• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Hockey Media & Business Thread

Rolex said:
Google these: Kiton and Tom Ford jeans....

300$ is rather lower end cheap luxury jeans...i wouldn't even bother getting jeans in that range....probably some Prada made in Turkey or Cambodia...
Click to expand...
"Luxury jeans" is almost an oxymoron, like "plastic silverware".
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
It's like the difference between Old Spice and Tom Ford cologne
Click to expand...
Look, some things I understand need to cost more if they're going to be good quality. But jeans? Jeans is jeans. Practically everyone you see on the street is wearing them and I can't tell a $300 pair from a $30 pair. They're just "jeans". The whole point of them is to be durable and cheap.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
Look, some things I understand need to cost more if they're going to be good quality. But jeans? Jeans is jeans. Practically everyone you see on the street is wearing them and I can't tell a $300 pair from a $30 pair. They're just "jeans". The whole point of them is to be durable and cheap.
Click to expand...
Then you have those ripped jeans hanging on by 2 threads for $ 300 , classic .
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
Look, some things I understand need to cost more if they're going to be good quality. But jeans? Jeans is jeans. Practically everyone you see on the street is wearing them and I can't tell a $300 pair from a $30 pair. They're just "jeans". The whole point of them is to be durable and cheap.
Click to expand...
Anyone with eyes can tell the difference between Old Navy jeans and Rock Revival or Wrangler from True Religion.
 
I'm not "anyone". Jeans are jeans. I barely notice them at all. And no one nearing 60 should give a damn. At that age, your primary concern with any pair of pants should be "How quickly can I get the fly undone when I have to urgently piss due to an enlarged prostate?"
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
I'm not "anyone". Jeans are jeans. I barely notice them at all. And no one nearing 60 should give a damn. At that age, your primary concern with any pair of pants should be "How quickly can I get the fly undone when I have to urgently piss due to an enlarged prostate?"
Click to expand...

you have an enlarged prostate, there are drugs for that you know...

Me, mine is totally fine, I can go all night without pissing, sorry you can't
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
you have an enlarged prostate, there are drugs for that you know...

Me, mine is totally fine, I can go all night without pissing, sorry you can't
Click to expand...
I don't have an enlarged prostate, actually, and I have a bladder like a camel. I can go through the day and only piss 2, maybe 3 times. But I know people my age who can't get through a single beer without taking a piss break halfway through. Let's just say that they aren't big fans of tight, button fly jeans for this reason.
 
will it be justice if they are found not guilty by a jury of their peers or will you claim it is only justice if they are convicted?
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
will it be justice if they are found not guilty by a jury of their peers or will you claim it is only justice if they are convicted?
Click to expand...
It will be a victory for their defense lawyers like it was in the Ghomeshi case but like Ghomeshi's tenure with the CBC, win or lose these players will never eat lunch in this town again, hockey-wise. They'll need to ply their trade in the KHL because they're never seeing the inside of an NHL dressing room.

We all know they did it and that this was far from the first time junior players under Hockey Canada's supervision have done stuff like this. If this were a one off, HC wouldn't already have had a legal slush fund/hush money account set up to sweep these incidents under the rug. This is systemic and institutionalized, not an outlier.

People need to be punished.
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
a nice dodge so basically they are guilty and even if they aren't they are,,,
Click to expand...
They may be found not guilty but that doesn't make them innocent. The courts only care about the narrow legal definition of guilt. But people found not guilty are by no means considered innocent. That's why the ruling says "not guilty" instead of "innocent". They are not the same.

We know enough about the rot at the centre of Hockey Canada's executive to know this incident happened and that these players are rapists. Like I said, you don't establish a hush money slush fund if the players are spending their free time watching TV or reading the Bible.

It is also fair to say that none of these players will ever work again as hockey players in any North American league since most businesses don't enjoy being the target of boycotts and none of these players are talented enough to warrant the effort.

But the bottom line is people aren't that stupid as to think that a not guilty verdict in court means much of anything in a rape case. They did it, we know they did it, and the court of public opinion has already convicted and canceled them no matter what happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top