Larry Brooks:NHLPA'S SEEKING CAP HELP

[FLYLine27*]

Hail Spungo!

The difference between Spungo and me is that im certain, 100% that a announcement will be made no later then this Friday.

 

[Scoogs]

Well...doenst look like this will be done by Monday.

Why do you say that? Meetings over the weekend should be plenty evidence that this is being wrapped up for a Monday presentation to the executive committee.

 

[snakepliskin]

Brooks has exactly zero credibility outside of New York. That should tell you New Yorkers something. Similar to Al Strachan in Toronto. Virtually everybody outside of their home markets just laughs off articles written by fools like this.

On the topic, it is, of course, notable that the NHLPA is apparently only now trying to get advice on what revenue to look for after spending years refusing to even conside the idea, and they go to a union that apparently claims that it's owners are hiding revenue, but obviously cannot prove it.

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

brooks is nothing but a tool as is fischler for that matter, the one who disappointed me is Spector. I had considered him a pretty straight shooter until he obviously started receiving stipend checks from the PA for slamming the owners non-stop daily on his site. if you followed brooks and spectors articles this past year you would think that the owners must tolerate financial beatings for the priviledge of owning an nhl team. all they have done for months is rag on the owners without offering not even 1 single plan or an idea for a solution! these guys are nothing but hacks! eklund has more credibility than these guys do now and let me tell you that is very very little! bob mckenzie is the only objective analyst out there and i believe that he even submitted a plan at one point several months ago. i am sure there are a few others who have shown some non-partiality but bob is the KING!

 

[GSC2k2*]

Do you actually have any tangible proof that Goodenow and Brooks are cooking up these columns together, because if not then it`s libelous of you to say that.

So please detail your proof, unless you`re someone who talks out of his a** then refuses to step up when called on it.

I told you already i was done giving you free lessons in the field of law. Suffice it to say what I said is not libel.

I stated an opinion. Opinion. This opinion is shared by many who follow these matters closely. THe opinion is supported by Brooks' writings, and rather transparently so. I stand by that opinion.

I realize you are trying to exercise wit by reference to me having called someone (you? who knows? who cares?) out on something that they stated as a fact on another thread. As far as wit goes, you exhibit none on this board. You might want to avoid trying in case you sprain something. That is also my opinion.

 

[Hawker14]

I told you already i was done giving you free lessons in the field of law. Suffice it to say what I said is not libel.

I stated an opinion. Opinion. This opinion is shared by many who follow these matters closely. THe opinion is supported by Brooks' writings, and rather transparently so. I stand by that opinion.

I realize you are trying to exercise wit by reference to me having called someone (you? who knows? who cares?) out on something that they stated as a fact on another thread. As far as wit goes, you exhibit none on this board. You might want to avoid trying in case you sprain something. That is also my opinion.

lol, true story ! about 15 years ago an employee was fired by the company i was working for. he filed a grievance seeking to be reinstated.

to make a long story short, the arbitrator ruled in his favour and ordered the company to re-employ him.

the reasoning: the employee told his boss "in my opinion, you're an (swear word resembling rear body part)"

the arbitrator ruled that since everyone is entitled to an opinion, that the employee was in his rights. however, if the employee hadn't said "in my opinion", and just "you're an XXXXXX", then the company would have been right to fire him.

this was so funny.

 

[reckoning]

I told you already i was done giving you free lessons in the field of law. Suffice it to say what I said is not libel.

I stated an opinion. Opinion. This opinion is shared by many who follow these matters closely. THe opinion is supported by Brooks' writings, and rather transparently so. I stand by that opinion.

I realize you are trying to exercise wit by reference to me having called someone (you? who knows? who cares?) out on something that they stated as a fact on another thread. As far as wit goes, you exhibit none on this board. You might want to avoid trying in case you sprain something. That is also my opinion.

Well Skippy, in my opinion, Jeremy knew damn well that broadcast revenue was taxable. That`s my opinion, and I`m entitled to it, despite your crys of "libel, libel"

 

[GSC2k2*]

Well Skippy, in my opinion, Jeremy knew damn well that broadcast revenue was taxable. That`s my opinion, and I`m entitled to it, despite your crys of "libel, libel"

Well, restating it as your opinion does not put the toothpaste back in the tube. Your original statement was libellous. I will state that as a fact, just in case you are still having some problems differentiating. I must confess at this point to some dismay with myself, as i keep promising to myself to stop giving you free courses on the law, and then I go ahead and break my own promise.

As for it being your opinion, now we can deal with that statement in the same manner as everyone treats your other opinions.

Back to the matter at hand:

Brooks has exactly zero credibility outside of New York. That should tell you New Yorkers something. Similar to Al Strachan in Toronto. Virtually everybody outside of their home markets just laughs off articles written by fools like this.

They don't have a lot of credibility in their home market either, I would wager.

 

[reckoning]

What makes me laugh so hard at it is that Goodenow and Brooks probably think they are being pretty damn clever when Brooks' column gets cooked up.

I thought I`d put that up again to show that it appears as a statement. Now what I said was

Wasn`t Jacobs under investigation for tax fraud by the state of Massachusetts?

That is a question. Now Skippy, your first homework assignment for tonight is to look up the definitions for the words "statement" and "question" and then find someone to explain the difference to you in terms you can understand.

Your second homework assignment concerns this statement I made:

Boston owner Jeremy Jacobs should apologize to the citizens of Massachusetts for not paying his taxes.

That was an opinion, which you also stated was libel. Now you`re saying opinions aren`t libel. So please explain the difference, unless you use some "Rush Limbaugh logic" to justify your hypocrisy.

 

[Resolute]

You stated as fact that Jacobs had not paid his taxes. You stated as opinion that he should apologize. Doesnt take a lawyer to tell the difference. I'm presuming carpenter took offense to your stating as fact that Jacobs hadnt paid his taxes. Since I am not familiar with the goings on, I trust you can point me to an article stating Jacobs was convicted of tax evasion?

 

[reckoning]

You stated as fact that Jacobs had not paid his taxes. You stated as opinion that he should apologize. Doesnt take a lawyer to tell the difference. I'm presuming carpenter took offense to your stating as fact that Jacobs hadnt paid his taxes. Since I am not familiar with the goings on, I trust you can point me to an article stating Jacobs was convicted of tax evasion?

OK, I`m going to explain this. When I mentioned at first, it was because I heard that there was an investigation regarding taxes that Jacobs had not paid; I didn`t know the full details which is why I asked the question . Now after researching it, I have the opinion that Jacobs excuse was rather weak,(judging by the ruling mentioned in the article I`m not the only one) and I would imagine that the average person who doesn`t make a lot of money but still has to pay their share of taxes would be pretty galled at a multi-millionaire not paying their share on a very flimsy argument. I never said that Jacobs was convicted of tax evasion, but he was ordered to pay a large amount of back taxes.


http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050102/FP_002.htm

The part that really bothers me is how just because I dared to say something critical of an owner everyone automatically labelled me a "PA shill" or "pro-union". I voted to decertify the union at my workplace, they`d be amused to find out I`m apparently pro-union. Things are not only black or white; just like I`m liberal on some issues and conservative on others, I side with the players on some issues and the owners on others. If I speak on the players side more often here it`s only because there`s about 5 or 6 pro-owner posters here who throw temper tantrums and hurl personal insults at anyone who disagrees with them. I don`t agree with everything that Wetcoaster or the Messenger said, but I admire the fact that they didn`t lower themselves to the gutter level of the people that bashed them. Unfortunately I`m not so nice.

 

[GSC2k2*]

OK, I`m going to explain this. When I mentioned at first, it was because I heard that there was an investigation regarding taxes that Jacobs had not paid; I didn`t know the full details which is why I asked the question . Now after researching it, I have the opinion that Jacobs excuse was rather weak,(judging by the ruling mentioned in the article I`m not the only one) and I would imagine that the average person who doesn`t make a lot of money but still has to pay their share of taxes would be pretty galled at a multi-millionaire not paying their share on a very flimsy argument. I never said that Jacobs was convicted of tax evasion, but he was ordered to pay a large amount of back taxes.

Thanks for making my point for me with this post and the other one two posts above.

I am done discussing this with you in this thread, since it is not the topic. If you wish to continue, please feel free to PM me, and I will be more than happy to reply.

 

[reckoning]

I am done discussing this with you in this thread,

The sweet smell of defeat.

 

[GSC2k2*]

The sweet smell of defeat.

You are a pistol, champ...