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.
"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."
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.