Jump to content

The Arbitrator decision (Hooper vs CSA)


loyola

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Me don't think so Fan. Pellerud and Kerfoot are so far away from the CSA & the OBC it's a blessing & a good sign for the WNT program.

IMO the only reason the WNT performance will suffer going forward is that they are not prepared due to the lack of CSA support. I say this being Group 3 supporter who realizes it's time to move on as the paperwork hit the table & a decision was made.

This may not be the case here for all of us but I really wish the best for all the parties as they move in their different directions. I feel we accept that unless things change but the goal is to move forward in supporting them on their new paths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Coachrich "IMO the only reason the WNT performance will suffer going forward is that they are not prepared due to the lack of CSA support. I say this being Group 3 supporter who realizes it's time to move on as the paperwork hit the table & a decision was made."

but I think Pellerud and Kerfoot are pretty close to the CSA.

There are separating commas Mattack.

"The insufficient evidence presented by the Claimants and the lack of response by the Respondent together with possibly a weak handling by the Claimants' lawyer failed the test of probability in front of the Arbitrator. That does not mean the coach and manager were without guilt. It just means it was not proven if one existed."

Clearly stated by "the ref"

The proof is in the pudding.I think my culinary references are quite tasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by fan

Good point Coachrich "IMO the only reason the WNT performance will suffer going forward is that they are not prepared due to the lack of CSA support. I say this being Group 3 supporter who realizes it's time to move on as the paperwork hit the table & a decision was made."

but I think Pellerud and Kerfoot are pretty close to the CSA.

There are separating commas Mattack.

"The insufficient evidence presented by the Claimants and the lack of response by the Respondent together with possibly a weak handling by the Claimants' lawyer failed the test of probability in front of the Arbitrator. That does not mean the coach and manager were without guilt. It just means it was not proven if one existed."

Clearly stated by "the ref"

The proof is in the pudding.I think my culinary references are quite tasty.

Key words, "if one existed".

Doesn't our whole system depend on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...