Lemieux Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 He probably got it wrong. He should give money to the Canucks for his awful play and the C back to Trevor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanIsleNuckFan Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Him and mike keenan can just go f themselves. And remember Vancouver organization, can $ was .60 cents on the usd back then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suolucidir Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 This is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
canuck_trevor16 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
lateralus Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 you posted in canucks talks for once.......anyways Mark Messier does not have money left? This is really stupid and I doubt the canucks will give him what he wants...please no! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 you posted in canucks talks for once.......anyways Mark Messier does not have money left? This is really stupid and I doubt the canucks will give him what he wants...please no! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkateLogoWasBetter Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
SkateLogoWasBetter Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
ChenWei91 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 He run out of money for coke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 In reality he may be owed money, I don't know. In terms of general principle all he is owed is a kick in the pills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
Tm085 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Those Lay's commericals aren't paying the bills i guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfhard Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 And remember Vancouver organization, can $ was .60 cents on the usd back then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Only if there were performance clauses... Right now, you're paying a guy to show up. That's pretty much it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharnhayre Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 He should give us money back for the performance or lack there of..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 He should give us money back for the performance or lack there of..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.