Soefeia

So before getting into this, I would like to clarify a few things. To begin with, the man’s last name is Genier not Grenier. Secondly and more importantly, you did not actually ‘discover’ these tweets, did you? These are your tweets under the mlswriters Twitter account. Correct me if I am wrong but I have seen enough on here that I am reasonably confident that this forum account, mlswriters, and Pat are all the same person. And if that is the case, you realize what you are doing do you not? You are actually creating the rumours you are referring to and in the process spreading misinformation. So perhaps it is time to relax a little. And to help you relax here are a couple pieces of information. Mr Genier was not an investor, so as of this moment the potential Saskatchewan ownership simply needs to replace him. It does not change their situation except for how easily it will be to find the right person. Of course, many things are changing rapidly with many of the ownership groups so this is not to say that it is guaranteed that they will find a replacement and move forward. Secondly when ‘Rob’, potentially from Lloydminster I suppose, responds to you saying that he has not followed the situation closely, you should take it to mean that he does not know what he is talking about. I am afraid I do not know what the Saskatoon stadium situation is now as admittedly I have not had new information on it in for a couple months. But up to a point it seemed very much like it would be a go. Finally @LAK the old Taylor Field site was at least a remote possibility at one point. It may have been very remote, but the possibility was at least considered by officials in Regina.

Just keep in mind point #7. People change their minds. Unexpected hurdles pop up. Just because these names have been trademarked does not mean they will be used. But I do not think anyone here worth their salt is unaware that that is the case. And one final thing I would like to mention is that there are actually many average fans who have heard those names before being discussed in relation to their potential local CPL team. But the vast majority of them do not frequent these parts anymore, otherwise you might have some more helpful information. Regardless, I hope that information was useful to you. As I have said in the past, I completely understand the frustration at the lack of news so I think it is worthwhile to share from time to time when it seems purposeful to do so.

This is simply to clear up some of the confusion. 1. Port City is lower mainland of BC. 2. Cavalry is Calgary. 3. Neither Saskatoon nor Winnipeg are represented in the list of names that has been passed around. 4. Founders is Hamilton. 5. Calgary is as much a guarantee for year one of the league as it is possible to be. 6. Calgary - Edmonton will be a great rivalry but there are others that could be just as fierce. 7. Nothing is set in stone until it is and right now these names are not. 8. This is quite a decent tool to help you assess the quality of twitter commenters, especially those who claim to have inside knowledge. If they do not know exactly which teams these names refer to, it should suggest to you that their ability to provide solid league information is suspect as they do not have the ability to source information from many of the teams that will be involved in the league launch. 9. It is now time to return to my self-imposed forum hibernation. I hope that answered a few questions for those of you who honestly want to know and who are more interested in doing things to support the league than you are in arguing details about the league of which you do not actually have knowledge. Of course, those are not mutually exclusive.

If you are going to refute a criticism, provide some evidence to refute it. On second thought, nevermind. It was likely a hopeless task to get you to be honest with people on this forum. I suspect it would have been better of me to simply have let this go.

Considering you are not at the table, you certainly do a lot of talking. 2018 is off the table, and when that is announced the above statement will look a bit foolish. And before you respond by pointing out the business plan that you presented to the CSA, I assure you it will have little or no impact on the final product. If I don't miss my guess, they binned it. Sorry to be blunt, but this is delusion of a high order. It is wonderful that you are very enthusiastic about the upcoming league but it is important for people to stay grounded as well.

There are only so many potential reasons for that to have happened. I know those reasons, but I completely understand if you do not believe that I do as I have not provided any credentials. I will not provide any so you will just have to judge what I say as we go forward and if I continue to post. If I have at least raised the possibility that the source of the information that was leaked was not reported accurately and that its subsequent removal was not necessarily for the reasons that you concluded, then that will have to suffice. And just to be clear, I am not debating whether or not it was true information, only the way in which it was received and why it was removed. And to make one further point, this is a perfect example of why the CPL is very careful with information. Thankfully, all of this will come out eventually and you will all know the truth of the matter.

Well I do not think we are that far apart on this to be fair. I think having Paul Beirne state over and over that 2018 is the goal but if they are not ready that they will launch in 2019 and then having stated, leaked, or otherwise released information say 2018 may seem slightly misleading but is not really much of a shock. If they are aiming for 2018 why would they put anything else on a presentation? If you think that qualifies as logic falling apart then you are entitled to your opinion and I likely will not convince you otherwise. As for the disappearing information, you do not know why it disappeared and it is not at all for the reason that you think. It was a very unfortunate incident, but also a lesson in who and who not to trust.

Trust me. I could tell you stories. But I will not.

I am not even sure where to start with this. Not only have you not provided any reason for why my logic 'falls apart', you have likely, with the last point, reinforced my point rather than refuted it. I am not convinced you understand my point to be frank. However, I will give a brief response. My recollection of what McGrane said and what was reported was that the CPL was targeting 2018. What Paul Beirne has said was that they are targeting 2018 but if they are not ready then it will be 2019. No inconsistency there. I have no idea what your point is with the so called 'Halifax Papers' but they were accidentally posted on a publicly accessible City of Halifax website and were not for public consumption. If your last point about some Voyageur allegedly getting information from Steven Sandor (Am I correct that he has not confirmed that this information came from him? Am I correct that that information seemed to have been very quickly deleted?) somehow refutes the assertion that you should be careful where you get your information from, it does not. It actually reinforces it. It may turn out to be true, but you should be curious as to why it disappeared so fast.

Well I must admit you got me there. Using the word 'owed' was an extrapolation from your general tone but was not contained in the meaning of your actual words. Mea culpa. It is a possibility that releasing some more information by now would have been a wiser approach. But erring on the side of caution, especially while dealing with prickly local politicians, might yet prove to be the better strategy on their part. However, since we are on tendencies, yours is to ignore people's main points and deflect from critiques by focusing on some other minor point. One other general point not related directly to you, Blizz, is that groups wanting to use a facility on private land or in a facility already zoned for sports or entertainment have much fewer hoops to jump through in regards to establishing themselves. You have not heard much about some locations simply because they need far fewer permissions.

The language they used at the time was very careful and promised nothing in the way of an announcement. Neither did the language at the Regina event. However, it would have been very easy for Paul Beirne or one of the ownership representatives to make an error and suggest things were further along than they actually were. However, I am not aware of a single case where that has happened. I am happy to be shown to be wrong and it is unlikely that I have read everything produced, although I am not aware of anything I have missed. If you have a quote from Paul Beirne, a league representative, or someone from an ownership group that says that there was to be an announcement in 60 to 90 days, please provide it. Whether or not the CPL owes you an explanation as to why they have not announced yet is certainly up for debate. I am sure it would have been appreciated but as I alluded to before, with what they are trying to accomplish placating a few people on this message board is not foremost in their thoughts.

Which league rep are you referring to, what information was delivered, and to whom? Was the information for public consumption or was it internal? Was it leaked or was it released officially from the CPL? Which presentations did McGrane and Sandor leak (please provide links)? How is Paul Beirne flawed? Please explain.

I am very sympathetic to this. However, I think it may have been less heart rending for people to have realized the following: 1. If you have been following what Paul Beirne has said, you will have noticed that he has been incredibly careful about what he's said. From what I can tell, and I believe I've read or listened to everything that he has said on the subject, he has not yet misspoken. So far, you can take him entirely at his word. So when he says they are evaluating ownership groups over the next 60 to 90 days it does not mean that an announcement will follow. So if you got all charged up and excited and then felt let down and betrayed in September, you have only yourself to blame. 2. There are a couple good journalistic sources and a couple blogger types who are close to the action, intelligent about what they write and what they don't write, and who have been more trustworthy than others. However, you should be casting a critical eye at what they have said and not pick out that which supports your hope while discarding what does not. Everyone must admit that the last bit is way too prevalent around these parts, and most if not all have been guilty at one point or another. 3. You should beware any information from anyone who does not systematically independently confirm the information they are reporting with at least one other source. Famously, that is what kicked a lot of this off now was it not? 4. Information is very often compromised when the individual reporting it is trying to get an 'in' or takes critiques as personal attacks. I am well aware that the above points are difficult to realize in the moment.

Thanks for the explanation. For me, this is only about personalities insofar as personality's effect on truth, representation, and communication. I am not particularly interested in getting into personal battles regardless of how blunt or critical I have been. However, living in an age of misinformation where people take their gut instinct as fact, it is important to challenge people regularly lest they begin to dominate the discourse.

Is this sarcasm? Of course I'm not taking 'favourite person ever' literally, but speaking more generally it's very difficult to interpret people's text, hence the reason I'm asking.