Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
let’s talk about how glad we are that pencil neck bitch is shopping for big hats in vergas rather than TO????
in berubae we trust ????????
I want to say that word so I hope that he finds a sweet hat and cane deal there in Vergas rather than TO ????
Ok I agree with Azure on this topic, despite it also being the opinion of someone here I have zero respect for and has zero ability to present his opinion in any way other than the most offense way riddled full of insults etc.
The court case has happened, the judge ruled and it’s done. If the NHL decides to try and prevent these players from playing by claiming they breached a morality clause I think they face an issue with the players perhaps coming at the league (if it was a league decision, the teams if it was an individual team decision) for lost wages for the time they were suspended as a start. They will layer in some defamation element and perhaps even some loss of future earning potential all of which would equate to big dollars.
I think the league will simply (quietly and not publicly) tell the players/teams in the league that these guys can be signed / play and it’s up to teams to decide if they want to do so – pushing all of the potential risk of poor public reaction etc. onto teams and avoiding any litigation.
I agree with what you said Dozzer but there is that one sticky point that I’ve read from a few people in difference places and that you have to factor in – who the players were in terms of how big a superstar they are or were. The NHL has proven over and over again big time stars get different treatment and let’s not pretend the media don’t do the same.
If these 5 players had names like Bedard, Matthews etc. in them do the players get suspended right away? Is the outcry to ban them from the league the same?
I personally don’t think so.
If you strip emotion, bias and personal morality out of the equation and simply ask if the players should technically, legally be allowed to resume their careers I think the fairly obvious answer is yes.
The league can say the players broke the morality clause and as I said I think they have to fight that in court but who knows until / unless it happens.
I question if the league/players had the legal right to even suspend but without seeing what the contracts say or the CBA (and I don’t care enough to go research it or even see if it’s public) and the fact the players just took the suspension maybe they have language in there that allows it. IF the suspension is unpaid I would be surprised the NHLPA agreed to it.
What has not been mentioned but I think may pop up soon is the fact that the finding of not guilty does not prevent any civil action that the alleged victim may decide to peruse. Now if she took some settlement from Hockey Canada she may not be able to sue the players or HC but again maybe that settlement only protected HC and she could try to sue individual players – I guess we will see.
The case and charges were criminal, not civil proceedings and they differ greatly in many ways including the need to prove “beyond a reasonably doubt” that something did or did not occur.
Well technically like it or not unless the charge is “dropped” or put “on hold” til the day before court those players would have to be suspended no matter who they are. It’s the current standard. I’m guessing the bigger names who magically get that to happen like you’re saying though. I’ve heard the NHLPA have recently started pushing to have the overall suspension dropped though. I kind of wonder that myself, being charged isn’t being found guilty, still, could be a media frenzy though.
I’m kinda rambling here, but I think that an underlying theme to this whole trial is that many are uncomfortable with the idea that a young woman could be the sexual aggressor. There’s a disbelief that she could have wanted to have sex with multiple partners in a hotel room.
It’s an incredible double standard – would anyone blink if they heard of a 20 year old male who was happy to have sex with multiple female partners – all successful, incredibly fit athletes?
That’s precisely why I’m using the word orgy. It’s been around for a long long time. It’s not illegal, and you risk being socially judged, however the modern day has a pretty notable difference…
The internet. So the knowledge of your orgy’s existence has the potential of being spread around far more quickly and openly.
Also, anyone who thinks there weren’t orgy’s that existed that involved multiple men and very few women (if any) prior to this is also in denial.
Yup.
Probably the same type of people that whined about hilary’s emails for years.Nah, not the same as political arguments, you have to accept that you’ll always be at war if you want a career in politics and that’s the end of that.
This is pretty simple though, when it comes to the orgy it really leads to three things.
Was it illegal? No.
Was it immoral? To some no, but to many yes.
Was it disgusting? To some no, but to many yes.
And no matter what, the people who think it was immoral and disgusting behaviour are never ever going away, it’s called society, and no, not everyone forgives alongside law.
When it comes to Matthews was it rude? Sure. Did it involve his sexual organ and sleeping with someone? No. Therefore not nearly as many people were insulted by it, not even close.
Ffs anyone who thinks that someone showing off their underwear is on par with a drunken orgy is a flat out lunatic.
It’s actually not. It’s a very small, disproportionately loud group of lunatics.
Incorrect, they affect media, marketing, therefore, income. The amount of physical people no longer matter.
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.
Sigh you don’t get it.
Doesn’t matter if YOU forgive them.
A HUGE portion of our population does not.
And that will never change.
Argue all you want.
It will never change.
The end.
Yup.
Plus they are not very talented.
The leafs will have a media circus already this season, dont need to add garbage humans to the mixOh man, the leafs have that every year, it’s just amplified this year. All adding that would do is bring “boos” to home games whenever that guy stepped on the ice. Not from the entire crowd, but from a notable amount.
These guys will have to play in places like Columbus where their fanbase haven’t even heard the news.
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.
LOL!
At some point, someone figured out what was going on.
“glitch in the system”… yeah, and the Epstein files are just a big Democrat hoax.
The best part is I still don’t know WTF was happening LOL
As for politics, sigh, I’d love to know who is truly running the world now, the soap opera drama that gets broadcast via the media, tv, internet, and so on can’t be what’s truly in charge anymore because if it is how the fuck has this world not been blown up yet? Seriously? lol
Open abuse of power.
Open abuse of thinking I give a rat’s ass about your opinion lol
My ban was also lifted early. lol
Why isn’t the reply function here working? I thought it was fixed and working?
About time ????
Someone started paying attention and saw the state of the Leafs threads. That can’t be good for them.
I guess it helped that I openly said that I guess I can ban people for 3 months since nobody seems to give a fuck anymore lol
Why would Pittsburgh take the worse player in the trade and then retain salary?!?!?!
And why they hell would Rielly go to Pittsburgh?!?!
Cause Dubas will tell him his contract is justifiable?
