Thread: The Blame Game

I blame myself for letting hockey become such an important part of my life.

Originally Posted by Bojanglz

Voted for everyone. At this stage whether one side is right or wrong they are still getting paid tons of money for doing something they love along with endorsements and bonuses etc. The only losers in this are the fans whom without there would be no NHL anyways. I really hope people all over don't show up for at least the first couple of games to show them what a loss it would be. For the Kings the game after their first home one because the banner is pretty important. Well I think so at least.

I wish that part was true.

Originally Posted by beedee

I wish that part was true.

You don't think they love playing hockey?

Originally Posted by JEEPKING

Just to play devils advocate, please remember it was the owners who locked out the players. I could be wrong but I remember reading the NHLPA was open to the idea of playing through negotiations meaning we'd at least have games. Monster contracts that contributed to this mess, while more than likely being given by the GM, I would think had the owners blessings as well.

Not saying you are wrong but I don't remember hearing that at all or at least without a high stipulation. I seriously doubt the NHL would have kept the lockout going if they said they will play through negotiations. But like I said I don't know the facts but just common sense to me would be they would have accepted that.

Originally Posted by FortyFour

You can select all 4 if you want to!

Holy jumpin', you can! Just did. Gary buttheadman and the owners are to blame for the actual lockout, but fehr and the NHLPA are to blame for the length of the lockout.

if you tilt your head to the right and look at the graph it looks like a hand showing the middle finger

Originally Posted by nki

if you tilt your head to the right and look at the graph it looks like a hand showing the middle finger

LOL, i voted for Owners just to make the middle finger longer.

Originally Posted by Bojanglz

Not saying you are wrong but I don't remember hearing that at all or at least without a high stipulation. I seriously doubt the NHL would have kept the lockout going if they said they will play through negotiations. But like I said I don't know the facts but just common sense to me would be they would have accepted that.

The NHLPA did say they would play under the previous CBA while a new one was being worked on. The NHL turned that down though. Maybe buttheadman feared the NHLPA would strike if the new CBA negotiations weren't going well. However, if the season were to be played during negotiations both sides would have to sign an extension of the previous CBA and the NHL could throw in something along the lines of a strike not being allowed. Pretty much the NHL lets the NHLPA play while a new CBA is being negotiated under the condition the NHLPA doesn't go on strike.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

The NHLPA did day they would play under the previous CBA while a new one was being worked on. The NHL turned that down though. Maybe buttheadman feared the NHLPA would strike if the new CBA negotiations weren't going well. However, if the season were to be played during negotiations both sides would have to sign an extension of the previous CBA and the NHL could throw in something along the lines of a strike not being allowed. Pretty much the NHL lets the NHLPA play while a new CBA is being negotiated under the condition the NHLPA doesn't go on strike.

Ahhh ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Appreciate it!