FLYLine27*
BUCH
Radek27 said:Hail Spungo!
The difference between Spungo and me is that im certain, 100% that a announcement will be made no later then this Friday.
Radek27 said:Hail Spungo!
FLYLine4LIFE said:Well...doenst look like this will be done by Monday.
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!Resolute said: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.
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.reckoning said: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.
gscarpenter2002 said: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.
gscarpenter2002 said: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, 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.reckoning said: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"
They don't have a lot of credibility in their home market either, I would wager.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.
gscarpenter2002 said: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.
Wasn`t Jacobs under investigation for tax fraud by the state of Massachusetts?
Boston owner Jeremy Jacobs should apologize to the citizens of Massachusetts for not paying his taxes.
Resolute said: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 said: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.
gscarpenter2002 said:I am done discussing this with you in this thread,