Its all about hard work folks. Genetics have nothing to do with how good of hockey player you are.
So if someone is born with spina bifida and work just as hard as sidney crosby, they will become as good as sidney crosby considering genetics have nothing to do with how good you are?
would the courts dismiss de-certification if he consulted the group of the players? Would they possibly still see them as a union if he does so? Its basically having it both ways. Question because i dont know.
I doubt it. I mean, if they were to decertify, I think he could still negotiate with the NHL on their behalf and have the union re-certify if an agreement is met. Maybe.
Disclaiming interest is what they should be doing though, not decertification.
You're joking right? Last season was one of the most exciting and intriguing NHL seasons in a long time. The year before when the B's beat your Canucks, was pretty damn good too.
Stop clouding your head with the off ice business stuff. It's is absolutely insane to say the on ice product is lacking over the years.
Do you not realize what a silly statement this is?
I guess it all depends on what you enjoy as an on ice product. I enjoyed the Philly Pitty series in a huge way, because to me it was a throwback to the "old style" of hockey. I prefer the red line in. I miss fighting. I prefer the slower, more agressive style that was prevelant pre lockout 04. I just don't enjoy it now like I used to. Its still good, but not great.
The fact that the NHLPA has every intention of re-certifying after De-certifying is all the more reason their application should be rejected by any court. The whole process is being abused by the PA for negotiation purposes.
So if someone is born with spina bifida and work just as hard as sidney crosby, they will become as good as sidney crosby considering genetics have nothing to do with how good you are?
Im sure a lot of kids who may have been as good as Crosby were born with parents who could not afford to put them through hockey as a kid.
Hockey as a kid is a luxury most don't enjoy, I think thats the point being made.
I doubt it. I mean, if they were to decertify, I think he could still negotiate with the NHL on their behalf and have the union re-certify if an agreement is met. Maybe.
Disclaiming interest is what they should be doing though, not decertification.
Well courts can strike down de-certification if they see it as a tactic in negotiations. Could be wrong tho, read so much on these boards about law i ever thought i would. I believe they can kill that process if they feel the union is still acting as a union, and if Fehr was still leading the players, it would come across that way.
Do you not realize what a silly statement this is?
It's not silly at all. I have a hard time watching games and I'm a huge fan that has played the game my whole life. It's marginally better than it was in the dead puck era but still a fraction of the entertainment hockey can offer.
You're joking right? Last season was one of the most exciting and intriguing NHL seasons in a long time. The year before when the B's beat your Canucks, was pretty damn good too.
Stop clouding your head with the off ice business stuff. It's is absolutely insane to say the on ice product is lacking over the years.
Do you not realize what a silly statement this is?
I don't know. After the 1st round, the playoffs were a complete snoozefest.
There are too many coaches preaching grinding, defensive hockey. It's not my cup of tea.
Teams like the Sens, Flyers and Pens were fun to watch but most other teams were pretty boring.
I don't know. After the 1st round, the playoffs were a complete snoozefest.
There are too many coaches preaching grinding, defensive hockey. It's not my cup of tea.
I think it's slid back to clutch and grab again. The refs are not calling what they used to.
I'd also give credit to the coaches. These guys can come up with a system that can stifle almost any offence out there. I'm not sure how you can stop that with new rules but the refs should at least enforce the exisiting rules.
I think it's slid back to clutch and grab again. The refs are not calling what they used to.
I'd also give credit to the coaches. These guys can come up with a system that can stifle almost any offence out there. I'm not sure how you can stop that with new rules but the refs should at least enforce the exisiting rules.
Yeah pretty much.
It was frustrating as hell watching the Oilers get suffocated by teams like Phoenix, L.A. and St. Louis who just clog up the neutral zone and wait for turnovers. ZZZ
Not coincidentally, they made up 3 of the 4 teams that turned out the most boring Western Semis and Finals that i had seen in years.
It reminded me of the late 90s to early 00s hockey, not a good thing.
I think it's slid back to clutch and grab again. The refs are not calling what they used to.
I'd also give credit to the coaches. These guys can come up with a system that can stifle almost any offence out there. I'm not sure how you can stop that with new rules but the refs should at least enforce the exisiting rules.
Coaches have adapted, the league has been slow to react like it always is. Slashing has replaced hooking, teams collapse to the net because goalies are too big for players to score from outside 15 feet, the league continues to let players get mauled in front of the net etc.
Can you imagine if the NFL let wide outs get mauled in the end zone? It just doesn't make any sense to me that the league continues to take the skill out of the game at every turn. If they geared the rules to make creating offence easier then coaches would be forced to adapt. For 20 years they've been making it easier to play defence, so that's what teams do.
I guess there goes the argument that NHLers are special or rare and the game is dependent on them.
Its all about hard work folks. Genetics have nothing to do with how good of hockey player you are.
This is completely false. There are hundreds of millions of male childen and adolescents in the world who could spend 16 hours a day practicing soccer and they'll never be as good as Ronaldo. Do you think the difference between Nadal/Federer and the players ranked somewhere in the 30s and 40s is "hard work"?
Do you think Crosby got to where he is - the pretty much unanimously best player in the world - just by working hard?
On the flip side, do you think Tanner Glass is a 4th liner / 13th forward because he doesn't quite work as hard as Crosby?
Maybe it's not genetics in a lot of cases, but there is 100% certainty that some people have a natural talent for what they do, and no amount of hard work by an "average" person will ever cause them to achieve what the naturally talented people can do.
You may as well suggest that anyone can be a genius and invent things/theories like Edison/Einstein/Tesla if they just study hard enough.
Can't qoute from old thread on phone. But to the one who asked if i think it would make a difference the players/owners only meeting. I have no clue but it is worth more of a try then sitting and doing nothing but complaining about how mean the other side is. Why not sit down face to face with the ones that are trying to ruin your life and try to work it out. It probably is not a suprise that whenever fehr and bettman are in the rooms is when the least progress happens.
Man.. if getting everything paid for me including food, hotel, private flights and buses, trainers and doctors on top of getting millions of dollars to play a game.. I want to get "bent over" too.
Is there some sort of line or something I can stand in to get bent over. It sounds like a sweet deal. I always thought bent over was the worst part about prison not about being a professional athlete lol
The ones they created for themselves outside of hockey revenue? That lifestyle?
Not to mention for his statement to even be relevant owners would have to be saying they are getting bent over which has only been said about the players
Is it just me or are people completely ignoring the whole revenue sharing debate right now?
Could this thing not be resolved simply by bumping the revenue sharing up to where it needs to be (I know the owners will never agree) in principle for every team to grow to be competitive? If the players really wanted to play they should've proposed a huge boost in revenue sharing equal to the amount their shares are being cut. That way teams that are losing money are propped up until they can make it, and the big money teams like the Leafs and Rangers aren't getting out of this thing with a huge expense cut and profit boost... am I oversimplifying this?
Is it just me or are people completely ignoring the whole revenue sharing debate right now?
Could this thing not be resolved simply by bumping the revenue sharing up to where it needs to be (I know the owners will never agree) in principle for every team to grow to be competitive? If the players really wanted to play they should've proposed a huge boost in revenue sharing equal to the amount their shares are being cut. That way teams that are losing money are propped up until they can make it, and the big money teams like the Leafs and Rangers aren't getting out of this thing with a huge expense cut and profit boost... am I oversimplifying this?
From a purely selfish fan perspective why would I want my money making team that has trouble signing free agents subsidizing a team in Phoenix or Florida that normally wouldnt be able to afford certain free agents and is now able to bid against me using my own money.
From a purely selfish fan perspective why would I want my money making team that has trouble signing free agents subsidizing a team in Phoenix or Florida that normally wouldnt be able to afford certain free agents and is now able to bid against me using my own money.
So we don't have to deal with this **** every 7 years?
Just playing devils advocate.
Edit: But yeah, I definitely see your point. Just throwing **** at the wall and seeing what sticks at this point.
From a purely selfish fan perspective why would I want my money making team that has trouble signing free agents subsidizing a team in Phoenix or Florida that normally wouldnt be able to afford certain free agents and is now able to bid against me using my own money.
Id imagine owners probably have a similar outlook
I guess you could just watch the Leafs, Habs and Rangers play each other 41 times each in a 3 team league... of course there wouldn't be any actual NHL players willing to play there, so those three stop making money too...
are they not allowed, or are they just not wanting to/too busy/whatever?
Dregr reported today on TSN that Molson has been clamouring to be involved in a meeting but has been shut-out. Dregr also suggested him for the 2 sides he made-up in a theoretical meeting based-off the owners' suggestion that they meet with the PA without Bettman or Fehr involved.
