What owners might the players boycott?

[reckoning]

Uh, "fraud"? To answer your question, "No, he was not". He was engaged in a dispute over the manner of application of tax laws. Tax laws are disputable,and particularly open to various interpretations. They get disputed and taken to court all the time. That is what Jacobs did. He lost. No fraud was involved. Please get your facts correct prior to engaging in libel.

Sorry, I don`t think ignorance of the law is an excuse to break it. What`s next- the recent Rigas convictions were part of a NHLPA plot?

To answer your second question, "Nope". Last time I checked, no one was playing in Phoenix for less than they can get elsewhere.

So you know for a fact how much money every player was offered by every other team? You`d be doing all the fans who don`t have your connections a great service by printing what every player has been offered by every team. Please enlighten us.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Sorry, I don`t think ignorance of the law is an excuse to break it. What`s next- the recent Rigas convictions were part of a NHLPA plot?

Jeez. Nothing to do with ignorance of the law. I don't know why I am discussing this with you, since you don't have a clue what I am talking about.

If you can stand being a little enlightened, tax statutes are the most complex set of laws around. They are very open to interpretation. The CRA (or IRS in the US) issue interpretation bulletins all the time. There is a special court that deals with taxation disputes. In order to establish whether your particular interpretation is corerct, you can ask for an advance ruling. If you believe that the tax authorities are misinterpreting the tax rules (which are complex - see above), the way to do it is to file your taxes using your interpretation. THe authorities then take you to court to defend their interpretation and reassess your taxes. This is what Jacobs did. He lost.

Please don't make me now explain what fraud is and how it differes from the above.

So you know for a fact how much money every player was offered by every other team? You`d be doing all the fans who don`t have your connections a great service by printing what every player has been offered by every team. Please enlighten us.

Don't need to. Just look at the handsome salaries being paid by Phoenix. They all pass the smell test. No Paul Kariya's in there making way less than their comparables, to my knowledge.

 

[Leaf Lander]

the only team on the players side was the maple leafs

 

[Digger12]

Judging by the quotes in recent weeks, the players are much more angry at certain members of their own union than they are at the owners at the moment.

I'm thinking they have some major repair work to perform in house before they starting harbouring irrational grudges against their 'partners'.

 

[MeisterBruinmaker]

Fair question.

I agree with most here that players will take their best opportunity - meaning they'll weigh compensation & role/responsibility most.

That said, in some cases, without a doubt, a team's reputation in the playoffs will count. In the Bruins case, over the last 11 seasons, they have all of two playoff wins ...

But with Thornton, Samsonov, Bergeron, Boynton, Raycroft, several promising kids ready to make the step (Toivonen, Hilbert, Jurcina, Boyes) along with a boatload of cash to spend (roughly $18-20 mil), they shouldn't have too many problems convincing good players to play in Boston.

 

[reckoning]

If you can stand being a little enlightened, tax statutes are the most complex set of laws around. They are very open to interpretation. The CRA (or IRS in the US) issue interpretation bulletins all the time. There is a special court that deals with taxation disputes. In order to establish whether your particular interpretation is corerct, you can ask for an advance ruling. If you believe that the tax authorities are misinterpreting the tax rules (which are complex - see above), the way to do it is to file your taxes using your interpretation. THe authorities then take you to court to defend their interpretation and reassess your taxes. This is what Jacobs did. He lost.

Jacobs "interpretation" was that he shouldn`t have to pay tax on broadcast revenue because the satelitte was in space and therefore not subject to Massachusetts tax. If he wasn`t trying to pull a fast one and truly believed that, then he`s an idiot. Using that logic, nobody would have to pay tax on any broadcasts beamed from a satelitte. It`s not complex, it`s ridiculous. In the judgment, Chairwoman Abigail Burns didn`t call it a "simple misinterpretation", she called it absurd . In the future, you might want to check the facts before you go spouting off so you don`t look stupid.