Thank GOD!!

[Likewall32]

Man Im so happy the players association rejected that horseshit plan of realigning the NHL into 4 conferences... Now the NHL is seeking legal action against the PA. If a court system allows forces the PA to accept the changes, this is one time when I would be greatly in favor of a players strike!

Bettman, it was a dumb idea from the get go, bite the bullet and let it go. Keep the same format of 6 divisions/2 conferences and just switch around a few teams. Or goto 4 divisions/2 conferences... None of this stupid 4 conference crap with no east/west and stupid possible Cup matchups...

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Don't get your hopes up because the PA didn't reject it fully and they actually support the general principal of the proposal. They rejected it for now because they wanted to postpone it's implimentation until the NHL had answers to all their questions. I also suspect Fehr wants to use it as a barganing chip during the new CBA negotiations.

With near unanimous approval from the owners you can almost be guaranteed this plan will be implimented for the 13/14 season.

 

[MrChangoT97]

I just don't want to see a lock out again!

Cuz that would fucking SUCK!

 

[Voltaire26]

I just don't want to see a lock out again!

Cuz that would fucking SUCK!

AMEN

 

[Likewall32]

Im all for if a lockout if it means this plan never happens. And Com, Im well aware that majority owners voted for it & it possibley being the starting grounds of the whole CBA war, but they funny part is Bettman, Daley & all these hockey analysts praise the plan saying owners, fans & players are all in favor of it. Yet a handfull of owners that were interviewed after the vote, said that even tho they voted in favor of it, they dont like the idea. Same with players, I have yet to read a player interview that actually liked it. And fans.... shit, I dont know one longtime hardcore hockey fan that likes it. The only person I personally know that is in favor of it is my friend thats an autograph chaser & he only likes it cause that means more money in his pocket selling eastern conf player autos...

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Im all for if a lockout if it means this plan never happens. And Com, Im well aware that majority owners voted for it & it possibley being the starting grounds of the whole CBA war, but they funny part is Bettman, Daley & all these hockey analysts praise the plan saying owners, fans & players are all in favor of it. Yet a handfull of owners that were interviewed after the vote, said that even tho they voted in favor of it, they dont like the idea. Same with players, I have yet to read a player interview that actually liked it. And fans.... shit, I dont know one longtime hardcore hockey fan that likes it. The only person I personally know that is in favor of it is my friend thats an autograph chaser & he only likes it cause that means more money in his pocket selling eastern conf player autos...

One of the sticking points before this last CBA was the fact that the players overwhelming wanted home and away games against every team and that is still the case. They also wanted reduced travel and the proposed set up would privide that for most teams.

The biggest issues with the current proposal is it's assinine PO set up. You can't have a conference based PO qualifying with uneven conferences. They fix the PO qualifying structure and show the PA the reduced travel schedule for a large majority of the teams and this will get passed.

IMO if they wanted to comprimise they could just go to a 4 division instead of 4 conference set up. Use the proposed regular season schedule but keep the 2 conference top 8 qualifier for the PO's. If down the road expansion or contraction evens out the divisions then they could move to a 4 conference set up if they so choose and the PA approves.

I guess as an old timer i don't see it as that big of an issue. I've seen so much realignmet, expansion, contraction, and more reoganization that some more won't mean much. Every time there is change people always bitch and moan about how bad it's going to be but in the end the game has stayed the same and you don't hear much complaining after it's done.

 

[Likewall32]

I guess as an old timer i don't see it as that big of an issue. I've seen so much realignmet, expansion, contraction, and more reoganization that some more won't mean much. Every time there is change people always bitch and moan about how bad it's going to be but in the end the game has stayed the same and you don't hear much complaining after it's done.

Thats just it, with this horseshit, the game wont stay the same... They can EASILY do 4 division 2 conf. 7/8 & 7/8 top 8 make it. The main puking facotr is 4 CONFERENCES. With that the game will not be same, maybe you guys out in SJ want to see it, but I sure as fuck dont want to see a San Jose vs St Louis final... East/West, Conf/Conf, AFC/NFC, AL/NL thats how EVERY sport is, and this whole 4 conf shit wants to go against what every major sport does and to me its just retarded. And you say "every player wants a home & home vs every team" tell me where you see that or read it, cause I sure as shit never say that. You mean to tell me players on SJ would rather play 2 games vs carolina then 4 vs Chicago? I have a whole state that would say otherwise. Just like Chi would rather have 4 vs SJ than 2 vs SJ & 2 vs Buffalo... Maybe its dif on the west coast, but here we could give 2 shits less bout playin home & homes against eastern teams and I think that pretty much speaks for every team thats been around for awhile that has built inter conference rivalies.

Its a fucking joke and its marketing ploy "Hey kidds! Dont you wanna see Sid the Kid & Ovie in your home town once a year??!!" No I really dont, cause chances are, how many people are actually going to attend that game that are casual fans?? Pretty much NONE, you can watch the away game and be happy with it

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Watch the Paul Kelly (Former NHLPA Director) interview up on TSN.ca. He speaks very candidly about the players desire for home and homes with every team as well as the reduced travel. It's currently on page 5 of the video section and titled "Role Reversal". That's just the latest example.

 

[Likewall32]

Watch the Paul Kelly (Former NHLPA Director) interview up on TSN.ca. He speaks very candidly about the players desire for home and homes with every team as well as the reduced travel. It's currently on page 5 of the video section and titled "Role Reversal". That's just the latest example.

I didnt watch it yet but im assuming he's doing a thing that he's speaking for the players. I want to see individual interviews like "I hate this idea" - Chris Pronger, "Best idea ever" - Wade Belak Cause anyone can say "The players really want this" Just like Bettman & Daley are doing right now, but then you read individual interviews and no one wants it.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

I didnt watch it yet but im assuming he's doing a thing that he's speaking for the players. I want to see individual interviews like "I hate this idea" - Chris Pronger, "Best idea ever" - Wade Belak Cause anyone can say "The players really want this" Just like Bettman & Daley are doing right now, but then you read individual interviews and no one wants it.

I have yet to see an individual interview of a player, GM, or owner who's made a difinitive statement like you're looking for. I've read a lot about the PA reps rejecting the proposal because the NHL didn't have all the answers to the questions they asked and couldn't or wouldn't provide them the info they wanted but nothing that's saying they think it's a bad idea altogether. The players as well as GM's and Owners are not allowed to talk about on going negotiations other than what's already public knowledge so we probably won't see any difinitive statements from either side until the plan is either passed or scrapped completely. In an interview the Florida owner amitted to voting against the plan because they believed it would result in a tougher travel schedule for their team. That's the closest I've seen or heard to a "Good Idea", "Bad Idea" statement.

While I don't like the proposed PO qualifying structure because of the uneven conferences the overall proposed PO set up really isn't much more than a hybrid throwback to the two systems used over the course of the 80's and early 90's with the Norris, Smythe, Patrick, and Adams divisions.

It began as a system where any team could play any other team in the Cup Finals then moved to something almost exactly like whats being proposed now. The top four teams from each division make the PO's. First two rounds of the PO's are interdivision.

 

[Destroydacre]

Watch the Paul Kelly (Former NHLPA Director) interview up on TSN.ca. He speaks very candidly about the players desire for home and homes with every team as well as the reduced travel. It's currently on page 5 of the video section and titled "Role Reversal". That's just the latest example.

I agree that's a good idea however they could just do that without this retarded realignment plan.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

I agree that's a good idea however they could just do that without this retarded realignment plan.

Most definately they could but as I said in a previous thread I'm of the opinion that there is another agenda behind Bettman's desire to realign and that's expansion. It's the only thing that makes any sence in wanting to move to an uneven conference alignment. It's easier to have the conferences or divisions ready for expansion than it is to realign after expansion has occurred. Now is also the optimal time for Bettman to try to pass realignment before the New CBA is ratified.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

If you don't watch the Paul Kelly video I previously posted then here are the quotes that pertain to this subject. Quotes come from this TSN article.

Regarding some players personal views of the proposal-

Personally, I thought the realignment voted on by the owners was positive. From the NHL players I had spoken to I thought they had embraced it as well.

And regarding the players desires for home and homes between all teams during the last CBA negotiations-

We argued for a schedule which permitted teams to play home-and-home series against every other team in the league. Our players wanted to make sure they had an opportunity to get to the other 29 venues, and then all those other teams would come to their home. They thought that was important for the marketing of the game.

 

[Likewall32]

I have yet to see an individual interview of a player, GM, or owner who's made a difinitive statement like you're looking for. I've read a lot about the PA reps rejecting the proposal because the NHL didn't have all the answers to the questions they asked and couldn't or wouldn't provide them the info they wanted but nothing that's saying they think it's a bad idea altogether. The players as well as GM's and Owners are not allowed to talk about on going negotiations other than what's already public knowledge so we probably won't see any difinitive statements from either side until the plan is either passed or scrapped completely. In an interview the Florida owner amitted to voting against the plan because they believed it would result in a tougher travel schedule for their team. That's the closest I've seen or heard to a "Good Idea", "Bad Idea" statement.

While I don't like the proposed PO qualifying structure because of the uneven conferences the overall proposed PO set up really isn't much more than a hybrid throwback to the two systems used over the course of the 80's and early 90's with the Norris, Smythe, Patrick, and Adams divisions.

It began as a system where any team could play any other team in the Cup Finals then moved to something almost exactly like whats being proposed now. The top four teams from each division make the PO's. First two rounds of the PO's are interdivision.

Read various ESPN articles, there are player interviews. I dont feel like digging thru them all so Ill jus post the first one I found:

"I was surprized to har that it didnt go through. I didnt like the change in the playoff format, so its not bad for us. But I know some teams are going to be upset with the travel. I personally like the way it is and didnt want any changes" - Zach Parise NJ Devils...

There was an interview when the plan was first voted on, I think it was from Burke but not 100% sure, where he said he didnt like the idea bu voted for it anyway.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Read various ESPN articles, there are player interviews. I dont feel like digging thru them all so Ill jus post the first one I found:

"I was surprized to har that it didnt go through. I didnt like the change in the playoff format, so its not bad for us. But I know some teams are going to be upset with the travel. I personally like the way it is and didnt want any changes" - Zach Parise NJ Devils...

There was an interview when the plan was first voted on, I think it was from Burke but not 100% sure, where he said he didnt like the idea bu voted for it anyway.

That's a good quote form Parise. Though, I find the first sentence very interesting. "I was surprized to hear that it didn't go through." That's a very telling sign that he believes there is support for it amongst the players.

I haven't seen much from Burke on the issue but I know Lamorillo said he had many concerns about it and there were some aspects that he didn't like. Then he went on to say he voted for it because of all the proposed realignment plans he felt this one was the most fair for all the teams.

 

[Likewall32]

That's a good quote form Parise. Though, I find the first sentence very interesting. "I was surprized to hear that it didn't go through." That's a very telling sign that he believes there is support for it amongst the players.

Not necessarily. I didnt view it like that at all. I viewed it like like "Im surprized it wasnt passed, since it had already been voted on my majority owners"

I looked at what he said as like when a job is going to institute new policys that none of the employees like, but corporate thinks they are great ideas, and then they end up scraping the idea. Employees saying they are surprized they didnt get passed doesnt show a very telling sign that there was support amongst the employees. It shows that they are surprized it didnt get passed cause the big wigs already voted to do it.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Not necessarily. I didnt view it like that at all. I viewed it like like "Im surprized it wasnt passed, since it had already been voted on my majority owners"

I looked at what he said as like when a job is going to institute new policys that none of the employees like, but corporate thinks they are great ideas, and then they end up scraping the idea. Employees saying they are surprized they didnt get passed doesnt show a very telling sign that there was support amongst the employees. It shows that they are surprized it didnt get passed cause the big wigs already voted to do it.

That makes absolutely no sence. Knowing it couldn't pass without the approval of the PA there would be no reason for him to be surprised. If he knew the large majority of the players didn't like the proposal, and with the players having the final say, he wouldn't be surprised by the outcome at all.

 

[Likewall32]

That makes absolutely no sence. Knowing it couldn't pass without the approval of the PA there would be no reason for him to be surprised. If he knew the large majority of the players didn't like the proposal, and with the players having the final say, he wouldn't be surprised by the outcome at all.

Im assuming youve never worked for a union then where something was passed even tho majority didnt want it then...

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Im assuming youve never worked for a union then where something was passed even tho majority didnt want it then...

You're right, I've never worked for a union that's allowed that to happen to it's members. It's a good thing the NHLPA has always let their players make the final decision so that could never happen.