View Single Post
11-10-2012, 12:24 PM
Global Moderator
Hurt's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,396
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
I don't agree with getting paid for 66. I can see the NHLPA point though they could have played 82 games except the owners have no interest in playing all 82 games.

No the made up rumour about the players not knowing the owner's offers. That was complete fabrication by Bettman.
The way I see it is: I as a worker do not agree with the boss about a contract deal. The boss tells me I can't work till there's a deal in place; fair enough at 9AM in the morning. We eventually reach a deal at 1PM and work goes till 5PM. I walk in to the boss's office and say "Hey. I should get paid from 9-5 because we couldn't reach a deal and you told me I can't come in!" Wouldn't I get laughed out of the office? It takes two to tango, and the NHLPA clearly didn't have an interest in playing all 82 games in the first place. If anything, the NHL even wanted a full season starting November 1st. That seems like having an interest in a full season to me. Are the NHLPA that much better and of higher value than us 'regular folks' that they should get paid for something they DIDN'T participate in i.e. 82 games?

Shoot me a PM with your concerns. Also, come visit us in the Science Forum!
Hurt is online now