Matter of preference, but premium Alberta beef is up there with just about any in the world.

If their poutine sucked do not go back.

Whoa hockey bar? Are you still in Seattle? Where's this at?

Angry Beaver on greenwood.

Poutine had very few actual cheese curds on it. Fries themselves were very limp and not crispy. Disappointing at best.

Calgary beef was beef "breaded" in brown sugar and shredded ginger, then fried (deep fried?). Doubt the meat was actually from Alberta.

I will go back once the games start, but probably only for beer/trivia.

Huge Canadian flag in the wall, and jerseys of Canadian teams. Leaves, habs, senators, Canucks, and avalanche. Also an old USSR jersey. Flames/oil/jets didn't make the cut. LOL. Sorry.

In Canada that's called ginger beef. I've known it my whole life in Edmonton, and just last month when I moved to Calgary did I learn that it was invented here (along with the caeser). I've never heard it called Calgary beef lol.

Good ginger beef is also the greatest unhealthy food around. If you're ever in a western Canadian Chinese food restaurant, it's mandatory you order it.

Yup. That's why a better question might be not who loses more, but who feels the hurt more. Your point is well taken but still, it's not like owners have infinite money and losing an entire season is something they would just shrug off.

I think some of you are giving owners/players way too much credit. They lost a season once before not so long ago, no reason it can't happen again. Some have pointed out that things are different now. In some ways sure, but fundamentally no. Fundamentally, we are still talking about arguing over how a huge hunk of money is to be divided between them, and if they can't agree then they all get nothing. As far as that goes, exactly nothing has changed in the last 8 years and if they were dumb enough to lose a season then, there is no reason it can't happen again. Not saying that will happen, just saying don't assume that greed/stubbornness/stupidity can't end up the "winner" here.

i still think they're playing by jan. 1. they seem close on key issues and the rhetoric is a lot tamer than the last lockout.

and lol canadian food.

The amount of fatty strips of deep fried and sugar coated beef consumed is directly correlated to gold medals.

Enlarged hearts produce greater WIM. It's a ****ing fact.

The issue last time was that one side felt that money should be split and the other side did not feel that way. That is a way larger issue - now that both sides have agreed that money should be split, it's simply inevitable that they figure out a way to split it.

The NHL last time was willing to go over the cliff because many teams felt they lost more money by playing than by sitting out. I don't think that's true anymore. Likewise for the players, they already lost their biggest battle. If the NHL gives them Make Whole they will end up at 50/50 eventually.

I assume it's still true for all the teams that were losing money. I don't know if this is significantly less teams than before, or losing significantly less money on average? But you would have to think that teams that operate in the red lose less by not operating.

Phoenix does, but I wouldn't be sure about the rest. Point is, everyone felt they weren't making much money under the old system. That's not the case now, and they seriously jeopardize that with a missed season.

I heard that it cost 12-30 million in operational costs/office salaries/keeping the lights on/etc. per team last lockout. Obviously not including opportunity cost.

I think it was the ex CLB GM on that brutal bob mccowen prime time radio/tv show that said this.

last lockout the problem was most teams were almost sure to go bankrupt if they even tried to compete with the big markets. the price of taking down detroit or colorado could easily be $40+m which was either all of their profit, or potentially meant going from making $20m to losing $20m. and the total revenue wasn't big enough for everyone to even consider a run at it. back then, the wealth of the owners was smaller too, though still a lot greater than in 1994. for example, ted leonsis was merely a millionaire after the dotcom bubble.

nowadays, everyone outside of ohio has these cup dreams, and can actually save a team if they do so (pittsburgh, anaheim, etc.). this makes it more of a crapshoot, but it's a good thing for the product.

if teams are losing money, they are still not all created equal. there are teams who own the buildings, and if there is no game, they can try to quickly book a concert or something, try to recoup the lost money. if they can't find an event for that date, they are **** out of luck. of course it is tricky when game schedules are not set.

then there are teams who are just tenants and are losing operating costs for staff PLUS rent. PLUS they are wasting a year of their lease, which either makes their current lease more expensive per game, or will make their next lease more expensive or reduces their leverage in arena negotiations (lolKatz).

So well done. 20,000 posts of experience.

Goatdy Lee keeps this thread worth reading with or without hockey.

Would expect nothing less from a good ol' Canadian boy.

I guess I'm just wondering why, if they are making money, didn't they make more of an effort to get a deal done before the season started? They basically did nothing for months before finally coming out with the 50/50 offer.

say what you want about junior hockey, but this was a good game

I'm pumped about Lowry. He made a nifty touch pass off the boards on a breakout.

I'm still not happy about shootouts in intenational games. Call it the Czech effect.

The last game goes tonight from Victoria. I haven't seen the new arena.

Goddammit Nail! Way to disqualify yourself from the third period.

In your face Canada!

Donairs though?

what happened.....did you invade or something?