Evander Kane

[FunkyPhin]

I don't think presuming guilt based on allegations is in any way justifiable and is a bad road to go down.I also don't think you would actually be so prideful as to lose hefty amounts of money just to lord it over critics you will never win over. That's an easy thing to say but not very believable. Especially when people that are professionals are telling you settling makes more financial sense. Why would you care if people you don't know think you're bad with money?

I mean this isn't a criminal trial, where you need proof beyond doubt. It's a civil suit, all you need to show guilt is that it is more probable than not that something occurred. Sooner or later enough lawsuits come out against someone that tip the probability scales. For me that was 3 times to assume that Kane probably screwed up, how many lawsuits would it take you? 4,5,6?



For athletes public image and reception can be huge, we've seen sports team back away from controversial players, and if Kane is looked at as a walking lawsuit that can hurt his potential future earnings, as teams may not want him apart of the org. Look at the position that the Sharks are in right now.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I mean this isn't a criminal trial, where you need proof beyond doubt. It's a civil suit, all you need to show guilt is that it is more probable than not that something occurred. Sooner or later enough lawsuits come out against someone that tip the probability scales. For me that was 3 times to assume that Kane probably screwed up, how many lawsuits would it take you? 4,5,6?



For athletes public image and reception can be huge, we've seen sports team back away from controversial players, and if Kane is looked at as a walking lawsuit that can hurt his potential future earnings, as teams may not want him apart of the org. Look at the position that the Sharks are in right now.

That’s a fallacious way to approach it. Each lawsuit stands on its own merits or doesn’t. It doesn’t change the likelihood of future lawsuits being true or not. That doesn’t make any sense to believe that and there’s no evidence to support such a thing.

We don’t know what position the org is in because we don’t know what happened and what the team’s role may have been in this being brought to court. If the org flubbed the paperwork, why would you blame Kane for it or think less of him?

 

[FunkyPhin]

That’s a fallacious way to approach it. Each lawsuit stands on its own merits or doesn’t. It doesn’t change the likelihood of future lawsuits being true or not. That doesn’t make any sense to believe that and there’s no evidence to support such a thing.

We don’t know what position the org is in because we don’t know what happened and what the team’s role may have been in this being brought to court. If the org flubbed the paperwork, why would you blame Kane for it or think less of him?

Past lawsuits can be used against an accused for the purpose of inferring guilt if they relate to the same misconduct, its called "similar fact evidence". We don't know the facts of the previous cases, they may be totally unrelated, and thus this principle wouldn't apply. But like I said, after this most recent case, I'm choosing to infer that the previous suits had merit to them and that Kane had committed wrong-doing, showing that he has some propensity to commit these kinds of acts. if you don't want to believe that, that's fine, honestly at this point we've gone back and forth ad nauseam. This is going to be my last comment on the matter we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Past lawsuits can be used against an accused for the purpose of inferring guilt if they relate to the same misconduct, its called "similar fact evidence". We don't know the facts of the previous cases, they may be totally unrelated, and thus this principle wouldn't apply. But like I said, after this most recent case, I'm choosing to infer that the previous suits had merit to them and that Kane had committed wrong-doing, showing that he has some propensity to commit these kinds of acts. if you don't want to believe that, that's fine, honestly at this point we've gone back and forth ad nauseam. This is going to be my last comment on the matter we'll just agree to disagree.

Which is presumed inadmissible with very limited exceptions. This suit that is also naming the team is regarding business loans and not a marker from a casino. Choosing to infer anything with large gaps of information seems problematic, imo.

 

[Reggae Shark]

The filling detailed liabilities of $26.8 million and assets — largely three homes — of $10.2 million. And the filing included a note that warns he may not even play this year.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

The filling detailed liabilities of $26.8 million and assets — largely three homes — of $10.2 million. And the filing included a note that warns he may not even play this year.

I just wanted to add part of the article here.

“Debtor may terminate his contract and he may opt out of the season, as allowed under current rules, because of health concerns given the recent birth of his first child,” the bankruptcy petition said. “Should he terminate his contract or opt out at a point in the season, Debtor will not receive his salary.”
The NHL opt-out deadline for the COVID-19-shortened season, which starts this week, was Dec. 24, and the bankruptcy petition is dated Jan. 9. Kane’s lawyer, Stephen Finestone, did not immediately reply for comment to clarify how Kane, who has been practicing with his team, could still opt out.

It seems strange to me as well. To mention something like this in the filing when you have been actively practicing with the team. I have backed him time and again for his off-ice concerns but its come to the point where it may be better for the Sharks to get rid of him.

 

[one2gamble]

lmao....i swear to god hes a walking stereotype sometimes

 

[DG93]

Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes

 

[Reggae Shark]

I just wanted to add part of the article here.



It seems strange to me as well. To mention something like this in the filing when you have been actively practicing with the team. I have backed him time and again for his off-ice concerns but its come to the point where it may be better for the Sharks to get rid of him.

I feel like i may have had enough also.

not playing could be just a threat. But I wonder if this means the tank is on if he is out. He certainly doesn't care about the other players on this team this year.

 

[Negatively Positive]

Time to Mike Richards him, Sharks. If they get a chance to get out of his contract, they should take it. I wanted to like him but he doesn't seem to be growing up. He could be a bad influence in the locker room.

 

[Reggae Shark]

 

[seroes]

Kane really needs to be placed on a budget.

 

[Used As A Shield]

Good lord

 

[LeeIFBB]

So can Centennial Bank play left wing?

 

[Nighthock]

I don’t see this ended well...

 

[LeeIFBB]

Little did we know that it was actually Kane's paycheck that was and will be going, "STRAIGHT TO THE BANK!"

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

The organization probably should've sent him to rehab at the start of the 2019-2020 season when he was sued by that casino. It's pretty clear that he has some serious issues that are bigger than hockey and he needs help.

 

[Lebanezer]

This is shameful, and just flat out embarrassing.

 

[themelkman]

Not even sure what to say.

 

[thethirdhockeyman91]

He needs serious Psychriatic help.

 

[FunkyPhin]

Least now we know why he was pushing so hard to fight one of the Paul brothers

 

[Mafoofoo]

Suddenly Kane trying to get a fight against the YouTube guys makes more sense...


Edit: beaten to it by funkyphin lol

 

[Levie]

I always found it odd the vitriol people have towards people who make really bad financial decisions but are incredibly supportive of those with substance abuse problems.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I always found it odd the vitriol people have towards people who make really bad financial decisions but are incredibly supportive of those with substance abuse problems.

It's mostly stemming from jealousy.

 

[Lebanezer]

I always found it odd the vitriol people have towards people who make really bad financial decisions but are incredibly supportive of those with substance abuse problems.

People seem to think one is done more consciously than the other maybe? Addiction is addiction.