- This topic has 1,577 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
- The topic ‘Leaf Talk – 2025-26 Season’ is closed to new replies.
-
Posts
-
This will be completely unpopular but….People are shitting on these guys because when they were kids they had a girl that wanted to party. 95% of 17-18 year olds would have done the same thing under the same circumstance. The only crime here was the fact that they lost years of salary. This has been a shit show clown circus right from the beginning.
That’s more of an indictment of hockey culture, or perhaps society in general.
EM is not without blame. Unless all of the players and witnesses came up with a corroborated, wild story, she wasn’t exactly an unwilling participant.
Keep ya dick in ya pants, boys, or be willing to live with the consequences.
Yup. Just because you’re found not guilty of a crime, doesn’t mean you’re innocent of being a garbage human being. I’d be very disappointed if the Leafs touched any of them.
Oh fuck it would be flat out stupidity, just begging for a media disaster.
Even if you’re UG and think the players are fine most of society doesn’t agree and that alone would make signing them absolute hell for the hockey team.
This will be completely unpopular but….People are shitting on these guys because when they were kids they had a girl that wanted to party. 95% of 17-18 year olds would have done the same thing under the same circumstance. The only crime here was the fact that they lost years of salary. This has been a shit show clown circus right from the beginning.
Not guilty, but still pieces of shit.
Headaches the leafs dont need.
~FakepartofmeYup. Just because you’re found not guilty of a crime, doesn’t mean you’re innocent of being a garbage human being. I’d be very disappointed if the Leafs touched any of them.
Being found guilty means they’re not going to jail. The terms of the morals clause doesn’t say anything about criminal convictions – “highest standard of honesty, morality“, etc. If teams don’t think they’re worth the headache, they might impose. Obviously, the PA would intervene on behalf of the players. Yeah unions, amitite?[/quote]
Not guilty, but still pieces of shit.
Headaches the leafs dont need.Maybe it’ll play out that way. I’m not arguing one way or the other. I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry as to say not guilty means they’re back. Teams will make their own decisions
There’s going to be a lot of teams that will stupidly blacklist these guys even after the NHL is done railroading them. I think the Leafs should use this opportunity to their advantage rather than be another sheep in the flock once they’re eligible.
They need a bottom-six center who can win FOs. That’s McLeod. Instant upgrade over Kampf. They need a bottom-six winger who can kill penalties, has a good frame and skates fast, younger, cheaper replacement for Jarnkrok. That’s Formenton. They need a big body with a big slapshot for the 3rd pairing and that can be Foote.
All 3 could probably be signed for 1 AAV or less and all 3 are going to have a chip on their shoulder with something to prove, knowing they can’t be irresponsible people without severe backlash.
Being found guilty means they’re not going to jail. The terms of the morals clause doesn’t say anything about criminal convictions – “highest standard of honesty, morality“, etc. If teams don’t think they’re worth the headache, they might impose. Obviously, the PA would intervene on behalf of the players. Yeah unions, amitite?
They pose no risk or headache as they have acted perfectly fine since the accusations were levied. Teams would be stupid to avoid quality hockey players for what would amount to a few days of whining from a bunch of cult minded losers on BlueSky.
The Leafs would be a better team with McLeod, Formenton and Foote and save a lot of cap space too. They’re not guilty and should be allowed to move forward with their lives after years of wrongful persecution and lost opportunity.
Even if deemed guilty in the court of public opinion, it gives them an opportunity to become ambassadors to teach people how not to make the same mistakes.
Maybe it’ll play out that way. I’m not arguing one way or the other. I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry as to say not guilty means they’re back. Teams will make their own decisions
Being found guilty means they’re not going to jail. The terms of the morals clause doesn’t say anything about criminal convictions – “highest standard of honesty, morality“, etc. If teams don’t think they’re worth the headache, they might impose. Obviously, the PA would intervene on behalf of the players. Yeah unions, amitite?
They pose no risk or headache as they have acted perfectly fine since the accusations were levied. Teams would be stupid to avoid quality hockey players for what would amount to a few days of whining from a bunch of cult minded losers on BlueSky.
The Leafs would be a better team with McLeod, Formenton and Foote and save a lot of cap space too. They’re not guilty and should be allowed to move forward with their lives after years of wrongful persecution and lost opportunity.
Even if deemed guilty in the court of public opinion, it gives them an opportunity to become ambassadors to teach people how not to make the same mistakes.
Nope, it’s a simple business decision. Players sign contracts committing “to conduct themselves on and off the rink to the highest standard of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interests of the league, their team and hockey in general.” If teams decide that their behaviour (which was never questioned) hurts their brand, they’re gone.
Nope, it’s very simple. They’re not guilty. And they’ve done nothing while under contract that they are guilty for. They’ve been prosecuted unjustly by both the government and the idiots among the cult mob of social justice warriors. They were 18 year olds who acted immaturely. They’ll be the last ones to ever do anything like that ever again. They can be given a second chance because the business is playing hockey and they’re still good at it.
Being found guilty means they’re not going to jail. The terms of the morals clause doesn’t say anything about criminal convictions – “highest standard of honesty, morality“, etc. If teams don’t think they’re worth the headache, they might impose. Obviously, the PA would intervene on behalf of the players. Yeah unions, amitite?
Nope, it’s a simple business decision. Players sign contracts committing “to conduct themselves on and off the rink to the highest standard of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interests of the league, their team and hockey in general.” If teams decide that their behaviour (which was never questioned) hurts their brand, they’re gone.
Nope, it’s very simple. They’re not guilty. And they’ve done nothing while under contract that they are guilty for. They’ve been prosecuted unjustly by both the government and the idiots among the cult mob of social justice warriors. They were 18 year olds who acted immaturely. They’ll be the last ones to ever do anything like that ever again. They can be given a second chance because the business is playing hockey and they’re still good at it.
