Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Mess, Jun 1, 2005.
NHL, players fight over QC labour law
I think you are making a big jump to conclusion with your response.
It sounds like Koivu and Rivet simply stated that they are employed by the Habs and not the NHL.
This does not imply that they are anti-deal, they are simply stating what they consider to be true.
Both sides using the identical tactics as they did here in BC.
In Vancouver recently the players testified in the hearing .. So one could deduct that if you are in attendence and supporting your union in a battle against the NHL lawyers that you not in favour of the current deal in progress. These guys are fighting against the future use of replacement players .. That issue is not even present at the moment if a deal is close now ..
This could be put on the back burner no ??
IMO the NHL and the PA are simply leaving no card unplayed. I doubt very much either side sees this lockout going for much longer, but in the unlikely event that it does...
Well, better to be prepared than not.
That is one of the most ambitious reaches I've seen on this board, and that is saying a lot.
Why would this have anything to do with them being or not being in the pro-deal camp? It wouldn't matter either way. The NHLPA, no-deal and anti-deal camps, are still going to want the union status is BC/Quebec sorted out at some stage. No harm is being done by either side here. No player seems to be taking a side, deal or anti-deal.
Why? The times and dates would have been arranged in advance. There is no reason not to finish it and get the union status sorted. There is still no guarantee of a deal, so even the pro-deal camp would want to make sure things are checked out.
Bob McKenzie says they are taking sides right now ..
I am just trying to get a head start on the head count here ..
You have taken two completely unrelated articles and attempted to join them where no such join exists. This kind of logic get us
1 + 1 = banana
Even if you are pro-owner. How can you fault players for fighting against the possibility of replacement players. Even as stupid as this lockout has been, there is absolutely no benefit to the players to have guys take their roster spot for less money. There are a million Rocky Thompson's in the world who would play in the NHL for free if they had the opportunity. People who have no real shot of being in the NHL (again or ever) but are high enough up in the pro hockey leagues to be there as a second tier of 700 players.
Players can be in favour the deal being put forward, but it doesn't mean that they don't have the right to try and cover their bases in the same way the NHL is trying to cover theirs by fighting the Quebec labour laws. How much damage to the NHL would happen if there was no Montreal team in the league because they couldn't put players in place because of union rules but they went ahead with a 29 (to 24) team league?
Is the NHL against getting a deal done (that by reports and general perception on the site is having the players bending over for the owners taking things that they fought so hard against earlier in the lockout) because they are fighting for the right to have replacement players for Montreal? I don't feel so (doesn't mean you don't have the right to though either).
Also, claiming to be property of the Canadiens instead of the NHL could be taken as a sign of loyalty to the franchise over loyalty to the NHL and Gary Bettman. I doubt you have very many players who want to be friends with Gary right now (or the owners). And because throughout this lockout Gary and Co. have been described as the NHL side, players may feel more loyalty to the logo on their sweater than to the logo on the Commissioners sweater.
Nice editing job Massager!
so let's see, if we are really close to a deal as most of the pro bettman journalists and posters insist, then why would this be necessary? it shouldn't be.
It's quite possible the some NHL owners and BOG people leaked that the deal was getting closer, even if it wasn't.
If the owners believe the players are getting close to splitting, a few well placed stories suggesting there is a movement afoot might just actually help the splitting process along.
Both sides are doing their best to manipulate the press. Can't fault them, really.
But you can fault to two-bit journalists if:
1)they are duped into printing lies. The mustard test is a bit more strict for newspapers than it is for message boards.
2) If they knowingly printed a falsehood.
Sadly, I think we're seeing either sheer blindness or outright manipulation - on boths sides of the spectrum.
Did anyone ever stop and think, that this was the scheduled time of the hearing in Quebec? The courts don't exactly move fast, and this may just be a coincidence, and not a "conspiracy" that everything happens to be