OHL4Life
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2017
- 4,877
- 4,840
i think he was taking a shot at the owner/gmNothing motivates kids like throwing them under the bus in the press. Boudreau is a POS coach living off his dad's resume
i think he was taking a shot at the owner/gmNothing motivates kids like throwing them under the bus in the press. Boudreau is a POS coach living off his dad's resume
This is what i think too. -Either way it's a bad look and i'm sure the team will be offended by it though.i think he was taking a shot at the owner/gm
i think he has a very long term contract, so if he gets fired, he has 4 and a half years to find his next job. i give the guy credit, someone needs to be a leader in that organization.This is what i think too. -Either way it's a bad look and i'm sure the team will be offended by it though.
correct, all about the $$$. hilarious that niagara was the one that asked for oflaherty back in the windsor trade.The speculation is that this trade above included a sweetener for London to take O'Flaherty's school package.
This is what the league should be looking at.The speculation is that this trade above included a sweetener for London to take O'Flaherty's school package.
Look at it and do what?This is what the league should be looking at.
Trading for and paying the school package for a player you have no intention on keeping. Copland being the other player released and both only dressed for a couple of games before being released.Look at it and do what?
Trading school packages is permitted when trading the player. So is keeping school packages when trading the player. It's completely acceptible that the school package would hold some value in the trade.
Why would the league act to close this "loophole" while allowing many other "loopholes" to exist? There will always be the "haves" and "have nots" of the league, when you are talking advantages based on geography, recruiting, $, or some other advantage. This is just one of a long list of reasons that gives London among others a competitive advantage over other teams.Trading for and paying the school package for a player you have no intention on keeping. Copland being the other player released and both only dressed for a couple of games before being released.
The argument that M Hunter saw them as valuable players and willingly paid that cost only to release them a week later on waivers? So does that mean M Hunter is a poor judge of talent? Nope. That in itself is a hard one to believe.
Perfectly legal I'm sure but it is a loophole that the league needs to close because other teams will now consider this as a viable option.
I agree with Pops on the surface. I think the bigger picture here is this seems to be more an indicator of the financial health of an Ontario Hockey League franchise being at risk then it is someone exploiting a loophole to address a temporary issue.Why would the league act to close this "loophole" while allowing many other "loopholes" to exist? There will always be the "haves" and "have nots" of the league, when you are talking advantages based on geography, recruiting, $, or some other advantage. This is just one of a long list of reasons that gives London among others a competitive advantage over other teams.
As for Niagara, not sure the league should be in the business of saving GMs/owners from themselves? As long as they are playing within the rules, which this is as far as I can tell?
We all love to hate on London, but this isn't a London issue. This is a Niagara issue. London is flexing their financial muscle, but why shouldn't they?I agree with Pops on the surface. I think the bigger picture here is this seems to be more an indicator of the financial health of an Ontario Hockey League franchise being at risk then it is someone exploiting a loophole to address a temporary issue.
Frequently dressing a severely undermanned line up is a concern around player safety which is a negative reflection for the league as a whole. I think those concerns are where the league needs to be watchful of. There is a responsibility to the other 19 owners/markets..
agree but the league has minimums and niagra is doing just that, the minimum. you need a minimum amount of players dressed, they do that ,minimum amount of money on packages, they do that. they do the minimum, but also complain they can't get players to report .I agree with Pops on the surface. I think the bigger picture here is this seems to be more an indicator of the financial health of an Ontario Hockey League franchise being at risk then it is someone exploiting a loophole to address a temporary issue.
Frequently dressing a severely undermanned line up is a concern around player safety which is a negative reflection for the league as a whole. I think those concerns are where the league needs to be watchful of. There is a responsibility to the other 19 owners/markets..
Honest curiosity. What was the consensus?I am in a group of 12 season ticket holders that have sat in the same 12 seats, albeit in two different arenas, since day 1 of the franchise. This is the first year that anybody in the group sent out a text asking if all were going to renew their season tickets. This is a slippery slope and im sure our group is not the only group asking this question. DD please sell the team before you write the entire value of the franchise off as a taxable loss! #SELLTHETEAM
I agree that the league has a responsibility to the other owners. The IceDogs owner is not only sinking the franchise in Niagara, but he is also damaging the reputation of the league. The IceDogs have apparently had multiple players ask to be traded, multiple players refuse to report if drafted and at least one player (Humphrey) just quit and join the USHL. When you have one team creating a bad experience for the players, it damages the creditability of the entire league.I agree with Pops on the surface. I think the bigger picture here is this seems to be more an indicator of the financial health of an Ontario Hockey League franchise being at risk then it is someone exploiting a loophole to address a temporary issue.
Frequently dressing a severely undermanned line up is a concern around player safety which is a negative reflection for the league as a whole. I think those concerns are where the league needs to be watchful of. There is a responsibility to the other 19 owners/markets..
Not hating on London but it does take 2 to tango and they willingly saw an opportunity to take advantage of a weak franchise leader. Now I'm sure the other 18 teams would jump in as well if they were in a financial position to do that.We all love to hate on London, but this isn't a London issue. This is a Niagara issue. London is flexing their financial muscle, but why shouldn't they?
The bigger concern is Niagara being an absolute mess.
Everybody is renewing but we can all afford it. For people that enjoy junior hockey that make important financial decisions each and every day, the decision to renew may be different.Honest curiosity. What was the consensus?
It has to really suck for long time passionate fans to have to make that choice..
I agree 100%. I feel like when you look back near the beginning of the season, if the Dogs were down 1-0, 2-0, 2-1 etc., they would fight back as best as they could. However, the last five games have shown that the fight is gone. Look at last night's game (28th v. OTT), they were playing very well for the majority of the first period, and as soon as it became 1-0 and then 2-0, they just fell apart in every aspect. Also in the recent interview with Ben, he mentioned that the young guys will be getting more playing time (exemplified best by Frolov on the power play), which to me is Ben saying that they aren't making the playoffs, and the main goal is to get the 07s more minutes instead of making a push.I was optimistic a month ago. With the way they've played the past 5 games, that's no longer the case. Outscored 34-6.