rage 24 Report post Posted January 27, 2009 Well, instead of reading through about 100 pages, I just wanted to see the percentages. Thanks for answering! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HOCKEY MATTERS 167 Report post Posted January 27, 2009 I don't agree with the suspensions. My reasons (as shared by others) have been picked apart and declared homeristic. Guess I'm a homer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
55fan 5,133 Report post Posted January 27, 2009 I would agree with the suspensions if it was a simple matter of no play=suspension, as was the original intent, although I think that was stupid too. Since it has been changed so now it forces the players to choose between getting medical care or attending, I do not agree with it. Either go with the original agreement, or scrap it for this year and clarify it for next year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redwingslady87 130 Report post Posted February 20, 2009 I would agree with the suspensions if it was a simple matter of no play=suspension, as was the original intent, although I think that was stupid too. Since it has been changed so now it forces the players to choose between getting medical care or attending, I do not agree with it. Either go with the original agreement, or scrap it for this year and clarify it for next year. agreed. I would have been fine with the suspensions if it applied to everyone who was unable to play in the game. I know nick and pav didn't agree with it either, hell they weren't even notified about it, but both of them just looked at it as one more day to rest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
