Your incorrect. I never stated or insinuated anything about fraud in any way. Nor did I even come close to stating that the NHL is lying about anything. Again, your off on another tangent that has nothing to do with the point.
- MJL

This is taken from page 1 of this thread:

The league is barely making any money at all. Lots of revenue, no profit.
- prock

To which you responded.

I doubt that is true!
- MJL

Sounds like you're calling it a lie to me.

Your incorrect. I never stated or insinuated anything about fraud in any way. Nor did I even come close to stating that the NHL is lying about anything. Again, your off on another tangent that has nothing to do with the point.
- MJL

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. Owners have the right to negotiate for whatever changes they want. Players have the right to decide if they work under those conditions. This concept is pretty basic and has been in place since your country abolished slavery.
- Canada Cup

By law the league is NOT required to employ a players association. So you and MJL are both wrong. The Union is beneficial for both sides but is not lawfully required. Either side could opt out of the union if they so chose to do so.

That being said, yes the owners CAN impose their will if they so choose, however, my statement was not really 100% literal, more in terms of they have the most leverage therefore can pretty much hold out til the players give in or agree to fewer concessions.

- Atomic Wedgie

THANK YOU

This is taken from page 1 of this thread:



To which you responded.



Sounds like you're calling it a lie to me.
- prock

You can think it sounds like anything you want it to. Doesn't make it the case.

By the law the league is NOT required to employ a players association. So you and MJL are both wrong. The Union is beneficial for both sides but is not lawfully required. Either side could opt out of the union if they so chose to do so.

That being said, yes the owners CAN impose their will if they so choose, however, my statement was not really 100% literal, more in terms of they have the most leverage therefore can pretty much hold out til the players give in or agree to fewer concessions.
- MnGump

My statement had zero to do with whether the League is required by law to employ a players union. So I don't know how that proves I'm wrong. No matter how you look at it, the League cannot impose it's will on the players. If that was true, there wouldn't have been a lockout.

THANK YOU
- Crimsoninja

It is not like that consistent grammar error has not been pointed out to him many times before.

You can think it sounds like anything you want it to. Doesn't make it the case.
- MJL

Excellent comeback ROFL!

You do know that EVERYONE can see you just ducking the fact that you were caught red-handed speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Maybe you want to also explain about that whole Broward county auditor saw the team's books again?

My statement had zero to do with whether the League is required by law to employ a players union. So I don't know how that proves I'm wrong. No matter how you look at it, the League cannot impose it's will on the players. If that was true, there wouldn't have been a lockout.
- MJL

Umm. That's why there IS a lockout, because the owners are indeed imposing their will.

Gee, I just wish someone else could be right for once... You seem to be hogging all the glory...

Excellent comeback ROFL!

You do know that EVERYONE can see you just ducking the fact that you were caught red-handed speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Maybe you want to also explain about that whole Broward county auditor saw the team's books again?
- Aetherial

Excellent comeback ROFL!

You do know that EVERYONE can see you just ducking the fact that you were caught red-handed speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Maybe you want to also explain about that whole Broward county auditor saw the team's books again?
- Aetherial

I didn't know there was a spokesman for EVERYONE. I stated twice that I stood corrected on that matter. But it doesn't change the premise of the article imo.

Umm. That's why there IS a lockout, because the owners are indeed imposing their will.

Gee, I just wish someone else could be right for once... You seem to be hogging all the glory...
- MnGump

That's not imposing their will in terms of the CBA negotiation, which the was the premise of the discussion.

I didn't know there was a spokesman for EVERYONE. I stated twice that I stood corrected on that matter. But it doesn't change the premise of the article imo.
- MJL

The entire premise of the article was that the author had found a smoking gun that the Panthers were actually profitable.

It was 100% incorrect.

My god, how many times do we have to explain this to you?

I think I will trust in the FACTS that the PA was party to establishing the rules for HRR determination and that they are also entitled to their own audits. Yet, we have never once even heard a whisper of formal objection on those points.

... but YOU object, based on a sports writer's blog and your own interpretation of a county audit... so you must be right.
- Aetherial

You respond:

I don't even know where to start here. The article had nothing to do with the PA being party to HRR rules, or the PA being party to establishing the rules for HRR determinations, or that they were entitled to their own audits. The article was simply about the financial picture of one team.
- MJL

No. the article did NOT have anything to do with that.

I would like you to explain why you are even citing this article please. What was your reason?

Answer the question, honestly, and succinctly.

The fact is... my post directly speaks to what you were trying to prove by citing that article. I (and at least 1 other person) brought up other clear FACTS that directly contradict the point you were making.

Tell me where I was wrong. Do it clearly and succinctly please. I want to know what point you were making, that my FACTS did not address.

That makes 3 significant lies, mistakes you have made in your arguements today, on one thread.

You are on pace to break your own record of futility. Nicely done.

That's not imposing their will in terms of the CBA negotiation, which the was the premise of the discussion.
- MJL

Well maybe if you would have read my original post in the context of which I intended, you would have realized that I wasn't being 100% literal, but instead more figurative. That aside, the point of the comment was that the owners pretty much have the upper hand and the PA knows it, therefore the League can for all intents and purposes," impose its will" on the players.

You respond:




No. the article did NOT have anything to do with that.

I would like you to explain why you are even citing this article please. What was your reason?

Answer the question, honestly, and succinctly.

The fact is... my post directly speaks to what you were trying to prove by citing that article. I (and at least 1 other person) brought up other clear FACTS that directly contradict the point you were making.

Tell me where I was wrong. Do it clearly and succinctly please. I want to know what point you were making, that my FACTS did not address.

That makes 3 significant lies, mistakes you have made in your arguements today, on one thread.

You are on pace to break your own record of futility. Nicely done.
- Aetherial

What was I trying to prove by citing the article? 3 significant lies and mistakes today? LOL I wish I could arbitraily pass judgement as I saw fit and be the judge and juror on that. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. Every post you make in reply to me shows what your agenda is. Which isn't to discuss the topic, but rather to attack the poster. Unfortuantely, you've been unsuccessful in that attempt going for weeks now.

The entire premise of the article was that the author had found a smoking gun that the Panthers were actually profitable.

It was 100% incorrect.

My god, how many times do we have to explain this to you?
- Atomic Wedgie

I disagree with you. How many time do I have to explain that to you?

You overlook, probably intentionally, the bullet points of the article. The fact that he misinterpreted the Auditor's report doesn't change that. And the author gives his reasons why. If you don't agree with the article, that is your choice. But I do agree with it.

What was I trying to prove by citing the article? 3 significant lies and mistakes today? LOL I wish I could arbitraily pass judgement as I saw fit and be the judge and juror on that. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. Every post you make in reply to me shows what your agenda is. Which isn't to discuss the topic, but rather to attack the poster. Unfortuantely, you've been unsuccessful in that attempt going for weeks now.
- MJL

You did not answer the question.

The rest is bells and whistles.

What was I trying to prove by citing the article? 3 significant lies and mistakes today? LOL I wish I could arbitraily pass judgement as I saw fit and be the judge and juror on that. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. Every post you make in reply to me shows what your agenda is. Which isn't to discuss the topic, but rather to attack the poster. Unfortuantely, you've been unsuccessful in that attempt going for weeks now.
- MJL

Still waiting for an answer.

Are you afraid of answering the question about why you are citing the report?

It's ok to be afraid dude.

I disagree with you. How many time do I have to explain that to you?

You overlook, probably intentionally, the bullet points of the article. The fact that he misinterpreted the Auditor's report doesn't change that. And the author gives his reasons why. If you don't agree with the article, that is your choice. But I do agree with it.
- MJL

ROFL!

You just keep on being the best you that you can be

No, it doesn't. If you believe it does, post a quote where it says that.
- prock

didnt get a reply to this one did u? convienent.

i never read all the pages in a thread before, i never care enough about other people opinions. but watching him get his as* handed to him for 8 pages and still continue to bury his head in the sand and attempt to deflect is priceless....

I disagree with you. How many time do I have to explain that to you?

You overlook, probably intentionally, the bullet points of the article. The fact that he misinterpreted the Auditor's report doesn't change that. And the author gives his reasons why. If you don't agree with the article, that is your choice. But I do agree with it.
- MJL

this is lunacy...

didnt get a reply to this one did u? convienent.

i never read all the pages before this thread, but watching him get his as* handed to him for 8 pages and still continue to bury his head in the sand and attempt to deflect is a daily occurence and is priceless...
- hugefemale dog77

fixed

MJL must be a close friend of EK. he comes on here to keep the people logged into the comment section. without him the comment section would be 2 pages long and people would get bored and rarely visit this site.

MJL must be a close friend of EK. he comes on here to keep the people logged into the comment section. without him the comment section would be 2 pages long and people would get bored and rarely visit this site.
- joshs

Is he the NHL player who texts Ek, or the one who sends him blogs... or is he the Russian Source!!!