Putting another rumour to bed, breach of contract, and how it pertains to Eriksson.

[MikeBossy]

3 minutes ago, EliasBoeser said:

I bet your a lot of fun at parties 

You're (Thought I'd check your work for you)  You're welcome

[coastal.view]

man is this a silly thread

players get the summer off

they have no need to speak to management

they basically have to be left alone

wow this is gonna be a long summer

 

[EB43]

3 minutes ago, MikeBossy said:

You're (Thought I'd check your work for you)  You're welcome

I was gonna go with “partys” as well 

[MikeBossy]

3 minutes ago, EliasBoeser said:

I was gonna go with “partys” as well 

I'm no "contract specialist" but I'm here for ya man - always important to have 3-5 people check for you - just need a minimum 2 more CDCers and you are good to go :D

[J.I.A.H.N]

57 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.

Can you clarify my thoughts here plz.....

 

1. Eriksson was in Breach as he did hurt to the Canucks, as his public comments, most likely were read by other UFA's who then would not sign...………

    Yes it is an unknown whether that actually happened, but it is possible

 

2. Eriksson by making his comments, probably reached a clause in his contract, when he commented in the press, doing harm to his team, and most likely breaching one of his contracts clauses as a result. (The team shows harm by the fact that there will be less harmony between the coach and player, as the coach may have bee singled out by his employer for the truth, causing less harmony). It may also affect other players in how they see Green.

 

3. very well could be a clause for public appearances in the contract that states when ever the player is representing his professional job, he must first contact the team for such approval.

 

These questions in themselves, show poor judgement in Eriksson's statements, and bring up the breach.

 

If Eriksson can show that there is no damage caused by his statements, he would most likely have any judgement thrown out, but if Green makes a statement that he can not work with Eriksson now, because of Eriksson's questioning of Green's abilities, the Judge would most likely side with the Canucks, as in fact Eriksson started this whole thing and is responsible for its out come.

 

The Canucks statement to the judge...….Your honor, we have sat down with Mr. Eriksson and feel we can not in good faith work with his views and efforts going forward.

 

Point being, one party feels injury from the other

[Arrow 1983]

7 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Can you clarify my thoughts here plz.....

 

1. Eriksson was in Breach as he did hurt to the Canucks, as his public comments, most likely were read by other UFA's who then would not sign...………

    Yes it is an unknown whether that actually happened, but it is possible

 

2. Eriksson by making his comments, probably reached a clause in his contract, when he commented in the press, doing harm to his team, and most likely breaching one of his contracts clauses as a result. (The team shows harm by the fact that there will be less harmony between the coach and player, as the coach may have bee singled out by his employer for the truth, causing less harmony). It may also affect other players in how they see Green.

 

3. very well could be a clause for public appearances in the contract that states when ever the player is representing his professional job, he must first contact the team for such approval.

 

These questions in themselves, show poor judgement in Eriksson's statements, and bring up the breach.

 

If Eriksson can show that there is no damage caused by his statements, he would most likely have any judgement thrown out, but if Green makes a statement that he can not work with Eriksson now, because of Eriksson's questioning of Green's abilities, the Judge would most likely side with the Canucks, as in fact Eriksson started this whole thing and is responsible for its out come.

 

The Canucks statement to the judge...….Your honor, we have sat down with Mr. Eriksson and feel we can not in good faith work with his views and efforts going forward.

 

Point being, one party feels injury from the other

Eriksson stated he and Green did not see 100% with each other. This is a paraphrase for those who want to nick pick.

This is not a criticism of Green or The Club as a whole it is an opinion and one that was well thought out. He didn't say he fought with the coach or he and Green argued daily. He left it very ambitious not seeing 100% with green can have many interpretations in the eye of the courts it would never be considered a direct criticism. And no 2 people ever see 100% with one another ever time they have to deal with each other.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[EB43]

15 minutes ago, MikeBossy said:

I'm no "contract specialist" but I'm here for ya man - always important to have 3-5 people check for you - just need a minimum 2 more CDCers and you are good to go :D

Definitely sometimes need my stuffs proof reeded

[SilentSam]

49 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

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 

So you are speculating on his contract .  

Your creating a rumour...                                 Your a specialist?

 

Fact:    Benning said he was going to talk to Eriksson.   Whether that’s through his agent or not,  who gives a flying F.

Fact:    If Eriksson has his agent do the discussion,  as a fan, like many of us here are, I would think that Eriksson is being totally disrespectful to the GM , Franchise and Team that he signed and plays with.. and I think the latter would feel the same way.

... maybe just my opinion,  but shows that the player does not want to communicate.

 

I say he should lace em up..   I can’t wait for a fan to light an Eriksson Jersey on fire and throw it on to the ice..

      There’s no place like home.

 

 

[Arrow 1983]

9 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Can you clarify my thoughts here plz.....

 

1. Eriksson was in Breach as he did hurt to the Canucks, as his public comments, most likely were read by other UFA's who then would not sign...………

    Yes it is an unknown whether that actually happened, but it is possible

 

2. Eriksson by making his comments, probably reached a clause in his contract, when he commented in the press, doing harm to his team, and most likely breaching one of his contracts clauses as a result. (The team shows harm by the fact that there will be less harmony between the coach and player, as the coach may have bee singled out by his employer for the truth, causing less harmony). It may also affect other players in how they see Green.

 

3. very well could be a clause for public appearances in the contract that states when ever the player is representing his professional job, he must first contact the team for such approval.

 

These questions in themselves, show poor judgement in Eriksson's statements, and bring up the breach.

 

If Eriksson can show that there is no damage caused by his statements, he would most likely have any judgement thrown out, but if Green makes a statement that he can not work with Eriksson now, because of Eriksson's questioning of Green's abilities, the Judge would most likely side with the Canucks, as in fact Eriksson started this whole thing and is responsible for its out come.

 

The Canucks statement to the judge...….Your honor, we have sat down with Mr. Eriksson and feel we can not in good faith work with his views and efforts going forward.

 

Point being, one party feels injury from the other

Eriksson never stated anything with greens ability as a coach this is just made up in either your head or where ever you heard this. The only thing a court would ever look at is his actual statement.

[mpt]

This needed a new thread?   Terrible read btw

[EB43]

5 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Eriksson never stated anything with greens ability as a coach this is just made up in either your head or where ever you heard this. The only thing a court would ever look at is his actual statement.

Are you by any chance Erikssons agent?

[Arrow 1983]

7 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

So you are speculating on his contract .  

Your creating a rumour...                                 Your a specialist?

 

Fact:    Benning said he was going to talk to Eriksson.   Whether that’s through his agent or not,  who gives a flying F.

Fact:    If Eriksson has his agent do the discussion,  as a fan, like many of us here are, I would think that Eriksson is being totally disrespectful to the GM , Franchise and Team that he signed and plays with.. and I think the latter would feel the same way.

... maybe just my opinion,  but shows that the player does not want to communicate.

 

I say he should lace em up..   I can’t wait for a fan to light an Eriksson Jersey on fire and throw it on to the ice..

      There’s no place like home.

 

 

A reasonable speculation, you really believe that a person can be an employee with an employer and not have to have communications with said employer either through himself or in this case his agent.

It is not disrespectful to use the avenues of communications that one is granted in their contract. If a player does negotiations through an agent then I'm sure he has communications rights through his agent as we all know must players negotiate through agents.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[sonoman]

56 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

 

 

[Arrow 1983]

1 minute ago, EliasBoeser said:

Are you by any chance Erikssons agent?

Nope but I do have experience in these types of matters including contract negotiations with players of major league sports.

[EB43]

1 minute ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Nope but I do have experience in these types of matters including contract negotiations with players of major league sports.

That’s pretty neato

[Alflives]

52 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

But in this case I don't breach a contract 

When Loui is waived, sent to Utica, and he doesn’t report that will be breach of contract.  The Canucks, at that point, will unilaterally terminate.  This not returning phone calls is nonsense. 

[Arrow 1983]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

When Loui is waived, sent to Utica, and he doesn’t report that will be breach of contract.  The Canucks, at that point, will unilaterally terminate.  This not returning phone calls is nonsense. 

I'm sure Eriksson will report to Utica if this where to ever happen. But I don't see this ever happening the Canucks would get very minimum cap relieve by doing this.

[SilentSam]

13 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

A reasonable speculation, you really believe that a person can be an employer with an employer and not have to have communications with said employer either through himself or in this case his agent.

It is not disrespectful to use the avenues of communications that one is granted in their contract. If a player does negotiations through an agent then I'm sure he has communications rights through his agent as we all know must players negotiate through agents.

If a man who is playing hockey for “ fun” .. as ERIKSSON put it,  can not speak for himself after making comments of discontent about his Coach..  If he wants to talk to others about a situation he thinks exists, but avoids directly communicating with that other party. That is perceived to be unwilling, and frowned upon in anything arbitrarily.

 

Your only adding fuel to the fan base in this city, and bringing more attention to Eriksson than what Eriksson has done himself.

Opening night should be a doozy.

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/loui-eriksson-travis-green-and-dont-get-on-100-per-cent

Edited July 8, 2019 by SilentSam

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I'm sure Eriksson will report to Utica if this where to ever happen. But I don't see this ever happening the Canucks would get very minimum cap relieve by doing this.

The Canucks get no cap benefit.  The guy replacing Loui on the team will get paid the million the teams saves on Loui being in the minors.  The end game, no matter how we look at it, for Loui is to retire (mutually terminate contract) or ride buses in the AHL.  I don’t think Loui will play in the A.  He will retire before the Canucks put him on waivers.  

[SilentSam]

On 7/7/2019 at 7:15 PM, Arrow 1983 said:

I'm sure Eriksson will report to Utica if this where to ever happen. But I don't see this ever happening the Canucks would get very minimum cap relieve by doing this.

Until they get rid of him..  at least his cancer is out of the Canucks room.

Too bad Louie didn’t just try talking to the Coach..  or is there a clause for that too.

Edited July 9, 2019 by SilentSam