Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I mean a Flames player is the only one to ever use it in a game but okay.

I mean call out the Flames I guess...one player in the entire NHL has kinda done something this season

Lol, you talking about Huberdeau using it while playing in Florida......when there was no ban on it? Seriously

[GullFoss]

I think dinos comment is fair - Huby seems like a really stand up guy.

Super overpaid, which is mostly Tre,s fault. But I don't think that takes away from the quality of his character.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I think dinos comment is fair - Huby seems like a really stand up guy.

Super overpaid, which is mostly Tre,s fault. But I don't think that takes away from the quality of his character.

Nobody is questioning Huberdeau's character.

[AC]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1716857839396749526

[KelVarnsen]

Pride tape ban has been removed!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1716857839396749526

[GullFoss]

I wonder if Backlund and Huby were part of the group lobbying the NHL. Both seem like quiet and thoughtful people. Diplomacy is best done behind the scenes.

[dubc80]

Originally Posted by AC

https://twitter.com/user/status/1716857839396749526

Ha ha. Not sure what the NHL was thinking.
Once they implemented this ban, that had to of known that they'd get backlash and PR attention.

If they were not strong enough to "stick to their guns", why implement it in the first place? Just terrible foresight.

Glad it got removed. It was unnecessary in my opinion. Let the players use it or not use it at their personal discretion.

[GullFoss]

It took a while, but I think they found the right balance. No one can be forced or coerced into supporting any of the initiatives and no one is restricted from supporting what they want.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I wonder if Backlund and Huby were part of the group lobbying the NHL. Both seem like quiet and thoughtful people. Diplomacy is best done behind the scenes.

That is a blanket statement that I can only agree with partially. Sometimes, a guy like Dermott has to make a public move that forces their hand. There's a time and place for private diplomacy and a time and place to rally the public for change.

[KelVarnsen]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1716852810438914222

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by dubc80

Ha ha. Not sure what the NHL was thinking.
Once they implemented this ban, that had to of known that they'd get backlash and PR attention.

If they were not strong enough to "stick to their guns", why implement it in the first place? Just terrible foresight.

Glad it got removed. It was unnecessary in my opinion. Let the players use it or not use it at their personal discretion.

Or, it could have been a calculated response.

They needed to get away from fans/media lambasting players who did not want to wear pride jerseys etc., because that's a weird place to be to have unionized individuals catching heat for organizationally 'enforced' social agendas.

So, come out with a heavy hand as an organization. Ban it outright. The organization then takes the heat off the individual people - the players, which is the organization's commodity (which was gross anyways).

Then, move off the ban and make it optional. Now those people who were attacking the individual players, and then the organization after the heat shifted, feel like they've won, even though there's now no organizationally 'enforced' event and things are as you say, the way they should be. It's at the individuals discretion - and seeing as it's an individual's rights that they're standing up for in the first place, that makes a lot more sense than where we were a year or two ago.

The NHL has protected their players from mob-anger, and landed in the place where it should be. Allow individual people to stand for individual beliefs.



Seems to me that things are as they should be now.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

That is a blanket statement that I can only agree with partially. Sometimes, a guy like Dermott has to make a public move that forces their hand. There's a time and place for private diplomacy and a time and place to rally the public for change.

This is a reasonable view and I respect the perspective.

My personal view is that the public moves work best when they're done repeatedly with growing numbers. Ie - they become too large to ignore.

Otherwise, protests are mostly for powerless and overly emotional people to let off some steam while we pay them some token respect with meaningless platitudes.

Meanwhile, the real discussions and decision making goes on between people with power behind closed doors. If you want to affect change, you have to matter. I believe the stars of the league had much more to do with this outcome than this other guy.

[getbak]

[Reggie Dunlop]

I would suspect team offices were hit with a lot of public pushback.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Or, it could have been a calculated response.

They needed to get away from fans/media lambasting players who did not want to wear pride jerseys etc., because that's a weird place to be to have unionized individuals catching heat for organizationally 'enforced' social agendas.

So, come out with a heavy hand as an organization. Ban it outright. The organization then takes the heat off the individual people - the players, which is the organization's commodity (which was gross anyways).

Then, move off the ban and make it optional. Now those people who were attacking the individual players, and then the organization after the heat shifted, feel like they've won, even though there's now no organizationally 'enforced' event and things are as you say, the way they should be. It's at the individuals discretion - and seeing as it's an individual's rights that they're standing up for in the first place, that makes a lot more sense than where we were a year or two ago.

The NHL has protected their players from mob-anger, and landed in the place where it should be. Allow individual people to stand for individual beliefs.



Seems to me that things are as they should be now.

I dunno, I think we could just let grown adults make their own decisions and live with the consequences of their homophobia. This is not a two sided issue. This has always been about human decency.

This was the equivalence of banning poppies to not make neo-nazis feel uncomfortable (and yes I know poppies date back to WW1). Pathetic.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

https://twitter.com/user/status/1716852810438914222

This is baller. Like if there's ever an entry added to Encylopedia Britanica for the term "baller" it better have this guy's picture beside it.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Flames anthem singer Michela Sheedy has pride tape on her microphone tonight

[Reggie Dunlop]

Apparently Scotiabank will be handing out free Pride Tape at their downtown branch.
Sorry I don't have further details..

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Apparently Scotiabank will be handing out free Pride Tape at their downtown branch.
Sorry I don't have further details..

Speaking of big money sponsors, Scotiabank and others could not have been very happy being associated with an blatant anti-Pride league policy like that. It goes against their own corporate inclusiveness initiatives, and I hope that they used their position as a major sponsor to apply some pressure.

[GullFoss]

Scotiabank: you're poorer than you think (and so are we!). Happy pride and home foreclosure. Government bailout soon plz?!?!