Could the players revolt? (MOD: if no NHL participation in Pyeongchang)

[JackSlater]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/growing-skepticism-ahead-nhl-iihf-olympics-meeting-wednesday/

BREAKING NEWS

The IIHF will come up with the money.

Wednesday meeting. Decision date sometime in January.

I think we all know the nhl will be there, but could there be other obstacles?

Bob McKenzie thinks that the NHL might refuse, even if the IIHF offers to pay. Laughably the NHL may claim some kind of moral stance on the issue. Information below:

http://www.tsn.ca/clock-ticking-on-nhl-olympic-decision-1.607878

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

Bob McKenzie thinks that the NHL might refuse, even if the IIHF offers to pay. Laughably the NHL may claim some kind of moral stance on the issue. Information below:

http://www.tsn.ca/clock-ticking-on-nhl-olympic-decision-1.607878

Fasel told Sportsnet that he anticipated the costs being covered in part by the IOC, national hockey federations and national Olympic committees.

Here it. My original link to the sportsnet page has it.

iihf not paying for everything.


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/growing-skepticism-ahead-nhl-iihf-olympics-meeting-wednesday/

 

[Xokkeu]

Bob McKenzie thinks that the NHL might refuse, even if the IIHF offers to pay. Laughably the NHL may claim some kind of moral stance on the issue. Information below:

http://www.tsn.ca/clock-ticking-on-nhl-olympic-decision-1.607878

Well on the bright side the NHL will save me a lot of money on not buying their tickets for the next four years. On the downside .... Everything.

 

[Hanji]

Doh! I bet Bettman and Daley weren't expecting this turn of events. What new excuse will they come up with to not go now?

 

[xxxx]

Doh! I bet Bettman and Daley weren't expecting this turn of events. What new excuse will they come up with to not go now?

excuse? losing money, and the IOC not paying anything for having the opportunity to have NHL players there, or not giving the NHL more coverage material etc is an excuse? They simply look at the things from their point of view, as well as any other organisation would, and as well as the IOC does of course, there are no excuses. I am thrilled to see your explanation as to why they did go to Russia when apparenly this evil organisation cares only about money, even though the situation 4 years ago was similar to today - they were losing money AND STILL DECIDED TO GO. How's that possible? Care to explain?

 

[Nino33]

I agree that it's reasonable for the NHL to look at things from their point of view (just like everyone else is doing!)


IMO the Olympics are dying (I know some on HFBoards passionately disagree, as is their right...but that doesn't make them right), and the idea of "growing the game" is dying too [international Leagues aren't even real businesses compared to the NHL, and have to practically give tickets away to get an audience (what interest there is isn't supported by significant dollars, which is what a significant business looks at)...I think it's become clear there's not a lot of economic value in "growing the game" and for the NHL concerning themselves with their own League and core (North American) audience just makes practical sense]

 

[JackSlater]

excuse? losing money, and the IOC not paying anything for having the opportunity to have NHL players there, or not giving the NHL more coverage material etc is an excuse? They simply look at the things from their point of view, as well as any other organisation would, and as well as the IOC does of course, there are no excuses. I am thrilled to see your explanation as to why they did go to Russia when apparenly this evil organisation cares only about money, even though the situation 4 years ago was similar to today - they were losing money AND STILL DECIDED TO GO. How's that possible? Care to explain?

At this point your posts are nothing other than laughable. Might as well admit that you are an NHL fan only and generally disinterested in international hockey. The NHL pulled out one excuse publicly (no insurance coverage) and now that that excuse is apparently (I'll believe it when it's officially proven) being removed from the equation, the NHL is still posturing to leave. If the insurance issue is removed and the NHL doesn't go, despite fans and players generally wanting the league to go, it exposes that it was lying all along. Simple as that.

I hope that you realize that in your feeble attempt to defend your precious NHL, all you are doing is trying to make a positive out of the Olympics not featuring NHL players.

I agree that it's reasonable for the NHL to look at things from their point of view (just like everyone else is doing!)


IMO the Olympics are dying (I know some on HFBoards passionately disagree, as is their right...but that doesn't make them right), and the idea of "growing the game" is dying too [international Leagues aren't even real businesses compared to the NHL, and have to practically give tickets away to get an audience (what interest there is isn't supported by significant dollars, which is what a significant business looks at)...I think it's become clear there's not a lot of economic value in "growing the game" and for the NHL concerning themselves with their own League and core (North American) audience just makes practical sense]

Perhaps the NHL could do something, that costs it very little, that pleases its players and fans. Amazing, I know. Some are too entrenched in defending their precious NHL to see reason though.

 

[Nino33]

Perhaps the NHL could do something, that costs it very little, that pleases its players and fans. Amazing, I know. Some are too entrenched in defending their precious NHL to see reason though.

I'm not defending the NHL/I'm not an NHL fan

Personally, I'd be 100% fine with reducing the NHL teams substantially and reducing the schedule substantially and having it mimic European/Russian League schedules + I wish the money wasn't the driving force.....but IMO it's not only naïve and illogical to expect that, it's unfair; the NHL has a right to do things as they see fit just like any other business/person, it's called freedom of choice

I may not like the choices they make, but I think they have a right to make them, that's how freedom of choice works

 

[JackSlater]

I'm not defending the NHL/I'm not an NHL fan

Personally, I'd be 100% fine with reducing the NHL teams substantially and reducing the schedule substantially and having it mimic European/Russian League schedules + I wish the money wasn't the driving force.....but IMO it's not only naïve and illogical to expect that, it's unfair; the NHL has a right to do things as they see fit just like any other business/person, it's called freedom of choice

I may not like the choices they make, but I think they have a right to make them, that's how freedom of choice works

I don't see many people here claiming that the NHL doesn't have the right to do something. People are saying what they want to happen. In some cases that is not exactly what the NHL wants, and yet people want it anyway.

 

[Nino33]

I don't see many people here claiming that the NHL doesn't have the right to do something. People are saying what they want to happen. In some cases that is not exactly what the NHL wants, and yet people want it anyway.

I guess for me I thought you were given your negativity with comments like "your feeble attempt to defend your precious NHL" and "Some are too entrenched in defending their precious NHL to see reason though" - for me "reason" would be the NHL has the right to do something, and people stating it aren't giving explanations that are "laughable/feeble"

 

[JackSlater]

I guess for me I thought you were given your negativity with comments like "your feeble attempt to defend your precious NHL" and "Some are too entrenched in defending their precious NHL to see reason though" - for me "reason" would be the NHL has the right to do something, and people stating it aren't giving explanations that are "laughable/feeble"

That is because it basically boils down to this:

People say what they want to happen

People come in crying that the NHL can do whatever it wants

The response is inappropriate, since most people are saying what they believe the NHL should do, as opposed to what the NHL can or cannot do.

 

[Nino33]

That is because it basically boils down to this:

People say what they want to happen

People come in crying that the NHL can do whatever it wants

The response is inappropriate, since most people are saying what they believe the NHL should do, as opposed to what the NHL can or cannot do.

I think you should just speak for yourself, and not tell other people what they want/mean and not tell other people their opinion is "inappropriate" (it's just a hockey forum/people should be able to have different opinions without being told they're inappropriate)

 

[JackSlater]

I think you should just speak for yourself, and not tell other people what they want/mean and not tell other people their opinion is "inappropriate" (it's just a hockey forum/people should be able to have different opinions without being told they're inappropriate)

The opinion is fine, the response is what is inappropriate. It doesn't match what people are saying, as I described in the post that you quoted. Perhaps there is a reading comprehension issue at play here.

If I said that my workplace should give me a raise, and you replied that the workplace has the right to not give me a raise, then your response missed the point and was inappropriate. Likewise, it is inappropriate to respond to people saying what they think the NHL should do by telling them that the NHL doesn't have to. It's irrelevant to the point.

 

[Nino33]

The opinion is fine, the response is what is inappropriate.

Not sure what makes you in your mind the arbitrator of what's appropriate or not to express on a hockey forum (I still think you should just speak for yourself, and let others express their thoughts as they see fit, and stop telling others what's appropriate or not to post)

 

[JackSlater]

Not sure what makes you in your mind the arbitrator of what's appropriate or not to express on a hockey forum (I still think you should just speak for yourself, and let others express their thoughts as they see fit, and stop telling others what's appropriate or not to post)

Good for you. I am laughing about you editing out the reasons why it is inappropriate, since you seemingly don't bother reading or comprehending the explanation given to you. Basic logic dictates that it is an inappropriate response, but that seems to be beyond your grasp. Since you seem to be a bit sensitive on the subject (given that you can't defend your position and just whine about what you want me to say) perhaps a better word to familiarize yourself with is the word "irrelevant". When posters say what they believe the NHL should do, and some other posters chime in that the NHL can do whatever it wants, the second group has made an irrelevant claim since that was not the issue raised by the first group.

 

[Nino33]

Basic logic dictates that it is an inappropriate response, but that seems to be beyond your grasp. Since you seem to be a bit sensitive on the subject (given that you can't defend your position and just whine about what you want me to say) perhaps a better word to familiarize yourself with is the word "irrelevant".

You're the one that can't understand basic logic, as it's YOU telling people what you want them to say (and judging whether others opinions are appropriate/relevant or not...what arrogance)

I'm done with this...

 

[JackSlater]

You're the one that can't understand basic logic, as it's YOU telling people what you want them to say (and judging whether others opinions are appropriate/relevant or not...what arrogance)

I'm done with this...

Unfortunately, simply accusing the other person of doing what you are doing doesn't make it so. If you read the parts of my posts that you keep editing out, which makes it look like you are actually trying to hide from them, you can see exactly why those comments are inappropriate. When people are talking about what they think the NHL should do, people telling them that the NHL doesn't have to will always be making inappropriate comments, which is obvious if a person has even a basic grasp of common sense.

 

[xxxx]

At this point your posts are nothing other than laughable. Might as well admit that you are an NHL fan only and generally disinterested in international hockey. The NHL pulled out one excuse publicly (no insurance coverage) and now that that excuse is apparently (I'll believe it when it's officially proven) being removed from the equation, the NHL is still posturing to leave. If the insurance issue is removed and the NHL doesn't go, despite fans and players generally wanting the league to go, it exposes that it was lying all along. Simple as that.

Maybe you could give more energy to pointing out what exactly you disagree with in my posts, instead of accusing someone of things that are false and have no relevance.

Why do you care that much about what is said in the media when all that matters is what is actually said among the participating parties behind closed doors when actually negotiating?

Wasn't the NHL showing disinterest to go to Korea long before the insurance coverage problem came up? Yet you suggest something along the lines that they came up with their only reason - insurace - and once that is solved, they have to come up with other exucese and therefore were lying. Or am I getting that wrong?

What is your actual stance with how the NHL look at things? That they simply don't want to go no matter what and won't be going?

You fail to have "emphathy" here. The NHL giving their reasons of not wanting to go are valid reasons. It's simply how things look like from their perspective and how it all affects them. I would think that is pretty natural thing to do. Interrupting the league in the middle of the season, having injured players coming from the olympic tournament right before the playoffs and in the final stage of regular season; low or no financial benefits from sending the players overseas, no media material available from the IOC, and I could go on, there is surely more. Again, what is your actual opinion about this? I would really like to know. Is the NHL supposed to free their players no matter how it affects them?

People come in crying that the NHL can do whatever it wants

The NHL has the right to look at the things from their perspective because it affects them. So, they can simply say no and give you no reasons.

 

[Nino33]

Why do you care that much about what is said in the media when all that matters is what is actually said among the participating parties behind closed doors when actually negotiating?

I totally agree with this; I'm thinking some posters are so young and/or inexperienced and/or biased that they don't understand this (and think media provides "truth" in a way that allows winners/losers to be determined in regards to expressed opinions)

 

[JackSlater]

Maybe you could give more energy to pointing out what exactly you disagree with in my posts, instead of accusing someone of things that are false and have no relevance.

Why do you care that much about what is said in the media when all that matters is what is actually said among the participating parties behind closed doors when actually negotiating?

Wasn't the NHL showing disinterest to go to Korea long before the insurance coverage problem came up? Yet you suggest something along the lines that they came up with their only reason - insurace - and once that is solved, they have to come up with other exucese and therefore were lying. Or am I getting that wrong?

What is your actual stance with how the NHL look at things? That they simply don't want to go no matter what and won't be going?

You fail to have "emphathy" here. The NHL giving their reasons of not wanting to go are valid reasons. It's simply how things look like from their perspective and how it all affects them. I would think that is pretty natural thing to do. Interrupting the league in the middle of the season, having injured players coming from the olympic tournament right before the playoffs and in the final stage of regular season; low or no financial benefits from sending the players overseas, no media material available from the IOC, and I could go on, there is surely more. Again, what is your actual opinion about this? I would really like to know. Is the NHL supposed to free their players no matter how it affects them?

The NHL has used the insurance issue as a crutch since it came up, since its other excuses, most of which you listed, failed to generate support from most fans/media/players. When that crutch is removed, the only issues are the minor inconveniences you listed in the final paragraph of your ramblings. The insurance issue was (is) at least a valid issue. The other issues are largely trivial. I have yet to see any proof that the NHL's losses are in any way noteworthy from participating in the Olympics. If there is some evidence to the contrary, I am interested in seeing it honestly. The biggest loss was probably the Tavares injury, which affected one player over the course of 5 tournaments. Now unlike what some foolishly say, I don't think that the NHL benefits significantly from NHL participation either, though there are probably some new fans I suppose. So, if it is basically par for the NHL, then I see no real reason to go against what the fans and players want when the cost is basically inconvenience for two weeks every four years.

My issue is moreso amazement that any supposed fan would jump in with a tantrum to defend the NHL, when what the NHL wants to do is basically ruin the top international tournament to avoid inconvenience. I get that the NHL may not really care what most fans or players want, but it's laughable for a fan to throw a tantrum defending such actions. I get that you are an NHL fan as opposed to an international hockey fan, but it still amazes me. Defending the idea of not having a two week break from the NHL (without losing any games) as opposed to having NHLers at the Olympics.

The NHL has the right to look at the things from their perspective because it affects them. So, they can simply say no and give you no reasons.

I really do question the reading ability of some on here. Saying that the NHL is doing something wrong is not the same thing as saying that the NHL cannot do something. Likewise, saying that the NHL has the right to do something is not a justification for doing it. You're either trying to make a point that no one argues against, or you're trying to justify something in the poorest manner possible.

I have to give credit to the NHL though. Its weak propaganda (oh the horror of "interrupting" the season for two weeks!) had very little effect on people before. They must be doing something right if they can convince new supposed hockey fans that they would rather not have NHLers in the Olympics if it means going two weeks without the NHL, even though the games from those two weeks are still played at other times. Great PR work I guess.

 

[xxxx]

The NHL has used the insurance issue as a crutch since it came up, since its other excuses, most of which you listed, failed to generate support from most fans/media/players. When that crutch is removed, the only issues are the minor inconveniences you listed in the final paragraph of your ramblings. The insurance issue was (is) at least a valid issue. The other issues are largely trivial.

Why would they care about fan/media/player support when it's none of their bussiness really? Especially the first two parties.

Who are you to say what problems are valid or not?

I have yet to see any proof that the NHL's losses are in any way noteworthy from participating in the Olympics. If there is some evidence to the contrary, I am interested in seeing it honestly.

Why would they have to share that with you?

 

[xxxx]

I totally agree with this; I'm thinking some posters are so young and/or inexperienced and/or biased that they don't understand this (and think media provides "truth" in a way that allows winners/losers to be determined in regards to expressed opinions)

That is beautifully and correctly said. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't think the poster I quoted is young though. Not sure if biased, but there are posters here who are simply negative to certain things in hockey and will provide you with all the reasoning as to why they are right. Obviously, that almost always goes along with ignoring some other things, like here, understanding that the NHL's reasons to not go to the olympic in the future, are valid ones and should be respected.

 

[JackSlater]

Why would they care about fan/media/player support when it's none of their bussiness really? Especially the first two parties.

Fans and players are very much the NHL's business, as the league could not exist without either. I don't get what point you are failing to make, but I'm sure it has to do with blindly deferring to the NHL.

Who are you to say what problems are valid or not?

A poster, obviously. As this is a discussion forum and the validity of the issues is purely a matter of opinion, that topic is clearly reasonable to discuss. [MOD]

If we use this logic, who are any of us to discuss anything in this forum? Who are any of us to say that Dan Girardi sucks? Who are any of us to say that the Canucks are no good? [MOD]

Why would they have to share that with you?

Ahhh, so your lack of answer likely means that you actually have no proof. As I suspected. I do not accept your strawman though, since you will notice that I never said that the NHL has to share that information with me. I asked if there is actually any proof to substantiate the narrative that the NHL loses something from participating in the Olympics. There is an obvious difference that you clearly didn't want to answer directly. If you can't answer, that's fine. But do not twist what I said into something that you actually can respond to.

[MOD]

 

[Nino33]

there are posters here who are simply negative to certain things in hockey and will provide you with all the reasoning as to why they are right. Obviously, that almost always goes along with ignoring some other things

I myself am OK with "negativity" and the providing support for a personal view/opinion that some deem "negative" (and even "ignoring" or better put not focusing on the big/whole picture, as not all posts on an opinion board need to be essays covering all aspects of an issue HaHa); not all of my views on hockey are mainstream/popular!.....what I think should (and wish would) stop is the personal attacks; calling others names, mocking what they write, implying a lack of intelligence (reading comprehension), etc is all completely unnecessary IMO

 

[HasbeenHallzy]

Canada 2018 Olympic Roster

Matt Fraser - Paul Szczechura - Brandon Kozun
Dan Paille - Justin Azevedo - Jonathan Cheechoo
Rob Klinkhammer - Erik Christensen - Andrew Gordon
Dustin Jeffrey - Max Talbot - Chris Didomenico

Chris Lee - Sean Heshka
Andre Benoit - Maxime Noreau
M-A Gragnani - Craig Schira

Leland Irving
Danny Taylor


2018 Team Canada.