WingedWheelin06 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 "The year off is a part of hockey history," states Phil Pritchard, Curator of the Hockey Hall of Fame. "The inscription regarding 2004-05 is not only for the people of today, but for the people 50 years from now. The Stanley Cup inscriptions tell the entire story of the trophy, not an abridged version." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 What are they supposed to say? "Oh woops, we forgot to put that season on there! For all intents and purposes though, lets give the cup to Montreal anyways". When people look back through the history, they'll know what's going on. I really don't think it's a big deal that that's the way they inturpreted the loss of a season. They could have said "Bettmans an ass, blame him he sucks lol" and while that's all true, it wouldn't be fitting. Just keep it simple and to the point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SouthernWingsFan 854 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 Maybe just get rid of that season engravement completely? Regardless, the average Joe Blow who either doesn't watch hockey at all or just very casually will not really worry about it that much. This person is probably too busy with many other things to start paying significant attention to the NHL in either a positive or negative fashion. I'm not really worried about black eyes or negative perception in the NHL. I like the sport, I don't care if others around me think negatively of it or don't like it because we don't live in a hockey market or think I am weird because I'm like 1 of 500 people here that I like it. I like it, that's all that matters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 Am I the only one that looks at that image and feels it to be a bit, I don't know, haunting? It gives me one of those "I never want to see that again" chill-down-my-spine feelings. Maybe I'm just strange. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DyingAlive 27 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 They should of written it smaller so they could of conserved more space. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sean 19 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 I don't know who the Cup technically 'belongs' to, as far as leagues or money etc, but, in my opinion, this inscription is sort of a selfish move. The Cup should go to the best team in hockey, regardless of league or country. It's lame of the NHL to believe that if they aren't in session, nobody else is even worthy of the cup. No surprises, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheLegend19 1 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 (edited) I don't know who the Cup technically 'belongs' to, as far as leagues or money etc, but, in my opinion, this inscription is sort of a selfish move. The Cup should go to the best team in hockey, regardless of league or country. It's lame of the NHL to believe that if they aren't in session, nobody else is even worthy of the cup. No surprises, though. The NHL has sole control over the Cup. Wikipedia The WHL folded in 1926, leaving the NHL as the only league left playing for the Cup. Other leagues and clubs occasionally issued challenges, but from that year forward, no non-NHL team played for it, leading it to become the de facto championship trophy of the NHL.[30] In 1947, the NHL reached an agreement with trustees P.D. Ross and Cooper Smeaton to give control of the cup to the NHL, allowing the league to unilaterally reject challenges from other leagues that may have wished to play for the Cup.[32][33] Since then, the Cup has been awarded every year until 2005, when a labour dispute between the NHL's owners and the NHL Players Association (the union that represents the players) led to the cancellation of the 2004-05 season. As a result, no Cup champion was crowned for the first time since the flu epidemic in 1919. The lockout caused controversy among many fans, questioning whether the NHL has exclusive control over the Cup. A web site known as Free Stanley was launched, asking fans to write to the Cup trustees and urge them to return to the original Challenge Cup format.[34] Adrienne Clarkson, the then-Governor General of Canada, alternatively proposed that the Cup be presented to the top women's hockey team in lieu of the NHL season. This idea was so unpopular that the Clarkson Cup was created instead.[35] Meanwhile, a group in Ontario filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court, claiming that the Cup trustees overstepped their bounds in signing the 1947 agreement with the NHL, and therefore must award the trophy regardless of the lockout. On February 7, 2006, a settlement was reached in which the trophy could be awarded to non-NHL teams should the league not operate for a particular season.[33] Edited March 17, 2007 by Manny4Prez Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WingNut 25 5 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 That's a shame but then again, so was the lockout. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theman19 47 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 i met phil once at nhl breakout in columbus,....nice guy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bluedevils_13 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 That looks photo shopped, is that really real? I was at the Hall earilier this year , and I don't remember seeing that on the cup. It prob is real, and I'm just freaking out, but why have we not heard of this yet? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arnoldbuck 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 I don't know who the Cup technically 'belongs' to, as far as leagues or money etc, but, in my opinion, this inscription is sort of a selfish move. The Cup should go to the best team in hockey, regardless of league or country. It's lame of the NHL to believe that if they aren't in session, nobody else is even worthy of the cup. No surprises, though. I will search for a link over the coming days ... maybe anyone who recognizes this could help me out. I recall a Ontario based team brought the idea up of the Stanley Cup should go to the best team in hockey, and actually managed to get somewhere with the case. It took place during the lockout of course. And the conclusion was it would be looked at again should the NHL ever not be playing the season. And then it possibly may find another tournament for that year. Now I am not sure if this is fact, or just on eof those urban legends that began during the lockout and passed from one person to another. I will check on it and get back to this. *but commenting on the Pic above. It looks retarded and I hope that is fake. I have no idea why they would bother doing that and not just skip over it and go straight to Carolinas win last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arnoldbuck 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 Okay, I found what I was looking for, here it is... NHL settles claim over Stanley Cup Last Updated: Tuesday, February 7, 2006 | 12:47 PM ET CBC Sports The NHL has reached a settlement with a group of recreational hockey players over the Stanley Cup. Gard Shelley and David Burt, members of a Toronto pickup hockey league called the Wednesday Nighters, filed a claim against the NHL and the trophy's trustees in Ontario Superior Court last April, seeking clarification of the terms under which Lord Stanley provided the Cup and how it is to be awarded. The group challenged the NHL's claim that it had exclusive control of the Cup and contended that Lord Stanley wanted the best hockey teams to compete for the trophy every year when he donated the Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup in 1892. The Stanley Cup is shown here with a young fan and former coach Scotty Bowman. (CP File Photo) The cancellation of the 2004-05 NHL season meant the Stanley Cup was not awarded last season, but Shelley and David Burt filed its claim seeking to ensure that the trophy is contested for even in the event of another labour dispute. Shelley and David Burt argued that the Cup's trustees – Ian (Scotty) Morrison, former head of the Hockey Hall of Fame, and former NHL official Brian O'Neill – should be able to award it to someone else if another lockout or strike wipes out an NHL season.. A court hearing on the case was scheduled for Tuesday, but Tim Gilbert, the lawyer for Shelley and Burt, confirmed Tuesday that a settlement has been reached with the NHL. "A David and Goliath story," Gilbert said Tuesday morning. Under the terms of the deal, the NHL acknowledges that the trustees who control the Cup can award it to a non-NHL team in a year where the league doesn't operate. Also, the NHL must donate $100,000 a year into hockey leagues for women and underprivileged children for the next five years. The settlement does not mean the trustees have to award the Cup if there is another work stoppage, only that they now have the option to do so. "In a lot of respects, the litigation was the sole remaining vestige of a year-long labour dispute that was difficult for us and for our fans," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said. "It was time to turn the page and move on. "We're satisfied that the terms of the settlement adequately protect the league's interests." with files from Canadian Press Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 I wonder who would have won in 2004-05? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Swimming with the Sharks 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 Am I the only one that looks at that image and feels it to be a bit, I don't know, haunting? It gives me one of those "I never want to see that again" chill-down-my-spine feelings. Maybe I'm just strange. Me too. Surely that's the idea, to give the League and the PA that "never-want-to-see-that-again" feeling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LivingtheDream Report post Posted March 17, 2007 (edited) What's the big deal? Do we want to be like Japenese history books that conveniently leave out the negative or shameful part of history? The Cup represents the history of the NHL - glory and shame alike and the lockout is part of that history. I like what Edicus said - it should be a reminder and lesson. Maybe next time someone will think about that big mostly blank spot on the Cup and say, "Never again." Or they might look at it and say, "Not another Bettman." Edited March 17, 2007 by LivingtheDream Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 I wonder who would have won in 2004-05? Allan Cup winners vs Memorial Cup winners for the Stanley Cup? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swedishseven 9 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 i dont like the way they worded it..season not played.. kinda sounds like everybody forgot to. i wish they would have put an explanation in or something for posterity..even though we all know why..i just think the fact that a season of hockey missed deserves a better memorial. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hockeytown9321 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 "The year off is a part of hockey history," states Phil Pritchard, Curator of the Hockey Hall of Fame. "The inscription regarding 2004-05 is not only for the people of today, but for the people 50 years from now. The Stanley Cup inscriptions tell the entire story of the trophy, not an abridged version." I think its more of a black eye that Peter Karmanos' name is engraved the Cup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 I think its more of a black eye that Peter Karmanos' name is engraved the Cup. While Darren Rumble and Stan Neckar belong? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 Allan Cup winners vs Memorial Cup winners for the Stanley Cup? Knowing the Leafs luck, 2004-05 was probably their year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FirstSamuel1745 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 Am I the only one that looks at that image and feels it to be a bit, I don't know, haunting? It gives me one of those "I never want to see that again" chill-down-my-spine feelings. Maybe I'm just strange. Yeah, I'd agree with you. Kind of like seeing your own gravestone. But definitely not anything I'd care to repeat. This, however, does not absolve you of being strange in any way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
North Guy 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 It would have been a black eye for the NHL and hockey if some of the groups/fans got their wish and engraved the names of players from the best team from another league on the Stanley Cup. There was talk of putting the London Knights or the World Canadian Juniors or the best women's team on the Cup. That would have been ultra-cheesy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheLegend19 1 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 That looks photo shopped, is that really real? I was at the Hall earilier this year , and I don't remember seeing that on the cup. It prob is real, and I'm just freaking out, but why have we not heard of this yet? It's real. I was at the Hall in November and the guy said they had just inscribed it on there. I saw it. Ugly site. i dont like the way they worded it..season not played.. kinda sounds like everybody forgot to. i wish they would have put an explanation in or something for posterity..even though we all know why..i just think the fact that a season of hockey missed deserves a better memorial. If they had put an explanation it would've deepend the wound. I think they worded it perfectly. Short and simple. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legionnaire11 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 I'm not afraid of it being a black eye. It happened, there's no use hiding it. And really, for all of the negative press that we read about the league, how it's not a major sport any more and it's a sinking ship... the media never wants to talk about how attendance is the highest that it's EVER been and revenues are higher than they've EVER been. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted March 17, 2007 While Darren Rumble and Stan Neckar belong? Rumble was around long enough to deserve a cup. He wasn't a great defenseman, but he wasn't bad. Neckar was good when he first came into the league with Ottawa. I don't think he's around in the NHL though. I'm actually suprised he did get his name on it, considering the one game he played that year was with Nashville, not Tampa. I don't think he played in the playoffs either. Oh well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
