Talk:2004–05 NHL lockout

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American vs. British spelling conventions[edit]

Why labor and not labour? is this not an issue that Canadians are more concerned about? Earl Andrew 07:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. Most Americans don't even know that there is a lockout. --Zippanova 00:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC) So you are essentially saying that Americans don't like hockey? -- Mike 11/3/09

There are more US teams than Canadian teams. The Google test, however, favors the superfluous "u": "NHL labor dispute" gets only 872 hits, to 1,930 for "NHL labour dispute". By the Google test, however, the article should really be moved to "NHL lockout" (116,000 hits), with of course the year(s) added in whatever format seems best (see discussion below). JamesMLane 18:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More American teams, but more Canadian players :D -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More important, there's more Canadian media outlets reporting on the story? How often does the lockout even mentioned on ESPN Sportscenter? --Madchester June 30, 2005 19:49 (UTC)

THat's becuase ESPN is gay. Super gay. If it doesn't involve football, baseball, or baskgayball, then it doesn't exist.

They don't mention it because they don't have any broadcasting rights for hockey anymore, unlike the other major sports which often have ESPN games. Jpp42 07:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If it matters that much change the damn spelling.

you both win. Both spellings are up --Kopicz (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change[edit]

Given that the labor dispute is still going on, shouldn't this article be called "National Hockey League labor dispute (2004-2005)"? --Idont Havaname 02:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's absolutely necessary considering the labor dispute started in 2004. Maybe once it ends we can add the end year to it. – flamuraiTM 04:11, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Also it may still be on in 2006 (and possibly beyond) so that may require changes as well...

Fan perspectives[edit]

I've put in a couple of ext links to "fan protest" sites. Should there be a section, or a separate article, on fan reactions to the NHL lockout, or is this just blowing the story out of proportion? --Idont Havaname 03:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The New Deal[edit]

I came to this page looking for information on the agreement...unfortunately, there is no actual information on what the agreement was, only that one had been reached. Specifically I'd like to know the amount of the salary cap, etc. I will try to add this if I figure it out, but someone might want to add a section detailing the new agreement. --Brett

I also came to this page wanting to know, in broad terms, what the agreement was that ended the lockout. This page, as of 12/4/06, tells me virtually nothing about the agreement - Scott

Sources?[edit]

This article really needs some sources, especially the dubious claim that the NHL lockout had any effect on the growth of Texas Hold-em poker. Personally, I would just as soon remove that statement altogether, as frankly, I doubt the NHL had any impact in this regard. Resolute 19:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The texas hold-em claim might have a place in the correlation does not imply causation article though... Gantlord
This sent up some flags to me, too. I did a quick google of NHL lockout and Texas Hold'em Poker and came up with a blurb regarding this idea by Marvin Ryder:

Did the NHL lockout cause televised poker's popularity? Sports – McMaster University marketing guru Marvin Ryder says cable networks were left scrambling for winter sporting events and filled broadcast time with televised poker. Televised poker drew up to three times the audience of the NHL and established tournament, casino, online and home poker as a North American "phenomenon." [1]


So I refined the search to Marvin Ryder and NHL and got this piece from the Hamilton Spectator [2]. So I'm going to take down the citation needed flag and add that second reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nhelm83 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Effects on the U.S. Hockey Market[edit]

This section appears to be problematic, due to its lack of references, and does not seem to written in a NPOV. It's more like a fan's rant of what's wrong with the NHL. It should be deleted. Richiekim (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions[edit]

I predict that in another 5 years we will be having another article like this one. It seems that since money is the biggest thing now and days, instead of just playing for the heck of it, they will keep going into strikes and lockouts every time the contract ends.

THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS MY OPINION. PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE ME OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

On another note, i think there should be a page that has every player suspended for the season.

--Kopicz (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a possibility, but not a probability, Sidney Crosby and such players won't want to lose out on their contract payments. Thank God for the AHL though in this case...right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonrocks1 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rule changes related to this lockout?[edit]

The wikipedia articles about NHL, NHL rules, Penalty and probably others refer to rule changes made following this lockout.

Were these rule changes actually related to the issues of the lockout? If so, I think there should be something in this article which discusses that.

If the rule changes weren't related to the lockout, why even mention the lockout? Rather than saying "this rule was changed following the 2005-05 NHL lockout" just say "this rule was changed prior in the summer of 2005".

Dharris (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more a misleading turn of phrase than to say "This rule was changed following the 1972 NHL season." The "2005 NHL lockout" is what's come to substitute for "... NHL season" in nomenclature. Beyond that, the lockout was responsible for many, if not all, of the new rules; management wouldn't have felt an impetus to make such sweeping - and in some cases, drastic - changes otherwise.  Ravenswing  19:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the lockout "was responsible for many, if not all, of the new rules"... I'll ask again: shouldn't there be something in this article which discusses that?
Dharris (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of the lockout and Ticket Prices[edit]

Section: Effects of the Lockout, paragraph two focuses on the implications of ticket price changes on player salaries, with reference to past systems, uncited criticisms, and an article entirely centred around basketball tickets sales. I request/propose a revamp of this section. --219.89.8.9 (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effects outside hockey section[edit]

Can we include things other than sports-related impacts? Due to the fact most of its programming schedule was blanked by the lockout, the CBC network in Canada had to air extensive amounts of alternate programming, which resulted in the network becoming the first broadcaster in North America to air the revival of Doctor Who in April 2005, for example. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004–05_NHL_lockout&oldid=1196464561"