've heard from the league so far is "we appreciate it, but no thanks".[/


You would of thought the NHL would of looked at that offer and sent a counter proposal back or something. I was hoping somehtng like that would go on, but of course as with any proposal its a yes or no answer we get. Like you said before, no give or take negotiations have taken place.
no name
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,994
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby Idoit40fans on Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:20 pm

tfrizz wrote:
Idoit40fans wrote:
tfrizz wrote:
mikey287 wrote:Why can we only negotiate off of the players' offers? That sounds like the definition of "stubborn" and "[careless]"


Because it's the most recent offer. If they aren't willing to work off each others' proposals, then there is no giving-and-taking (or back-and-forth) going on. AFAIK the NHL still won't consider proposals that weren't based off their's from last month which is a clear indicator that there's absolutely no progress being made.


Yeah, thats a good question. Maybe we should ask the owners who wouldn't do anything until the players put a comprehensive offer out there.


Well, the NHLPA put together a comprehensive offer last week and all we've heard from the league so far is "we appreciate it, but no thanks".


Yeah, thats a problem. Thats my point.
Idoit40fans
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 52,677
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: No Reading, No Research, Just Strong Opinions

Re: Lockout

Postby ulf on Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:16 pm

No one commenting on the creepy mediator's twitter that got him removed already?
ulf
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 13,857
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:41 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby tfrizz on Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:23 pm

ulf wrote:No one commenting on the creepy mediator's twitter that got him removed already?


Apparently his account was hacked after he was named to the case.
tfrizz
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,176
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:49 am
Location: Freddy Beach

Re: Lockout

Postby Gaucho on Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:29 pm

Details please?
Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,156
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: The Onyx Club

Re: Lockout

Postby Gaucho on Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:30 pm

Oh, never mind.
Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,156
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: The Onyx Club

Re: Lockout

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:41 pm

interstorm wrote:Froggy - I edited my post (directly above) for more clarifications, but i agree with what you say to a point. my questions are these:

1) what is a "reasonable" profit?
2) what makes teams lose money?

to point 1, i would again state that there is a difference between regular paid money and asset appreciation. looking at the stocks on the dow, the average dividend is 3%. at $240,000,000, the equivalent is just under $8 million dollars. so based on this, i would say while it would be great to make 40-50-100 million per franchise, a precedent is set by the stock market on what a 'reasonable' business can make (again - discussing dividends). beyond that, there is the value of the franchise as a whole (equate this to ownership of the stock). in that aspect, Forbes states the average team has appreciated since the lockout by 43%. it is important to note that over the same time period with the Dow, the average appreciation is under 20% -- so NHL teams far outpace the market there.

to point 2, teams are obligated to spend a certain amount of money (cap floor) but not go beyond a certain threshold (cap ceiling). many teams are on the bubble -- in the +/- 5 million range. if you look at many of their operating decisions, however, it is clear they place a higher priority on winning instead of profit. this is america -- they're totally capable of doing this. i'd even go far enough to commend the owners for it. what doesn't make sense, though, is to recklessly spend yet claim a business cannot turn a profit. at +/- 5 million, it wouldn't be hard have made some decisions to get the finances to fall in line with the $8 million profit i mention above. don't read what i say -- look yourself. go research what the washington capitals say they have made and look at the players they signed. now i am sure it would have been hard to mcphee, but he could have easily held back signing certain guys because the budget didn't allow for it. leonsis gave him the green light though. great -- but again, it's nobody's fault but his as to why the team didn't make more money.

the NHL needs to get out of this lockout mode that bettman has produced. they need to focus on growing the sport. the winter classic was great. even shootouts (for the casual fan) were awesome. just the guys in charge appear more inclined to fighting for crumbs instead of gunning for a seat at the table.


You keep posting this and while there is some truth to it, it is immensely flawed.

1. You can not average all of the teams in the league together and site 3% profit. This only shows that you are ignoring a huge point that 20 + teams lost money. Life isnt always fair, some teams make quite a bit of money but a 30 team league can not expect to be viable on the books of 5 teams. Its not possible.

2. You can not compare individual NHL teams net value to those on the stock exchange, the league has anti trust exemptions to start showing immediately the difference. However, your comparison is flawed generally as most businesses carrying a value of $200 million are not running expenses of $120 million while trying to make $5 million, with their number asset being people on short contracts - but also doubling as your number one expense. They would cease to exist. Most companies carry those values not just for profits coming in but for tangible assets. Small banks have holdings, other companies have buildings and products.

NHL teams have no tangible assets. You are simply buying the right run up expenses but bring in enough to make a profit. They make money in a variety of ways but you are simply buying ownership on a piece of paper.

If it was as clean cut as you are making it, it wouldnt take billionaires to buy these teams. the risk is simply to great. The expenses are enormous and these are complex businesses that need run.

3. the 43% is highly inflated due to the fact that the league was a mess prior to the lockout. While owning a team can sometimes help towards the bottom line the 43% means nothing, I mean the Penguins were bought on the cheap in 2000 well below value. Burkle and Mario got lucky with a few things, good for them.

The reality is if you take out the top 5 teams, most teams are not increasing in the amount to cover their losses. Period. Selling the team helps, but is not a huge issue or the NHLPA would be crying foul. They are not. And for good reason.

4. I do not know what the correct amount of profit is, but I do know 20 teams losing money sucks. Yes, I agree that we need more revenue sharing but I also agree that you cant look at one season at a time. The league is trying to get the finances right for the long term viability of the sport.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,089
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Lockout

Postby interstorm on Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:02 pm

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
interstorm wrote:You keep posting this and while there is some truth to it, it is immensely flawed.

1. You can not average all of the teams in the league together and site 3% profit.


i am sorry, you seemed to write a lot but stopped reading early at this point. i never said NHL teams made a 3% profit.

read first - post second...
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby pens_srq on Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:19 pm

lol is this in the NHLPA agreement?

There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season.


Really? Yeah the owners were born yesterday and don't know how to run a business at all if they would even consider this. EVERYTHING must be tied to revenues. I'd say they need to drop that to be taken seriously.
pens_srq
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,501
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 11:33 am
Location: my garage, running a hockey league

Re: Lockout

Postby interstorm on Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:26 pm

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:You keep posting this and while there is some truth to it, it is immensely flawed.


browsing through this more -- i think you posted something similar before. i completely disagree that the players are an asset (in a financial debit and credit sense). i think an accountant's head would explode seeing you classify them as both that and an expense (i'm not an accountant - so maybe it is possible. seems strange to me but really is inconsequential). before, if my memory is correct, i think you even called them the product. they are employees -- simply put. most businesses have their #1 expense as an employee - the NHL is nothing different. companies of $200 paying $120 trying to make $5 million -- well, it may not be their intent, but Hewlett-Packard is worth 25 Billion and lost about $6.50 a share -- so whats your point? yeah - they have assets -- other companies don't. business is business.

and if i get you right for point #3, you're saying i am right but that it isn't fair? why not?

#4 - so the boston bruins should make more money. don't trade for rolston and his inflated salary and you'd save a couple bucks. closer to home, pittsburgh - should they have decided money was needed - could have shipped TK out of town along with martin to have added a nice profit to the bottom line. teams are instead making choices that cause their own financial short comings.

--anyway - as i said earlier...nobody is going to change anyone's mind. just throwing my own facts and common sense out there since some believe these things pertain to their side only.
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby columbia on Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:32 pm

To step back from the situation for a bit (and this is not intended to take either partisan side):

Why should an ownership be required to turn a profit?
I mean, plenty of businesses go under and I don't see why an NHL team should be exempt from that possibility.

Sure that would mean fewer jobs for players and, well...so what?

It's not clear to me that the free market has room for 30 franchises.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 46,738
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am

Re: Lockout

Postby interstorm on Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:38 pm

columbia wrote:Why should the ownership be required to turn a profit?


i don't believe they are required to -- but for the stability of the league i also believe it is in the interests of all to at least exist. as i have said before, the ownership (as an investment) is singularly more important than any given year's profit (or, honestly, any decade as well). i think if contraction sets in it would scare any potential investor/future owners. doing that is not good for the appraisal value of the franchise.

so to sum up - i think for the betterment of the league, there should be the realistic potential for profit for each team. of course, ownership decisions may shift the priority elsewhere (spending what would be profit on players in order to win).
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby shmenguin on Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:50 pm

interstorm wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:You keep posting this and while there is some truth to it, it is immensely flawed.


browsing through this more -- i think you posted something similar before. i completely disagree that the players are an asset (in a financial debit and credit sense). i think an accountant's head would explode seeing you classify them as both that and an expense (i'm not an accountant - so maybe it is possible. seems strange to me but really is inconsequential). before, if my memory is correct, i think you even called them the product. they are employees -- simply put. most businesses have their #1 expense as an employee - the NHL is nothing different. companies of $200 paying $120 trying to make $5 million -- well, it may not be their intent, but Hewlett-Packard is worth 25 Billion and lost about $6.50 a share -- so whats your point? yeah - they have assets -- other companies don't. business is business.

and if i get you right for point #3, you're saying i am right but that it isn't fair? why not?

#4 - so the boston bruins should make more money. don't trade for rolston and his inflated salary and you'd save a couple bucks. closer to home, pittsburgh - should they have decided money was needed - could have shipped TK out of town along with martin to have added a nice profit to the bottom line. teams are instead making choices that cause their own financial short comings.

--anyway - as i said earlier...nobody is going to change anyone's mind. just throwing my own facts and common sense out there since some believe these things pertain to their side only.



So you think the answer is for only the elitely wealthy teams to spend to the salary cap, while the other 25 teams leave money sitting there?

It doesn't seem like much fun to be a pirates fan. I'll pass.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,587
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby interstorm on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:09 pm

shmenguin wrote:So you think the answer is for only the elitely wealthy teams to spend to the salary cap, while the other 25 teams leave money sitting there?
It doesn't seem like much fun to be a pirates fan. I'll pass.


i think the cap ceiling and floor should be wider (but not too great). from there - yes - i think teams...businesses...should make their own decision and be responsible for them (otherwise that is the definition of moral hazard). i do agree going 50/50 makes sense as opposed to 57/43 (player favor) but i think there needs to be a transition -- or, better stated - there is no need for immediate cut over. i like the idea of greater revenue sharing.

i don't like the idea of players having to back down to owners because they have no leverage. when the original CBA was signed, 57% players wasn't considered bad (i believe - i could be wrong). changes since made the NHLPA take look big so owners are pushing for change. who says it stops there? i DO NOT want to see this happen again in 5 or 6 years (or 10 or 20 for that matter). i think the NHLPA needs to be strong or else they risk being steamrolled again in the future. i think that is why they got fehr (again, i don't like him but i understand how he got there).

...and if you don't want to be there - that's fine. i am sure the pens won't miss you (nor would they miss me)...
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby shmenguin on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:10 pm

columbia wrote:To step back from the situation for a bit (and this is not intended to take either partisan side):

Why should an ownership be required to turn a profit?
I mean, plenty of businesses go under and I don't see why an NHL team should be exempt from that possibility.

Sure that would mean fewer jobs for players and, well...so what?

It's not clear to me that the free market has room for 30 franchises.


my uninformed guess is that if a couple teams fold, then the operating expenses of the other teams stay the same, and their revenue also stays the same. contraction doesn't get you more money at the gate and doesn't land the NHL a better TV deal. maybe there's more to the equation, though.

i think you're right with the idea that every team shouldn't necessarily be turning a profit. if you're a poorly run business, if you piss off your fans, field a rotten team because of bad decisions or botch a bunch of negotiations with vendors, then you aren't entitled to be successful. but presumably, the majority of the teams in the league aren't poorly run. the numbers are way too skewed towards the red to get to this point of analysis.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,587
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby shmenguin on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:14 pm

interstorm wrote:i think the cap ceiling and floor should be wider (but not too great). from there - yes - i think teams...businesses...should make their own decision and be responsible for them (otherwise that is the definition of moral hazard).


the league was a horrible mess when it was split into the haves and have nots. there is an obscene amount of real data that obliterates what you're saying.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,587
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby pens_srq on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:17 pm

I think I've figured it out. This is all because super stars want to pad their stats on teams that are the NHL equivalent of the Pirates. Unfortunately for them the parity in the league has led to the evaporation of guaranteed 5 point nights for super stars and that's just not acceptable. This changes my whole perspective, forget the cap we need the old Lightning and Panthers back so Sid and Geno can rack up 200+ pts.
pens_srq
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,501
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 11:33 am
Location: my garage, running a hockey league

Re: Lockout

Postby interstorm on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:20 pm

shmenguin wrote:
interstorm wrote:i think the cap ceiling and floor should be wider (but not too great). from there - yes - i think teams...businesses...should make their own decision and be responsible for them (otherwise that is the definition of moral hazard).


the league was a horrible mess when it was split into the haves and have nots. there is an obscene amount of real data that obliterates what you're saying.


show please!!!

(you can't just make a statement like that and not throw some data out there. c'mon man!!!)
Last edited by interstorm on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby MRandall25 on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:23 pm

shmenguin wrote:
columbia wrote:To step back from the situation for a bit (and this is not intended to take either partisan side):

Why should an ownership be required to turn a profit?
I mean, plenty of businesses go under and I don't see why an NHL team should be exempt from that possibility.

Sure that would mean fewer jobs for players and, well...so what?

It's not clear to me that the free market has room for 30 franchises.


my uninformed guess is that if a couple teams fold, then the operating expenses of the other teams stay the same, and their revenue also stays the same. contraction doesn't get you more money at the gate and doesn't land the NHL a better TV deal. maybe there's more to the equation, though.

i think you're right with the idea that every team shouldn't necessarily be turning a profit. if you're a poorly run business, if you piss off your fans, field a rotten team because of bad decisions or botch a bunch of negotiations with vendors, then you aren't entitled to be successful. but presumably, the majority of the teams in the league aren't poorly run. the numbers are way too skewed towards the red to get to this point of analysis.


The funny part is, one of the teams making a profit is also arguably the most poorly run team in terms of team success in the standings (Toronto).

I was also about to say "Well, contraction means there's less teams to split the revenue with", then remembered that there would be less revenue to begin with.
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,076
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: Lockout

Postby shmenguin on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:31 pm

interstorm wrote:
shmenguin wrote:
interstorm wrote:i think the cap ceiling and floor should be wider (but not too great). from there - yes - i think teams...businesses...should make their own decision and be responsible for them (otherwise that is the definition of moral hazard).


the league was a horrible mess when it was split into the haves and have nots. there is an obscene amount of real data that obliterates what you're saying.


show please!!!


i'm at one of those points where something is so obvious, that i don't even know how to write it.

look at the payroll distribution from team-to-team in 2003. and look at it now. then look at league popularity in 2003. and look at it now. if you don't think that this parity is critical to the success of the NHL, then we have nowhere else to go in this discussion.

i mean...were you like this in 2004 as well? because it seems like you would have been ok with keeping things as they were as opposed to losing the season.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,587
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby ulf on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:31 pm

tfrizz wrote:
ulf wrote:No one commenting on the creepy mediator's twitter that got him removed already?


Apparently his account was hacked after he was named to the case.

Yeah right lol
ulf
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 13,857
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:41 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:44 pm

interstorm wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:You keep posting this and while there is some truth to it, it is immensely flawed.


browsing through this more -- i think you posted something similar before. i completely disagree that the players are an asset (in a financial debit and credit sense). i think an accountant's head would explode seeing you classify them as both that and an expense (i'm not an accountant - so maybe it is possible. seems strange to me but really is inconsequential). before, if my memory is correct, i think you even called them the product. they are employees -- simply put. most businesses have their #1 expense as an employee - the NHL is nothing different. companies of $200 paying $120 trying to make $5 million -- well, it may not be their intent, but Hewlett-Packard is worth 25 Billion and lost about $6.50 a share -- so whats your point? yeah - they have assets -- other companies don't. business is business.

and if i get you right for point #3, you're saying i am right but that it isn't fair? why not?

#4 - so the boston bruins should make more money. don't trade for rolston and his inflated salary and you'd save a couple bucks. closer to home, pittsburgh - should they have decided money was needed - could have shipped TK out of town along with martin to have added a nice profit to the bottom line. teams are instead making choices that cause their own financial short comings.

--anyway - as i said earlier...nobody is going to change anyone's mind. just throwing my own facts and common sense out there since some believe these things pertain to their side only.


Above when I said 3% I was simply referring to the fact that you can not compare sports business I any other business models. thats it, it's not even reasonable to bring them into the discussion.

As far as te accounting side I was not clear in that I was not speaking literally on the ledgers.

if a sports team is worth x amount of dollars it's all on paper in theory. If a business is worth x amount of dollars there are tangible assets, like a building, products, and cash reserve.

In sports you are buying the right to run a team. Period. Your asset (players) are technically an expense, your largest. At the very least you write them checks, you do not sell them.

As far as common sense, that's my point. Everyone keeps coming up with long reasons why the owners are wrong, when the facts are two thirds of them lost money and a handful that made money could have their fortunes turned in one season.

While I do agree that 3 or 4 teams make too much profit I don't know how you fix it being that even if you took all their profit and spread it evenly most teams would still be skating on thin ice.

In my opinion, sans a few teams, the split needs to come down an some contract stipulations put in place. Up revenue sharing and be down with it.
Last edited by BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,089
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Lockout

Postby interstorm on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:44 pm

shmenguin wrote:i'm at one of those points where something is so obvious, that i don't even know how to write it.

look at the payroll distribution from team-to-team in 2003. and look at it now. then look at league popularity in 2003. and look at it now. if you don't think that this parity is critical to the success of the NHL, then we have nowhere else to go in this discussion.

i mean...were you like this in 2004 as well? because it seems like you would have been ok with keeping things as they were as opposed to losing the season.


i'll reiterate. i think the cap is good but one cannot, nor should not, expect every team to spend the same amount of money. at that point you're either pushing small market teams too far or holding back big market teams (while also penalizing players). so there's going to be a range. i would imagine you'd agree on that. so what are we arguing over???

popularity - sadly i'm honestly not sure if the game is much more popular that it was in 2003. if we're going to nit pick, i'd even question whether it is more popular now that it was in 1994 after the rangers won the cup.
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby Idoit40fans on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:53 pm

pens_srq wrote:I think I've figured it out. This is all because super stars want to pad their stats on teams that are the NHL equivalent of the Pirates. Unfortunately for them the parity in the league has led to the evaporation of guaranteed 5 point nights for super stars and that's just not acceptable. This changes my whole perspective, forget the cap we need the old Lightning and Panthers back so Sid and Geno can rack up 200+ pts.


Interesting...who was the defending Stanley Cup Champion for 2 years before the problem you are citing was "fixed" after the last lockout? That team was broken up because of the salary cap by the way...while the Penguins were saved.
Idoit40fans
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 52,677
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: No Reading, No Research, Just Strong Opinions

PreviousNext

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Defence21, Dickie Dunn, FLPensFan, knives of ice, no name, Pruezy11881, RisslingsMissingTeeth and 8 guests


e-mail