HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > Canadian Junior Hockey > OHL
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

Windsor Spitfires completely deny all accusations put forward by OHL

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-13-2012, 11:17 AM
  #51
BenchedGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHLTG View Post
To the same extent that one cannot say things would have changed if one player was removed from the line-up (unless that player is Dale Mitchell, then Windsor probably doesn't beat Rimouski).
Not entirely, problem is that things would definitely be different removing one player, let alone two potential players (without knowing said players). Things could have gone worse....or better. One will never know, but they would have definitely been different.

BenchedGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:26 PM
  #52
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Noob Magnet
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ward Cornell View Post
You're 100% correct on Fowler!!


But IMHO you're wrong on the other part on one player not making the difference......who's that one player that made the difference?









...Trevor Cann!
I guess it goes with the position??
Yes...one player LOST that series...but a team won it

PhlyerPhanatic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 09:09 PM
  #53
4 Bobby ORR
Registered User
 
4 Bobby ORR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchedGuy View Post
I have a bit of a problem with with people saying that one player wouldnt have made a difference. One player creates a ripple effect, one that could have gone either way good or bad.

For arguements sake, lets take out Fowler (using Windsor as the example). There is a hole now in the lineup. They fill that hole with "X" player. Does that player have the same skill set? Does that player make that same pivotal decision in one play that could have turned a tide in one game? Does that game alter the series?

In turn, does that player create the same chemistry with his D partner or other players on the ice? What about the chemistry in the dressing room?

There are so many factors one player or one decision make on a team. And for those naming the rest of the roster and that it's not possible, you can not say that. You don't know which player(s) may be traded to acquire "X" player to fill that hole. Maybe other players that stay are asked to do more and can not handle the task.

All's I am saying is that you can not make claims that things would have been the same with any alterations to the roster or its makeup/chemistry.
With Fowler coming to the Spits, if I recall, Blacker wanted more ice time but that was not going to happen so he asked for a trade. I would say that there would not have been a void.
For argument sake, let's assume that we had no Fowler but Blacker would have remained on the team- the defense would have been Ellis, Cantin, Blacker Cundari, Young & Dunnick. Now we don't know if the outcome for that season would have had a different, but is still a pretty deep group of defensemen. Personally, I don't think the results would have been that much different.
As for the chemistry...........

4 Bobby ORR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 09:36 AM
  #54
BenchedGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4 Bobby ORR View Post
With Fowler coming to the Spits, if I recall, Blacker wanted more ice time but that was not going to happen so he asked for a trade. I would say that there would not have been a void.
For argument sake, let's assume that we had no Fowler but Blacker would have remained on the team- the defense would have been Ellis, Cantin, Blacker Cundari, Young & Dunnick. Now we don't know if the outcome for that season would have had a different, but is still a pretty deep group of defensemen. Personally, I don't think the results would have been that much different.
As for the chemistry...........
The whole point is Windsor fans saying we would have won anyways. The Spits may...or may not have won. When you change one thing on a team its going to be different. It could be better or could be worse, but its not going to be the same. If Blacker is not traded, does an injury happen to him at the beginning of the season??? Who knows, just things would be different. For some of the fans saying that they were still a championship team, maybe they might have been but stop looking past what your management team has been accused of (and punished for). You dont know if your team would have been the same on and off the ice.

If it was Kitchener, then I would be upset with the management group and expect them to follow the rules (even if I didnt agree with them).

BenchedGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 10:50 AM
  #55
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Noob Magnet
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchedGuy View Post
The whole point is Windsor fans saying we would have won anyways. The Spits may...or may not have won. When you change one thing on a team its going to be different. It could be better or could be worse, but its not going to be the same. If Blacker is not traded, does an injury happen to him at the beginning of the season??? Who knows, just things would be different. For some of the fans saying that they were still a championship team, maybe they might have been but stop looking past what your management team has been accused of (and punished for). You dont know if your team would have been the same on and off the ice.

If it was Kitchener, then I would be upset with the management group and expect them to follow the rules (even if I didnt agree with them).
How do we know this involves a player that the Spitfires outbid everyone else to get? Everyone is speculating that the Spitfires bought so and so and thus kept him out of everyone else's hands and threw the small budget teams out of the mix. How does anyone know that's even the case. They broke the rules of the " League’s Player Benefit and Recruitment Rules and Policies"..that's all it says. How do we know that player hadn't already been drafted by the Spits and they just over ponied up and overstepped the boundaries of player compensation? We don't...so we can't start saying the team would have been different without said player. It could be that said player was already there..but compensated over and above the set limits.

PhlyerPhanatic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 11:17 AM
  #56
BenchedGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyerPhanatic View Post
How do we know this involves a player that the Spitfires outbid everyone else to get? Everyone is speculating that the Spitfires bought so and so and thus kept him out of everyone else's hands and threw the small budget teams out of the mix. How does anyone know that's even the case. They broke the rules of the " League’s Player Benefit and Recruitment Rules and Policies"..that's all it says. How do we know that player hadn't already been drafted by the Spits and they just over ponied up and overstepped the boundaries of player compensation? We don't...so we can't start saying the team would have been different without said player. It could be that said player was already there..but compensated over and above the set limits.
Sure, we can say alot of things but who says that player would have been there without overstepping the boundaries too.

And yes, we can say things would be different. You take it all the way back to Management of the Spits. If they were caught, then this was a practice that they had done or just started. Their philosophy of recuiting players/ attracting players would have been different. Their mindset was different. It goes back to the first cog that started this infraction. So yes you can say it would be different. Again, I am not saying better or worse, just different.

BenchedGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 11:26 AM
  #57
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Noob Magnet
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchedGuy View Post
Sure, we can say alot of things but who says that player would have been there without overstepping the boundaries too.

And yes, we can say things would be different. You take it all the way back to Management of the Spits. If they were caught, then this was a practice that they had done or just started. Their philosophy of recuiting players/ attracting players would have been different. Their mindset was different. It goes back to the first cog that started this infraction. So yes you can say it would be different. Again, I am not saying better or worse, just different.
It's possible their recruiting practices were 100% inline with the league mandate, but their compensation packages were the only thing that overstepped the rules. Which is why I say...said player could have already agreed to play for the Spits, but they ponied up too much compensation and broke the rules of reward if you will. It's possible the only rule they broke was handing out gold education packages like Halloween candy and then trying to hide those packages. I'm not disputing their guilt.

PhlyerPhanatic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 11:32 AM
  #58
BenchedGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyerPhanatic View Post
It's possible their recruiting practices were 100% inline with the league mandate, but their compensation packages were the only thing that overstepped the rules. Which is why I say...said player could have already agreed to play for the Spits, but they ponied up too much compensation and broke the rules of reward if you will. It's possible the only rule they broke was handing out gold education packages like Halloween candy and then trying to hide those packages. I'm not disputing their guilt.
Ok, I can concede that is one scenerio. However, there are many more scenerio's as to how things would be different for them compared to one maybe two that would not alter there roster or philosophy's. Again, this is all speculation without knowing the exact infraction or even the players involved. But the chances are their roster would have a different look than what it did.

edit: On second thought, even if mgmt was just giving out gold packages and trying to get away with it, if they played by the rules then they would have had to change their roster to accomidate another gold package. So I guess, yes you can say it would have a different look.


Last edited by BenchedGuy: 08-14-2012 at 11:34 AM. Reason: second thought
BenchedGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 01:16 PM
  #59
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Noob Magnet
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Rumour out another team is about to be tagged

PhlyerPhanatic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 01:30 PM
  #60
Petes1
Registered User
 
Petes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyerPhanatic View Post
Rumour out another team is about to be tagged
Not that I don't believe you, but why wouldn't they have been announced at the same time? They obviously didn't investigate another team in the past 4 days. I would think the league would want this to all come out at the same time, spreading this out over weeks makes it harder for the league to get past it and move onto the positives, like the upcoming season.

Petes1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 02:02 PM
  #61
OHLTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 3,826
vCash: 500
The OHL rarely hands out punishments in a way that'd make sense.

OHLTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 04:02 PM
  #62
4 Bobby ORR
Registered User
 
4 Bobby ORR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 178
vCash: 500
I realize that Branch is trying to keep a tight lip of the players involved but how is he suppose to do that with the appeal happens. The Spitfires will surly need to know the names to present their case. Has Branch finally shot himself in the foot?
..._|\__________________,
../ `----(=) ) ]___________|
./_==o ______________|
...),---.(_(__) /
..// (\) ),----".'
.//___//
`-------`
It will be interesting to see how this all plays.

Maybe he reduces the penalty to keep the players anonymous?
Who knows, you never know with Branch.

4 Bobby ORR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 04:17 PM
  #63
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Windsor's mayor is looking to potentially get involved since the Spits are the major tenant in the WFCU center to the point it's almost a partnership between the Spits and the city. If Spits owners don't sue for information, I wouldn't put it past the city to do so - especially if this costs us the Memorial Cup hosting gig in 2014.

Branch and the OHL wanted an new arena in Windsor for years - and we finally built one on the tax payers dime but only with certain promises made. One of them was the understanding that we'd host the Memorial Cup (if we had the team on the ice).

Ottomatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 04:22 PM
  #64
aresknights
Registered User
 
aresknights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: london
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4 Bobby ORR View Post
I realize that Branch is trying to keep a tight lip of the players involved but how is he suppose to do that with the appeal happens. The Spitfires will surly need to know the names to present their case. Has Branch finally shot himself in the foot?
..._|\__________________,
../ `----(=) ) ]___________|
./_==o ______________|
...),---.(_(__) /
..// (\) ),----".'
.//___//
`-------`
It will be interesting to see how this all plays.

Maybe he reduces the penalty to keep the players anonymous?
Who knows, you never know with Branch.

I'm Sure the Spits already know who it was and what the league penalized them for. The don't have to agree with it but they know the who's what's wheres

aresknights is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 04:58 PM
  #65
aresknights
Registered User
 
aresknights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: london
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHLTG View Post
The OHL rarely hands out punishments in a way that'd make sense.
Now that's something I think most fans can agree on

aresknights is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 08:04 AM
  #66
CharlieGirl
Get well soon Kimmo
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
Windsor's mayor is looking to potentially get involved since the Spits are the major tenant in the WFCU center to the point it's almost a partnership between the Spits and the city. If Spits owners don't sue for information, I wouldn't put it past the city to do so - especially if this costs us the Memorial Cup hosting gig in 2014.

Branch and the OHL wanted an new arena in Windsor for years - and we finally built one on the tax payers dime but only with certain promises made. One of them was the understanding that we'd host the Memorial Cup (if we had the team on the ice).
I'm sure the Spits have the details on the players and situations that resulted in the fines. The league has chosen not to divulge that information to the public. I hope the team chooses to do the same.

CharlieGirl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 08:26 AM
  #67
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Noob Magnet
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post

Branch and the OHL wanted an new arena in Windsor for years - and we finally built one on the tax payers dime but only with certain promises made. One of them was the understanding that we'd host the Memorial Cup (if we had the team on the ice).
So what you're saying is Windsor and the OHL are allowed to cook up a deal to host the CHL's most lucrative event on a monetary level...just don't grease the palms of your players. Gotcha

PhlyerPhanatic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 09:51 AM
  #68
Raisy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I'm sure the Spits have the details on the players and situations that resulted in the fines. The league has chosen not to divulge that information to the public. I hope the team chooses to do the same.
Normally I would be ok with the league witholding the names of the players that the infractions relate to; however in this case it seems that since the names were not released people keep speculating and dragging potentially innocent players throught the mud.

Raisy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 10:00 AM
  #69
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Noob Magnet
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,949
vCash: 500
To me the names are irrelevant. It doesn't need to be personalized to appease the fans. What does need to be broken down is how they overstepped the boundaries of the rules. To say.."they broke the rules and it involves multiple infractions" really says nothing. Most fans just want to know what they did wrong.

PhlyerPhanatic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 10:11 AM
  #70
Ward Cornell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyerPhanatic View Post
So what you're saying is Windsor and the OHL are allowed to cook up a deal to host the CHL's most lucrative event on a monetary level...just don't grease the palms of your players. Gotcha
well done!

Yeah....Branch took their money then he asked them after for even more payola to exceed Eugenes!
Sometimes fans and a teams just have to admit to the facts!!

Ward Cornell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 10:51 AM
  #71
BenchedGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyerPhanatic View Post
To me the names are irrelevant. It doesn't need to be personalized to appease the fans. What does need to be broken down is how they overstepped the boundaries of the rules. To say.."they broke the rules and it involves multiple infractions" really says nothing. Most fans just want to know what they did wrong.
I agree, names are not necessary. It would be nice to know how the overstepped but maybe in doing so then that also narrows down the players implicated. For example if its to do with imports and potential payments there, then the players would be named.

BenchedGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 03:32 PM
  #72
Kingpin794
Lucky 13
 
Kingpin794's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Freeland, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
One thing that hasn't really been brought up is the fact that players aren't breaking any rules by taking these improper benefits. The management are the ones that are breaking the rules by making the offers. This bothers me because it leaves no accountability for the players. Even though these are still kids we are talking about, I have to believe they aren't stupid and they know that accepting these offers is wrong on some level. Not having accountability on both sides hurts the integrity of the game. That's why I'd like to see suspensions get handed down to those that accept the improper benefits. Maybe somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 games if found guilty.

I don't know, maybe that seems a little harsh but to me it is necessary. What do the rest of you think?

Kingpin794 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 03:48 PM
  #73
Crottenham
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingpin794 View Post
One thing that hasn't really been brought up is the fact that players aren't breaking any rules by taking these improper benefits. The management are the ones that are breaking the rules by making the offers. This bothers me because it leaves no accountability for the players. Even though these are still kids we are talking about, I have to believe they aren't stupid and they know that accepting these offers is wrong on some level. Not having accountability on both sides hurts the integrity of the game. That's why I'd like to see suspensions get handed down to those that accept the improper benefits. Maybe somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 games if found guilty.

I don't know, maybe that seems a little harsh but to me it is necessary. What do the rest of you think?
How do you penalize players who have already graduated? Also, if you penalize the players what avenue do you have in obtaining evidence....no-one will talk, ever.

Crottenham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 04:02 PM
  #74
Kingpin794
Lucky 13
 
Kingpin794's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Freeland, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crottenham View Post
How do you penalize players who have already graduated? Also, if you penalize the players what avenue do you have in obtaining evidence....no-one will talk, ever.
If the player has already graduated you could (although very extreme) do like the NCAA did with USC and Reggie Bush. Just ban the team from the post season for a year since that player is no longer there to be suspended.

As far getting evidence goes, it's not like they haven't been able to get any. The OHL found a way to get evidence against Wind$or so I'm sure they can get evidence when they need it.

Kingpin794 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 04:08 PM
  #75
CharlieGirl
Get well soon Kimmo
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingpin794 View Post
If the player has already graduated you could (although very extreme) do like the NCAA did with USC and Reggie Bush. Just ban the team from the post season for a year since that player is no longer there to be suspended.

As far getting evidence goes, it's not like they haven't been able to get any. The OHL found a way to get evidence against Wind$or so I'm sure they can get evidence when they need it.
You're suggesting penalizing a player for doing nothing wrong. The players, whoever they are, have not broken any OHL/CHL rules. Why on earth would you suspend an active player or penalize a current player for what an alumni has done?

CharlieGirl is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.