Dazzle
-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Dazzle
-
-
1 hour ago, mll said:
On a 7 year contract. They saw that their window would open while he would still be effective. Not easy to acquire or draft/develop elite talent. The roster has to be constructed so that the pieces are there when the window truly opens up.
We can say that about any team signing stars to long term, expensive contracts. Teams only 'rebuild' when they underachieve from their initial goals, so they scavenge from their existing parts, especially when a new GM is put in.
-
1 hour ago, Provost said:
You are arguing two different and mutually exclusive things at the same time.
If your issue is Parros being qualified and needing to be fired, the Rangers owner did the absolute wrong thing.
Bettman could have literally been driving to the office with the intention of firing Parros, but once that statement came out, it guaranteed job security for Parros. For just reasons of optics, Bettman can’t fire him at the urging of one angry team owner and at the same time show that making public statements embarrassing the league is going to be behaviour that is rewarded.
If you think the owner needed to make a public statement showing he supports players... then a prepared media statement aimed mainly at the league and not Wilson was also not very effective. He should have gotten in front of a camera and gone on full tilt.
Also, go look at people that have been in charge of DoPS... they have pretty much all been guys who played on the wrong side of the rules.
...or if they were going to fire him anyway, they could've done so, WHILE supporting New York's position.
You are running under the assumption that the NHL can't look like they are 'bowing under pressure'. Clearly they didn't feel that way when Miller talked to the Media. Or Robin Lehner. Both these guys had legitimate reasons and they used their voices to express discontent.
Nah. The only reason Parros keeps his job is because the NHL lets him have it. They could have EASILY fired Parros and gotten another yes puppet to satisfy one owner. Easily. If all it takes is a firing to shut up someone, they might do it to get the heat off them.
Now the issue is full blown stupid for the NHL.-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Fanuck said:
All valid points. I would add though, that in addition to Wilson's interests being protected one could easily argue that both the interests of the Capitals team and their owner Ted Leonsis are being protected as well since they are in no danger of losing the services of Wilson on the eve of the start of the playoffs - and say what you want about Wilson - there is zero doubt that when he is in the line-up he increases the Capitals chances of winning.
I believe the CBA needs to be overhauled and the section dealing with this type of stuff needs to be updated if there is any chance of the NHL 'cleaning up the game' so to speak. I'm not exaggerating when I say they should astronomically increase the amount of fines (start the fine for what Wilson did at $100,000.00 and go up from there accordingly) and at least triple or quadruple the minimum level of suspensions that we typically see. Then and only then will these players take pause and think about their actions on/off the ice.
I don's see the CBA changing much in the future for a few reasons unfortunately. In the perspective of the NHLPA you're not going to voluntarily agree to astronomical fines/suspensions because, even though it indirectly protects your own membership, it also severely punishes your own membership at the same time. The owners on the other hand, don't care as much about fines but they don't want their players being suspended as it may directly, as we see in the case of Wilson, effect their club's chances of winning which in their eyes is essentially $$$$$.
Well they could've thrown in a 2 game suspension in the regular season (which essentially means nothing), and the conversation would be less of a controversy than nothing at all. This decision has exposed the NHL for being a joke.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, *Buzzsaw* said:
Rangers have a much better record than Canucks.
Yet when the situation becomes obvious... ownership acts.
Wish the same would happen in Vancouver.
Like what? What do you think the Canucks could write in a statement about COVID? That NHL schedulers should be fired?
These are two VERY different situations. I'm not surprised you're trying to slap Canucks management with something that they had no control over.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, hammertime said:
I was 100% behind that statement the Rangers put out re Wilson.
I guess we can take this back to the players here and let em know re not putting out a official statement on their behalf re resuming play after covid. Going against the league wouldn't change anything other than getting JB insta fired.
They did the right thing I guess the league can't fire the players.
Edler's suspension was on a knee. A 5000 fine for what would've been aggravated assault; one that was even worse than the Matheson/Pettersson incident.
NHL could've done something about Wilson who was a repeat offender - and they just gave him a 5000 fine. -
41 minutes ago, mll said:
They are in a rebuild that was started at the 2018 TDL.
A rebuild involving a 10 million Panarin. Confusing really.
-
2
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
29 minutes ago, Provost said:Please let this news be followed up with an announcement firing Benning and Weisbrod as a message we want to actually go after some guys like this who will be available.
For those saying you want brass who will stand up to the league... the first thing is that the statement made by the owner isn't how you do that, because it has the opposite effect if you really wanted Parros fired. Now Bettman and company would absolutely dig in their heels so they aren't seen as caving to one upset owner. If you want to register your anger, pick up the phone and put Bettman on blast in private.
The second thing is, pick your battles. There will be things more important to your team to hold your ground on than seeing if a player from another team gets suspended or not.Actually, Panarin is your star player. You're telling me the Canucks should do or say nothing publicly if Pettersson got beat down like Panarin did?
Really?
Props to NYR for doing the right thing. A 5000 fine for an action that is arguably worse than the Matheson/Pettersson incident. Okay buddy.
-
5
-
1
-
1 hour ago, khay said:
Why is Gorton a good GM? (honestly don't know, don't follow NYR all that much).
His achievements are,
1. signing Panarin for 10+ mil.
2. Tanking hard for Kakko.
3. Got lucky with Lafreniere.
Did he trade for Zibanejad?
I guess cleared the house very quickly when it became clear that the team isn't contending.
Because people are desperate to move away from Benning that anyone seems "better". Confirmation bias.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:
Lind playing physical.
I LIKE IT.
jB outgmed everyone.
-
1
-
-
I don't like those redundant passes in the defensive zone. No wonder why they have so many difficulties getting picks out of their zones.
-
1 hour ago, gurn said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party#Rise_under_Jack_Layton
"
Official Opposition[edit]
In the 2011 federal election the NDP won a record 103 seats, becoming the Official Opposition for the first time in the party's history. The party had a historic breakthrough in Quebec, where they won 59 out of 75 seats. "
good enough for second place.
10 years ago... The Canucks run was about the same time. Ever since then, NDP has been in decline.
-
29 minutes ago, stawns said:
because people are dumb and ignorant. If the average canadian had any decent research and criticsal thinking skills, then sure. Clearly they do not and "do your own research" has become the mantra of the gullible and easily radicalized.
I'd like to think that the average Canadian is pretty reasonable. It's the small group of idiots that speak the loudest because they feel infringed.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, stawns said:
what's the problem with the public sector? It certainly puts more money into the pockets of people, rather than corporations. I'll never understand how easily the average joe is bamboozled by private corporations into thinking they are better for the average citizen. It's mind boggling.
In 10-15 years the climate will be the primary issue facing humankind and the NDP and Greens will likely be at the forefront of that fight, thus they will likely have a lot more political power.
Doubt it. Even through all the scandals among the other political parties, ndp has never come anywhere close to being more than a third rate party.
-
Let's be honest. The Matheson throwdown was BAD. That warranted a suspension.
However,
WHAT THE &^@#? ONLY a 5,000 fine?
Very very very dangerous. Wilson needs a season + playoff ban.
-
2 hours ago, TheSnipeshow91 said:
Ideally he can go by boner but for the pg13 audience bonesy would be appropriate.
Or bones. Bonino was called that.
-
On 4/30/2021 at 5:46 PM, Gawdzukes said:
Gawd, Miller is good but so freaking lazy in his own end it's not even funny. He's just such a good player he get's away with it sometimes. A lot of times he's fighting Hughes for whose fault the goal is. he just quits on the dside way earlier.
Glad i'm not the only one that sees this as well. Miller absolutely gets lazy in the defensive zone. Kind of shocking for a 1st line centre on this team lol.
-
3 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:
TBH, I think the "qualifications" of a PM are a bit overblown....
IMO, all he really needs to do is appoint competent people to cabinet posts and let them do their jobs. Listen to your advisers and try and find a balance between the various ideologies so that you're representing all Canadians.
Intelligence is certainly an asset, but I don't see a legal (or any other professional) degree as preferable to teaching background, TBH.
I would like to see Freeland take the reins from Trudeau.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Russ said:
Really? People know NDP and Greens have no bloody idea how to fund all their promises, their promises are even more empty than the Liberals or Conservatives, atleast those 2 parties pretend to know how to pay for it, whenever the NDP is asked they just say "well we will tax the rich and put 75% on capital gains"
No one will vote for a party that wants to jack up capital gains, every single person who has any money saved and invested is screwed then. Who wants to have all their savings for their whole lives taxed to hell to the point that they can't retire anymore? NDP is worse than Benning with a no plan plan. They got 24 seats last election, I think they will be lucky to get the same amount next time around unless they do a revamp and get a new leader. And greens are a freaking embarrassment, May steps down but is now taking power back in the party, she just uses it as her little toy.
My vote would never go to either of those useless parties.
NDP recently had people trying to remove the military. In theory, yes, the money can be freed to do other stuff. This will open a new set of problems. Obviously the people coming with these ideas didn't think them through.
-
1 hour ago, Russ said:
We need oversight to make our media back to being real journalism and no longer this biased crap on both sides. Put facts down in black and white, none of this grey to sway one side of people or the other. I don't need a fox news vs CNN (american are more biased than Canadian media for my example) where they both pander to the far side of each party. We need media thats in the center, giving straight up facts and not opinions. Problem is that'll probably never happen.
We do. CTV is relatively unbiased. Rarely though will you have a channel that is "unbiased". That's not a thing. You can try to be fair though. The bias is a normal part of society. Critical thinking is about balancing all perspectives.
-
4 minutes ago, Heretic said:
https://openmedia.org/article/item/whats-wrong-with-bill-c-10-an-faq
I don't condone the following, not too sure how factual it is, but a good read nonetheless:
What’s wrong with Bill C-10? An FAQ
Anatomy of a legacy media power grab
- What is Bill C-10 about?
- Is Bill C-10 about helping small and diverse content creators in Canada “tell our stories”?
- Who is Bill C-10 actually for?
- Would Bill C-10 “level the playing field” between streaming companies and legacy broadcast companies?
- So what would Bill C-10 mean for our favourite streaming platforms?
- Does Bill C-10 exclude small streaming platforms and user content from broadcast regulation and levies?
- Is Bill C-10 about applying sales tax to streaming companies?
- If Bill C-10 is a bad idea, what should our government do instead?
- Bill C-10 — commonly known as “the Streaming Tax” before it was introduced in Parliament — is a piece of federal legislation tabled by Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault in November 2020.
- C-10’s primary goal is expanding Canada’s Broadcasting Act to apply to all streaming audio or video content on the Internet, including Netflix, Spotify, Youtube, and other popular streaming services.
-
C-10 is a complex multi-part bill, and some parts of what the government intends aren’t fully explained in it. But key priorities of the bill include:
- Putting new taxes and/or content production requirements on Internet streaming services. That could mean direct payments from online streaming services into the Canada Media Fund (CMF), a government program that funds officially recognized ‘CanCon’ content; or the CRTC might decide on another way to force streaming services to fund and produce recognized ‘CanCon’. C-10 doesn’t make clear which option is most likely.
- Applying the CRTC’s broadcast television regulations and powers to online streaming. In addition to the taxes or production quotas mentioned above, C-10 grants the CRTC the right to set quotas for how much of a streaming platform’s content must be CanCon, and to require changes to apps, websites and search results to make CanCon appear more frequently and prominently within the service.
- Not following the CRTC’s currently unclear rules could cost platforms up to $15 million dollars, which creates a significant incentive for any service not certain they can comply to stop offering their services to people in Canada.
2. Is Bill C-10 about helping small and diverse content creators in Canada “tell our stories”?
No, though the government would like you to think it is. In public, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault is telling Canadians that C-10 is all about the need for Canada to ‘tell our stories’ in the 21st century.
If telling our stories on new media is C-10’s top priority, you might expect it would start with a bold vision for how the government will rebuild its systems that fund Canadian storytelling to focus on all the new media platforms that make the modern Internet great, including the podcasts, Patreon accounts and Youtube channels which many younger Canadians flock to over traditional broadcast. A top priority would also be updating our wildly out of date 1980s era CanCon points definition system that governs which stories get funding today, to make sure that it meaningfully reflects both emerging and historically underrepresented forms of Canadian identity with specific financial commitments.
Sadly, that’s not the case. C-10 has no vision for reaching younger Canadian audiences, nor means to support our storytelling on the user and independent creator driven Internet. It promises to exclude user-generated content from legislation - more on why that may not wholly work below - but that’s where the government’s vision stops.
What about broadening our story-telling to reflect more of Canada’s diversity?
There’s some rhetorical progress in the bill, which amends the current Broadcasting Act by calling for the “needs and interests of all Canadians” to receive some support, including “Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions.”
Yet despite this promising start, C-10 doesn’t actually turn these good intentions into meaningful policy or funding. Supporting more diverse storytelling isn’t possible without first updating the definitions the government uses to decide what counts as ‘Canadian’ content — currently determined by a points system last updated in 1984. That CanCon system produces absurdities like funding documentaries on the Kennedys and English Tudors as official CanCon, while broadcasts of iconic Canadian creator stories such as Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” don’t quality. This bill does not even start to revise the CanCon system – the brunt of that work will be left to the CRTC, and take years to complete.
So until that definition is radically revised, CanCon status remains far more about supporting one flavour of content made in Canada, not Canadian storytelling.
Canadian storytellers not supported by the current CanCon system won’t see a dime from C-10 for many years (if ever) – and truly Internet-based creators on new media platforms may never qualify.
So if Bill C-10 doesn’t support new storytelling, why is Minister Guilbeault in such a rush to regulate streaming companies?
In short: It’s a fast cash-grab for traditional broadcast industries.
3. Who is Bill C-10 actually for?
Legacy broadcast media companies, like Bell Media, Rogers and Corus Entertainment.
Rather than being about “telling Canadian stories,” as Minister Guilbeault is telling us, Bill C-10 is driven by much a cruder vision – that major streaming platforms are earning a lot of revenue, and legacy Canadian media companies want a piece of it.
Companies like Bell Media and Corus Entertainment built their businesses around TV, not the Internet, and would much rather the Internet look like cable than adapt what they do to the modern web.
There’s no crisis for funding for their broadcasts that qualify as traditional CanCon, which reached a several year peak in 2018 and has remained stable over the last 10 years. But overall revenue from television broadcast has been declining for these companies since 2014 – people are less and less inclined to pay for their overpriced, overstuffed cable packages.
Meanwhile, streaming companies are already massive contributors to broadcast production in Canada, with the CRTC’s chair Iain Scott calling Netflix “probably the single largest contributor to the (Canadian) production sector.”
But streaming companies like Netflix are currently ineligible to receive Canada Media Fund funding, even when they’re producing what would otherwise be Canadian content by the current points system, using Canadian production teams and creators. And that means a golden opportunity for legacy television companies to have the government force popular streaming competitors to fund their less popular content!
This isn’t about our stories, and it isn’t about our jobs; it is about inflating the profits of legacy media companies.
No – just the opposite. Under the current system, legacy broadcast companies pay into the CMF, and are eligible for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding back, as well as benefiting from a wide range of commercial rights and protections within the broadcast market that foreign or streaming only companies cannot access.
Under C-10, if streaming companies are asked to pay into the CMF, they will be ineligible for funding back – taking from streaming services to subsidize legacy broadcast production.
That’s tilting the playing field towards legacy media companies, not levelling it, and it is why they’re so keen on it that Bell’s CEO Mirko Bibic infamously ‘tipped his hat’ to Guilbeault on Twitter shortly after C-10’s introduction.
5. So what would Bill C-10 mean for our favourite streaming platforms?
Higher prices, much less of the content we love, and the potential for some streaming services to leave Canada.
We don’t know how individual streaming platforms will respond to C-10, or exactly how the CRTC will apply its regulatory powers. But any platform paying into the CMF without receiving support back will most likely take that money back in higher Canadian subscription fees, not cutting their margin below that in other countries. And what’s the simplest way of accommodating CanCon content quotas? Not producing tons of new CanCon content - it would be blocking a whole lot of our favourite streaming content in Canada, so CanCon takes up a larger share of what’s left.
C-10 could also mean some streaming services pull out of Canada entirely, or never come here in the first place. Any platform unsure where they stand under C-10 and unwilling to deal with the hassle of the CRTC’s process could block their service in Canada rather than pursue a comparatively expensive and over-regulated market.
Not clearly or cleanly. Minister Guilbeault has promised the public that the Act will not be extended to any but the largest streaming platforms, and will not affect user-generated content.
But that’s not what the bill actually says. As written, only streaming platforms the CRTC specifically excludes at their discretion will be exempted from regulation and levies. Any small streaming platform that wants to serve people in Canada will need to contact the CRTC and seek a judgment on whether they can be excluded, or risk facing legal consequences. Platforms who are unsure of their status and don’t want to enter a potentially multi-year CRTC process could easily decide to block their service in Canada altogether.
It’s impossible for us to know what the CRTC thinks should or shouldn’t count – or if that opinion won’t change over time.
And even if individual user content and the platforms that host it are excluded by the act, most platforms that host user content could still be affected. Modern streaming platforms like Youtube and Spotify increasingly contain a mix of user-generated, sponsored and platform-commissioned content, which will bring them into the Act’s purview and significantly change how they serve Canadian users and creators.
7. Is Bill C-10 about applying sales tax to streaming companies?
No. The government has separately proposed applying sales tax to streaming platforms, which is a simple loophole closing that does genuinely level the playing field, and is supported by both OpenMedia and many concerned academic experts – we’ve written more on the subject here.
8. If Bill C-10 is a bad idea, what should our government do instead?We believe the government should slow down and take seriously their promise to help us tell Canadian stories. Given that the financial crisis for our funding for Canadian stories supposedly driving C-10’s haste just doesn’t exist, we need to hit pause NOW, and make sure that the reforms we’re building are truly about supporting innovative, culturally diverse Canadian content everywhere on the Internet.
We believe five core principles should inform a healthy C-10 successor
- Fix CanCon First: Our CanCon points system was last updated in 1984 and badly needs a makeover. Canadian stories for far too long have been limited by the government’s rigid, top-down CanCon criteria. Not only has this fickle system allowed great Canadian stories to slip through the cracks and fail to meet the standards for CanCon (the Handmaid’s Tale, anyone?), it’s also long reinforced outdated ideas of “old stock” Canadian identities. A CanCan overhaul for the 21st century should instead center the full diversity of Canadian identities — including multicultural identities — and recognize their equal roles in the future of Canadian content.
- Support Canadian content discoverability through user choice: The Internet isn’t broadcast media; we’re in control of what we want to watch and listen to, and it should stay that way. Any regulation that imposes new requirements on how streaming platforms present our home pages or search results should be focused on giving us more choice, not less. And that should mean the choice to turn on seeing more Canadian content in our feeds, or more content of any other type that matters to us.
- Reward anyone who produces recognized Canadian content: Anyone who is producing CanCon to the creative and employment standards of our revised CanCon definition should be eligible for CanCon funding support, full stop. When special rules exclude some making high-quality Canadian content from support, we’re left with a public conversation far more about industry politics and manoeuvering than Canadian creativity and storytelling.
- Meet Canadians on all our platforms: Beyond the definition of CanCon, a well thought through regulatory approach needs to explicitly recognize and support new online media, like podcasts and other user-generated content, that more and more Canadian creators use to make a living. While traditional broadcast and radio should of course remain part of Canadian storytelling, failing to engage platforms preferred by younger Canadians will increasingly separate the stories the government wants to support from the online lives Canadians increasingly live.
- Showcase Canadian culture to the world: Back in 2017, Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly had an optimistic vision of Canadian broadcast content’s ability to compete with and thrive amidst the panoply of world cultural products. Facing industry criticism, the government has backed off that vision; but as the reams of awards recently issued to Schitt’s Creek demonstrate, Joly was right. A C-10 successor should not be about protectionist measures that shut Canadian culture off from the world and force it on people in Canada whether we want it or not, but outward-facing efforts that give Canadian creators the support they need to create great new and old media content that appeals at home and abroad.
Very interesting read indeed. Yes, Canada can and should capitalize on its film industry. Vancouver is a massive film industry city now. Tons of dub and filming studios are located here because of the tax incentives and climate/location. Seems like CanCon needs to be updated after all. A bill from 1984 is really outdated, regardless of the contents in it.
-
2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:
To be clear, I like him too.....and I would be just fine with him as PM.
My point is that people always seem to think the guy in power is an "idiot" and that they'd be far better off with the guy who isn't in power.
Edit: to take that thought even further, think back to when hockey was "normal"....as soon as the Canucks started to struggle for whatever reason, the coach would become the "idiot" and his critics would pine for whomever was coaching the Moose....it wouldn't even matter who...
Now we have the former Moose guy....and guess who's the "idiot" now?
Grass is always greener.....
We thought that way about Coach Green - it's IN HIS NAME - and then...
-
2 hours ago, drummer4now said:
No he is very educated (lawyer by trade) and qualified; at least more than JT.
A lot of lawyers go on to become PMs, but education there doesn't mean they make great PMs. They are usually in the upper class of society.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Heretic said:
I do not
I fixed it, I saw it before you replied.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Heretic said:
If the country gives the Liberals a majority, it just proves that those voters are as much of an idiot as Trudeau.NDP has never formed government since Canada's inception. I really wonder why.
A bunch of NDPers recently tried to get Jag Singh to abolish the police and military.
I suppose you support their efforts too.
Edit: I stand corrected. I saw your response on page 2.-
1
-
[Report] Rangers fire president John Davidson, GM Jeff Gorton; name Chris Drury as new president & GM
in General Hockey Discussion
Posted
Are you serious?
How is it "smart"? Putting up with stuff - ala Sedins - got the Canucks nowhere. We have freaking history to tell us that. There is no "smart" play that you're implying.