Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
So the Sabres have to abide by the negotiated CBA but the player doesn't and can work outside of the contract he signed? Wouldn't the second an injunction is granted allow the gloves to come off and it frees either the league or the team to take action against the player. It definitely allows the team to act within the rules of the CBA and suspend the player at minimum. Don't you think the Sabres likely have data in regards to the value that Eichel has brought in ticket sales and memorabilia sales, and they could extrapolate to make their argument and determine potential damages? Reputation is always tough to argue on (especially Buffalo's) but if they can determine possible lost revenues as a result that is that not a clear definition of possible damages?
|
It would be an awfully fun case to defend. I wonder how many lapsed STH's they could call-on to explain their personal consumer behaviour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
Obviously I meant stakeholders. It's a private corporation.
|
Do stakeholders send angry emails threatening to sell shares, as you say below?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
Suddenly stakeholders are going nuts, sending emails threatening to sell their shares etc etc... what would happen? There'd be an emergency board meeting, your ass would be fired, and the CFO would be bumped up and put in charge of recommending your replacement. It wouldn't happen at the end of the fiscal year either, or after some grace period designed to not make you look bad. You'd be on your ass the next morning.
/rant
|