SilentSam Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 21 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. https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/loui-eriksson-travis-green-and-dont-get-on-100-per-cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 24 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. http://www.hockeysverige.se/2019/05/02/loui-eriksson-om-tuffa-tiden-i-vancouver-jag-och-tranaren-gar-inte-riktigt-hundra/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, SilentSam said: http://www.hockeysverige.se/2019/05/02/loui-eriksson-om-tuffa-tiden-i-vancouver-jag-och-tranaren-gar-inte-riktigt-hundra/ Is their anything he said that could be proven to be a false statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Torts Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 OP might I suggest putting all of your thoughts, nicely laid out, in one thread? With an appropriate title that addresses all of your concerns instead of making small ones, some of which hold little merit? More content=more conversation? Your last 3 threads could have been summarized as one and titled “My 2 cents on CBA, The Status Of Brock and Loui” etc. As I laid out for you already, you’re contradicting yourself here by basically stirring the pot yourself and, well, starting another rumour based on all the thoughts you’ve collected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) 42 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. No this goes to what and how other players may understand this to mean, and how in either earlier or later comments, it could cause distention.....One does not know what other comments have been made and to who. For what ever reason, "IF" the Canucks felt this was in breach, the Canucks could go to a Judge for a ruling...…... The question is, was there harm caused by his comments, either directly or indirectly . If in fact the Canucks through Eriksson agent felt that they could no longer work with Eriksson and his comments caused harm. They have the right under his contract to seek judgement. Paragraph 6: Injunction Junction, What's Your Function This one sets up a legal shortcut for the team in the event of breach: the Club can go straight to getting an injunction—in this case, a court order forbidding something—without having to exhaust all their other remedies first. In normal terms, this means the team can jump directly to getting a court order telling you, say, you can't play for another team—something you obviously can't do according to your contract, but this saves your team time having to prove it in court, while you're playing it up for Franchise X Paragraph 14: Termination for Material Breach Srs bsns, mi amigo. In short, if you "materially breach" the SPC by either breaking team rules/your contract or by "failing, refusing, or neglecting" to provide your services, the team gets to terminate your deal. And that's it. It's gone. No more money for you. "Material breach" is a legal term, and its meaning is contextual—it means a violation of the contract that is in some way substantial, meaningful or impairing to the other party (the breach is "material", not minor and unimportant. This is why we know the Kings didn't try terminating Mike Richards for cutting in line at the supermarket.) Material breach is only rarely alleged, and many situations where it would be so are obvious. For example, if Morgan Rielly wakes up tomorrow and decides he'd rather go play in the KHL for the rest of his career, the Leafs will have a perfect case for material breach. But it's still unclear what else might qualify—this is where the action would have been in the Richards proceedings, and I suspect the uncertainty might have helped push both sides to settle before it went forward. At any rate, as dramatic as this section is, most players never wind up dealing with it. Hopefully you never do. It is up to the Canucks to prove this. https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/7/18/12205730/so-you-want-to-sign-an-spc-a-standard-player-contract-primer It also talks about public appearances...……...which this would be Edited July 8, 2019 by janisahockeynut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 interesting read https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-whither-loui-eriksson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Arrow 1983 said: interesting read https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-whither-loui-eriksson You read mine, I will yours! LOL In the end, it would be a judge that would make the final decision...…….Yes? 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, janisahockeynut said: No this goes to what and how other players may understand this to mean, and how in either earlier or later comments, it could cause distention.....One does know what other comments have been made and to who. For what ever reason, "IF" the Canucks felt this was in breach, the Canucks could go to a Judge for a ruling...…... The question is, was there harm caused by his comments, either directly or indirectly . If in fact the Canucks through Eriksson agent felt that they could no longer work with Eriksson and his comments caused harm. They have the right under his contract to seek judgement. Paragraph 6: Injunction Junction, What's Your Function This one sets up a legal shortcut for the team in the event of breach: the Club can go straight to getting an injunction—in this case, a court order forbidding something—without having to exhaust all their other remedies first. In normal terms, this means the team can jump directly to getting a court order telling you, say, you can't play for another team—something you obviously can't do according to your contract, but this saves your team time having to prove it in court, while you're playing it up for Franchise X Paragraph 14: Termination for Material Breach Srs bsns, mi amigo. In short, if you "materially breach" the SPC by either breaking team rules/your contract or by "failing, refusing, or neglecting" to provide your services, the team gets to terminate your deal. And that's it. It's gone. No more money for you. "Material breach" is a legal term, and its meaning is contextual—it means a violation of the contract that is in some way substantial, meaningful or impairing to the other party (the breach is "material", not minor and unimportant. This is why we know the Kings didn't try terminating Mike Richards for cutting in line at the supermarket.) Material breach is only rarely alleged, and many situations where it would be so are obvious. For example, if Morgan Rielly wakes up tomorrow and decides he'd rather go play in the KHL for the rest of his career, the Leafs will have a perfect case for material breach. But it's still unclear what else might qualify—this is where the action would have been in the Richards proceedings, and I suspect the uncertainty might have helped push both sides to settle before it went forward. At any rate, as dramatic as this section is, most players never wind up dealing with it. Hopefully you never do. It is up to the Canucks to prove this. https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/7/18/12205730/so-you-want-to-sign-an-spc-a-standard-player-contract-primer It also talks about public appearances...……...which this would be Paragraph 4: Team Rules The team can set "reasonable" rules governing conditioning and conduct, and can impose fines or suspensions on players for not following them. However, the rules have to be filed with both the league offices and the NHLPA, meaning teams can't just impose fines at random to try and cut costs. Incidentally, this is a good introduction to the fact that "reasonable" is the most obnoxiously popular word in law. It's shorthand for "don't be ridiculous" without having to lay out every possible scenario. Want to know how many times "reasonable" is used in the CBA? One hundred and nineteen. Reasonable is also the most ambiguates term in Contracts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Sparkle Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 hour 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 Team work makes the dream work xD 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, janisahockeynut said: You read mine, I will yours! LOL In the end, it would be a judge that would make the final decision...…….Yes? I read yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: interesting read https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-whither-loui-eriksson One could argue, that by his agent saying that Loui is open to a trade, then the comments. Loui is pushing the cart down the road...... After all his agent is his voice. And he should not be making comment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow 1983 Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said: One could argue, that by his agent saying that Loui is open to a trade, then the comments. Loui is pushing the cart down the road...... After all his agent is his voice. And he should not be making comment. your absolutely right his agent is his voice on matters of his contracts However Eriksson can still have opinions about his play and how he feels he is being utilized if asked about it. And that is the key he was asked about it he did not seek it. Edited July 8, 2019 by Arrow 1983 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 (edited) Again, the Canucks would be within their rights to show cause..... And in the case of Mike Richards...……….it never went public Just a mutual agreement...nice and quiet...…. In saying all this, Eriksson's loss is getting smaller and smaller first he would have to show that no other team will pick him up in the NHL FURTHER TO THIS...IT IS A PIT FALL, AS IF ANY OTHER CLUB SAYS IT IS BECAUSE OF HIS COMMENTS...….WELL THEN then he could not get a job in the SHL Personally, if I am the Canucks, I do this just to show everyone do not shat on the club in any way...….and get rid of him all in one swoop THIS IS SIMULAR TO "DON'T STEP ON THE LOGO" Edited July 8, 2019 by janisahockeynut 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: your absolutely right his agent is his voice on matters of his contracts However Eriksson can still have opinions about his play and how he feels he is being utilized if asked about it. And that is the key he was asked about it he did not seek it. Yes, but as a public figure, he is totally aware of the ramifications and its results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelar Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 Loui is not going to retire. Canucks have the following options 1. Try and trade him. Unlikely. 2. Send him to Utica and bury him there for 3 years like Wade Redden He better not be taking a spot of a younger guy on the main club next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 52 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said: interesting read https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-whither-loui-eriksson well this puts to bed any ideas of mutual termination Lou-Tica? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhdlois Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 21 minutes ago, Stelar said: Loui is not going to retire. Canucks have the following options 1. Try and trade him. Unlikely. 2. Send him to Utica and bury him there for 3 years like Wade Redden He better not be taking a spot of a younger guy on the main club next season. Well, that’s the thing.....he comes to training camp, and what if, he gets beat out for a roster spot? Is this what management is hoping for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6string Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 23 minutes ago, Stelar said: Loui is not going to retire. Canucks have the following options 1. Try and trade him. Unlikely. 2. Send him to Utica and bury him there for 3 years like Wade Redden He better not be taking a spot of a younger guy on the main club next season. Closing out last season knowing we were out of contention Green dressed Erkisson for all the remaining games with regular shifts. Shake my head, we could of invested in other players minutes so we could be further ahead and better prepared for next camp. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 6 minutes ago, redhdlois said: Well, that’s the thing.....he comes to training camp, and what if, he gets beat out for a roster spot? Is this what management is hoping for? It happened last year with Gagner,. I think it happened with someone else the years before.?? Benning has stated before that those situations will happen and have. Eriksson should not feel at all privileged, this season especially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 LAWYER FIGHT! *throws chair* 1 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