A sudden development has sent shockwaves through the hockey world as Montreal Canadiens general manager Kent Hughes embarks on a pivotal trip to Detroit.

With the annual NHL general managers’ meeting set to unfold, insiders are buzzing about what this journey could mean for the future of the Canadiens—and especially for the fate of superstar goalie Carey Price.

Rumors have been swirling for weeks about a potential blockbuster trade, but recent reports suggest that the stakes have just been raised, and the outcome may be closer than anyone suspects.

As the pressure mounts, trusted sources confirm that serious negotiations are underway, with multiple teams in the mix and the possibility of a deal being finalized upon Hughes’ return.

Yet, the details remain shrouded in secrecy, leaving fans and analysts alike desperate for answers. What exactly is happening behind closed doors in Detroit, and which teams are truly in contention for Price’s contract?

Even more intriguing, what kind of deal is Kent Hughes willing to reject outright—and what will he accept?

With whispers of confirmed discussions and hints at a trade involving not just one, but two players, the story is rapidly evolving. Stay tuned, because the next chapter could change everything for Montreal.

Photo credit: La Presse

We have news from the general manager of the Montreal Canadiens, Kent Hughes.

As just reported by Marco Normandin, the Habs’ GM is on his way to Detroit for the NHL’s annual general managers’ meeting.

This is major, because with a trade involving Carey Price already in the works, Renaud Lavoie has just reported that this trip to Detroit could help finalize the deal.

Kent Hughes on His Way to Detroit: A Trade to Be Announced Upon His Return?

This looks promising!

“The GMs will soon meet in Detroit, which could accelerate negotiations.”

“Several teams might quickly give up after a poor start to the season and liquidate their assets.”
– Renaud Lavoie

See his full statement:

“Serious discussions are likely to pick up this week as NHL general managers meet in Detroit on Tuesday and Wednesday. In short, it will be a good opportunity for Kent Hughes to move negotiations forward.”
– Renaud Lavoie

DOSSIER CAREY PRICE

Le collègue @renlavoietva a livré des infos très éclairantes.

– Le fait que toutes les équipes respectent le plancher nuit à Hughes
– Un club pourrait demander un choix de 2e tour – ce que Hughes refusera de céder
– Cet échange est vu comme essentiel pour…

— Nicolas Cloutier (@NCloutierTVA) September 1, 2025

We strongly recommend reading Renaud Lavoie’s full article on the subject, but this is one of the key points he made.

Hughes could really take advantage of this trip to Detroit to finalize the trade involving Carey Price.

As of the latest reports, we learned that the Chicago Blackhawks, the Pittsburgh Penguins, and the San Jose Sharks are three teams targeted for such a deal.

Trade for Carey Price Is Reportedly Underway, and Three Teams Would Be Involved https://t.co/CNdUjtLPKq #GoHabsGo #Canadiens

— Habs Fanatics (@habsfanaticss) August 31, 2025

Discussions between Hughes and these teams have even been confirmed.

We have confirmation that a trade between the Canadiens and the Sharks involving two players is in the works.

Journalist Renaud Lavoie also revealed the type of deal Kent Hughes would refuse.

The picture is starting to become much clearer in this case!

For decades, American audiences have trusted familiar faces to guide them through the nightly noise of politics, culture, and controversy. Rachel Maddow, Stephen Colbert, and Jimmy Kimmel each carved out their place in this ecosystem: Maddow as MSNBC’s intellectual anchor, Colbert as the satirist-turned-king of late-night, and Kimmel as the mainstream jester willing to spar with anyone. Together, they commanded millions of viewers and held enormous influence across the media landscape.

But now, the unthinkable has happened. Maddow, Colbert, and Kimmel have not only walked away from the corporate news system that made them household names — they’ve joined forces to build something entirely new. What began as quiet conversations about editorial freedom has turned into a bold media experiment: an independent newsroom, stripped of advertisers and freed from corporate oversight, designed to deliver journalism with conviction, humor, and zero compromise.

The project, dubbed informally by insiders as The Independent Desk, launched in a converted Brooklyn warehouse. From its very first broadcast, it rattled the establishment. The debut drew massive online audiences, crashed servers, and sent shockwaves through legacy networks already struggling to keep viewers in the streaming era. For some, it felt like the beginning of a new golden age of independent news. For others, it was a direct threat to the fragile power balance of corporate media.

The Backstory: Why They Walked Away

To understand why this unlikely trio abandoned comfortable careers and multimillion-dollar contracts, you have to look at the growing tension between journalists, entertainers, and the corporations that employ them.

Maddow, once MSNBC’s undisputed star, had grown increasingly frustrated with the constraints of cable news. Ratings pressure forced her network to recycle talking points, chase social media outrage, and rely heavily on partisan framing. While she remained loyal to her audience, Maddow often hinted in interviews that she longed to dig deeper — to follow stories that didn’t fit neatly into a ratings-driven format.

Colbert’s discontent came from another angle. After years of satirical dominance on The Colbert Report and a turbulent transition into mainstream late-night hosting, Colbert became the face of resistance comedy during the Trump era. Yet even as his influence grew, his freedom shrank. Network executives pushed for safer jokes, more celebrity interviews, and fewer risky segments. Colbert, insiders say, began to feel like a caricature of himself — a satirist turned into a polished host.

And then there was Kimmel. Known for mixing humor with blunt political commentary, Kimmel had built a reputation as a host unafraid of controversy. But he, too, faced pushback from executives who worried his political monologues alienated advertisers. For years, Kimmel played along. Until, reportedly, he didn’t. Conversations with Maddow and Colbert revealed a shared frustration: they were all tired of networks that demanded safe content while the world demanded truth.

So they left.

Inside the Warehouse: The Birth of a New Model

The decision to launch their newsroom wasn’t taken lightly. Each of the three stars risked alienating loyal fans, losing financial stability, and burning bridges in an industry notorious for punishing defectors. But when they finally committed, they committed big.

The headquarters of the project doesn’t look like a polished Manhattan studio. Instead, it resembles the early days of Silicon Valley start-ups: exposed brick walls, mismatched furniture, and cameras rigged with DIY ingenuity. But behind the gritty exterior lies a sophisticated operation — a newsroom staffed with a mix of veteran journalists, digital producers, and young reporters eager to break away from traditional career paths.

The format is stripped down. No teleprompters. No corporate handlers. No sponsored segments disguised as news. Instead, broadcasts combine Maddow’s piercing analysis, Colbert’s biting humor, and Kimmel’s everyman charisma. The goal is not just to inform, but to engage, entertain, and inspire skepticism toward entrenched power.

On the debut night, their mantra flashed across the screen: “Truth. Without Permission.”

The Debut That Shook the Industry

The first episode was nothing short of explosive. Maddow opened with a deep-dive investigation into corporate lobbying in Washington, a story she claimed her former network had “softened” in the past. Colbert followed with a satirical monologue skewering both political parties for their complicity. Kimmel closed with a raw, emotional commentary about how late-night had become “more about celebrity karaoke than speaking truth to power.”

Audiences ate it up. Within minutes, the livestream drew hundreds of thousands of viewers, overwhelming servers. Social media exploded with praise, with hashtags like #TheNewNewsroom and #TruthUnfiltered trending for hours.

Legacy networks, meanwhile, panicked. MSNBC executives reportedly held emergency meetings about how to counter Maddow’s defection. ABC and CBS insiders fretted over Kimmel and Colbert’s potential influence. One anonymous producer told Variety, “This isn’t just another show. This feels like a rebellion.”

Why This Matters: Journalism at a Crossroads

The Maddow-Colbert-Kimmel project arrives at a fragile moment for journalism. Trust in mainstream media has eroded dramatically, with polls showing record-low confidence across political divides. Audiences increasingly suspect that corporate interests, not editorial judgment, shape the news they consume.

Independent outlets have flourished in this environment, but rarely with the star power of established media figures. By walking away from the corporate safety net, Maddow, Colbert, and Kimmel lend legitimacy — and visibility — to the growing independent movement. Their collaboration signals that disillusionment with corporate media is not confined to outsiders; it has reached the very top.

For viewers, the message is clear: if even the most successful figures in mainstream news and entertainment believe the system is broken, perhaps it really is.

The Risks: Can Independence Survive Success?

Still, the path forward is far from certain. Running an independent newsroom requires resources, infrastructure, and long-term commitment. Without corporate advertising, the project relies on subscriptions, donations, and partnerships with grassroots organizations. Early signs are promising, with tens of thousands of viewers reportedly signing up within days. But sustaining that momentum over years will be a challenge.

There’s also the question of credibility. While Maddow brings journalistic gravitas, Colbert and Kimmel are primarily entertainers. Critics argue that blending satire and serious reporting risks undermining both. Can audiences trust a newsroom where the line between comedy and investigation blurs? Or is that very blend the innovation that modern audiences crave?

For now, the trio is betting on the latter.

The Establishment Reacts

The reaction from mainstream outlets has been telling. MSNBC has avoided direct comment, though insiders say executives feel betrayed by Maddow’s departure. ABC, still tied to Kimmel, downplayed the significance of his involvement. CBS, where Colbert’s Late Show once reigned, is reportedly considering legal options tied to contracts and intellectual property.

Behind the corporate silence, though, lies a nervous recognition: if this model works, it could inspire others. Imagine Anderson Cooper leaving CNN for an independent platform, or Trevor Noah returning with a self-funded project. The ripple effects could be enormous.

The Audience Speaks

Perhaps the most important response has been from viewers themselves. Thousands flooded comment sections and social media with praise for the new format. Words like “authentic,” “fearless,” and “long overdue” dominated the conversation. Many expressed relief at hearing familiar voices speak without the polish — and censorship — of corporate handlers.

One viewer wrote on X: “For the first time in years, I feel like I’m watching news that isn’t filtered by advertisers. Maddow looks free. Colbert looks alive. Kimmel looks real. This is what we’ve been waiting for.”

What Comes Next

The future of The Independent Desk remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: it has already altered the conversation. Legacy networks must now compete not just with streaming giants but with a new breed of independent media powered by credibility and cultural capital.

If Maddow, Colbert, and Kimmel can sustain their momentum, they could inspire a wave of defections from corporate media. If they fail, their experiment will serve as a cautionary tale about the limits of independence in an unforgiving industry.

But for now, the excitement is palpable. The trio has tapped into a hunger for authenticity, a desire for news that feels raw and unfiltered. Whether that hunger can be satisfied long-term remains to be seen.

The Larger Picture: A Media Revolution?

In many ways, this project is less about three individuals and more about a broader reckoning. Journalism is being forced to confront questions it has long avoided: Who really controls the news? What happens when profit dictates truth? And can a newsroom thrive on transparency alone?

By breaking away, Maddow, Colbert, and Kimmel have forced those questions into the open. They may not have all the answers, but they’ve proven one thing: the audience is ready to listen.

Conclusion: The Beginning of Something Bigger

Rachel Maddow, Stephen Colbert, and Jimmy Kimmel’s decision to leave the system marks a turning point in American media. Their independent newsroom may succeed or stumble, but its significance is undeniable. It represents a crack in the foundation of corporate news, a bold gamble on authenticity, and a challenge to an industry that has too often chosen comfort over courage.

The debut broadcast ended with a simple line from Maddow: “We’re here because you deserve more than soundbites. You deserve the truth — and we’re finally free to tell it.”

For audiences disillusioned with the status quo, that sentiment alone may be enough to spark a revolution.

They were the pairing no one saw coming – and now Married At First Sight’s Jamie Marinos and Eliot Donovan have finally revealed the truth behind their whirlwind romance in their first and only joint interview.

Speaking exclusively to Daily Mail Australia, the pair lifted the lid on their post-show connection, revealing the flirty friendship that blossomed into something deeper – even if they insist they’re not labelling it.

‘It just kind of happened,’ Jamie admitted. ‘We were both single, we were vibing, and the flirting just ramped up.’

Eliot added: ‘It was a bit of a flirtationship. We were just having fun with the time we had together.’

The bond began during filming, but didn’t deepen until after the show aired.

They were the pairing no one saw coming – and now Married At First Sight’s Jamie Marinos and Eliot Donovan have finally revealed the truth behind their whirlwind romance in their first and only joint interview

Jamie reached out to Eliot after watching his tumultuous return with intruder bride Veronica, asking for his number through groom Adrian Araouzou.

‘We had a 45-minute phone call the first time we spoke,’ Eliot recalled. ‘We haven’t stopped talking since.’

Jamie said Eliot was a vital support system after her breakup with Dave Hand.

‘As much as Eliot can be a pain, he’s been incredible,’ she said. ‘He always had empathy for what I went through. He was one of the few guys who genuinely cared.’

Eliot added: ‘I just felt a moral duty to have her back. It wasn’t about sliding into DMs, I just cared.’

While neither confirmed a relationship, both admitted there’s chemistry.

‘We may or may not have had s**,’ Eliot joked.

Jamie quipped: ‘If I say “yes”, Dave’s gonna make a TikTok shaming me again.’

Speaking to Daily Mail Australia, the pair lifted the lid on their post-show connection, revealing the flirty friendship that blossomed into something deeper – even if they insist they’re not labelling it

But the pair are adamant they’re not rushing into anything.

‘We’re in different states, we have a lot happening, and we don’t want to lose the friendship,’ Eliot said.

Jamie added: ‘We’d probably clash if we jumped into something now. I just got out of something heavy. This is my time.’

Both stars described the jarring shift from filming to anonymity – and then to instant fame once the show aired.

‘No one knew who we were at first. Then overnight, you can’t go anywhere without getting stopped,’ Jamie said.

Eliot said he never fully returned to normal life: ‘It’s like being in limbo – you’re waiting for the fallout.’

Jamie spoke openly about her struggles with anxiety and the online abuse she feared would come after her failed marriage.

‘All I could think was, people are going to say they wouldn’t have s** with me either,’ she said.

Jamie said Eliot was a vital support system after her breakup with Dave Hand. ‘As much as Eliot can be a pain, he’s been incredible,’ she said. ‘He always had empathy for what I went through. He was one of the few guys who genuinely cared’

‘That humiliation, and knowing people were happy to see me in pain – that was hard.’

Despite this, Jamie said public support helped rebuild her confidence.

‘People loved me without makeup, being real – it made me feel like myself again.’

Eliot went from public enemy to fan favourite. ‘At first, I was labelled an “incel”. But then TikTok changed everything. My mum texted me saying people at work suddenly loved me.’

Jamie revealed that during the reunion, producers privately showed experts the footage of her clash with Carina Mirabile – resulting in all three experts apologising to her. However, the footage was never aired.

‘I had a panic attack at the retreat commitment ceremony because they made me feel like I was the bully. But when the experts saw the footage, they admitted they got it wrong. I felt robbed when none of it was shown.’

Jamie shared a string of behind-the-scenes antics never shown on air. Her favourite prank? Ding-dong ditching.

‘I knocked on almost every door on our floor. I even interrupted Rhi and Jeff having s** – twice!’

While neither confirmed a relationship, both admitted there’s chemistry. ‘We may or may not have [had s**],’ Eliot joked

She also recalled a hilarious moment where Carina accused Sierah Swepstone of stealing her heels at a dinner party, only to find Channel Nine publicity had taken them by mistake.

Jamie said she is no longer in contact with Dave, despite once thinking he’d be in her life long term.

Eliot confirmed ongoing tension with Billy Belcher: ‘He drags everyone’s name on every podcast. I wouldn’t do that to people I was friends with.’

Jamie stood by Adrian during airing and revealed that she’s since reconciled with Carina.

‘We made peace during our Queensland appearance. I didn’t want her to feel isolated.’

When rumours first surfaced that Jamie had moved in with Eliot and cancelled a TV opportunity to pursue him, the pair said it was all blown out of proportion.

‘That’s exactly why we’re cautious now,’ Jamie said.

‘We don’t want to pass on major career opportunities based on what-ifs.’

Eliot added: ‘We’re pragmatic. We have a connection, but we don’t want to force something that could ruin the friendship.’

What they argue about (and how they solve it)

Despite their closeness, Jamie and Eliot admit they clash.

‘We’re both direct communicators,’ Eliot said. ‘We don’t beat around the bush. We just hash it out.’

Jamie added: ‘We’re brutally honest with each other. That’s why it works.’

Jamie admitted she drifted from some castmates like Awhina due to geography and life changes.

‘Fee and I will always have love, but we’re on opposite sides of the country now. Life gets in the way.’

Eliot and Jamie also took a dig at contestants who play to the cameras.

‘Everyone who faked it got exposed,’ Jamie said.

‘Just be real or you’ll get eaten alive.’

What’s next for Jamie and Eliot?

Both said they’d consider future TV gigs – but with conditions.

‘I’d host Love Island in a heartbeat,’ Jamie said.

‘I’ve got a lot more to say than Sophie Monk.’

Eliot added: ‘I’d do The Bachelor if it meant I could just have fun with it. Hosting something would be ideal.’

They’ve ruled out jungle duties, though. ‘Don’t put me in I’m A Celeb,’ Jamie said bluntly.

Advice to future MAFS stars

Asked what they’d tell the next batch of brides and grooms, Jamie didn’t hold back.

‘Be yourself. The audience sees through fake. Everyone who tried to curate an image got exposed.’

Eliot added: ‘Don’t DM former castmates asking for advice. Just be authentic – or you’ll get eaten alive.’

So… are they or aren’t they?

While they may not be locking in couple status anytime soon, the chemistry is undeniable.

‘If we end up together, I’d be happy,’ Jamie said.

‘But right now, I’m focusing on me.’

Eliot summed it up best: ‘We choose to be in each other’s lives. That’s something the show never gave us.’

Sha’Carri Richardson’s Explosive Meltdown: Corey Holcomb Exposes Alleged Lies About DV and Destroys Her Carefully Built Image

For months, track star Sha’Carri Richardson has lived inside the cocoon of her own narrative. A narrative carefully constructed around victimhood, resilience, and the claim that she had endured abuse in her relationships. It’s the storyline that brought her sympathy, brand deals, and protection from criticism whenever her behavior spiraled out of control. But this month, that narrative cracked wide open after comedian Corey Holcomb detonated a truth bomb on his podcast, accusing Richardson of lying about being the victim in a domestic violence situation with fellow athlete Christian Coleman. Holcomb didn’t just imply. He called her out directly, presented the receipts, and exposed a pattern of manipulation that now threatens to unravel everything Richardson has worked to protect.

And just like that, the internet lit up.

The “Apology” That Sparked Suspicion

Richardson had already been wobbling under scrutiny before Holcomb’s intervention. Earlier this week, she dropped what she labeled an “apology video.” But to anyone watching, it came off more like a smirk than remorse. With a casual smile and rehearsed lines, she acknowledged that she had put herself and someone she “deeply cared for” in a compromised position. Instead of expressing genuine accountability, her words sounded like a performance meant to soothe sponsors rather than confront the truth.

Fans saw through it immediately. Twitter and Instagram flooded with posts like:

“That ain’t no apology, that’s a cover-up.”

“She’s apologizing for the optics, not her actions.”

“This is a PR move, nothing more.”

Holcomb echoed those reactions on his show, mocking Richardson’s performance as hollow and manipulative. His exact words cut to the bone: “That ain’t no apology. That’s somebody laughing at y’all while she gets away with it.”

Holcomb’s Bombshell: “She Weaponized Her Gender”

While many comedians and critics had thrown light shade Richardson’s way in the past, Holcomb didn’t just poke fun—he ripped into the credibility of her entire image. On his podcast, in front of thousands of listeners, Holcomb alleged that Richardson flipped the script during her altercation with Christian Coleman, weaponizing her gender to cast herself as the victim when the evidence showed otherwise.

Holcomb didn’t mince words:

“Sha’Carri is dead wrong for trying to land Christian in jail despite being the one who put hands on him. She knows that in this type of situation, she has leverage on him.”

He doubled down, warning against a tactic he said he’s seen too many times:

“If you are a female who tries to use her gender to get the man you with arrested intentionally, I can’t forgive you for that.”

That one line set social media ablaze. Fans who had quietly suspected something off about Richardson’s victim narrative suddenly had confirmation from someone unafraid to say it out loud.

The Receipts: Airport Footage and Body Language

The controversy gained traction when footage surfaced from an airport altercation between Richardson and Coleman. The video clearly showed Richardson as the aggressor—shoving, hitting, and escalating the confrontation while Coleman tried to disengage. His body language said it all: head down, shoulders hunched, frozen in a way that suggested this wasn’t new behavior but something he had endured before.

When police arrived, Richardson attempted to flip the narrative. She claimed they were simply arguing, denied touching him, and insisted Coleman was lying. “I didn’t do anything wrong,” she told officers before pivoting into full victim mode.

But the footage didn’t lie. And Holcomb made sure no one forgot it.

A Pattern of Playing the Victim

What makes Holcomb’s accusation so devastating is that it doesn’t stand alone. It fits a long-standing pattern in Richardson’s relationships.

Her past with ex-girlfriend Janique Brown paints a similar picture. In a candid interview, Brown admitted their relationship was “mutually abusive mentally, verbally, physically, everything.” Despite this, Richardson publicly painted Brown as the abuser in an Instagram post, claiming she was “used, stolen from, and left unprotected.” That post triggered a wave of backlash against Brown, who was canceled by fans until she came forward to clarify the truth.

Brown’s words echoed the same cycle now playing out with Coleman: manipulation, narrative flipping, and an attempt to weaponize sympathy. Holcomb didn’t invent this story—he connected the dots.

Christian Coleman’s Silence and Strange Defense

If the footage and Holcomb’s receipts weren’t enough, the reaction from Coleman only deepened the controversy. Instead of defending himself, Coleman appeared in an interview offering grace, forgiveness, and a plea not to punish Richardson. He downplayed the incident as a “sucky situation,” suggesting she simply had “things to work on” and stressing his belief in extending mercy.

But his body language told another story. Fans noted how uncomfortable he seemed, how he struggled to make eye contact, and how his tone felt forced. Holcomb replayed the clip on his show, claiming Coleman had been manipulated into defending his abuser.

Richardson’s Raging Meltdown

Faced with Holcomb’s relentless call-outs, Richardson reportedly spiraled. She fired off social media rants, threatened lawsuits, and accused the world of conspiring against her. Her second attempt at an apology, a long Instagram story directed at Coleman, read: “My apologies should be just as loud as my actions. Honestly, louder. To Christian, I love you and I am so sorry.”

But by then, the damage was done. Fans weren’t buying it. The responses were brutal:

“She’s only sorry she got caught.”

“This is PR spin 101.”

“Christian needs to get away from her before it ends in tragedy.”

Even worse for Richardson, Coleman’s family and friends began posting cryptic but pointed messages like, “No matter how good you think it is, there’s always better. Choose yourself.” The people closest to Coleman were clearly done protecting her.

Corey Holcomb’s Personal Connection

Part of why Holcomb’s critique hit so hard is because it wasn’t detached. He revealed a personal story about his own son being manipulated into a domestic violence charge by a girlfriend with a violent streak. His warning was crystal clear: men in these situations always end up paying the price, no matter who started it.

Holcomb drew a straight line between his son’s experience and Coleman’s. And fans, hearing the passion and personal stakes in his voice, took his accusations seriously.

The Internet Turns

With Holcomb amplifying the issue, social media sentiment swung sharply against Richardson. Comments ranged from disappointment to outright calls for sponsors and Olympic committees to cut ties.

“Sha’Carri Richardson is an abuser but no peep from sponsors or the Olympic committee. Interesting.”

“Had no idea she was like that, but I’m not surprised.”

“If this was reversed, Coleman’s career would be over.”

What had once been a story of resilience and comeback was rapidly turning into a tale of deception and abuse.

The Fallout

As of now, Coleman has gone silent. He disappeared from social media, made no further statements, and was last spotted on a flight overseas. His silence speaks volumes.

Meanwhile, Richardson’s brand is hemorrhaging credibility. Holcomb continues to highlight fan reactions, sponsors are being pressured to respond, and even her own peers in track and field are distancing themselves.

Richardson herself has been left raging in private, unable to control the narrative the way she once could. The louder she screams, the more obvious it becomes: the façade has cracked, and Corey Holcomb’s bombshell may be the point of no return.

Conclusion

Sha’Carri Richardson built her image on fire, flair, and the sympathy of being a misunderstood victim of life’s blows. But Corey Holcomb’s expose has turned that narrative upside down, presenting her not as the victim but as the manipulator. With receipts, personal testimony, and a growing pile of damning evidence, Holcomb has shifted public perception in a way that even Richardson’s most carefully scripted apologies can’t undo.

The question now isn’t whether Sha’Carri can run fast enough to win medals—it’s whether she can outrun the truth closing in on her.

Full video:

With the excitement of a new NHL season building across the league, fans are on high alert for any signs that real hockey is just around the corner.

The anticipation is electric, and every small move is magnified as teams finalize their rosters and make critical decisions that could shape the months ahead.

In the midst of this annual flurry, a notable development has just emerged—one that signals the official start of hockey business as usual.

Insiders are already buzzing about the latest news, and social media is lighting up with speculation. A young player’s name has suddenly appeared on the waiver wire, catching many by surprise and sparking a fresh round of debates about team strategies and future potential.

For the Montreal Canadiens, this news comes with an added layer of intrigue, as their position in the waiver claim order is different from what fans have grown used to in recent years.

Who is this player? What does his sudden appearance on waivers mean for his future—and for teams like Montreal, who are always looking for the next hidden gem?

The details behind this move are more fascinating than they first appear, and the implications could ripple far beyond just one roster spot.

Photo credit: NHL

Another sign that it’s really starting to feel like NHL hockey: a first player has indeed just been placed on waivers.

As just reported by insider Elliotte Friedman, the Ducks have placed young defenseman Rodwin Dionicio on waivers.

“Rodwin Dionicio – placed on waivers yesterday by ANA – has cleared.

Ducks can now terminate his contract”

– Elliotte Friedman

And that’s one!

The Montreal Canadiens hold the sixteenth waiver claim spot

This serves as a reminder that this year, for the first time in a long while, the Canadiens won’t have a top-5 position when it comes to claiming players off waivers.

Instead, Montreal holds the 16th spot, based on their final standing in last season’s NHL rankings.

That’s definitely useful to know, as more players will be placed on waivers in the coming weeks.

Rodwin Dionicio, just 21 years old, is a left-shot defenseman standing 6’2″ and weighing 196 pounds.

He was a fifth-round pick by the Anaheim Ducks in 2023 (129th overall) and played 24 AHL games with the San Diego Gulls before heading to Switzerland.

In the AHL, he recorded 9 points in 24 games (with 42 penalty minutes), and in Switzerland, he added 6 points in nine games.

He definitely seems to have an interesting profile!

We wish him the best of luck moving forward.

The Block’s Foreman Dan was left frustrated during Sunday’s shock episode and went to extreme lengths to prove one couple had lied straight to his face.

The drama unfolded after teammates Han and Can were busted washing their dirty paint brushes and buckets under a tap outside their house – a clear breach of the show’s strict rules.

‘We’ve got springs everywhere. We don’t want to be contaminating our soil near the springs,’ Dan warned, reminding the pair that paint must only be disposed of in a designated wash space off-site.

But the couple flatly denied responsibility for the large coloured puddle pooling on the ground nearby, instead shifting the blame to a plasterer.

‘I’ve just come up and seen the girls rinsing their buckets of paint just here… they reckon they didn’t do this puddle, they reckon that was a plasterer or something,’ an unconvinced Dan told the cameras.

With tensions already running high between the foreman and the pair, Dan decided to call their bluff – retreating to the site office to comb through security camera footage.

The Block’s Foreman Dan was left frustrated during Sunday’s shock episode and went to extreme lengths to prove one couple had lied straight to his face

Sure enough, the footage caught Can red-handed, rinsing her brushes and creating the exact puddle she had denied making.

‘Why lie? Why would you lie about it?’ a frustrated Dan asked.

‘They’ve washed out paint on the ground, they’ve lied to me, they’re not taking ownership,’ he fumed.

Faced with the footage, Can issued a quick apology and promised it wouldn’t happen again – but in a cheeky to-camera piece, she brushed off the scandal with a grin.

‘It’s the first time that I have been caught and told off and it’ll be the last,’ she said.

This is not the first time the Perth-based teammates have been at the centre of a Block scandal.

Last week, tensions reached boiling point after two couples went head-to-head.

Tuesday night’s episode saw Sonny and Alicia accuse Han and Can of stealing their idea after both teams put a heated seat in their Hepburn Spa bathrooms.

The drama unfolded after teammates Han and Can were busted washing their dirty paint brushes and buckets under a tap outside their house – a clear breach of the show’s strict rules

With tensions already running high between the foreman and the pair this season, Dan decided to call their bluff – retreating to The Block’s site office to comb through security camera footage – and he caught them doing exactly what they had denied

In the challenge, the teams were told they could not include underfloor heating in their designs.

However, after doing some ‘out of the box’ thinking, House 4’s Sonny and Alicia fought hard to get heating for a seat approved, an idea they thought would win them the prize up for grabs: a state-of-the-art caravan.

However, after learning that House 2’s Han and Can had also inserted a heated seat in their space, all hell broke loose on site.

‘Why would you do that? If you’ve heard another house is doing it, why are you copying? It makes no sense,’ Alicia could be heard saying in a rant.

‘These girls better have a good excuse for this,’ she added, dubbing the move ‘unoriginal’.

When the couple went to confront Han about the alleged cheating, she denied that she and Can were guilty of any wrongdoing, claiming the chippies had let them in on the idea.

Sonny was livid over the conversation and vented on-camera: ‘It’s just annoying because the legwork I put in made it happen and that was our sort of secret, as such.’

‘We had a point of difference and now we don’t.’

Despite Han defending their decision to build a heated seat, Sonny and Alicia weren’t buying it.

‘When someone lies straight to your face, to me, that’s the worst. Just be honest. I think it’s full of s***. I think she heard our idea,’ Alicia told the cameras.

Later on, Han could be seen filling Can in on the heated conversation, a moment that saw her break down into tears and Can then went to apologise to Sonny and Alicia, adding that the move wasn’t malicious, but a misunderstanding.