Popular Post Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 8, 2019 The rumour that Eriksson didn't answer Bennings call is complete bs. 1) if their was an issue with Eriksson and the Canucks organization Benning would Call Eriksson's agent 2) if Benning did call Eriksson directly, Eriksson is not required to pick up or talk to Benning. What would happen is Eriksson would call his agent and ask his agent to call Benning, Eriksson could ask his agent to inform Benning tha He ( Eriksson would like all matters to go through his agent). If Benning kept calling Eriksson after Benning has been informed of this Benning could be under the breach of contract 3) the conclusion therefore, is the person who started this rumour was just trying to stir the pot and make headlines. Anyone understanding contract procedure would not breach a contract, therefore Benning as GM and president of an NHL club with a legal department would understand contract procedure. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Salacious Crumb Posted July 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 8, 2019 LE can please PO. Please and thank you. 4 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Torts Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 This is speculation. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 Just now, Johnny Torts said: This is speculation. The headline is speculation. Contract procedure is fact 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 Yeah, but LE SUX lolxx420noscopexxlol But, in all reality, Benning probably reached to to Eriksson's agent. Eriksson's agent gave Benning's message to Eriksson but Eriksson didn't respond/give instruction in how to respond to Benning's message, and thus the agent can't do much beyond that. The agent is a middle man and the middle man can't operate if he doesn't get any instructions, so that could be how Benning was "ghosted" in the corporate sense. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 14 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: The rumour that Eriksson didn't answer Bennings call is complete bs. 1) if their was an issue with Eriksson and the Canucks organization Benning would Call Eriksson's agent 2) if Benning did call Eriksson directly, Eriksson is not required to pick up or talk to Benning. What would happen is Eriksson would call his agent and ask his agent to call Benning, Eriksson could ask his agent to inform Benning tha He ( Eriksson would like all matters to go through his agent). If Benning kept calling Eriksson after Benning has been informed of this Benning could be under the breach of contract 3) the conclusion therefore, is the person who started this rumour was just trying to stir the pot and make headlines. Anyone understanding contract procedure would not breach a contract, therefore Benning as GM and president of an NHL club with a legal department would understand contract procedure. The media trying to stir the pot? Say it isn't so..... Seriously, Benning did speak with the agent. There has been no indication that he actually spoke with Eriksson but that he did reach out. I see no problem with Benning speaking with the agent first and then Eriksson. I think that is is to everybody's benefit for Benning to try to resolve any issues directly if he can. Of course, if there is bad blood, Eriksson is under no obligation to return the call. We are all very curious as to what the issues are. We may never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Quantum said: Yeah, but LE SUX lolxx420noscopexxlol But, in all reality, Benning probably reached to to Eriksson's agent. Eriksson's agent gave Benning's message to Eriksson but Eriksson didn't respond/give instruction in how to respond to Benning's message, and thus the agent can't do much beyond that. The agent is a middle man and the middle man can't operate if he doesn't get any instructions, so that could be how Benning was "ghosted" in the corporate sense. Your scenior would put Eriksson in breach of contracts most contracts have communicate cluases between employer and employee. So this likely didn't happen his agent would inform him of this cluase Edited July 8, 2019 by Arrow 1983 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Torts Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: The headline is speculation. Contract procedure is fact Your stated yourself that Benning could have called and Eriksson elected not to answer. Bottom line. TERMINATE HIM ALREADY. Side note, Benning: "You used to call me on my cell phone, late night when you..." 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: The rumour that Eriksson didn't answer Bennings call is complete bs. 1) if their was an issue with Eriksson and the Canucks organization Benning would Call Eriksson's agent 2) if Benning did call Eriksson directly, Eriksson is not required to pick up or talk to Benning. What would happen is Eriksson would call his agent and ask his agent to call Benning, Eriksson could ask his agent to inform Benning tha He ( Eriksson would like all matters to go through his agent). If Benning kept calling Eriksson after Benning has been informed of this Benning could be under the breach of contract 3) the conclusion therefore, is the person who started this rumour was just trying to stir the pot and make headlines. Anyone understanding contract procedure would not breach a contract, therefore Benning as GM and president of an NHL club with a legal department would understand contract procedure. 1 minute ago, Johnny Torts said: Your stated yourself that Benning could have called and Eriksson elected not to answer. Bottom line. TERMINATE HIM ALREADY. Side note, Benning: "You used to call me on my cell phone, late night when you..." Number 2 clearly says if if is not me saying he did but if meaning a scenario Edited July 8, 2019 by Arrow 1983 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Johnny Torts said: Your stated yourself that Benning could have called and Eriksson elected not to answer. Bottom line. TERMINATE HIM ALREADY. Side note, Benning: "You used to call me on my cell phone, late night when you..." You are talking to a contract specialist I know how to phrase my words 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Johnny Torts said: Your stated yourself that Benning could have called and Eriksson elected not to answer. Bottom line. TERMINATE HIM ALREADY. Side note, Benning: "You used to call me on my cell phone, late night when you..." In contract terms we call this scenarios or possiblities or examples if you read the CBA you would notice a lot of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post peaches5 Posted July 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: You are talking to a contract specialist I know how to phrase my words 37 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: The rumour that Eriksson didn't answer Bennings call is complete bs. 1) if their was an issue with Eriksson and the Canucks organization Benning would Call Eriksson's agent 2) if Benning did call Eriksson directly, Eriksson is not required to pick up or talk to Benning. What would happen is Eriksson would call his agent and ask his agent to call Benning, Eriksson could ask his agent to inform Benning tha He ( Eriksson would like all matters to go through his agent). If Benning kept calling Eriksson after Benning has been informed of this Benning could be under the breach of contract 3) the conclusion therefore, is the person who started this rumour was just trying to stir the pot and make headlines. Anyone understanding contract procedure would not breach a contract, therefore Benning as GM and president of an NHL club with a legal department would understand contract procedure. Edited July 8, 2019 by peaches5 3 16 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckpuckluck1 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: You are talking to a contract specialist I know how to phrase my words 39 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: The rumour that Eriksson didn't answer Bennings call is complete bs. 1) if their was an issue with Eriksson and the Canucks organization Benning would Call Eriksson's agent 2) if Benning did call Eriksson directly, Eriksson is not required to pick up or talk to Benning. What would happen is Eriksson would call his agent and ask his agent to call Benning, Eriksson could ask his agent to inform Benning tha He ( Eriksson would like all matters to go through his agent). If Benning kept calling Eriksson after Benning has been informed of this Benning could be under the breach of contract 3) the conclusion therefore, is the person who started this rumour was just trying to stir the pot and make headlines. Anyone understanding contract procedure would not breach a contract, therefore Benning as GM and president of an NHL club with a legal department would understand contract procedure. Nit picking a little...but well played. Very funny Edited July 8, 2019 by canuckpuckluck15 typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, peaches5 said: If this was for legal purposes I would have had at least 3-5 other people check my work I am human humans do make mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Torts Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: Number 2 clearly says if if is not me saying he did but if meaning a scenario 6 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: You are talking to a contract specialist I know how to phrase my words 4 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: In contract terms we call this scenarios or possiblities or examples if you read the CBA you would notice a lot of them 39 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: The rumour that Eriksson didn't answer Bennings call is complete bs. 1) if their was an issue with Eriksson and the Canucks organization Benning would Call Eriksson's agent 2) if Benning did call Eriksson directly, Eriksson is not required to pick up or talk to Benning. What would happen is Eriksson would call his agent and ask his agent to call Benning, Eriksson could ask his agent to inform Benning tha He ( Eriksson would like all matters to go through his agent). If Benning kept calling Eriksson after Benning has been informed of this Benning could be under the breach of contract 3) the conclusion therefore, is the person who started this rumour was just trying to stir the pot and make headlines. Anyone understanding contract procedure would not breach a contract, therefore Benning as GM and president of an NHL club with a legal department would understand contract procedure. He's not required to pick up, so its possible Benning called ONCE and he didn't pick up, not breaching any contract and starting a rumour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Arrow 1983 said: If this was for legal purposes I would have had at least 3-5 other people check my work I am human humans do make mistakes. But in this case I don't breach a contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, peaches5 said: Irregardless! 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Johnny Torts said: He's not required to pick up, so its possible Benning called ONCE and he didn't pick up, not breaching any contract and starting a rumour. My point of this OP was to show that it was a rumour and clearly not facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Torts Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 46 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: The rumour that Eriksson didn't answer Bennings call is complete bs. 1) if their was an issue with Eriksson and the Canucks organization Benning would Call Eriksson's agent 2) if Benning did call Eriksson directly, Eriksson is not required to pick up or talk to Benning. What would happen is Eriksson would call his agent and ask his agent to call Benning, Eriksson could ask his agent to inform Benning tha He ( Eriksson would like all matters to go through his agent). If Benning kept calling Eriksson after Benning has been informed of this Benning could be under the breach of contract 3) the conclusion therefore, is the person who started this rumour was just trying to stir the pot and make headlines. Anyone understanding contract procedure would not breach a contract, therefore Benning as GM and president of an NHL club with a legal department would understand contract procedure. 1 minute ago, Arrow 1983 said: My point of this OP was to show that it was a rumour and clearly not facts So is it BS, or is it a rumour classifying this thread redundant, contract specialist? You, yourself stated it was BS, and then re-instated it as a rumour, but at no point was any of it a fact in the first place. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post EB43 Posted July 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: If this was for legal purposes I would have had at least 3-5 other people check my work I am human humans do make mistakes. I bet your a lot of fun at parties 2 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now