|
|
On August 15 2014 04:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:its a joke guy.. also, ur facts are wrong. the leafs already have 6 separate physical shrines to honour players.... this is #7. soon they'll have more of these shrines honouring former greats than the will Cup wins. in fact, the # of separate physical shrines was so bad that their current top dog Tim Lewieke wanted one of them removed. Funny that .. rather than removing 1 of the 6... he ends up adding #7. i type this as i walk into the Loblaw's at Carlton and Church and look up at a picture of Ted Kennedy. wtf? LOL  http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/15/new-maple-leafs-boss-has-parade-route-mapped-outCanadian FlagCanadian Red Ensign was from the 1890s to 1945.. the "Red Ensign" looks nothing like the 1965 Flag. Also, law was not passed until 1965 for the current flag. So, legally it was the union jack until then. watch the old black and white leafs from before 1965 .. there was not a single modern canadian flag any where ever. the Canadian Red Ensign and the Union Jack are all over teh arena. Ted Kennedy played zero games with the Leafs when Canada had its current flag.
The Canadian Red Ensign had been unofficially used since the 1890s and was approved by a 1945 Order in Council for use "wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag".
I understand that the maple leaf was brought in in 1965. That doesn't mean we didnt have A flag, which is all you initially said. And in 1945, an Order in Council (ie THE QUEEN), said the red ensign could be flown as a Canadian flag. If that isn't official, nothing else is.
For more info: The Red Ensign, a red flag with the Union Jack in the upper corner, was created in 1707 as the flag of the British Merchant Marine. From approximately 1870 to 1904, it was used on land and sea as Canada's flag, with the addition of a shield in the fly bearing the quartered arms of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Although its use on land had never been sanctioned except by public usage, in 1892 the British admiralty approved the use of the Red Ensign for Canadian use at sea. This gave rise to the name the Canadian Red Ensign.
As new provinces entered Confederation, or when they received some mark of identification (sometimes taken from their seal), that mark was incorporated into the shield on the Canadian Red Ensign. By the turn of the century, the shield was made up of the coats of arms of the seven provinces then in Confederation.
In 1922, this unofficial version of the Canadian Red Ensign was changed by an Order in Council and the composite shield was replaced with the shield from the royal arms of Canada, more commonly known as the Canadian Coat of Arms. Two years later, this new version was approved for use on Canadian government buildings abroad. A similar order in 1945 authorized its use on federal buildings within Canada until a new national flag was adopted.
Approved by the British Admiralty in 1892, changed by an Order in Council in 1922, and approved by Oder in Council in for general use in 1945. We had a distinct flag prior to the leaf.
|
way off topic here.
flag was unofficial until 1965.
legally it went from the Union Jack to the Leaf in 1965. red ensign never was official.
canadian red ensign was unofficial and never passed by canadian parliament as a flag.
source in previous post.
watch the games before 1965... u'll see what i'm talking about. kennedy had already retired by 65.
back to hockey
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/coyotes-gila-river-casinos-agree-on-arena-deal/
the phoenix coyotes may finally have their life raft!
the key will be if a casino ends up near the coyotes arena. the battle between Glendale City Council and the native american tribe has been raging for almost a decade.
if they do manage to get a casino on westgate property then the team has a chance to survive. if not, i think they'll leave in 3 years when their out clause is activated.
|
On August 15 2014 05:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
flag was unofficial until 1965.
legally it went from the Union Jack to the Leaf in 1965. red ensign never was official.
canadian red ensign was unofficial and never passed by canadian parliament as a flag.
source in previous post.
watch the games before 1965... u'll see what i'm talking about.
You don't seem to understand that an Order in Council IS official. It comes from the QUEEN, which is the ultimate governmental authority in Canada. Does not matter what parliament does, it fucking flew above parliament.
Remeber the old 10$ bill?
![[image loading]](http://message.snopes.com/business/graphics/10flag.jpg)
What flag is that? The union jack? Nope. The Maple Leaf? Nope.
Admit you are wrong, and move on.
|
actually, there were numerous variations of the design with none officially adapted.
which variation is that on that bill?
the queen is a ceremonial power in canada.
when the FLQ crisis occurred did Trudeau ask for hte Queen's permission? declaring war without the queen's approval k thx topic over...
Ken Holland
found a pretty interesting detroit perspective editorial on the Holland signing
http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2014/8/14/6002259/ken-holland-re-signs-his-challenge-for-the-next-4-years-detroit-red-wings-gm
for all the criticism of Holland , the red wings have won more regular season games and more playoff games than any other NHL team since 1997.
|
|
|
lol, the GG does whatever the prime minister tells them to do... its been like that for atleast 90 years. how many times has the GG over ruled the prime minister in 90 years guy? cmon man just leave this..
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 15 2014 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:lol, the GG does whatever the prime minister tells them to do... its been like that for atleast 90 years.
Which has no bearing on whether or not WHAT he does is official or not. I'm still waiting for you to admit you are wrong.
|
On August 14 2014 08:44 Sub40APM wrote:
Only Canada can field a double team. Russia is a shadow of a shadow now, each new Olympics they fade further and further back. Canada is head and shoulders above everyone else in terms of developing talent, then its Sweden-America then Finland then Russia and then the Czechs and the Slovaks. The end of communism basically broke the heavy sports investment that made Russia and Czechoslovakia powerhouses. The only reason they stay in the top 7 is because no one else really takes hockey seriously. If the Germans were as serious about hockey as they are about soccer they'd be a top 5 team, and surpass Russia within 10 years.
these olympics are 1-game crapshoots.
its nice canada has won so many of them lately, and it proves canada is good... but really it takes a BO7 to definitively prove 1 team is better than another.
Russia is a major hockey power and a threat to win any men's event.
the KHL is a pretty heavy investment of private funds.
The problem Czechoslovakia has... is that its now 2 countries.
Also, The USSR got geographically smaller post-communism.
Canada is a major hockey power and Canada MIGHT be somewhat better than the rest of the world. But, that's it.
I'd argue that the last time Canada was head and shoulders above the rest of the world was 1972.
If you add Bobby Orr and Bobby Hull to that 1972 team. the 2 best players in the world at that time.
USSR does not win one single game.
Russia will remain a top hockey power for the foreseeable future.
Considering their small populations i'd say Sweden and Finland have the best elite level hockey development programs for players under 18.
|
|
|
non hockey bs? we are talking about why certain countries are declining in quality of players they produce and others dont.
The KHL in nominal figures is a major investment, but the KHL for the most part does not invest heavily into youth sports clubs and development teams. Instead they spend top dollars on already finished players, hence the decline of youth prospects. Its a completely different system, and one that is not going to serve Russian development well. Paying Kovelchuk 50 million dollars a year is a waste of money from the perspective of RUssian hockey because he is already a fully developed player, paying 50 million to train a bunch of 10 year olds for the next 8-10 years is a good investment because it increases the talent pool.
Even if you combine Czech and Slovak under 20 teams the development has also stalled, again for the same reasons as the Russians. Post Communism there is a decreased emphasis on sports youth teams and its really shining through.
|
the question i have.. is .. .what will Jimmy Devellano do if Holland falls flat...
i wonder how quickly he'll pull the trigger and put a bullet into his long time best buddy.
he really doesn't fire a lot of people.
|
On August 15 2014 06:06 Sub40APM wrote:
Its a completely different system, and one that is not going to serve Russian development well. Paying Kovelchuk 50 million dollars a year is a waste of money from the perspective of RUssian hockey because he is already a fully developed player, paying 50 million to train a bunch of 10 year olds for the next 8-10 years is a good investment because it increases the talent pool.
Even if you combine Czech and Slovak under 20 teams the development has also stalled, again for the same reasons as the Russians. Post Communism there is a decreased emphasis on sports youth teams and its really shining through.
the Czech team at the olympics was pretty old
|
I say Dave Keon is the next statue on Legend's Row
|
apparently , 2 more are imminent. a bunch of people know who the next two are, but they are under NDA.
|
The reason Canada is head and shoulders above the world in hockey considering our population is the same reason Korea is great in eSports. It is culturally acceptable for a 15 year old to forego high school to develop their talent in the CHL.
|
On August 15 2014 07:55 Wolfstan wrote:
The reason Canada is head and shoulders above the world in hockey considering our population is the same reason Korea is great in eSports. It is culturally acceptable for a 15 year old to forego high school to develop their talent in the CHL.
I think you need to be 16 to play in the CHL.
They also have some academic policies ( yeah I know it varies from team to team and from league to league but still its something )
http://www.chl.ca/page/ohlinfo
http://www.chl.ca/page/qmjhlinfo
http://www.chl.ca/page/whlinfo
|
On August 15 2014 09:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 07:55 Wolfstan wrote:
The reason Canada is head and shoulders above the world in hockey considering our population is the same reason Korea is great in eSports. It is culturally acceptable for a 15 year old to forego high school to develop their talent in the CHL. I think you need to be 16 to play in the CHL. They also have some academic policies ( yeah I know it varies from team to team and from league to league but still its something ) http://www.chl.ca/page/ohlinfohttp://www.chl.ca/page/qmjhlinfohttp://www.chl.ca/page/whlinfo
It's something, but not nearly the same as American requirements which altogether pretty much ban out high level development at young ages.
|
JimmyJRaynor was just temp banned for 2 days by Plexa.
That account was created on 2010-04-11 22:42:46 and had 2608 posts.
Reason: Really tired of all the crap that results from you posting in the hockey thread. So why is this only two days long? Because I'm banning you from posting in the hockey topic. Post there again and its instant perm. Feel free to post in any other forum though!
Today is a great day.
|
Any time during the off season I see 23 new posts in here, I just know Jimmy is at it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
