Do you know why I've been able to stay married for 27 years?

Status
Not open for further replies.

QQQ

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
48
0
Because I'm always right and get my way and my significant other is a door mat.

:lol Not.

It's because we continue to communicate even when we're mad as hell.
May have a blow up...get huffy...don't talk for awhile then try again. It usually starts something like this:
"You didn't listen" or " I thought this" " You didn't let me finish" "That's not what I want", "That's not what I meant". "You're a nag", "You're a1/?x", " You always want it your way" "Why don't you" blah blah blah
Finishes with: "Okay what was it you really wanted or meant or need". What can we/should we do so that we both feel validated, heard, acknowledged and satisfied that the outcome is fair and that no one has been unfairly taken advantage of or whatever.(paraphrasing of course)
Then we hug say sorry. Implement or take action on the course of action decided on and continue on. Works for me.

So..... What's taking so long NHL team owners and NHLPA? Or do you really want a divorce?
 

QQQ

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
48
0
Okay so my attempt at levity is not appreciated. That's fine.

Here now is my prediction of the future of hockey.
No NHL for two years minimum. Maybe never again.
Players in Europe will enjoy the break from the long and exhausting NHL schedule. It will feel like a holiday and they still get to play hockey which they love.
Euro players will enjoy the culture, history and their children will learn a new language. They will live a nice life.
Players such as Naslund will be able to have his family grow up in his home country.
The rest of the world may become more interested in hockey and it's appeal will grow globally. Japan will have two teams-beer will cost $9.00 each in Japan.
The Sultan of Brunei will have a team since he has more money than he knows what to do with plus it will be a nice cool environment in the heat of the desert. (This one may be a stretch)
Players that are concussed or have injuries will have time to rest and rehabilitate.
The older players may decide to pack it in and start their life after hockey.
The AHL will fill a void. A less glamourous product more like hamburger compared to New York strip loin.
No NHL draft. Free market system for players emerging from OHL, Q, WHL, Europe. AHL and Euro-Russian teams will now bid on talent ie: Crosby
Young players will go NCAA route since there is no NHL there's not alot of incentive to go to the DUB, OHL or Q. Those teams DUB, OHL Q will start to have inferior teams. The hockey players will all have college degrees, become lawyers and act as their own agents.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
So, what you're saying is Goodenow and Bettman need makeup sex, in order to save the relationship?

I'm not sure the general public is ready for that.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
Jag68Vlady27 said:
So, what you're saying is Goodenow and Bettman need makeup sex, in order to save the relationship?

I'm not sure the general public is ready for that.

If it brings hockey back... I'm all for it... as long as it is done behind a locked door with no windows...
 

kmad

riot survivor
Jun 16, 2003
34,133
60
Vancouver
What I'm saying is that there are a lot more factors involved with the NHL situation, there's less room for sacrificing diginity/pride, there's lots more money involved, lucrative careers at stake, etc.

You can't parallel your own life with NHL economics. Doesn't work the same way.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
triggrman said:
So you would have make-up sex with Bettman and Goodenow?

Me, personally, no... and I don't think that any fan should... We've already been ****ed through both side's propoganda and $ agendas...
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
The analogy fails because a marriage is an equal partnership.

What we have here is a boss / employee relationship. And the employees are too uppity to recognise the boss is always right.
 

QQQ

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
48
0
Yes, Pecafan the analogy is not a correct one, you are right.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
PecaFan said:
The analogy fails because a marriage is an equal partnership.

What we have here is a boss / employee relationship. And the employees are too uppity to recognise the boss is always right.

incorrect .. they are not merely "employee's" ... maybe one day when you leave your socialist utopia you will understand what "scarcity" means and why some people can command more than others, regardless of the value to society.

if they were merely common stock employee's, they wouldnt be paid the millions they are nor would the owners give a rats ass who "worked" for them.

dr
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
DementedReality said:
incorrect .. they are not merely "employee's" ... maybe one day when you leave your socialist utopia you will understand what "scarcity" means and why some people can command more than others, regardless of the value to society.

if they were merely common stock employee's, they wouldnt be paid the millions they are nor would the owners give a rats ass who "worked" for them.

Yes, they are scarce, which is why they are highly paid. Congratulations, nobody was debating that, but oooh, you "win" that one. :banghead:

Doesn't change the fact they're still *employees*, because someone else is paying their salary.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
PecaFan said:
Yes, they are scarce, which is why they are highly paid. Congratulations, nobody was debating that, but oooh, you "win" that one. :banghead:

Doesn't change the fact they're still *employees*, because someone else is paying their salary.

well, i see them more as contractors and not employee's. but i suppose one could have a broad enough definition to apply here.

dr
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,999
2,075
Duncan
DementedReality said:
well, i see them more as contractors and not employee's. but i suppose one could have a broad enough definition to apply here.

dr

I'm just going to broadly disagree with any poster who I've argued with in the past just because I can. So there. sniff.

Come on... it's like box of chocolates.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
PecaFan said:
Yes, they are scarce, which is why they are highly paid. Congratulations, nobody was debating that, but oooh, you "win" that one. :banghead:

Doesn't change the fact they're still *employees*, because someone else is paying their salary.

The flaw in your theory is that the players are not just the employee they are also the product.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
vanlady said:
The flaw in your theory is that the players are not just the employee they are also the product.

That's the whole thing, now isn't it?

Quite laughable to hear the whole "cheer for the jersey" bit. I don't see Ed Snider's autographed suit up for auction on eBay, nor has someone come out with a series of collectable cards of the owners. Of course it's all about the players (be it as it may they do come and go). Always has been, is now, always will be.

Owners are sadly and tragically mistaken if they think they can circumvent that.
 

struckmatch

Registered User
Jul 28, 2003
4,224
0
Vancouver
Bicycle Repairman said:
That's the whole thing, now isn't it?

Quite laughable to hear the whole "cheer for the jersey" bit. I don't see Ed Snider's autographed suit up for auction on eBay, nor has someone come out with a series of collectable cards of the owners. Of course it's all about the players (be it as it may they do come and go). Always has been, is now, always will be.

Owners are sadly and tragically mistaken if they think they can circumvent that.

The owners aren't trying to circumvent that. They are trying to insure some financial stability in this league, and for their businesses, and to you, thats trying to take the attention away from the players?

You're a hoot. :lol
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
puck you said:
The owners aren't trying to circumvent that. They are trying to insure some financial stability in this league, and for their businesses, and to you, thats trying to take the attention away from the players?

You're a hoot. :lol

They aren't trying to ensure financial stability, they are trying to ensure a profit for even the stupidest of them all, Bill Wirtz. Huge difference, when you can understand that come back and talk.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
puck you said:
The owners aren't trying to circumvent that. They are trying to insure some financial stability in this league, and for their businesses, and to you, thats trying to take the attention away from the players?

You're a hoot. :lol

Where have I argued against financial stability?

You need to read my posts more carefully.
:teach:
 

QQQ

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
48
0
I view pay as something that recognizes successful achievement. Telling the players that the owners made a big mistake and overvalued them and paid them too much... Now it's up to them to fix it?
It attacks their self worth. Not a great motivator for future effort either.

However, most people believe in fairness and justice to all. I worry of the impact if the players are treated unfairly and unjustly. There has to be a satisfactory middle ground.

We will see if Mr. Bettman has the skills and creativity to negotiate a truly better NHL for all. Owners, players and fans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->