Ogie Oglethorpe said:
I am no fan of him, but you Brooks bashers need to take a look in the mirror.
First of all, he has an opposing viewpoint, which immediately undermines his credibility in many people's eyes (esp. on this board). This opinion is the minority opinion at that, which makes him an easy target for the so-called "80%" who favor the owners in this lockout. Remember, it very difficult to hold the line of the side that almost no one believes.
It's not a question of bashing for the skake of doing so and it's not about taking one side. This is not the right media person to be taking a stand because he has proven out not to be credible with his stories and sources several times over. This man will write one week Jason Smith is going to be a Ranger meanwhile the next week the Edmonton Journal will even dismiss Brooks and his rumor as completely baseless.
If Kevin Dupont or Red Fisher or Michael Russo waged Brooks campaign I would be much more inclined to respect it because these people have proven they do not come with an agenda. The Pittsburgh writers are outstanding.
Ogie Oglethorpe said:
I, for one, highly doubt that everything he has written is true. I also do not believe much of what Bettman and Co. have said about their finances. This is a negotiation over revenue in the billions. Would it not serve the league's purpose to "skew the numbers" so they could get a bigger slice of the pie? And all of you people bought hook, line and sinker. In the dealings I have had with management, I have always found that all they are wont to do in any situation, not just a CBA process, is get away with whatever they can--and that includes presenting falsehoods as facts, and taking cetain other facts and twisting them to reinforce their belief system. I am not saying that the league has done any of this, and no one else here knows for sure. I just think it is imprudent to pass judgement on a topic when hearing only one side of the story. I think the term is "Drinking the Kool-Aid"?
I don't know if the NHL is being honest or not about it's finances. I tend to think the former chairman of the SEC did do an honest job with what he was given and would not have signed on to conduct nothing more than propaganda scam based on skewed information. Forbes yearly estimate with no info showed losses and the NHLPA salary reduction offer all confirm this business is not doing very well. It's not Drinking the Kool-Aid to acknowledge that Espn/Fox and Abc are not interested in paying much or anything at all to cover hockey. The media's lack of coverage is also no illusion brought up by management, neither are the television ratings. That's a reality that can no longer be spun.
Ogie Oglethorpe said:
Could it just be the main problem that most of you have with Brooks is that he is writing stuff that just MAY be true, which would refute and dispel some or all of your beliefs that Bettman has told you over the past 18-24 months? That maybe all the league is trying to do is "get away with whatever they can", and using disinformation to sway the court of public opinion?
The problem most folks have with Brooks is he has proven his work is not credible as to what's happening. He also has no prayer of the Rangers competing with the large market teams in the city. If the 500 million dollar team teams played in obscurity going on close to a decade with all those star players imagine how rough it will become if the Rangers must ice a 40 million dollar team with no ability to add stars?
That's Brooks true agenda.
Strachan also knows that would be a problem in Toronto but the Leafs own their market. In NYC hockey is invisible with very weak coverage. The only regular Sunday column is from Brooks, that's how obscure hockey is here.
The fans do not need any writer to know the truth, hockey fans are generally
die-hards and know what's going on. We know owners created these problems and no player should have turned down a contract and owners cannot be trusted to keep a salary structure without a cap. That said the players are going to have to acknowledge this game needs cost-certainty, it's not Goodenow's problem, he wants his free market.
Ogie Oglethorpe said:
The fact that Brooks speaks out against the league is all the more reason why you should read him and objectively decide whether he is right or wrong on any of a myriad of topics, because while neither side has been forthcoming with their truths, many people here just take what Brooks writes and dismisses it without a thought, just because he makes up trade rumors.
I think you answered your own question. If he has to make up things when hockey is being played what is he going to make up without hockey being played?
Making comments against Bob McKenzie is not scoring points with the fans, neither was his shot at the Toronto Star before that.