Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Holland booed off Ford Field


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:29 AM

Guys, remember, the Wings' management/ownership voted in favor of the lockout.  I'm pretty sure I read that Holland was the one who actually cast the Wings' vote.  Hockey fans are PISSED about the lockout, and this was a way to express that anger.  I wouldn't read any more into it (other than that Ford Field was full of Chicago fans on Sunday!)

I doubt that the owners actually voted unanimously to lock us all out. Bettman could have had a vote to declare that they were unanimous about it and it would have taken just 7 votes for it to go through



#22 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,878 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:04 AM

I doubt that the owners actually voted unanimously to lock us all out. Bettman could have had a vote to declare that they were unanimous about it and it would have taken just 7 votes for it to go through

But Bettman said that it was unanimous, and so that was what was reported on the internet. 

 

It has to be true if it's on the internet.

 

Oh, look!  I'm the millionth visitor!  Excuse me, I have to claim my prize!



#23 number9

number9

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,204 posts
  • Location:East Lansing

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:32 AM

I knows there is sarcasm about, but I understood that Illtch and Holland were Anti-Lockout. If Ilitch voted with the rest of the owners it was only to show solidarity amongst the owners, a situation he could not have prevented anyway..



#24 VM1138

VM1138

    Legend

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,516 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:46 AM

No one really knows what their attitude was.  There was a rumor that a handful of teams were unhappy with the lockout, and the Wings were rumored to be among them, but nothing to substantiate it.

 

Seeing as how it's a poor decision from a business standpoint and given the Wings constantly butting heads with Bettman, I doubt they were enthusiastic.  I'm betting it was a case of "it's going to happen anyway, we need to present a united front" sort of thing more than Ilitch wanting a lockout.


Check out my short e-book on the Red Wings' 1937 Stanley Cup championship entitled: "Nothing Could Keep 'Em Down." Please download it from my profile at Smashwords: https://www.smashwor...ile/view/victor

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

#25 Dabura

Dabura

    Everydayer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,006 posts
  • Location:In an octopus's garden

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:59 AM

No one really knows what their attitude was.  There was a rumor that a handful of teams were unhappy with the lockout, and the Wings were rumored to be among them, but nothing to substantiate it.

 

Seeing as how it's a poor decision from a business standpoint and given the Wings constantly butting heads with Bettman, I doubt they were enthusiastic.  I'm betting it was a case of "it's going to happen anyway, we need to present a united front" sort of thing more than Ilitch wanting a lockout.

 

I think the best "evidence" we've gotten is Iron Mike's (possibly apocryphal) anecdote about "Mr. Illitch" and, who was it, the Panthers' owner/GM at the time? Something like that.

 

Point being: yeah.


Don't Toews me, bro!


#26 vladdy16

vladdy16

    The rest are neophytes.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 6,159 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:13 AM

 

But Bettman said that it was unanimous, and so that was what was reported on the internet. 

 

It has to be true if it's on the internet.

 

Oh, look!  I'm the millionth visitor!  Excuse me, I have to claim my prize!

 

More importantly, Bettman said it.  We all know his word is golden.  


Can't wait to read the "Phoenix: I still think it's a hockey market" chapter of Gary Bettman's autobiography. I'm guessing it's going to be chapter 11.

- mjlegend 3/9/2011

#27 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:17 PM

I knows there is sarcasm about, but I understood that Illtch and Holland were Anti-Lockout. If Ilitch voted with the rest of the owners it was only to show solidarity amongst the owners, a situation he could not have prevented anyway..

I wasn't being sarcastic. I think it is more likely that they had a vote about appearing unanimous about locking us all out and that 7 votes were in favor of it than the owners voting unanimously to lock us all out.
It fits Bettman's M.O.



#28 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,874 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:43 PM

No one really knows what their attitude was.  There was a rumor that a handful of teams were unhappy with the lockout, and the Wings were rumored to be among them, but nothing to substantiate it.

 

Seeing as how it's a poor decision from a business standpoint and given the Wings constantly butting heads with Bettman, I doubt they were enthusiastic.  I'm betting it was a case of "it's going to happen anyway, we need to present a united front" sort of thing more than Ilitch wanting a lockout.

I haven't seen anything substantiating the Wings position regarding the lockout, but you'd have to think they weren't happy about it. 

 

Ilitch was running a successful franchise even in the pre-cap era.  Then he continued to do so under this last CBA.  The more restrictive the CBA gets regarding player contracts and cap, the harder it will be for the Wings to use that financial success as a competitive advantage.  

 

I can't imagine Ilitch and Holland wanting a more level playing field, and certainly not losing half a season to get it. 



#29 Dabura

Dabura

    Everydayer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,006 posts
  • Location:In an octopus's garden

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:30 PM

I haven't seen anything substantiating the Wings position regarding the lockout, but you'd have to think they weren't happy about it. 

 

Ilitch was running a successful franchise even in the pre-cap era.  Then he continued to do so under this last CBA.  The more restrictive the CBA gets regarding player contracts and cap, the harder it will be for the Wings to use that financial success as a competitive advantage.  

 

I can't imagine Ilitch and Holland wanting a more level playing field, and certainly not losing half a season to get it. 

 

Was going to say more or less what you've said here.

 

At this point, I'm pointing the finger at Bettman.


Don't Toews me, bro!


#30 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,569 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:12 PM

Wait are you guys suggesting that the lockout vote wasn't unanimous and that the NHL and every single credible hockey reporter is either lying or perpetuating the lie?  Link please?  Or is this just some further speculation to justify your irrational hatred of Bettman without acknowledging the fact that our beloved Mike Ilitch might not have the fans in mind when he makes business decisions?

 

As a matter of fact (and since we're speculating), how do we know that the booes weren't the public's reaction to finding out that Ilitch hasn't payed his taxes, rents, and concessions for about 30 years, costing the city and the people who love it millions (by some accounts 70+ million) dollars? 


Edited by kipwinger, 02 January 2013 - 06:43 PM.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#31 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:02 PM

As a matter of fact (and since we're speculating), how do we know that the booes weren't the public's reaction to finding out that Ilitch hasn't payed his taxes, rents, and concessions for about 30 years, costing the city and the people who love it millions (by some accounts 70+ million) dollars? 

it could be.

 

but it still doesn't make sense to boo a general manager who has no control over those things.



#32 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:33 PM

Wait are you guys suggesting that the lockout vote wasn't unanimous and that the NHL and every single credible hockey reporter is either lying or perpetuating the lie?  Link please?  Or is this just some further speculation to justify your irrational hatred of Bettman without acknowledging the fact that our beloved Mike Ilitch might not have the fans in mind when he makes business decisions?

 

As a matter of fact (and since we're speculating), how do we know that the booes weren't the public's reaction to finding out that Ilitch hasn't payed his taxes, rents, and concessions for about 30 years, costing the city and the people who love it millions (by some accounts 70+ million) dollars? 

I am suggesting that it is more probable that Bettman had a vote to announce that they are unanimous about locking the league out (and that it would only take 7 votes to pass it through) than it is that they actually were unanimous about it. Bettman has imposed a gag order on management discussing league affairs. How would the hockey reporters even know about it?
It is a fact that Bettman only needs 7 votes to implement any legislation. It is a fact that he has imposed a severely punishable gag order on management.
It is doubtful that all the owners would vote to lock out the league. I think it is more likely that they had a vote to announce that they are unanimous than actually being unanimous about it.
It fits perfectly with Bettman's M.O.. You know the guy that would pretend to crack down on obstruction at the beginning of seasons for almost a decade and abandon it as something impossible to police (all the while wanting to restrict skill and talent for the sake of parity so weaker teams have a better chance of winning) and then magically actually being able to do it when he finally got his cap to help with parity. He was essentially holding hockey hostage till he got his cap. Hockey was almost unwatchable in the clutch and grab era. Same guy who encouraged the growth of goalie equipment (by allowing it) again to restrict talent and skill for the sake of parity and making a show of addressing the problem by reducing the size of the pads (still a little bigger than they were before he became commissioner) full well knowing the the chest protectors, shoulder pads, gloves, sweaters and even the helmets have ballooned to block out more net. And the people bought it, people still argue that Bettman reduced the size of pads and actually made goalie equipment smaller.  I could go on and on about his duplicity.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that they could have had a vote to appear unanimous about locking out the NHL rather than actually being unanimous?


Edited by Johnz96, 02 January 2013 - 10:36 PM.


#33 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,569 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:38 PM

it could be.

 

but it still doesn't make sense to boo a general manager who has no control over those things.

 

 

I agree, the point I was trying to make was that attempts to white wash Mike ilitch's (shared) culpability for the lockout is revisionist history and is obviously an attempt to make the poster feel good, and not an attempt to address the truth.  But you're right Holland had nothing to do with it. 

 

 

I am suggesting that it is more probable that Bettman had a vote to announce that they are unanimous about locking the league out (and that it would only take 7 votes to pass it through) than it is that they actually were unanimous about it. Bettman has imposed a gag order on management discussing league affairs. How would the hockey reporters even know about it?
It is a fact that Bettman only needs 7 votes to implement any legislation. It is a fact that he has imposed a severely punishable gag order on management.
It is doubtful that all the owners would vote to lock out the league. I think it is more likely that they had a vote to announce that they are unanimous than actually being unanimous about it.
It fits perfectly with Bettman's M.O.. You know the guy that would pretend to crack down on obstruction at the beginning of seasons for almost a decade and abandon it as something impossible to police (all the while wanting to restrict skill and talent for the sake of parity so weaker teams have a better chance of winning) and then magically actually being able to do it when he finally got his cap to help with parity. He was essentially holding hockey hostage till he got his cap. Hockey was almost unwatchable in the clutch and grab era. Same guy who encouraged the growth of goalie equipment (by allowing it) again to restrict talent and skill for the sake of parity and making a show of addressing the problem by reducing the size of the pads (still a little bigger than they were before he became commissioner) full well knowing the the chest protectors, shoulder pads, gloves, sweaters and even the helmets have ballooned to block out more net. And the people bought it, people still argue that Bettman reduced the size of pads and actually made goalie equipment smaller.  I could go on and on about his duplicity.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that they could have had a vote to appear unanimous about locking out the NHL rather than actually being unanimous?

 

 

 

 

This is not a fact.  Not even close.

 

Attached is the NHL constitution which explains the rules for conducting business in the NHL.  In Article 5 you can read how BOG decisions are made.  In order to conduct business a quorum (Majority) must be present at the beginning of the meeting in order for a vote to be taken (Article 5, Section 9).  Any meeting can only be held after 10 days previous notice, so no secret meeting (Article 5, Section 8).  ANY FORMAL ACTION TAKEN BY THE LEAGUE REQUIRES A MAJORITY VOTE IN A MEETING WHICH BEGAN WITH A QUORUM (ARTICLE 5, SECTION 16A).  INFORMAL ACTIONS (NOT REQUIRING A QUORUM MEETING) REQUIRE A 3/4 MAJORITY VOTE (ARTICLE 5, SECTION 16B). 

 

So no, any legislation does cannot pass with only 7 votes.  Nice try though.

 

http://multimedia.th...58eb8855bec.pdf


Edited by kipwinger, 02 January 2013 - 11:56 PM.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#34 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:35 AM

 

 

 

I agree, the point I was trying to make was that attempts to white wash Mike ilitch's (shared) culpability for the lockout is revisionist history and is obviously an attempt to make the poster feel good, and not an attempt to address the truth.  But you're right Holland had nothing to do with it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not a fact.  Not even close.

 

Attached is the NHL constitution which explains the rules for conducting business in the NHL.  In Article 5 you can read how BOG decisions are made.  In order to conduct business a quorum (Majority) must be present at the beginning of the meeting in order for a vote to be taken (Article 5, Section 9).  Any meeting can only be held after 10 days previous notice, so no secret meeting (Article 5, Section 8).  ANY FORMAL ACTION TAKEN BY THE LEAGUE REQUIRES A MAJORITY VOTE IN A MEETING WHICH BEGAN WITH A QUORUM (ARTICLE 5, SECTION 16A).  INFORMAL ACTIONS (NOT REQUIRING A QUORUM MEETING) REQUIRE A 3/4 MAJORITY VOTE (ARTICLE 5, SECTION 16B). 

 

So no, any legislation does cannot pass with only 7 votes.  Nice try though.

 

 

Wow no wonder you got it all wrong you haven't been paying attention. That must have been before the first lockout or it's just wrong. Things have changed since.

http://www.nytimes.c...l-enforcer.html

"To make sure the disunity of 1994-95 did not happen again, Bettman engineered a change in the voting rules: if he was against a settlement, he could be overruled only by a vote of three-quarters of the owners. And he was given the power to fine any owner or team official as much as $1 million for divulging internal league matters."

"Richard Stursberg, the former head of CBC English-language television, recounted in his recently published memoir the negotiations in 2006 and 2007 for the network to renew its N.H.L. contract. He wrote of Bettman “cheerfully” scuttling deals every time Stursberg thought one was close."
http://www.theglobea..._medium=twitter

http://www.google.ca...EGvz0mg&cad=rja


Edited by Johnz96, 03 January 2013 - 01:39 AM.


#35 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,569 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:46 AM

Wow no wonder you got it all wrong you haven't been paying attention. That must have been before the first lockout or it's just wrong. Things have changed since.

http://www.nytimes.c...l-enforcer.html

"To make sure the disunity of 1994-95 did not happen again, Bettman engineered a change in the voting rules: if he was against a settlement, he could be overruled only by a vote of three-quarters of the owners. And he was given the power to fine any owner or team official as much as $1 million for divulging internal league matters."

"Richard Stursberg, the former head of CBC English-language television, recounted in his recently published memoir the negotiations in 2006 and 2007 for the network to renew its N.H.L. contract. He wrote of Bettman “cheerfully” scuttling deals every time Stursberg thought one was close."
http://www.theglobea..._medium=twitter

http://www.google.ca...EGvz0mg&cad=rja

 

Look at the date on the document, it's 2009.  Obviously after the last lockout. 

 

Can we get a ruling on this by the mods.  This guy keeps claiming things are "facts" and then when confronted by obvious proof that he's wrong he keeps arguing.  I know it's hockey related, but when a person has clearly been proven wrong, with internal NHL documents as proof, and he keeps arguing, that should be considered the same thing as baiting or whatever rule you guys have. 

 

I don't know how to be more responsible than this.  The guy says "any legislation" can be passed with 7 votes.  I show him he's obviously wrong, support it with evidence, and then he cites some rule that applies ONLY to lockouts as proof that ALL LEGISLATION only needs 7 votes to pass. 

 

I'm done, you obviously can't debate reasonably with a person who cannot contextualize information. 


Edited by kipwinger, 03 January 2013 - 02:52 AM.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#36 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:35 AM

Look at the date on the document, it's 2009.  Obviously after the last lockout. 

 

Can we get a ruling on this by the mods.  This guy keeps claiming things are "facts" and then when confronted by obvious proof that he's wrong he keeps arguing.  I know it's hockey related, but when a person has clearly been proven wrong, with internal NHL documents as proof, and he keeps arguing, that should be considered the same thing as baiting or whatever rule you guys have. 

 

I don't know how to be more responsible than this.  The guy says "any legislation" can be passed with 7 votes.  I show him he's obviously wrong, support it with evidence, and then he cites some rule that applies ONLY to lockouts as proof that ALL LEGISLATION only needs 7 votes to pass. 

 

I'm done, you obviously can't debate reasonably with a person who cannot contextualize information. 

I thought it was established that Bettman changed the rules so that it would take 3/4 of the owners to overrule him. I think there are laws that prohibit publications like the The Globe and Mail and New York Times to publish false news. And even if there isn't I don't think they would risk their reputation by printing false news

Are those actual NHL documents?



#37 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,874 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 12:02 PM

I thought it was established that Bettman changed the rules so that it would take 3/4 of the owners to overrule him. I think there are laws that prohibit publications like the The Globe and Mail and New York Times to publish false news. And even if there isn't I don't think they would risk their reputation by printing false news

Are those actual NHL documents?

I'm pretty sure that rule change is specifically regarding CBA negotiations.  Where if Bettman does not want to accept an offer from the NHLPA, it takes 23 owners voting to overrule him and accept the offer.  That isn't the same thing as him being able to pass any legislation he wants. 

 

I'm guessing any new rule changes still have to be approved by the BOG.  And from what kipwinger linked to it looks like they only need a simple majority if they have enough owners at the meeting. 



#38 The Axe

The Axe

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,379 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:22 PM

Bettman's powers and duties should be a thread. A lot of people like that topic.

Holland getting booed doesnt bother me at all. I think losing Suter & Parise spells doom for DeeTwa.

#39 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,569 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:25 PM

Bettman's powers and duties should be a thread. A lot of people like that topic.

Holland getting booed doesnt bother me at all. I think losing Suter & Parise spells doom for DeeTwa.

 

 

Both Parise and Suter are overrated as we'll (hopefully) see very soon.


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#40 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:47 PM

I'm pretty sure that rule change is specifically regarding CBA negotiations.  Where if Bettman does not want to accept an offer from the NHLPA, it takes 23 owners voting to overrule him and accept the offer.  That isn't the same thing as him being able to pass any legislation he wants. 

 

I'm guessing any new rule changes still have to be approved by the BOG.  And from what kipwinger linked to it looks like they only need a simple majority if they have enough owners at the meeting. 

I know (i'm, pretty sure anyway) that it takes 3/4 of the owners to fire him







Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users