Believe in... Blackballing ?

[danjr]

The reason Jersey had to win the Cup was when Wayne Gretzky called out their franchise. When Gretzky did that the league was being called out for weakening the league with expansion franchises. circa 1983.

Of course New Jersey was awarded the All-Star game next season to try give the league more credibility.

But Jersey sucked for quite a few more years.

After the Koharski incedent, New Jersey said they were shortchanged for many years afterwards, while Ziegler was still NHL president.

Three short years after Ziegler was gone, they win the cup, after being barely ousted the year before by Messier's Guarantee.

You don't think there is Modus Operandi in the league?

Bettman. Joined NHL feb 1993. Last Canadian team win

1994 NY Rangers win for first time in 54 years

1995 New Jersey expansion team wins.

1996 Colorado gets the Nordiques and wins the cup first year they move

1997 Detroit wins first time since 1955

1999 Dallas (formerly Minnesota in guess what year......1993)wins

1995 Through to 2004 previous champs from above all repeated (NJ, Col & Det)

2004 Expansion team wins over Canadian team

2005 Cancelled

2006 Expansion team wins over Canadian team

2007 Expansion team wins over Canadian team

Pittsburgh almost pulls repeats after almost having the team bankrupt out of the League

Chicago, LA, Boston All win after 40 year long droughts (through to current again repeat winners of those American markets)

If you don't think the NHL and ref's conspire to fix the outcome for particular American franchises....You just have to look at the list of Winners and how they correlate with Bettman's vision for the NHL.

How best to manipulate the outcome. Someone who is under your control and your payroll, the Ref's.

With the science of sport, they know exactly how to dictate the outcome of games. Perfect non-calls. Momentum sapping calls. Once the result is close to what they need, then the even up calls come.

I cannot count how many games I have watched where the game is out of reach and then the make up calls come out to balance the stats.

Sure some of you make think I am nuts, but the facts are there if you go looking for them.

[Kevin-B]

Thanks darkpoet, I appreciate the info.

[babych]

Marty, Crosby, Gretz and Billy were all either superstars or franchise players. They are protected. I don't think it's right, but they are.

The bigger your name, the more leeway you have.

Anyway, I don't really want to get too much into other teams as it could really derail the thread.

Aside from that I'd like to focus on what's happened between the Canucks and the League/Officials, pertaining to corruption, collusion, etc.

Some people still think it's all "conspiracy theory" to suggest things like this but it does happen, and often.

so what's worse? the nhl is rigged or the whole world conspired to make us believe we landed on the moon?

[-DLC-]

Refs can be driven by the same egos that others in positions of authority can be: cops, teachers, bosses, etc. Most do their job well and with fairness guiding them...but the bad apples lose sight of things.

Whenever there is opportunity for one human being to "rule" over another, you can have an abuse of that power.

Let's face it, some of our guys were chirpy and could dish it out....you'll always find someone quick to try to put guys like that in their place. It just kind of snowballs at times and generates some momentum.

I believe it's starting to wear off and it does, in fact, happen to other teams....it's not about "Vancouver", it's about whoever the whipping boys of the moment are. Some teams (ahem Boston) can fly under the radar and others can't. We were on top of the league for awhile, you'll always get some who want to shoot down those who are successful...makes them feel special and part of it.

The refs are just terrible in general and whenever a league is trying to crack down or make changes there will be scapegoats in that. Some will be used as an example for others. The CFL is currently experiencing some of that. The roughing the passer and unnecessary roughness in football is getting totally out of hand and BC can't make a tackle without it getting penalized lately. It's more that there is no consistency than anything else.

[darkpoet]

The reason Jersey had to win the Cup was when Wayne Gretzky called out their franchise. When Gretzky did that the league was being called out for weakening the league with expansion franchises. circa 1983.

Of course New Jersey was awarded the All-Star game next season to try give the league more credibility.

But Jersey sucked for quite a few more years.

After the Koharski incedent, New Jersey said they were shortchanged for many years afterwards, while Ziegler was still NHL president.

Three short years after Ziegler was gone, they win the cup, after being barely ousted the year before by Messier's Guarantee.

You don't think there is Modus Operandi in the league?

Bettman. Joined NHL feb 1993. Last Canadian team win

1994 NY Rangers win for first time in 54 years

1995 New Jersey expansion team wins.

1996 Colorado gets the Nordiques and wins the cup first year they move

1997 Detroit wins first time since 1955

1999 Dallas (formerly Minnesota in guess what year......1993)wins

1995 Through to 2004 previous champs from above all repeated (NJ, Col & Det)

2004 Expansion team wins over Canadian team

2005 Cancelled

2006 Expansion team wins over Canadian team

2007 Expansion team wins over Canadian team

Pittsburgh almost pulls repeats after almost having the team bankrupt out of the League

Chicago, LA, Boston All win after 40 year long droughts (through to current again repeat winners of those American markets)

If you don't think the NHL and ref's conspire to fix the outcome for particular American franchises....You just have to look at the list of Winners and how they correlate with Bettman's vision for the NHL.

How best to manipulate the outcome. Someone who is under your control and your payroll, the Ref's.

With the science of sport, they know exactly how to dictate the outcome of games. Perfect non-calls. Momentum sapping calls. Once the result is close to what they need, then the even up calls come.

I cannot count how many games I have watched where the game is out of reach and then the make up calls come out to balance the stats.

Sure some of you make think I am nuts, but the facts are there if you go looking for them.

Nuts?

I think you are spot on with your analysis.

Like they say, what has been seen cannot be unseen.

[darkpoet]

so what's worse? the nhl is rigged or the whole world conspired to make us believe we landed on the moon?

How about you stick to one topic, or the other.

This one's about hockey.

[danjr]

Just to make you all think a bit, under Bettmans control these teams have yet to have an impact, but in the following decade, they will all make a splash.

Nashville

Columbus

Minnesota

Every other team that Bettman had moved into the States or was an Expansion team under him, Has won or been to the finals. I have not included teams moved North, because they are Canadian and he does not want them to win.

Though I do Believe Florida will be the next team of his "Darings" that will go to the finals.

Next of the others will probably be Nashville. Minnesota will not need a big push...well because it is the hotbed of hockey in the US. Columbus will probably follow shortly after.

Then as per his cycle some of the above four teams will pull repeat victories as cup champs.

[xereau]

My biggest concern with these so called professionals, is the lack of public accountability.

When was the last time you ever saw a ref being interviewed, and he said, "Yeah, I was wrong."

It is the phantom calls that drive me up the wall. The ones that never even happened.

It is long over due for an off ice trump official that can over turn any, and make his own, calls.

How hard would it be in the 20 second, or 30 second lull when a penalty is called, for an off ice official to confirm the call, and or, make adjustments up to and including calling secondary, (cough, DIVING) penalties?

It would not have much if any negative impact on the game, and it would give some credibility where there is quite literally none to be had.

[Ghostsof1915]

So....the refs hate us for a Coach that's deceased and an incident that happened in 1982?

Once we start getting young players in the lineup, and now that Kesler is gone, I'm pretty sure our reputation will improve.

Maybe if Vancouver actually had high level draft picks, or picked better than guys like:

Schroeder

Pat White

Nathan Smith

Brad Ference

Josh Holden

Mike Wilson

Libor Polasek

Shawn Antoski

All first round picks. Players after Nathan Smith, Brad Boyes, Steve Ott, Justin Williams, Nick Kronwall.

Poor scouting has been our Achillies Heel for ages.

[MJDDawg]

So....the refs hate us for a Coach that's deceased and an incident that happened in 1982?

Once we start getting young players in the lineup, and now that Kesler is gone, I'm pretty sure our reputation will improve.

Maybe if Vancouver actually had high level draft picks, or picked better than guys like:

Schroeder

Pat White

Nathan Smith

Brad Ference

Josh Holden

Mike Wilson

Libor Polasek

Shawn Antoski

All first round picks. Players after Nathan Smith, Brad Boyes, Steve Ott, Justin Williams, Nick Kronwall.

Poor scouting has been our Achillies Heel for ages.

Stop ruining this conspiracy and tin foil hat thread with facts!

They have no place here.

[Gaudette Celly]

so what's worse? the nhl is rigged or the whole world conspired to make us believe we landed on the moon?

A bit of research and you'd find out.

[SlickCanuck]

The reason Jersey had to win the Cup was when Wayne Gretzky called out their franchise. When Gretzky did that the league was being called out for weakening the league with expansion franchises. circa 1983.

Of course New Jersey was awarded the All-Star game next season to try give the league more credibility.

But Jersey sucked for quite a few more years.

After the Koharski incedent, New Jersey said they were shortchanged for many years afterwards, while Ziegler was still NHL president.

Three short years after Ziegler was gone, they win the cup, after being barely ousted the year before by Messier's Guarantee.

You don't think there is Modus Operandi in the league?

Bettman. Joined NHL feb 1993. Last Canadian team win

1994 NY Rangers win for first time in 54 years

1995 New Jersey expansion team wins.

1996 Colorado gets the Nordiques and wins the cup first year they move

1997 Detroit wins first time since 1955

1999 Dallas (formerly Minnesota in guess what year......1993)wins

1995 Through to 2004 previous champs from above all repeated (NJ, Col & Det)

2004 Expansion team wins over Canadian team

2005 Cancelled

2006 Expansion team wins over Canadian team

2007 Expansion team wins over Canadian team

Pittsburgh almost pulls repeats after almost having the team bankrupt out of the League

Chicago, LA, Boston All win after 40 year long droughts (through to current again repeat winners of those American markets)

If you don't think the NHL and ref's conspire to fix the outcome for particular American franchises....You just have to look at the list of Winners and how they correlate with Bettman's vision for the NHL.

How best to manipulate the outcome. Someone who is under your control and your payroll, the Ref's.

With the science of sport, they know exactly how to dictate the outcome of games. Perfect non-calls. Momentum sapping calls. Once the result is close to what they need, then the even up calls come.

I cannot count how many games I have watched where the game is out of reach and then the make up calls come out to balance the stats.

Sure some of you make think I am nuts, but the facts are there if you go looking for them.

I completely agree with that.

I wonder what the NHL has in store for us next season. Probably more and

[Ghostsof1915]

Stop ruining this conspiracy and tin foil hat thread with facts!

They have no place here.

Sorry. I do believe it was a conspiracy that JFK was assassinated if that helps. It seems to me to be an American coup, led by his very own Vice President, and assisted by people in the military and CIA.

But do I have facts? No, because it's too long ago. There's too much conflicting information. But here's a simple question. If Oswald shot Kennedy with a rife. They did a test for gunpowder residue on Oswald. How did he shoot a rifle and have only traces of gun powder on his hands, not his face? (You shoot a rifle at your shoulder and the powder comes from the bolt and should have residue on your face)

[Gollumpus]

Marty, Crosby, Gretz and Billy were all either superstars or franchise players. They are protected. I don't think it's right, but they are.

The bigger your name, the more leeway you have.

Anyway, I don't really want to get too much into other teams as it could really derail the thread.

Aside from that I'd like to focus on what's happened between the Canucks and the League/Officials, pertaining to corruption, collusion, etc.

Some people still think it's all "conspiracy theory" to suggest things like this but it does happen, and often.

And perhaps make it difficult to defend your point, but that's cool. If your point can't stand a lot of scrutiny then we can limit our scope.

In order for this discussion to really hold any water, chum, you should come up with a solid reason why an owner (like Aquilini) would go along with this kind of conspiracy (I can't say that I've seen anything to this effect).

Aquilini is a smart guy, and if he sees that his investment hasn't got a chance of paying off with them winning the big prize, then I suspect he'd sell the team off and let the other guy beat his head against the wall. Is he getting paid to keep his mouth shut and play along? Is the NHL paying him off out of league coffers, or is it coming directly from the pockets of the other owners? And how many of the other owners are in on this conspiracy? Are all of the American based team owners paying off the Canadian team owners for the right to win the Cup?

Should you choose to use the old, "the Canucks are in a big hockey market so they get lots of revenue from other sources other than ticket sales so it makes the team a good asset" that's fine, and I acknowledge the point. This being said, at some point ego comes into the picture and having a good, profitable team that can never win just isn't that interesting a toy to possess.

And while we aren't talking about other teams, perhaps you should come up with some reasons why Winnipeg has a team (again). How are they somehow paying off for their ownership even though they probably don't have a chance of winning the Cup any time soon (if ever). Also, they aren't exactly the same size of hockey as Vancouver, so any points you may come up with regarding Canucks' ownership getting lots of dollars from just being in a big hockey market don't really apply here. Forming this thought correctly could support your position regarding the Canucks.

What about guys like Benning? Do you think he would have been aware of this league conspiracy regarding the Canucks? He must have at least suspected something was going on as he was with the Bruins in their victory over the Canucks, right?. If so, why would he bother to leave Boston to come here, or if he did choose to leave the Bruins, why wouldn't he go somewhere where he felt he had a real shot at building a contender that actually had a chance to win the Cup?

regards,

G.

[Master Mind]

These are the examples most of us are familiar with. The general consensus is that we were physically overmatched by a bigger Boston team.

They were a bigger team yes, but the reason it worked so well for them against us was because they got away with murder. Almost literally in Raymonds case, and as soon as one of our players goes out there and tries to play their game (Rome), he gets tossed out of the series for it.

I don't like the statue either, but an incident from the 80's won't give refs a bias towards the Canucks.

The league wanted Boston to win that year, it's as simple as that. Even if San Jose had won the west instead, they would have had all the calls against them too.

[Absent Canuck]

That or they will like Kesler more.

The Refs never 'hated' kesler.

Fanboys on here hated Kesler and blame him for everything that ills the canucks plus cancer and male pattern baldness to boot.

[danjr]

Gollumpus.

It's called money.

The executives go to where money is.

The owner continues to own a team, because he makes money, or can make money from it.

The league goes where teams can be sustained.

The Cup goes to American winners, because the of untapped wealth in the States. (marketing, endorsements and broadcasting) 10 times the marketshare of Canada, and probably 50 times the wealth.

[ABNuck]

Stop thinking of the NHL as 30 franchises with 30 owners, and start thinking of it as one league with 30 owners. Then it all makes sense...

[taskicon]

Sorry. I do believe it was a conspiracy that JFK was assassinated if that helps. It seems to me to be an American coup, led by his very own Vice President, and assisted by people in the military and CIA.

But do I have facts? No, because it's too long ago. There's too much conflicting information. But here's a simple question. If Oswald shot Kennedy with a rife. They did a test for gunpowder residue on Oswald. How did he shoot a rifle and have only traces of gun powder on his hands, not his face? (You shoot a rifle at your shoulder and the powder comes from the bolt and should have residue on your face)

They already solved this. Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK then in the chaos one of the CIA agents accidently shot the President in the head. The agent that shot him was not the regular agent he replaced other agents who had been drinking the night before and were extremely hungover. They covered it up to spare all the CIA agents but JFK was already dead from the first shot.

This was from a new documentary that was investigated by the top experts in each field.

[MJDDawg]

Sorry. I do believe it was a conspiracy that JFK was assassinated if that helps. It seems to me to be an American coup, led by his very own Vice President, and assisted by people in the military and CIA.

But do I have facts? No, because it's too long ago. There's too much conflicting information. But here's a simple question. If Oswald shot Kennedy with a rife. They did a test for gunpowder residue on Oswald. How did he shoot a rifle and have only traces of gun powder on his hands, not his face? (You shoot a rifle at your shoulder and the powder comes from the bolt and should have residue on your face)

The thing with conspiracy theories is that one can pick and choose from certain facts to back their argument. And there are facts...it's just that they're conveniently ignored when they don't support an argument. For example, the FBI both before the assassination and after the assassination at the request of the Warren Commission conducted multiple tests using the paraffin test to determine whether a firearm was fired.

The earlier tests for revolvers showed that both false positives and false negatives were obtained. After testing the rifle used by Oswald, FBI expert Cortland Cunningham was questioned by the Warren Commission about not finding nitrates on Oswald's cheek:

EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?

CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

Of course if one is a conspiracy theorist, any test done by the FBI for the Warren Commission would lack credibility.

Was it a coup? Maybe, but other than conjecture and theories, I've yet to see any hard evidence that it was.