riffraff Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Personally I find the soap opera extremely ridiculous but also entertaining. Actually better than last years on ice product and all sweetened further by the hilarity in these asinine threads. The unfortunate part is organization has its face down in the mud. There were some credible times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 You are completely right. I have stooped to the level of the ones i was criticizing. The matter is I am not debating whether I am pro or anti Luongo. I don't really care at this point, and it doesn't really matter until he makes his decision. I don't post on these forums for these very reason. What I am stating is that I have been reading posts for over a year about the whole "Luongo vs. Schneider" debate, and it's the same thing every time. Schneider fans arguing with hockey inelegance, and Luongo fans arguing with their heart, and being completely irrational more times than not. It's the most annoying thing to read day in and day out. I had to speak my opinion on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sockeye Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I understand your frustration. And I absolutely agree with you on the bolded bit! The "team Cory or team Luo" debate was always kind of pointless as unless others are getting calls I'm not from Gillis, we never got to decide who stayed. Gillis decided based on any number of factors, only some of which we are even privy to. Much like Gillis said of Luo's options, fans have only 2: support or don't support. And even if we prefer one of them over the other, the truth is either was a damn good option. My point in the "Luo v. Cory" debate was always that neither sucks and that we didn't have to hate one to prove we liked the other. They are two different players and can be appreciated, or even disliked, separately and independently of one another based solely on their own merit. But you're absolutely right. It really doesn't matter now. If Luo plays (and I firmly believe he will), he's our guy. If not, well, that's something we'll have to deal with when/if it happens. I just don't get why people have to hate on their own team and their own players all the time. The reason the Vancouver media is so mean is that they are a reflection of the often most vocal part of the fanbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonz Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Funny they got rid of the goalie that wants to be here and kept a goalie that doesn't want to be here and was always ifty about staying here too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonz Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Thanks for the refreshing post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonz Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Here's a question about the Luongo contract He and Vcr signed legitmate contract duly approved ( not that they liked it ) by the Governing body the NHL. and then fast forward to now and the NHL is now telling the parties it's no longer valid, when in fact they've already said it was valid. I don't think you can do that legally, scrap a legal contract. They may want to change the rules in the new CBA but surely that needs to be grandfathered in ie from this point forth we will have a "Luongo rule" Is Luongo taking legal advise on this and hence the delay and no comment. Can he move to the KHL/EU others have. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 How's it refresh its a waste of time. It's a known fact Cory was traded bc they couldn't get anything reasonable for Lu. It's that simple stop making up crap to make it a mystery. The only mystery is whether the owner forced gillis hand bc didn't want a buyout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Here's a question about the Luongo contract He and Vcr signed legitmate contract duly approved ( not that they liked it ) by the Governing body the NHL. and then fast forward to now and the NHL is now telling the parties it's no longer valid, when in fact they've already said it was valid. I don't think you can do that legally, scrap a legal contract. They may want to change the rules in the new CBA but surely that needs to be grandfathered in ie from this point forth we will have a "Luongo rule" Is Luongo taking legal advise on this and hence the delay and no comment. Can he move to the KHL/EU others have. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanwincup Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Are you kdding me that's like saying alll the players should like the coach. He's a pro he gets paid $5,000,000.00 per season. Do you love your work to you getting up each and every day and dragging your butt down to work...to pay your mortgage and feed the kids. By the way our savious has just been signed and I'm sure it will only help Luongo skip into camp smiling....MG just signed Brad Richardson, the question is .....WHY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPrince Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Like I said before, maybe he just wants to enjoy his summer and not be bothered/stressed with all the controversy/debates that the media could start through a simple interview? Anyone ever think of that? He has a life outside of stopping rubber disks you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 It's very embarrassing to watch the Luongo apologizers get out debated with cold hard facts, and over and over all they have to say back is ridiculous non-logical BS, and personal attacks. This has gone on for over a year. If you have such a big crush on Luongo that NO logic or sense could ever be enough to sway your love crush on Luongo, then ignore it!! If you have absolutely nothing logical to say, and you're in that much denial, you should probably just refrain from posting, because you all sound like a bunch of 14 year old girls, and it's tiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Luo's needs the money ?????? OK! He is not coming back! Why would he: the fans NO! The money NO! To play hockey maybe under the promise of a trade or buyout! Family is the most important thing for him and believe me when I say his family is telling him to stay away from Van. Lou is 35 pass the common retirement age for hockey players, do not be surprised if all this crap has pushed him to think about retiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 You'd think, wouldn't you? In the interest of fairness all existing contracts should have been grandfathered, especially since the NHL had the option to not sign off on these contracts but choose to rubber stamp them anyway. For example, the NHL did deny a contract to Kovalchuk on the grounds that it circumvented the cap, proving that they had the ability to deny contracts. It was frankly dirty to agree to the contracts, basically agreeing that they did not circumvent the cap and followed the rules of the CBA, and then to change the rules later to punish the teams after the fact while taking absolutely no responsibility themselves for allowing these contracts in the first place. Grandfathering the existing contracts would have been the NHL taking responsibility for their part, but it would have meant a little less money in their pocket in the short-term so fairness be damned. It's all about the dollar bills for the register non-profit that is the NHL. As for the legal issue, that's where it gets a bit sticky and even if someone did want to take it to court, they wouldn't likely get very far. Legally, organized sports operate in a sort of in a grey area. What they do is technically illegal. Salary caps, teams' rights to players, entry drafts, etc. are acts of collusion that limit the employees' options. The only way that is legal is that the employees have a union. By each side bargaining collectively, each side essentially becomes a single legal entity as opposed to the businesses colluding as a single entity while the employees are still on their own individually. (That was the whole issue behind the threat to decertify the union during the lockout. No union, no league.) Of course, it's not just the owners who benefit. The union is also important for players. Before the union, players got crap pay and little or no benefits or protections. So, both sides benefit from the arrangement and both sides, at least collectively if not individually, agree to the CBA which is basically the rules of the arrangement. Each CBA gives a template for individual contracts which includes a clause saying that they are in part subject to the rules of the CBA which may be amended independently of the contract itself. Basically, it's this weird thing where you can negotiate a contract with your employer, but your union can negotiate a different deal with all similar employers that you don't even agree with, but your individual contract will be directly effected. That's what happened here. The majority of the players (most of whom wouldn't be effected by the "Luongo clause") and the majority of owners (many of whom didn't have any players on those types of contracts) agreed to put that punishing clause in and everyone is obligated to follow it. As for moving to the KHL, as I understand it both leagues have an agreement between them that forbids the other league from signing a player still under contract in the other league. (In another discussion, someone said he'd heard of some KHL players having NHL out clauses in their contracts that allowed them to terminate their KHL contract if they were able to get into the NHL. That may be true, but I would guess it would only be allowed because that clause allowed the player to legally terminate their KHL contract, thus making them available to sign in the NHL.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fagin Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Luo's needs the money ?????? OK! He is not coming back! Why would he: the fans NO! The money NO! To play hockey maybe under the promise of a trade or buyout! Family is the most important thing for him and believe me when I say his family is telling him to stay away from Van. Lou is 35 pass the common retirement age for hockey players, do not be surprised if all this crap has pushed him to think about retiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 The NHL didn't exactly agree to the contracts. They first asked Gillis to make it a ten year contract and they would be happy. But Gillis and company convinced everyone that Luongo was going to defy all odds and play till he was 43. The league let the contracts go on but with protest. They were under investigation for cap circumvention along with Chicago and Philadelphia and Detroit i believe. The league wanted all email records, cell phone calls etc. As this was going on there were meetings with the league and the PA about this. A deal was reached and as an agreement to be ratified, all investigations were to stop. The deal was the contract length of eight years max and was to be included (which it was) in the new cba. The league had no ability to deny contracts, the Jersey one you talk about was ruled that way from a judge or arbitrator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Absolutely, but I wont share. I dont need to. You'll just have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 A short life lesson, but I have never in my existence heard of an employee giving a boss an ultimatum that works out in the employees favour. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 you're a ???? idiot, I didn't even need to read what you wrote to tell you're another luongo ballhugger. newsflash : nobody has a right to be a team's starting goalie, and nobody has a right to be traded. he signed his contract, he got outplayed by schneider, then gillis didn't manage to get a decent trade for him, even though he tried. so too ???? bad. cry me a river, luongo and all luongo ballhuggers. at the end of the day he is a professional being paid 5+million dollars a year to do this, I have zero sympathy whatsoever, and everybody else should feel the exact same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Even when the employee is a multi millionaire? Have you heard of Mariah Carey? How about Tom Petty? If you look at examples of "employees" that are the reason the employer makes their money, those outcomes change. Lou is one such "employee". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.