Habs fire Martin; Cunneyworth named as H.C.

Hoags wrote:

NEELY wrote:
No one in their right mind will ever sign in Montreal unless they are in desperate need of an NHL job.

Cammalleri signed, and he wasn't exactly desperate for a job at the time.

That was 3-4 years ago. Not only is the tax issue in play but no one wants to go to a gong show. They may be able to turn it around in time for next summer if they fire Gauthier.

Subban and Price are due new contracts. Their happiness would be my # 1 priority if I owned the Habs.

wprager wrote:

NEELY wrote:UFA's don't go there anyways because they take home less than 1/2 of what they actually make. 48% Income tax, add on CPP, EI, other BS. Their main concern is the French, not hockey or winning... Glad they are in the Sens division for the next *** years.

No one in their right mind will ever sign in Montreal unless they are in desperate need of an NHL job.

NEELY, I know you are an accountant, so I'm a bit surprised by this. Pretty much all players have salary deferment deals in place, plus there are other schemes available to them (that most of us simply cannot afford). Playing in Montreal (or in any Canadian market) you are also more likely to make some money on the side with advertising -- unless you are a Crosby or Ovechkin, there's little chance of doing this in most US markets). Also, and I'm not exactly sure of this, but if you maintain a second place of residence and spend the off-season there, does that change your tax situation at all?

Depends. If you live in Ontario say and you work in Quebec, you pay Ontario taxes. I know for sure that someone who was playing in Montreal making around 4 mil a year got traded out West and was taking home an extra 1 mil a year. There is no benefit to signing in Montreal, none. Only hope they have is developing players within their system and they stay loyal to the team but one bad season and the media and fans always come close to driving them out, if not drive them out totally.

Also, FYI, being an accountant means very little in the tax world, I know the basic's but I deal with taxes so little it's not even worth my time to really educate myself to the point I know anything other than GST, HST/PST, and income tax brackets.

dennycrane wrote:

Hoags wrote:

NEELY wrote:
No one in their right mind will ever sign in Montreal unless they are in desperate need of an NHL job.

Cammalleri signed, and he wasn't exactly desperate for a job at the time.

That was 3-4 years ago. Not only is the tax issue in play but no one wants to go to a gong show. They may be able to turn it around in time for next summer if they fire Gauthier.

Subban and Price are due new contracts. Their happiness would be my # 1 priority if I owned the Habs.

Wouldn't worry too much about that guy. There are a ton of Subban's out there. One of the most over hyped players in a long time. One because he is black (yes I said it) two because he played for Team Canada, three because he plays in Montreal, and four because the media loves him because he doesn't shut his mouth.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

shabbs wrote:Gauthier apologizes to fans for hiring a non-French speaking Coach...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=384029

Wow. Unbelievable. Cunneyworth must feel so awesome right now, with the Habs organization tripping over itself apologizing for this.

Classless.

How can he not fire Cunneyworth now? I'm sorry I made a mistake but we're gonna live with it anyway? Cunneyworth or Gauthier have gotta go after that no?

I would think that Cunneyworth could walk away from the Habs with that hostile (racist) environment he is in.....

If they ever sign a high profile UFA again, I'll be really surprised. As if Gauthier came out and said it was a mistake, but they'll live with it for now. Good lord, Cunneyworth just walk out on that Cussing mess, no one in the entire NHL will blame you and you WILL get another HC job.

clusterdiddle.

dennycrane wrote:If I'm a free agent, I would never go to Montreal. Unless I'm terrible or injury-prone, at which point I would be overpaid.

Erik Cole definitely fits that mold.

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

shabbs wrote:Gauthier apologizes to fans for hiring a non-French speaking Coach...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=384029

Wow. Unbelievable. Cunneyworth must feel so awesome right now, with the Habs organization tripping over itself apologizing for this.

Classless.

How can he not fire Cunneyworth now? I'm sorry I made a mistake but we're gonna live with it anyway? Cunneyworth or Gauthier have gotta go after that no?

I would think that Cunneyworth could walk away from the Habs with that hostile (racist) environment he is in.....

If you mean anti-anglo bias, then that's not racism. "Anglophone" is not a race.

Technically speaking, there is only one human race... so racism as we understand it is not really racism... it would be ethnocism

wprager wrote:

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

shabbs wrote:Gauthier apologizes to fans for hiring a non-French speaking Coach...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=384029

Wow. Unbelievable. Cunneyworth must feel so awesome right now, with the Habs organization tripping over itself apologizing for this.

Classless.

How can he not fire Cunneyworth now? I'm sorry I made a mistake but we're gonna live with it anyway? Cunneyworth or Gauthier have gotta go after that no?

I would think that Cunneyworth could walk away from the Habs with that hostile (racist) environment he is in.....

If you mean anti-anglo bias, then that's not racism. "Anglophone" is not a race.

Riprock wrote:Technically speaking, there is only one human race... so racism as we understand it is not really racism... it would be ethnocism

I'm with Dash. That's how the word is generally used. If I was to say that I hate Russians, you'd technically be wrong to call me a racist, but, from a colloquial perspective, that usage is fine.

I don't agree. I agree with Dash that the term "racism" in current usage is technically incorrect. However the *usual* incorrect usage has to do with the color of skin, and not nationality. When that french player was (allegedly) called a frog it was not racist. Who even cares? If someone called an english player a limey, would anyone even bat an eyelash?

And if you say you hate Russians, I'll say wait until 9PM

wprager wrote:I don't agree. I agree with Dash that the term "racism" in current usage is technically incorrect. However the *usual* incorrect usage has to do with the color of skin, and not nationality. When that french player was (allegedly) called a frog it was not racist. Who even cares? If someone called an english player a limey, would anyone even bat an eyelash?

And if you say you hate Russians, I'll say wait until 9PM

People use the term to refer to nationalities and religions all the time.

I think that what we know as racism needs to be redefined to be something else. And even now, what we refer to as racism is broadly used to discriminate against colour, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc.

Racism and Discrimination is used interchangeably - in the colloquial sense. This is what I meant.

Number Twenty Nine wrote:Racism and Discrimination is used interchangeably - in the colloquial sense. This is what I meant.

And it shouldn't be. That's what I meant.

wprager wrote:

Number Twenty Nine wrote:Racism and Discrimination is used interchangeably - in the colloquial sense. This is what I meant.

And it shouldn't be. That's what I meant.

But it has to be. That's what Dash meant.

Riprock wrote:Technically speaking, there is only one human race... so racism as we understand it is not really racism... it would be ethnocism

Even "racism" based on skin colour isn't racism. It's discrimination. For racism to be the correct term, we need distinct races. Since those don't exist (at least, biologically), all "racism" is really discrimination.

All I'm saying is that discrimination based on language or nationality should not be described using the same term that is used to describe discrimination based on skin color. The reason is obvious. Why are we debating this? Are you seriously going to compare the disputes between the English and French (which, true, have escalated to war over the years) to what happened between the whites and people of color?

wprager wrote:All I'm saying is that discrimination based on language or nationality should not be described using the same term that is used to describe discrimination based on skin color.

I'd agree. There should be a different term. I'm just saying that "racism" is only useful in a loose usage since it's always misused.

wprager wrote:The reason is obvious.

That's an odd one. Why is the reason obvious? Why is skin colour such a relevant distinction, while religion or nationality is not?

wprager wrote:Why are we debating this?

Uh...I'm not exactly sure. Because we disagree about the usefulness of the term?

wprager wrote:Are you seriously going to compare the disputes between the English and French (which, true, have escalated to war over the years) to what happened between the whites and people of color?

I don't recall comparing those things. First of all, I only chimed in regarding the relevance of the term. That doesn't mean that I equate things. If you say that you ate a cafeteria sandwich for lunch, and I say I ate a porterhouse, does that mean that, since I used the same term (ate) for both, that I'm equating the two? A porterhouse does not equal a sandwich and French/English relations do not equal the Civil Rights Movement. They certainly aren't equal because of an ad hominem argument based on the operative word used in each sentence.

The term "racism" applies very strongly to discrimination based on the color of the skin. Because of slavery it is a *big deal*. A frenchman calling an englishman "silly english knnnnnnight" or telling him that his mother was a hamster and his father smelled of eldeberries is name calling, and I, for one, would avoid applying the name "racism" to that. I hope that makes it more clear.