shadowmoses_sol for get ths club to the 1000 post sorry idont have anaward to give you cause my make bitmaps sorry

At 1/1/05 11:33 AM, Angel_Of_Death1313 wrote: shadowmoses_sol for get ths club to the 1000 post sorry idont have anaward to give you cause my make bitmaps sorry

no problem, im sure we'll get even higher soon...

whats everyones opinion on the draft? will there be one? if so will every team have an equal shot at the first pick? if not will these players be mashed in with next years in some kind of super draft?

whose side are you on? owners or players?

if this lockout goes longer than 2 seasons which i believe is possible, Phoenix, atlanta, florida, tampa, anahiem and nashville will move? where well in a perfect world to winnipeg, hamilton, halifax, seattle, quebec city, and saskatoon or regina.....

PS i hope the Leafs or the Canadiens get Sidney Crosby....

At 12/31/04 11:17 PM, shadowmoses_sol wrote: things are really going our way. First the lockout (yes!). and now the phoenix coyotes are for sale. If all goes according to plan we'll have a hockey back in winnipeg in no time.... as long as the economics get straightened out during the lockout.... please i want a team back, bring back our JETS!

Indeed... but be honest... if the NHL would cut 3 team in Eastern and 3 in Western conference... everything would turn out fine.

In fact, less team, more players... offert raise, demand decrease the salary cut down by a lot... and the quality of the game raise.
It's for the best.... it's just sad that the Coyotes got cut off in midle....

How long can I go only playing hockey? How long must I wait for the pros to tell me how it's done? <Despair/>

At 1/1/05 12:27 PM, shadowmoses_sol wrote: if this lockout goes longer than 2 seasons which i believe is possible, Phoenix, atlanta, florida, tampa, anahiem and nashville will move? where well in a perfect world to winnipeg, hamilton, halifax, seattle, quebec city, and saskatoon or regina.....

No way is it posible for the lockout to last longer than a season. Should this occur, the NHL says these are our terms, prints out a large contract, which all owners agree to and then the players are offered the opportuntiy to play on those terms. This may cause some of the big names to quit the game, because they aren't being paid enough, though there will always be players in the AHL, the WHL and various other world leagues who would pay a load to play in the NHL.

We will see Hockey in 2005, mark my words. I'm not sure weather or not there will be a season 04-05 (Or should that be just 05?) but there will definately be an 05-06 season.

Knowing the rules is a good thing. The NHL will save itself this way, complete with 30 franchises (Though not nessecarily all in the same locations.)

At 1/1/05 03:21 PM, Coop83 wrote:

We will see Hockey in 2005, mark my words. I'm not sure weather or not there will be a season 04-05 (Or should that be just 05?)

I highly doubt that hockey can pull its ass out of the fire and throw together a season in time

I did not read back what people have said, but my opinion is they will come to an agreement by Jan 30 and we will have a 36 game season.
Oh and i would like to join the club... if you're curious... i am canadian.
P.S. I guess Canada got a free pass into the championship game?

At 1/1/05 03:21 PM, Coop83 wrote: No way is it posible for the lockout to last longer than a season. Should this occur, the NHL says these are our terms, prints out a large contract, which all owners agree to and then the players are offered the opportuntiy to play on those terms.

they cant just print out a contract and say here it is... that would violate anti-trust laws.... there are only 2 ways they can make their own rules is to get the NALB? to declare an impasse which might not happen. the second is to declare bankrupcy, which would void all the contracts...

We will see Hockey in 2005, mark my words. I'm not sure weather or not there will be a season 04-05 (Or should that be just 05?) but there will definately be an 05-06 season.

no there wont, because at this point there is no need to negiotiate because there is no pressure, the seasons a write off.... so come august/sept they will start at it hard again, but then time will slip away, and there wont be pressure again until dec 05. there wont be hockey with the current NHL players until jan 06, at the earliest. notice i said current? they could start with replacement in sept 05...

Knowing the rules is a good thing. The NHL will save itself this way, complete with 30 franchises (Though not nessecarily all in the same locations.)

youre right lets hope several of those franchises end up back in canada, more importantly winnipeg, where they belong....

I notice you guys seem to all think there wont be hockey for quite some time. I feel you are all wromg, this is why. They notions are all out there, the two parties are simply negotiating now. throwing back similar numbers and such. They are playing around with it now and are trying to get a slightly better deal over the other. The deadline is the end of this month, and i am almost certain that they will come to a conclusion and we will have a 36 game season. Why wouldn't they? All the heavy arguments are over and both sides realize what they can and can not propose.
I saw Don Cherry just a few days ago say that he felt they would settle this before month's end also. With a lock-out, everyone is losing out. Everyone is losing money and everyone is out of work. It is only for the best of both sides to come to a conclusion by month's end. And if they do, you will see a season. There is no doubt about that.

At 1/1/05 04:06 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: I feel you are all wromg, this is why. They notions are all out there, the two parties are simply negotiating now. throwing back similar numbers and such.

similar numbers? what have you been watching? do you see the rhetoric? i want a salary cap! no way we'll accept a salary cap! they're miles apart.

They are playing around with it now and are trying to get a slightly better deal over the other. The deadline is the end of this month, and i am almost certain that they will come to a conclusion and we will have a 36 game season.

why would you want a 36 game season, there is no point, no time to weed out the bad teams....

Why wouldn't they? All the heavy arguments are over and both sides realize what they can and can not propose.

can and cant propose? do you follow the lockout? the NHLPA doesnt want a salary cap. the main point of the lockout, is so the NHL can impose a salary cap. cost certainty is the main issue, the only issue, and this isnt gonna get done until the NHLPA agrees to one. salary cap isnt negotiable, but the amount of the cap is... realize that, remember that, and dont make stuff up anymore...

I saw Don Cherry just a few days ago say that he felt they would settle this before month's end also.

where did you see him? i saw him on "off the record" in canada on TSN, and he said jan 06 at the earliest...

With a lock-out, everyone is losing out. Everyone is losing money and everyone is out of work. It is only for the best of both sides to come to a conclusion by month's end. And if they do, you will see a season. There is no doubt about that.

everyone is losing money? according to the numbers, the owners lose less money now, during the lockout, than they would if there was hockey this season. So unless they get exactly what they want, they wont settle...ill make you a bet that there is no hockey this year. millionaires cant beat billionaires my friend, this isnt a pastime for the owners, its a business, and theyll sit out for 5 years if they had to, in order to come out and make huge money... they arent fans of the game, they are fans of the bottom line... they dont care about the guy who works at a closed bar, or the guy who sells hats, and dont you forget it....

At 1/1/05 05:37 PM, shadowmoses_sol wrote: similar numbers? what have you been watching? do you see the rhetoric? i want a salary cap! no way we'll accept a salary cap! they're miles apart.

I actually do follow it, i write articles for a few hockey magazines and sites. Mostly Minor Hockey stuff, but i have touched base on such subjects and NHLPA were in fact against a cap, but recently have been trying to negotiate such a thing.

why would you want a 36 game season, there is no point, no time to weed out the bad teams....

Um, because we love hockey, and 36 games is better then nothing.

can and cant propose? do you follow the lockout? the NHLPA doesnt want a salary cap. the main point of the lockout, is so the NHL can impose a salary cap. cost certainty is the main issue, the only issue, and this isnt gonna get done until the NHLPA agrees to one. salary cap isnt negotiable, but the amount of the cap is... realize that, remember that, and dont make stuff up anymore...

Actually, you're right they havn't agreed to one, but it trying to be negotiated. Sorry to burst your bubble, but i did not make it up.

where did you see him? i saw him on "off the record" in canada on TSN, and he said jan 06 at the earliest...

I saw him on another show that i can't recall, but i actually did see that exact show you stated also. And you are the one making things up, because he never said that at all. He said that there would be a season this year. Those were his exact words, that it was his opinion and it was off the record. I saw that episode, di you? Or did you just hear about it. He never said anything about 06... I saw the whole thing, from the two of them stated they didnt like each other but repected one another, to the bit about their shoes and the Boston game against Montreal for the cup.

everyone is losing money? according to the numbers, the owners lose less money now, during the lockout, than they would if there was hockey ...

That whole paragraph was very stereotypical. and false. Hockey teams make money, those numbers are for tax reasons and include such things as Good Will and such which really are estimates of a company or business.
And alot of them are lovers of the game, why would they buy a team if they didnt love the game. You said it is all about business and that they are losing money and dont love the game. Why would they buy a team if they are going to lose money and dont even like hockey? It was stupid what you said. Business people do not get into a business to lose money, they do it to make money. You totally contradicted yourself.
Also, i never said they were worried about the guys behind the food stands and such. Iwas not evening mentioning them.
What was this about Millionaire's betting with Billionaires? Did that have to do with me and you?

I am not sure why you are lashing at me, my opinion is just and probably right.

Oh and also (sry about dbl post)... but do you recall what Don Cherry said in Off The Record about how the two parties have involved themselves in what he called, metaphorically, a poker game? That was on the exact show you stated on TSN and that line was about them moving back and forth trying to negotiate a cap. I am not saying the NHLPA wants a cap, obviously they dont, but they have tried to come with a few numbers.
I honestly dont think you actually saw that show.

At 1/1/05 06:01 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: I actually do follow it, i write articles for a few hockey magazines and sites. Mostly Minor Hockey stuff, but i have touched base on such subjects and NHLPA were in fact against a cap, but recently have been trying to negotiate such a thing.

well i guess since you write for the palookaville post, that gives you alot of credibility, and an inside track to the NHL. and yes thats what i said. the cap isnt negotiable, but the amount is. thanks for restating my point, and failing to answer the questions i posed to you...

Um, because we love hockey, and 36 games is better then nothing.

well no, 36 isnt better than nothing. get the job done get it done right. dont just rush to give the fans a less an adequate season at the expense of the NHLs future...

Actually, you're right they havn't agreed to one, but it trying to be negotiated. Sorry to burst your bubble, but i did not make it up.

exactly, thats what i said. they dont want one, but its the only option. not negotiable but the amount is... again, thanks for restating my point!

I saw him on another show that i can't recall, but i actually did see that exact show you stated also. And you are the one making things up, because he never said that at all. He said that there would be a season this year. Those were his exact words, that it was his opinion and it was off the record. I saw that episode, di you? Or did you just hear about it. He never said anything about 06... I saw the whole thing, from the two of them stated they didnt like each other but repected one another, to the bit about their shoes and the Boston game against Montreal for the cup.

cant recall sounds pretty suspect to me. actually those werent his exact words, provide a quote and ill believe you. he didnt say "06" he said this time next year. which since the show aired in dec, would mean that jan 06 is a reasonable time. sorry i strecthed it by a month....

Hockey teams make money, those numbers are for tax reasons and include such things as Good Will and such which really are estimates of a company or business.

of course they make money, once again it is a business. goodwill? tax? im talking about revenues to expenses here. when they dont have to pay the players they dont lose as much money. especially in some markets where ticket prices and other revenues alone dont always cover it....

And alot of them are lovers of the game, why would they buy a team if they didnt love the game. You said it is all about business and that they are losing money and dont love the game. Why would they buy a team if they are going to lose money and dont even like hockey? It was stupid what you said. Business people do not get into a business to lose money, they do it to make money. You totally contradicted yourself.

yes some love the game, no doubt. but why woould you buy a team to lose money? shut it down, get it right, and bring it back healthier than ever, as opposed to staying with the status qou and hemmoraging money for years....

Also, i never said they were worried about the guys behind the food stands and such. Iwas not evening mentioning them.
What was this about Millionaire's betting with Billionaires? Did that have to do with me and you?

no you didnt you said:
" With a lock-out, everyone is losing out. Everyone is losing money and everyone is out of work"

which can be interrperted as the lower job guys. i never said millionaires betting billionaires. i said that in terms of a workstoppage the owners will last longer because they are billionaires and have more money. many of the players dont ave a nestegg, and have legal fees (bertuzzi), and a fancy lifestyle to maintain. the owners can last longer, the players cant. what are you talking about me and you?

At 1/1/05 06:38 PM, shadowmoses_sol wrote: well i guess since you write for the palookaville post, that gives you alot of credibility, and an inside track to the NHL. and yes thats what i said. the cap isnt negotiable, but the amount is. thanks for restating my point, and failing to answer the questions i posed to you...

Actually it is not a local newspaper, but actual minor hockey magazines; like a stated. With thousands of readers. I never said i had an inside scoop, but i have actual documents and such and sometimes get them before the public if it is relevant to that montsh articles.

well no, 36 isnt better than nothing. get the job done get it done right. dont just rush to give the fans a less an adequate season at the expense of the NHLs future...

It won't hurt the NHL's future at all. It won;t be less then adequate, it will probably be better in some senses. Think about how much harder they are going to have to work to jel and such. No one has to rush either. They have a whole month to come to a conclusion.

exactly, thats what i said. they dont want one, but its the only option. not negotiable but the amount is... again, thanks for restating my point!

I know what you said, but you said it wrong. Anything is negotionable, at first, the NHLPA was negotiating to not have a cap. You do not seem t oget it and you seem to be either making up your sources or getting them from false reports.

actually those werent his exact words, provide a quote and ill believe you. he didnt say "06" he said this time next year. which since the show aired in dec, would mean that jan 06 is a reasonable time. sorry i strecthed it by a month....

No, he did not say 'this time next year'... i'll be like you and say 'get me a quote'. Notice i stated three or four different subject they talked about on that show, but you did not state any. You obviously never saw it... you did not even touch base with the 'poker game' bit that Don Cherry talked about. How come you can only recall what Don Cherry said that benefits you? When i could recall most of the show. Sadly, your lies won;t fool anyone.

of course they make money, once again it is a business. goodwill? tax? im talking about revenues to expenses here.

You are not so bright.. taxes are a an exspense.

when they dont have to pay the players they dont lose as much money. especially in some markets where ticket prices and other revenues alone dont always cover it....

Actually, name me a team other then Florida that has a hard time paying players? And i am being nice here, because Florida has been better and creating a steady profit now that their roster is less exspensive.

yes some love the game, no doubt.

I am glad you NOW agree with me after saying that they did not love the game before.

but why woould you buy a team to lose money?

That is what i said, thanks for stating my point again.

no you didnt you said:
" With a lock-out, everyone is losing out. Everyone is losing money and everyone is out of work"

Okay, fair enough, take it anyway you like, it makes no difference.

i said that in terms of a workstoppage the owners will last longer because they are billionaires and have more money. many of the players dont ave a nestegg, and have legal fees (bertuzzi), and a fancy lifestyle to maintain. the owners can last longer, the players cant.

Um, what does them lasting longer have to do with anything? They are still losing more money this way then if they were in season. The arena (which are probably being used for other things) still need to be maintained. ACC (for example) is used to both the Raptors and The Leafs attributing to the costs of maintaining the place... the leafs own the raptors and most of the money is put towards the hockey rather then the basketball, so now with only one sport still playing, they are losing money paying for their exspenses.
And, umm, whether or not Bertuzzi has legal fees is irrelevant... that is one out hundreds of players.

once again, i still wonder, why you keep lashing out at me, when i nthe beginning i was only stating my opinion and why i felt there would be a season this year.

At 1/1/05 06:04 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: Oh and also (sry about dbl post)... but do you recall what Don Cherry said in Off The Record about how the two parties have involved themselves in what he called, metaphorically, a poker game? That was on the exact show you stated on TSN and that line was about them moving back and forth trying to negotiate a cap. I am not saying the NHLPA wants a cap, obviously they dont, but they have tried to come with a few numbers.
I honestly dont think you actually saw that show.

i did see the show, and i found a quote/summary of what cherry said:

"According to Cherry, the lockout is the result of decade-old wounds from the NHL's last major labour fight. "They should have thrashed it out right to the end back in '94. Instead, they patched it up and let it fester."

Cherry predicts that if a solution isn't found by January, there won't be NHL hockey for another 12 to 18 months -- a prospect that he's certain will hurt the league's future."

so yes, i saw the show, and so far im the only one who has a quote....

At 1/1/05 07:03 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: It won't hurt the NHL's future at all. It won;t be less then adequate, it will probably be better in some senses. Think about how much harder they are going to have to work to jel and such. No one has to rush either. They have a whole month to come to a conclusion.

it wont "hurt" their future, but 36 isnt enough.... ask any real hockey analyst, watch TSN, they all said that less than 40 isnt enough. they alsp presented a poll of fans which showed the same thing

I know what you said, but you said it wrong. Anything is negotionable, at first, the NHLPA was negotiating to not have a cap. You do not seem t oget it and you seem to be either making up your sources or getting them from false reports.

they still dont want one, or did you see bob goodenow after the last NHL proposal? should i post his quotes about a salary cap? im not making them up. my sources are bob mckenzie and the TSN insiders, the score hockey analysts, and rogers sports net hockey analysts.

No, he did not say 'this time next year'... i'll be like you and say 'get me a quote'. Notice i stated three or four different subject they talked about on that show, but you did not state any. You obviously never saw it... you did not even touch base with the 'poker game' bit that Don Cherry talked about. How come you can only recall what Don Cherry said that benefits you? When i could recall most of the show. Sadly, your lies won;t fool anyone.

i did get you a quote. see my previous post. and again take your own advice and show me a quote.
don talked about how the players are too harsh in their criticisms of gary bettman. don talked about how pat roy shouldnt have spoken out against the union being that he is a former member and should stick with them. don talked about the fact that he didnt like the players going overseas and taking jobs from the players out there. he also believes it will be the players who blink first. there thats 4 points, just like you said.... lies? ha, your slander or my statements only makes yours seem weaker....

You are not so bright.. taxes are a an exspense.

yes they are an expense. sorry i phrased my statement wrong, ill try to break your arguments by pointing out spelling mistakes hows that? i meant player costs to revenues...

Actually, name me a team other then Florida that has a hard time paying players? And i am being nice here, because Florida has been better and creating a steady profit now that their roster is less exspensive.

nashville was invovled with a payment problem during the season.

Um, what does them lasting longer have to do with anything? They are still losing more money this way then if they were in season.

if the players cant afford to be locked out anymore, they will have to accept any offer the owners give them. much like if the owners were in dire straights and couldnt afford to lock them out anty further they would lose the presseure they had and would have to accept what the union offered them. its all about presseure, its about who will blink first, its about who can go the longest without hockey and thats the owners.

once again, i still wonder, why you keep lashing out at me, when i nthe beginning i was only stating my opinion and why i felt there would be a season this year.

im not lashing out, not at all, but for our friends here at newgrounds i dotn want them t read your comments and get wrong ideas...

PS

i mentioned bertuzzi as a snapshot of what players might have to pay for during the lockout. with no income legal fees, hospital/doctors (americans) can be quite pricey. alot of players have fancy lifestyles with nice houses and cars which dont pay for themselves. all i was saying is the players have very little coming in compared to the regular amounts to still spend every month. and its these conditions that will cause the players to break first was all i was saying.... bertuzzi was simply an example.

At 1/1/05 07:06 PM, shadowmoses_sol wrote: i did see the show, and i found a quote/summary of what cherry said:

You still havnt proven you've seen the show?

"According to Cherry, the lockout is the result of decade-old wounds from the NHL's last major labour fight. "They should have thrashed it out right to the end back in '94. Instead, they patched it up and let it fester."

So?

Cherry predicts that if a solution isn't found by January, there won't be NHL hockey for another 12 to 18 months -- a prospect that he's certain will hurt the league's future."

That actually isnt a quote, its a reporter's view on what he said.

so yes, i saw the show, and so far im the only one who has a quote....

What is your point? I can go and get a bunch too, in fact i will. If you saw th show, you would know that this is what he said:
This is me, my opinion, i can say what i want. Off the record i say that a decision will be made by the end of the month and we will see a 36 game season.

That was in the show and right about that time they started talking about Crosby the junior player who did that trick on a goalie during a 5-0 loss. You havn;t proven to me that you saw the show like i have to you.

At 1/1/05 07:28 PM, Myst_Williams wrote:

Cherry predicts that if a solution isn't found by January, there won't be NHL hockey for another 12 to 18 months -- a prospect that he's certain will hurt the league's future."

That actually isnt a quote, its a reporter's view on what he said.

so if cherry predicted it, its not cherry prediction? ok excellent deduction my good man...

That was in the show and right about that time they started talking about Crosby the junior player who did that trick on a goalie during a 5-0 loss. You havn;t proven to me that you saw the show like i have to you.

read my other posts i clearly went over several parts of the show...

At 1/1/05 07:25 PM, shadowmoses_sol wrote: it wont "hurt" their future, but 36 isnt enough.... ask any real hockey analyst, watch TSN, they all said that less than 40 isnt enough. they alsp presented a poll of fans which showed the same thing

I do watch TSN, obviously. Did you ask a real analyst? Do you base your whole life o ntheir opinions?

don talked about how the players are too harsh in their criticisms of gary bettman. don talked about how pat roy shouldnt have spoken out against the union being that he is a former ...

That was part 1. I was talking about Part 2. He was on twice, you do know that right?

...have to accept what the union offered them. its all about presseure, its about who will blink first, its about who can go the longest without hockey and thats the owners.

I am glad you said that, because Don's words were that the player's will blink first and that it would be solved by deadline. Maybe you did see part 2.

im not lashing out, not at all, but for our friends here at newgrounds i dotn want them t read your comments and get wrong ideas...

Then why be so rude?
Who says you are right? All i said is that i 'feel' that it will be solved by deadline and that i also think there may be a 36 game season. As Don Cherry said in Part 2 near the end of show.

At 1/1/05 07:31 PM, shadowmoses_sol wrote:

At 1/1/05 07:28 PM, Myst_Williams wrote:

Cherry predicts that if a solution isn't found by January, there won't be NHL hockey for another 12 to 18 months -- a prospect that he's certain will hurt the league's future."

so if cherry predicted it, its not cherry prediction? ok excellent deduction my good man...

It is not his exact words, so its not a quote is all i meant. And let us take into account what he said: 'if' it isnot solved by end of January. He stated in Part 2 of OTR that he felt it would be solved by deadline.

At 1/1/05 07:37 PM, Myst_Williams wrote:

At 1/1/05 07:31 PM, shadowmoses_sol wrote:

At 1/1/05 07:35 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: I do watch TSN, obviously. Did you ask a real analyst? Do you base your whole life o ntheir opinions?

and youve accused me of being rude? oh and by the way you have an extra "space" button in your spelling of "on"..... just kidding

That was part 1. I was talking about Part 2. He was on twice, you do know that right?

again, im the rude one? yes i am fully aware there was 2 parts

Then why be so rude?
Who says you are right? All i said is that i 'feel' that it will be solved by deadline....

i dont think im the one being rude in this situation. ok cool "you feel", thats awesome, and in a perfect world it would be solved by now, and we would have hockey. i saw thats you feel, but i came out with points about why there wont be.... I guess no one says im right, but i "felt" that with what ive seen, heard and read that i was right

It is not his exact words, so its not a quote is all i meant. And let us take into account what he said: 'if' it isnot solved by end of January. He stated in Part 2 of OTR that he felt it would be solved by deadline.

well then i guess its a draw because youve heard him say january and ive heard next year....

Anyway, i didn't mean that you were rude, jus that the way you jumped at me after my first post i thought was being rude.
It is not a big deal who is right, we both think differently.
I like your idea of a 'draw' .. let us agree to disagree, because i do not like arguing and such. Expecially on a computer, it takes so much time to type out all your thoughts.

I did want to say earlier that i liked your sig though, did you make it?

At 1/1/05 08:13 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: It is not a big deal who is right, we both think differently.
I like your idea of a 'draw' .. let us agree to disagree, because i do not like arguing and such.

agree to disagree? hmmm i dont agree to that.... just kidding... yeah two schools of thought one the subject, both wanting the same thing-HOCKEY...

I did want to say earlier that i liked your sig though, did you make it?

haha no way i made it, i always have ideas and know what i like but i have no flash ability at all.... i wish i made it

*tear* i want hockey too.

At 1/1/05 08:40 PM, -Gooch- wrote:

At 1/1/05 08:38 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: *tear* i want hockey too.

You're not the only one in the world. Of course, some people around the world do get to experience hockey games. Actually, we all do. It's just not as highly touted as the NHL is.

Yup, tomorrow Canada plays... yeeha.

if akbars kazan played modo in an exhibition game, id fly to sweden for sure...

At 1/1/05 03:29 PM, shadowmoses_sol wrote:

At 1/1/05 03:21 PM, Coop83 wrote: No way is it posible for the lockout to last longer than a season. Should this occur, the NHL says these are our terms, prints out a large contract, which all owners agree to and then the players are offered the opportuntiy to play on those terms.

they cant just print out a contract and say here it is... that would violate anti-trust laws.... there are only 2 ways they can make their own rules is to get the NALB? to declare an impasse which might not happen. the second is to declare bankrupcy, which would void all the contracts...

That's what will happen. Both the NHL and the NHLPA are so far apart, they will be standing back to back if they go any further apart. I can see no way that if an agreement is not reached by Jan 30, that an impasse will not be declared. When it is, the NHL says to the players Here are our terms, would you like to play? The players come back (Mostly) and we get our hockey back.

It's not quite an 'And they all lived happily ever after' scenario, but it gets us hockey back with a stable foundation for the future, which they should have done in 1994.

Go Canada and russia cause i want something different then USA vs CANADA

At 1/3/05 12:10 AM, Angel_Of_Death1313 wrote: Go Canada and russia cause i want something different then USA vs CANADA

Fucking A.... but it always come to : Canada Wins! ;P