Lillooet_Hillbilly Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 if its in his contract its in his contract. having said that the owner must be really retarded to put that in, he's owed what he's owed even if he is a douche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 bet you can't eat just one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canouver Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canouver Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 So basically messier owned part of the Canucks franchise. What an messed up contract to give a player, blame they guy who came up with the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gumballthechewy Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 No one is hated in Vancouver more than Mark Messier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 Two words for Messier .. _______ OFF!!! .. that is all .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raspberries Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 why is Messier still polluting our message boards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King_Canuckian Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 I guess it all depends on how that clause was worded. But in my mind (which has extremely limited legal knowledge), the contract has long expired, he should get nothing. FFS... 13 years later, and he's STILL screwing us over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 What a strange clause. I would think that that provision would only be applicable during the term of his contract, as he may presumably be considered part of the assets to the company. Actually they should look at the termination terms ie. all terms of the agreement cease upon the termination date or as otherwise stated herein. There should actually have to be a provision in the agreement that would specifically state that the bonus sale clause survive the termination of the agreement for it to still be in effect after the contract has been terminated or expired, etc, which I don't think any lawyer/company would agree to. Actually I don't believe that this clause would be in a player's contract. This seems like a hoax. Why would a solitary player benefit from the dealings of a company, when execs don't even get that kind of bonus and they are more intricately involved with the successes of a company moreso then a seasonal player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christophe Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 I think that he has it backwards. He owes us money for paying to watch his atrocious play and heartless leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 No one is hated in Vancouver more than Mark Messier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Express Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 That money sucking mmmm......mmm........mmmmm.......MESSIER!!!!!!! Not only was he a minus player, he has disgraced the number 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqua59 Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 Mark Messier is an egotistical fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 So, wouldn't the clause in his contract end when the contract is bought out? Did the sale happen in the time that he was under contract by the Canucks? If a player has a clause in their contract that gives them a bonus if the team makes the playoffs, but is bought out halfway through the season, then does he still get a bonus when the team makes the playoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.