Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Mark Messier believes he's still owed money from his days with the Canucks


R.Luongo.1

Recommended Posts

Mark Messier's contract was with the Vancouver Canucks - not with the fans. The only relevant consideration are the terms of that contract and whether or not the Canucks have an obligation to pay him under the terms of that contract.

His perceived level of performance is not relevant to the claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just when I thought there couldn't be one more scorn-ament to add to his Christmas tree, Messier goes and puts a bright star of stupidity on his enormous Neanderthal head.

I don't care if he's owed money, he didn't earn the money he was paid. He should be counter-sued for breach of contract seeing as he obviously didn't play with any heart or to his talent.

Let me give you an analogy: In 1997, Messier and the Rangers are married. The Canucks were the lover who is told by a married woman that she is single. Messier is the proverbial whore, playing petty games to show her husband what he is missing. Messier's heart was never in it, he was just going through the motions like a high school girl suffering from an incessant need for attention. Then the whore leaves after 3 loveless, uninspired years with no explanation of why she acted like a spoiled child and goes back to the whipped hubby. Now she wants more money? You'd think Messier would have more class than that but considering his prior relationship, once a whore.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just when I thought there couldn't be one more scorn-ament to add to his Christmas tree, Messier goes and puts a bright star of stupidity on his enormous Neanderthal head.

I don't care if he's owed money, he didn't earn the money he was paid. He should be counter-sued for breach of contract seeing as he obviously didn't play with any heart or to his talent.

Let me give you an analogy: In 1997, Messier and the Rangers are married. The Canucks were the lover who is told by a married woman that she is single. Messier is the proverbial whore, playing petty games to show her husband what he is missing. Messier's heart was never in it, he was just going through the motions like a high school girl suffering from an incessant need for attention. Then the whore leaves after 3 loveless, uninspired years with no explanation of why she acted like a spoiled child and goes back to the whipped hubby. Now she wants more money? You'd think Messier would have more class than that but considering his prior relationship, once a whore.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of which is completely and totally irrelevant to a claim under contract.

Your analogy is flawed - apples and orangutans.

This is a contract freely entered into between two competent parties bargaining over a contract worth millions with legal advisors on both sides. McCaw is a billionaire business man reputed to be a very tough negotiator and he most assuredly knew what the terms of the contract were. Here the parties entered into a contract fully knowing the risks involved that contract will be enforceable pursuant to its terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be argued, wearing a jersey and skating around the ice lethargically to obtain a large sum of money under the pretense of being a player for that team and actually playing for the team, are two different things. A contract says he will play for them, I'd argue he never actually did. Therefore he is in breach and actually owes the Canucks money, not vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be argued, wearing a jersey and skating around the ice lethargically to obtain a large sum of money under the pretense of being a player for that team and actually playing for the team, are two different things. A contract says he will play for them, I'd argue he never actually did. Therefore he is in breach and actually owes the Canucks money, not vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be argued, wearing a jersey and skating around the ice lethargically to obtain a large sum of money under the pretense of being a player for that team and actually playing for the team, are two different things. A contract says he will play for them, I'd argue he never actually did. Therefore he is in breach and actually owes the Canucks money, not vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...