- The NHL Arena
- → Highest Reputation Content
Welcome to The NHL Arena
|Welcome to The NHL Arena, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be apart of The NHL Arena by signing in or creating an account.
Highest Reputation Content
Posted by Shakes on 16 November 2012 - 11:26 AM
Posted by Potvin29 on 18 October 2012 - 09:49 PM
1. It puts 50-50 on the table. 50% was the figure everyone felt was fair and would get a deal done. While I still think some owners aren't crazy about 50% it's still a fair number at this point in time and should be the settling point.
2. It defeats the whining from players about the so called "disingenuous" owners by allowing the players to keep their entire contract in full. It achieves this by establishing a soft cap at 59.9 million for a year and allows teams to spend up to 70 million (where the cap would have been under the old agreement) for the season. It gives teams a year, probably 2, to get into compliance with the agreement without augmenting existing contracts.
3. It knocks the ELC down to 2 years giving players an earlier chance to get at a 2nd contract and break into the NHL sooner while allowing GM's more options to negotiate while retaining established vets.
4. It sees revenue sharing contributions upped to 200 million, a 60 million increase to be paid by the top 10 revenue producing teams. This puts the burden on the haves as the players and some fans want but still gives considerable incentive to owners to grow their market.
5. It allows the Haves to trade players to the have nots while retaining a portion of their salary on their books. This further helps the smaller markets by taking the financial burden off the weaker clubs and keeps players in the League playing.
6. It eliminates re-entry waivers which will help clubs move players around without having to kill their careers in the minors in fear of having to eat big portions of their contracts for nothing.
To me the PA looks like idiots right now with 3 counter proposals that basically do little to nothing. They are still harping on about growing the League out of the problem. I seriously doubt the NHL will sweeten the pot any further after this deal. The Union isn't even in the same ballpark...
You can see the clear stance the Union has here and what their principle function is. Keep salaries as high as possible. The new agreement would see cap numbers increased for deals that were intended to circumvent the agreement. It would see retired players cap numbers retained by clubs, and it would see players contracts stashed in the minors count as well. All of these measures are designed to hold owners and GM's to their word as well as make them responsible for their actions. Sign a bad contract and suffer the consequences. However the players hate these changes because it means less money on the table for players seeking new deals.
So in reality the players will never match up with the fans simply because their only concern is maximizing their salary regardless of League viability or competitive balance. The players actually want the owners acting recklessly and handing out massive front loaded deals regardless of if they can afford to do so. Kind of funny because they end up looking like hypocrites.
Posted by Left Wing Loner on 19 April 2012 - 04:18 PM
I'll sum up every comment from YouTube:
Oh god no...I don't read ANY comments on anything on Youtube.
I question your sexual preference, your manliness, your intelligence, your ability to fight me out back behind the dumpster, how much you can drink, your toughness, Your ability to get laid, and your age (ie. you're an angry 40 year old basement dweller OR a 14 year old with saggy pants).
Add a healthy dose of expletives and drop any semblance of grammar or spelling.
And WA-LA every YouTube comment ever.
Posted by SgtFrenchy on 13 April 2012 - 12:20 PM
Posted by Guest on 08 March 2012 - 01:09 AM
I guess there must be a good reason why Rattler is still here but damned if I'm gonna talk to a bot.
Posted by Guest on 20 December 2011 - 03:54 PM
Posted by erniebear on 15 April 2013 - 04:30 PM
All I know is my family and friends that live or work in Boston, even if they aren't near the area, are safe.
Posted by Guest on 09 July 2012 - 06:00 PM
So what's the word?
Haven't you heard?
About the bird?
A-well-a everybody's heard about the bird
B-b-b-bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a don't you know about the bird?
Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word!
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
Posted by Mishey22 on 03 July 2012 - 06:59 PM
Posted by **LS** on 28 May 2012 - 07:31 PM
I've been at this game for the past 4 or 5 years now. And in that time I have read more dialogue of displeasure with this site, that I can recall. Clearly, I went into this knowing not everyone was going to be pleased all of the time. It is what it is.... and it really isn't nearly as dramatic as some take it to be.
I'll bend over backwards for any member who demonstrates the wish to be a constructive presence within our community. I've spent several sleepless nights for those people... and yet, I get the feeling that it's the others that presume they can change my sleeping habits, instead.
The Arena is here for your enjoyment... if you do indeed enjoy it. Nobody's holding anyone against their will. The doors do not have locks on them... in fact, there are no doors at all. If you'd like my help in abstaining from this community, I can do that. But if you are looking for a rise out of me with your declaration of absence, it's not going to happen.
Banning members gives me no enjoyment. It doesn't give me a false sense of power. And it doesn't make me feel despair. In all actuality, it's a matter of simply dropping my index finger down on my mouse and *click*... and then turn my attention back to those who continue to make this place work.
There really is no drama behind the scenes.
Posted by thecoffeecake on 01 May 2012 - 10:28 AM
America has the means to be good at everything. If there is exposure (i.e games on television), there will be interest, and where there is interest, there is participation. Hockey has peaked in Canada. It cannot get any more popular than it is now. You have strong fan bases up there for junior hockey teams, die hard fans of teams comprised of 16 year olds. The sport can't get bigger there. It's still growing here and will continue to do so. It's not just New England/Northern Midwest anymore. It will continue to grow. America is just good at everything. We just played in the Rugby World Cup in September, and the sport has no foothold in the fabric of the country like a half dozen other sports do. 99.5% of Americans could not name one position on the rugby field, but we still compete against placces like Ireland and New Zealand that play it religiously on frozen ponds.
I know someone out there must have an answer to this question.
Anyone who knows me (not anyone on here well enough) knows that I am 100% for tradition in everything. I love that the Devils have made one change to their identity in their 30 year history, and it was a secondary color. I love that we don't have 3rd jerseys or alternate logos and never will. The team I was lucky enough to grow up with embodies who I am. But, OSH's argument is borderline offensive and completely invalid. I do love the traditions of hockey. I love the pond hockey and all that. I have most of my American based family in New Hampshire, and I grew up around that. However, to question the integrity of the game everywhere there is no ice outside is absurd. You're going to question the love of the game of millions of people because their markets don't fit the mold you created? Sounds like you wouldn't be bad at carrying out genocide, but you're a detriment to the hockey community.
I'm going to ask you again. What about me? What about us in New Jersey? We had a warm winter this year, very warm. Nothing froze over except maybe a puddle or 2. Do I have the right to be a hockey fan? Do the Devils have a right to play in the NHL? And if not, surely the Rangers, who play mere miles away, aren't traditional enough either. But, in my area, hockey was a common game played on the bay during the early 1900's, until an inlet opened up and the salinity greatly lowered the freezing temperature. Do tradition points from 70, 80, 90 years ago count? I bet you didn't forsee a variable like that. Am I traditional enough for you? If not, I'll take down all of my championship plaques from the walls, all of my retired Devils hats, my old CCM Scott Gomez jersey that will never fit me with the tape over the name plate too, I'll get rid of all of my shirts and tickets I've spent a lifetime collecting because I'm not traditional enough to love the game. I might as well not even watch the Devils in the 2nd round of the playoffs, something I've waited through half a decade of heartbreak to see. I'm just not traditional enough to love my team like you do. I'll just conform to the masses, find out why Americans like football, and don my walls with Giants memorabilia. GO BIG BLUE!
Posted by damned on 30 April 2012 - 02:37 PM
I would rather you didn't "just say" anything
Heh, I'm interested in the answer! I really am.
There is no reason that OT should be happening as much as it is in the playoffs if the loser point had that much sway in how teams play the game.
Posted by damned on 11 April 2012 - 12:38 PM
This is why you SHOULDN'T cheer for the Vancouver Canucks.
Man junk is never any good.
Posted by Steelwool on 19 June 2011 - 09:58 PM
Doesn't that feel better.
Your team just won the Stanley Cup. Enjoy it.
In 6 weeks no one will remember all the crap, just that the Bruins are the 2010/11 Stanley Cup champions!
Posted by damned on 11 June 2011 - 02:29 PM
Posted by Craig Simpson on 04 May 2011 - 05:50 PM
I'm just able to read.
You can find it all by yourself, a lot of it has been explained by this US government speaker yesterday, by the way.
I'm going to pick up an Uzi, walk up and down Time Square and decide for myself who shall live and who shall die, what's the difference to the assassination of Bin Laden ?
If you don't see a clear difference between walking through Times Square with an Uzi shooting random people and a very precise attack on a man responsible for the deaths of thousands with promises of more, then we clearly can't have a rational discussion on the subject.
Posted by Craig Simpson on 02 May 2011 - 04:35 PM
I think it's pretty strange they got rid of his body so quick.
So I'm not 100% convinced they REALLY got him.
Those pictures circulating look nowhere close to Bin Laden.
And what next ?
End of "war on terror" ?
Bring back US troops from Afghanistan next week ?
Let's be realistic, Al Quaeda and terror are a never ending story and US troops will still be dying in Afghanistan when we on this board all are dead and gone...
Just NOTHING has changed.
I'll bet it's getting even worse now.
By the way :
Who justified the US to show up in a foreign country like Pakistan and exercise capital punishment on a single person without a court case ?
It's the same as the Mossad assassinating so called enemies of the state.
It's not just and it's not right to do !
Is why not Islamic cultures but almost the whole world hates the US.
Just in case you're still wondering...
First things first, I'm not an American. Second, when you are talking about someone like Osama who has made repeated threats, taken responsibility for the killings of thousands of people around the world and promises to continue to do so, you don't think he's already convicted himself? Thirdly, they went in to capture him, but according to the reports he wanted none of that and was killed instead. I'm sorry, while I agree that rights are very important, there are certainly people that justify exceptions like this. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I'm OK with that.
Posted by Twiggy on 15 August 2013 - 03:53 AM