Valderan_CA

One year tryout? Sure, he'll get that & a two year $600,000 paid vacation after that. This organization's been there. Done that. Not saying sign him for 3 years, saying give him a 1 year tryout contract unless we can find a STAR candidate for GM this offseason (Basically unless we get a Higgins/Hufnagel/Buono/Popp level of GM I would rather us keep Walters for a year and see how well he does) The only way you get anyone worth their salt to take the GM job in Winnipeg is A) you throw a tonne of cash at them AND B ) give them term. Nobody in their right mind is going to uproot their lives and come here given the mess this team is in unless you make it worth their while. Serious candidates will simply laugh at a "prove it" deal. Emphasis added to ensure clarity since it apparently wasn't obvious that I wasn't saying to try and sign a star candidate to a 1 year contract Doesn't just have to be a star candidate .. if you are offering ANYONE a deal to come to Winnipeg .. you're going to have to give them cash and term. Plain and simple. But I don't want us to hire just anyone... unless they are a star (and therefore worth offering cash and a term) I would rather ask Walters to stick around on a tryout style contract. He might say no, but it would be a good opportunity for him to get shot at GM much earlier in his career than he might otherwise get that shot and that (at least for me) for make it worth taking a short contract (it's not like he would be uprooting to come here)

If you run misdirection/crossing plays on Cauchy he WAS getting himself out of position and not providing over the top/inside support where required... They've fixed that by beating him over the head with playing back so hard that now those crossers aren't ever a risk for the safety to come down and pick off. Also the big thing that killed us was a couple of long bombs where we had guys in position on D and who just didn't make the play (especially just before the half) Cauchy has been out of position on many occasions this season, but in your description, the safety wouldn't be the one to pick off a crossing route like that even if he was in position. I'm thinking of inside post routes aren't I... didn't watch the game (radio) - were they beating us that often on those 10 yarders?

If you run misdirection/crossing plays on Cauchy he WAS getting himself out of position and not providing over the top/inside support where required... They've fixed that by beating him over the head with playing back so hard that now those crossers aren't ever a risk for the safety to come down and pick off. Also the big thing that killed us was a couple of long bombs where we had guys in position on D and who just didn't make the play (especially just before the half)

One year tryout? Sure, he'll get that & a two year $600,000 paid vacation after that. This organization's been there. Done that. Not saying sign him for 3 years, saying give him a 1 year tryout contract unless we can find a STAR candidate for GM this offseason (Basically unless we get a Higgins/Hufnagel/Buono/Popp level of GM I would rather us keep Walters for a year and see how well he does) The only way you get anyone worth their salt to take the GM job in Winnipeg is A) you throw a tonne of cash at them AND B ) give them term. Nobody in their right mind is going to uproot their lives and come here given the mess this team is in unless you make it worth their while. Serious candidates will simply laugh at a "prove it" deal. Emphasis added to ensure clarity since it apparently wasn't obvious that I wasn't saying to try and sign a star candidate to a 1 year contract

The only thing I had a problem with was doing the Sheets box before he did up his tie Save mocking the other team's td celebrations until you've beaten them, not when the game is still decidedly undecided

One year tryout? Sure, he'll get that & a two year $600,000 paid vacation after that. This organization's been there. Done that. Not saying sign him for 3 years, saying give him a 1 year tryout contract unless we can find a STAR candidate for GM this offseason (Basically unless we get a Higgins/Hufnagel/Buono/Popp level of GM I would rather us keep Walters for a year and see how well he does)

That is really too bad about Woods... damn he looked good It seemed like every time he returned a punt last game Irving called it a good punt return

What if the best candidate is a mediocre candidate at best? Unless we can hire GM with both experience in the CFL AND a proven track record of winning (there aren't many out there) I would rather sit on the position for one more year.

Really.... Hall was 12/12 in the first half of his first start (he had two drops). He was also let down by our O-Line not getting enough push for a 3 yard run play on second down seemingly ever.

I don't mind them giving him a 1 year tryout if there aren't any spectactular GM's available this offseason. I would rather them keep Walters in as GM then have them hire another Kelly.

If we look at our Canadian content - especially the stuff that has been brought in outside the draft (Kohlert, Pontbriand) it seems to me that Walters has done a very good job at that part of the GM job

This - I was really worried when I heard Kowalchuk and Swiston were in... then suddenly it seemed like the offence was working way better

It seems to me that he is not good enough to start at guard, but actually pretty serviceable at tackle. Kowalchuk wasn't great at guard though (still no inside runs available)

Cornish... can't keep him out two weeks straight right?

The Taylor park and ride is the one I take. - like you said about 15-20 minute ride to the stadium and basically no wait for a bus going to the game or coming back

Park and Ride has been fantastic for myself as well. Really well organized, you get to the game FAST on the busses with their dedicated lane. It's free and fast (I don't think I've waited on the bus more than 5 minutes before it was on it's way) I wasn't planning on getting a parking pass before using the park and ride, now I wouldn't even consider it.

Not trying to pull a fast one, they just have a boilerplate letter they send to their option year players stating they are picking up the option. Apparently that boilerplate is crappy/inadequate in expressing that intent (court's opinion)

Just me, but it seemed like our Offense worked ALOT better when we switched Swiston to Tackle and had Kowalchuk in at guard. Douglas was getting beat like a rented mule all first quarter (Every play John Chick) so he is either still not ready or just isn't able to get back from his injury. I didn't watch the game (Radio - Who else thought Penton was actually pretty decent as a color guy?) but it seemed like Swiston/Kowalchuk on the right side of the line were actually getting it done.

I thought Goltz played really well and inexperience forced something when noone got open on second down in the fourth quarter (we were down by less than a TD when he threw the first int) After that it was desperation time so anything that happened can probably be put on that. IMO - We had a bad third quarter and the team got a little desperate/made mistakes

The standard of reasonableness is held in civil courts, it's their job to determine what is and isn't reasonable, not to prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt like criminal proceedings. It's always he said she said in civil matters and it's the courts job to draw the most reasonable conclusion, which they based on the evidence provided. Exactly this. The civil courts operate on the balance of probabilities. If the chance that the Ti-cats were at fault is greater than the chance that they weren't...then the courts will rule in favour of Chris Williams. mmmm... not really relevant to this case actually. We aren't talking about an incident where an individual is seeking damages of some sort from a company due to negligence or fraud (where the balance of probabilities equation comes into effect for civil proceedings) Chris Williams is trying to have his contract with the Ti-Cats discharged A contract may be discharged by: Agreement Performance Impossibility Operation of law Breach Failure to perform Where a party suffers a loss as a result of breach of contract, they are usually entitled to recover that loss. If the party suffers no loss, they cannot receive compensation. In this case Williams is essentially arguing failure to perform/breach by the Ti-Cats by their not offering him a valid notice of enacting the option clause on his contract. He originally was arguing essentially operation of law (the existing CBA acts as a law governing how these contracts can be formed) --- Balance of probabilities is more important when you have two parties arguing about material facts and not interpretations (So if Williams said the Ti-Cats never offered him the 1+1 and the Ti-Cats said that they did you would use the balance of probabilities there) The important feature of law here is whether any of the breaches by either party are fundamental to the contract (Is negotiating with a non-registered agent so fundamental to the CBA that the breach of law involved is sufficient to have the contract discharged) In the judicial review the court found that the Ti-Cats didn`t perform their duties in informing Williams of their intent to renew his option (the court found their letter to be unclear) and as a result the Ti-Cats interpretation of Williams still being under contract was incorrect (since him remaining under contract was dependant on their informing him of their intent, not informing him is a fundamental breach)

Not really... as long as you ride safe (I.E. don't weave and don't ride at night) cars can see you from forever away and tend to take a REALLY wide path around bicycles on the highway. Combined with dual lane highways means that cars pass you with a good bit of berth (City biking is worse) As much as people drive retardedly noone wants to be responsible for killing someone with their car... I find when people are less comfortable with the conditions (higher speeds, bad weather, winter, etc) cars tend to give bikes more space and it certainly feels more safe as a cyclist (Summer biking was always more harrowing than winter w.r.t. cars since in the summer drivers sometimes seem to feel like they only need to give you a foot of space while passing at 60 km/h)

The Ruling Read sections 29 - 37, those sections detail the EXACT reason for setting aside the decision of the arbitrator. Specifically in section 31 it says the arbitrator compared the letter sent to Williams against the notice that should be sent to a new player (Appendix L) which the court says "has no application to the exercise of an option by a club." The arbitrator compared Williams letter to this non applicable Appendix and found it adequate. The court found that "the arbitrator did not grapple with the text of the letter to assess whether it clearly exercised the option." Then the court goes through the letter and finally finds "There is no clear and unequivocal language along the lines, "The Hamilton Tiger-Cats exercises its option to require you to play for another year for this club." then the court uses some legalese to throw the arbitrator under the bus and finishes "the subjective intentions of the Tiger Cats are no substitute for clarity in expressing the intention to exercise the option" --- It seems clear to me that the court is saying the arbitrator didn't look at whether the letter conveyed the requirement to tell the player the team was exercising their option to require the player to play. Instead the arbitrator compared the letter to some notice that teams must send to NEW PLAYERS (I.E. not Williams) and found that when compared to THAT STANDARD the letter was sufficient. SO - the court finding that the arbitrator conclusion of clarity was unreasonable was not saying they disagreed with the arbitrators interpretation of the contract, just that the arbitrator compared the letter against the WRONG STANDARD to conclude it was clear. I.E. Court doesn't disagree that the letter might meet the requirements of Appendix L (which is why arbitrator said the letter was sufficient). Court just determined that Appendix L isn't relevant to exercising the option year. The court then independantly reviewed the letter against what they felt was the correct requirements (clearly telling the player that the club was exercising their option to require performance of the contract) and found it lacking under that (different) standard. ----------- EDIT I should specify - The reason I think the above distinction is important is because it means that now any further rulings are not about a difference in opinion between the arbitrator and the court on the clarity of the letter. The court ruling is saying the arbitrator didn't look at whether the letter sent by Williams clearly conveyed the exercise of the option and when they look at it they found it doesn't. If the lower court just disagreed with the arbitrator we could reasonable see an appeal to a higher court just being the higher court looking at the two opinions and deciding which it thought was MORE CORRECT. Instead we are looking at the higher court having to explicitly disagree with the opinion of the lower court on one of two subjects: - Whether Appendix L was a reasonable standard to compare the letter against, which is unlikely - Whether the letter clearly conveyed that the club was exercising its right to require Williams to perform for the option year of his contract.

This, too. Don't get me wrong, obviously Williams is looking out for his best interests, it says as much in the court documents I linked to. But I just can't accept that he would knowingly and willingly accept an extension from 2 years (the initial 1+1) to 3 years after his breakout rookie season without even asking for a raise in year 3. That makes no sense, and is a clear indicator that something about this 'sign to confirm receipt of my 2013 extension letter' bit was fishy and misleading. At the very least, there was a bad mis-communication, and the onus to ensure things are done on the up and up falls to management, not the individual. An arbitrator saw things one way, the courts saw it the other. Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, court beats arbitrator. The court actually said they didn't disagree with the arbitrator, just that the arbitrator got confused and used the wrong evidence as evidence of acknowledgement of his option extension.

Really it is the CFL's fault for not following their own rules. It wasn't the CFL that wasn't following rules, it was the Ticats. This is from another article about the court ruling: Palmer was the arbitrator btw. It seems the Court disagreed about it not being enough to void the contract. Not that it wasn't sufficient or disagreeing with the arbitrator... the court ruled that what the arbitrator ruled on being evidence of the Ti-Cats picking up Williams option wasn't actually what Williams received from the Ti-Cats to pick up his contract. Basically - The arbitrator said evidence L2 showed the Ti-Cats provided sufficient notice to Williams that they were picking up his option. The court found that evidence L2 was not relevant to the discussion about providing notice to Williams because it was actually just stuff he received when he first signed the contract.

Burke's comments on his footwork being poor is basically code for inaccurate. Bad feet = bad accuracy on passes