Carty Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 Messier's contract included a clause that would compensate him based on any increase in value of the franchise over the course of the decade following the start of his contract from 1997 to 2007... An arbitrator has awarded him 6 mil... http://www.canada.com/sports/hockey/canucks-hockey/Mark+Messier+awarded+million+arbitrator+former/7036933/story.html Messier gets the last laugh on this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 They owed him because he gave that team the credibility they've since lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 They owed him because he gave that team the credibility they've since lost. It was actually the opposite. Signing Messier was the single biggest mistake a Canucks GM ever did. It took the team a few years after he left to climb back to respectability. That was probably the hardest check Aquillini ever had to write. Thanks McCaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted August 6, 2012 Report Share Posted August 6, 2012 Is Mark Messier the most hated ex-Canucks of all time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zirakzigil Posted August 6, 2012 Report Share Posted August 6, 2012 That sucks for the team. What a crazy thing to have written in a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted August 6, 2012 Report Share Posted August 6, 2012 What a crazy thing to have written in a contract. Vancouver is now paying for the "name" they wanted all those years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 Is Mark Messier the most hated ex-Canucks of all time? Yeah, and it's not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 Down Goes Brown has a take on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted August 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 Down Goes Brown has a take on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stranger Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 A million for each of his Stanley Cup rings...atta boy Mess..!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAce Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 It was actually the opposite. Signing Messier was the single biggest mistake a Canucks GM ever did. It took the team a few years after he left to climb back to respectability. That was probably the hardest check Aquillini ever had to write. Thanks McCaw. In most business purchases there are clauses written in that any salaries, bonuses, lawsuits, etc that have happened during the time of the previous owner will be covered by that owner and not the new one. Im sure Aquillini had his team of lawyers go over every possible situation before submitting a Purchase Agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 Yeah, and it's not even close. The money owed to Messier proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he rescued your guy's sorry franchise, at least, from a financial standpoint. So, shouldn't he be liked? Or, is my comment too troll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 The money owed to Messier proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he rescued your guy's sorry franchise, at least, from a financial standpoint. So, shouldn't he be liked? Or, is my comment too troll? Not really, no. What saved the Canucks financially was canning Keenan and not letting his tenure go on any longer, on top of a young exciting team with Naslund/Bertuzzi/Jovanoski that Burke built around. And not to mention actually winning some hockey games and making the playoffs. Messier did nothing good in his time here. Any increase in franchise value during his time here had nothing to do with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKscout Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Gonna play a the little troll and tinfoil hat cards together here but from what I read the way it worked is that any increase in value in the 10 years after his arrival cut him a cheque. So that said then it's notable as well that he's pulling a salary when he's there so the really nice kicker is that he can continue to draw "pay" when he's gone. So from that perspective is it possible that he tanked it out either subconsciously or on purpose to drive down the team value while he was there and drawing pay. The reason being is that the team would bounce back on value (thus increasing its value) when he leaves. That way he draws salary and then a maximum potential return on the value clause. It's either that or something in the water didn't agree with him because the years he spent in Vancouver were some of the worst healthy years of his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL44 Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Gonna play a the little troll and tinfoil hat cards together here but from what I read the way it worked is that any increase in value in the 10 years after his arrival cut him a cheque. So that said then it's notable as well that he's pulling a salary when he's there so the really nice kicker is that he can continue to draw "pay" when he's gone. So from that perspective is it possible that he tanked it out either subconsciously or on purpose to drive down the team value while he was there and drawing pay. The reason being is that the team would bounce back on value (thus increasing its value) when he leaves. That way he draws salary and then a maximum potential return on the value clause. It's either that or something in the water didn't agree with him because the years he spent in Vancouver were some of the worst healthy years of his career. Definitely too much tin foil on this one... It's not like the guy bounced back to prominence after he left Vancouver... he was just done. went back to they city he was adored, and retired in peace. His drop off from PPG pace unfortunately coincided with with his arrival here... he turned 37 his first yr here... what did people really expect? plus you give him too much credit for thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Gonna play a the little troll and tinfoil hat cards together here but from what I read the way it worked is that any increase in value in the 10 years after his arrival cut him a cheque. So that said then it's notable as well that he's pulling a salary when he's there so the really nice kicker is that he can continue to draw "pay" when he's gone. So from that perspective is it possible that he tanked it out either subconsciously or on purpose to drive down the team value while he was there and drawing pay. The reason being is that the team would bounce back on value (thus increasing its value) when he leaves. That way he draws salary and then a maximum potential return on the value clause. It's either that or something in the water didn't agree with him because the years he spent in Vancouver were some of the worst healthy years of his career. He gets money for increasing the value of the team. So, why would he tank it to pull down the team's value? Because even if it went back up after he leaves, it might only go back to the level it was at prior to his arrival. It makes no sense whatsoever. Only a complete moron would do that. So in other words, i think you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKscout Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 He gets money for increasing the value of the team. So, why would he tank it to pull down the team's value? Because even if it went back up after he leaves, it might only go back to the level it was at prior to his arrival. It makes no sense whatsoever. Only a complete moron would do that. So in other words, i think you're right. ROFL ... I know right... they call me crazy. Yeah, Yeah I am Crazy ..... Crazy like a Yak! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulstad Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 ROFL ... I know right... they call me crazy. Yeah, Yeah I am Crazy ..... Crazy like a Yak! Just so long as you don't get to HappyCat levels of crazy. We'd have to do to you what we do to him...lock him in his pet carrier and strap him to the back of the Bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alicenchains Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 Yeah like someone already mentioned after he left the Canucks his numbers in New York weren't great either nor was the team 97 was the last year Messier say the playoffs despite playing 7 years after that. So I'm sure there is some correlation to his lack of numbers to playing on a crappy team as well. The Canucks just sucked with or without a ageing Messier. Imagine if his contract was until 2012 he would really have hit the mother load cause I'm sure since 2007 the Canucks value has probably gone up 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Just so long as you don't get to HappyCat levels of crazy. We'd have to do to you what we do to him...lock him in his pet carrier and strap him to the back of the Bandwagon. At least we didn't make him ride in the trailer with the Canuck fans. Somehow they got out after we chained the doors shut & left them in the Glendale parking lot. Nobody ever goes there. ______________________________________ BTW, didn't you just have a b/day? If I'm right, Happy belated Birthday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulstad Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 BTW, didn't you just have a b/day? If I'm right, Happy belated Birthday. I did, October 14. And thank you :-). Ripe old age of 41 now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.