HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > Canadian Junior Hockey > OHL

Windsor Spitfires completely deny all accusations put forward by OHL

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-18-2012, 06:01 AM
  #101
halloffame
Rookie User
 
halloffame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SW Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ward Cornell View Post
Just saying they're not employees!....so I guess I agree with your p.o.v.!
(I'm assuming they don't collect it and I've never heard this question ever asked in regards to athletes)
yes they are employees i checked the local CRA office, all teams are businesses if they receive a stipance its considered pay and they do pay taxes-

halloffame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 02:00 AM
  #102
krazy kanuck
Registered User
 
krazy kanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyma View Post
Really? I'm interested in hearing your argument that the Spitfires wouldn't have come back to defeat the Rangers in that series without Fowler.

Even if the Spits didn't come back, I'm sure the Rangers would have brushed aside the Colts in the league finals that season - much like Windsor did.
He had two assists in game 7, including one on the insurance goal. Who knows what happens if he isn't in that game. Pretty simple argument really. It's not like he was the 7th defenceman who got 2 minutes of ice time. Perhaps the Rangers tie it up and go ahead, perhaps they don't. Either way we'll never know. It's odd to suggest, as was previously posted, that the Spitfires would have definitely won the OHL Championship without Fowler.

The Rangers may very well have swept away the Colts as well, though I have no idea how that particular point is germane to this conversation. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

krazy kanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:55 PM
  #103
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,610
vCash: 500
Just saw this on twitter...

Sunaya Sapurji ‏@sunayas
The #OHL has lessened the sanctions faced by the Windsor Spitfires as a result of their breaking the league's player recruitment policy.

Does anyone know anything else?

ETA:

Sunaya Sapurji ‏@sunayas
The Spitfires' fine was reduced to $250K & they will lose 1st round picks in 2013 & 2016, 2nd round picks in 2015 & 2017. #OHL

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 12:19 AM
  #104
krazy kanuck
Registered User
 
krazy kanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
Sunaya Sapurji ‏@sunayas
The Spitfires' fine was reduced to $250K & they will lose 1st round picks in 2013 & 2016, 2nd round picks in 2015 & 2017. #OHL
The story is on the OHL website. Basically the Spitfires concede they were in violation of the rules, and Branch went a little easier on them because they co-operated. Too bad he didn't make them pull down the 2010 banner. That's what the NCAA would have done...

krazy kanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:21 AM
  #105
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Straight Shooter
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,213
vCash: 500
I guess Boughner and Rychel just needed some time to "remember" they broke the rules...after all..when this thread was opened they COMPLETELY denied any wrong doing.

I feel they owe their fan base a formal apology. You don't claim innocence from the get go and then just admit you did everything. Your fans stood behind you...you owe them that much.

PhlyerPhanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:45 AM
  #106
Ward Cornell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,234
vCash: 500
So they bribed players to come to Windsor then they needed to bribed to admit to it?



Ward Cornell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 09:15 AM
  #107
PhlyerPhanatic
Moderator
Straight Shooter
 
PhlyerPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A19
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ward Cornell View Post
So they bribed players to come to Windsor then they needed to bribed to admit to it?


Nice

PhlyerPhanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 10:17 AM
  #108
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ward Cornell View Post
So they bribed players to come to Windsor then they needed to bribed to admit to it?


Good one

Clever- Ward

hockeylegend11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 10:54 AM
  #109
Percyma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 72
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy kanuck View Post
He had two assists in game 7, including one on the insurance goal. Who knows what happens if he isn't in that game. Pretty simple argument really. It's not like he was the 7th defenceman who got 2 minutes of ice time. Perhaps the Rangers tie it up and go ahead, perhaps they don't. Either way we'll never know. It's odd to suggest, as was previously posted, that the Spitfires would have definitely won the OHL Championship without Fowler.

The Rangers may very well have swept away the Colts as well, though I have no idea how that particular point is germane to this conversation. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
I think it amusing that you can surmise about what would have happened if Fowler was not on the Spitfires that season and for that play-off series in particular and you take exception to my ability to surmise as well.
Yes, Fowler did indeed play a ton of minutes for the Spitfires. Perhaps if he was not in the lineup his minutes would have been eaten up by the likes of Ryan Ellis, Mark Cundari or Ben Shutron. Any of these play-off grizzled veterans may haver performed as well or even better than Fowler in his absence. Very simple argument in response.

The Rangers were brought into my previous statement as they gave the Spitfires a better fight in the post-season than your Colts did. Again, just as you do, I reserve the right to speculate too.

Percyma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 04:35 PM
  #110
youngblood10
Registered User
 
youngblood10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy kanuck View Post
The story is on the OHL website. Basically the Spitfires concede they were in violation of the rules, and Branch went a little easier on them because they co-operated. Too bad he didn't make them pull down the 2010 banner. That's what the NCAA would have done...
You can bet your last dollar had Branch taken away the 2010 banner that this wouldn't have ended as nice and clean as it did. The league didn't want to go through the appeal process for a reason. Even had the board up held the decision in the proceedings to do so the biggest can a worms the world has ever seen would have been opened.

The buying of championship argument is bs any way. Shawinigan payed off a group of the CHL fat heads that paved the way for a Memorial Cup title just as another team will do this year and the years after that.

youngblood10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:27 PM
  #111
krazy kanuck
Registered User
 
krazy kanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngblood10 View Post
You can bet your last dollar had Branch taken away the 2010 banner that this wouldn't have ended as nice and clean as it did. The league didn't want to go through the appeal process for a reason. Even had the board up held the decision in the proceedings to do so the biggest can a worms the world has ever seen would have been opened.
Biggest can of worms the world has ever seen? I think that's an overstatement. USC was stripped of its 2004 National Football Title for similar reasons with Reggie Bush. There are almost as many fans at a single USC game as half a season of Spitfires hockey. The world would have gone on...

krazy kanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 12:51 PM
  #112
FanningTheFlames
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 32
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy kanuck View Post
Biggest can of worms the world has ever seen? I think that's an overstatement. USC was stripped of its 2004 National Football Title for similar reasons with Reggie Bush. There are almost as many fans at a single USC game as half a season of Spitfires hockey. The world would have gone on...
Obviously not the biggest can of worms the world has ever seen, but the Spitfires are only guilty of doing what any number of other clubs have been doing too. Take away their banners, and you would have to do that to other clubs as well. And that entails inquiries and commissions, and yeah, that is a big can of worms to the OHL and CHL in general.

FanningTheFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 01:50 PM
  #113
CharlieGirl
Registered User
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanningTheFlames View Post
Obviously not the biggest can of worms the world has ever seen, but the Spitfires are only guilty of doing what any number of other clubs have been doing too. Take away their banners, and you would have to do that to other clubs as well. And that entails inquiries and commissions, and yeah, that is a big can of worms to the OHL and CHL in general.
I presume you have a link with undisputable proof that other teams have done what Windsor got caught doing? Good luck with that.

You'll find all kinds of rumours and insinuations, and not a shred of proof. And only if another team gets busted by the league can anyone say Windsor wasn't alone.

Why is that concept so friggen' difficult for some fans?

CharlieGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2012, 07:54 PM
  #114
krazy kanuck
Registered User
 
krazy kanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I presume you have a link with undisputable proof that other teams have done what Windsor got caught doing? Good luck with that.
Of course they don't Charlie Girl. Moreover, other than Windsor, what teams have this long record of wooing away top level American prospects? SSM? Sudbury? Kingston? Owen Sound? Sarnia? London perhaps, but that's it. And like you say, no evidence against them thus far. At least they went to the trouble of hiring parents to try to get players to report...

krazy kanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2012, 08:34 PM
  #115
OHLTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 3,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I presume you have a link with undisputable proof that other teams have done what Windsor got caught doing? Good luck with that.

You'll find all kinds of rumours and insinuations, and not a shred of proof. And only if another team gets busted by the league can anyone say Windsor wasn't alone.

Why is that concept so friggen' difficult for some fans?
It's not that the concept is so difficult, but unrealistic. I can't believe Windsor is the only team in the league that has offered more to a player than regulations allow. I think it's naive to think Windsor is the only team just because they're the only ones who have been punished. My guess is others have done it, but have hidden it very well.

OHLTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2012, 08:50 PM
  #116
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,787
vCash: 500
I love holier-than-thou Kitchener fans the best. At least London fans are realistic about things - but not Kitchener fans. Oh I wish that certain player wouldn't have balked at the last second from signing the written statement he had already verbally admitted to.

Ottomatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 08:33 AM
  #117
Ward Cornell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
I love holier-than-thou Kitchener fans the best. At least London fans are realistic about things - but not Kitchener fans. Oh I wish that certain player wouldn't have balked at the last second from signing the written statement he had already verbally admitted to.
How so....just because of a bunch of internet chatter makes things true?
Yes, there may have been other teams doing the same but it's hasn't been proven. There's a huge difference in saying "may" to "100% for sure" other teams are cheating.
Until caught, these other teams "may" be cheating!
Or do you believe that until proven innocent all teams are guilty?

Ward Cornell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 08:47 AM
  #118
CharlieGirl
Registered User
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHLTG View Post
It's not that the concept is so difficult, but unrealistic. I can't believe Windsor is the only team in the league that has offered more to a player than regulations allow. I think it's naive to think Windsor is the only team just because they're the only ones who have been punished. My guess is others have done it, but have hidden it very well.
I agree that the chances of other teams doing something similar are very good - but until another team is caught, no one can say for certain that they have. All kinds of insinuations and rumours and "I heard blah blah blah" does not equal proof. Maybe other teams cleaned up their acts after the 2009 changes. Maybe they didn't. At this point in time, the only thing we know for absolute certain is that Windsor broke the rules, admitted it, and have been punished for it.

CharlieGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 08:58 AM
  #119
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ward Cornell View Post
How so....just because of a bunch of internet chatter makes things true?
Yes, there may have been other teams doing the same but it's hasn't been proven. There's a huge difference in saying "may" to "100% for sure" other teams are cheating.
Until caught, these other teams "may" be cheating!
Or do you believe that until proven innocent all teams are guilty?
So if I break into your house and steal some stuff I'm not guilty of doing it because I'm not caught and eventually found guilty?

OJ Simpson is innocent than?

You can live in denial all you want if it makes you feel better about yourself as a fan of Kitchener. Kitchener did the exact same thing the Spitfires were caught for. And they were damn close to getting busted for it.

Ottomatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 09:02 AM
  #120
Ward Cornell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,234
vCash: 500
^^ What's so difficult to understand????? Geesch!
It's all internet chatter about other teams, just because you suspect other teams doesn't make them guilty.
If I suspect you breaking into my house does it make you guilty?? ( I hope it doesn't)

GOOD GRIEF...simple concept!

Do i suspect other teams were cheating...probably.
Am I 100% sure that I can label them as cheats?...No!


Last edited by Ward Cornell: 10-01-2012 at 09:07 AM.
Ward Cornell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 09:34 AM
  #121
CharlieGirl
Registered User
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
So if I break into your house and steal some stuff I'm not guilty of doing it because I'm not caught and eventually found guilty?

OJ Simpson is innocent than?

You can live in denial all you want if it makes you feel better about yourself as a fan of Kitchener. Kitchener did the exact same thing the Spitfires were caught for. And they were damn close to getting busted for it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/

proof   [proof]
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.


con·jec·ture    [kuhn-jek-cher]
noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

Maybe now you can see and understand the difference.

CharlieGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 09:48 AM
  #122
RayzorIsDull
Registered User
 
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
I love holier-than-thou Kitchener fans the best. At least London fans are realistic about things - but not Kitchener fans. Oh I wish that certain player wouldn't have balked at the last second from signing the written statement he had already verbally admitted to.
It's quite funny. Of course this rule was just instituted to catch the Windsor Spitfires. The heck with the fact this rule was instituted in August of 09 and there had to have been an impetus to make this move seems like a lot of people ignore that part. So what was the impetus for instituting this fighting rule did the league just institute this rule or was the impetus having Ty Bilcke rack up 35+ fighting majors. Have to love the Kitchener fans some of the worst I have seen.

RayzorIsDull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 10:06 AM
  #123
CharlieGirl
Registered User
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayzorIsDull View Post
It's quite funny. Of course this rule was just instituted to catch the Windsor Spitfires. The heck with the fact this rule was instituted in August of 09 and there had to have been an impetus to make this move seems like a lot of people ignore that part. So what was the impetus for instituting this fighting rule did the league just institute this rule or was the impetus having Ty Bilcke rack up 35+ fighting majors. Have to love the Kitchener fans some of the worst I have seen.
Please show me where one Kitchener fan has said that the team is lily white and where there is no possibility that others in the league have done anything wrong.

CharlieGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 10:07 AM
  #124
BenchedGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic
I love holier-than-thou Kitchener fans the best. At least London fans are realistic about things - but not Kitchener fans. Oh I wish that certain player wouldn't have balked at the last second from signing the written statement he had already verbally admitted to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayzorIsDull View Post
It's quite funny. Of course this rule was just instituted to catch the Windsor Spitfires. The heck with the fact this rule was instituted in August of 09 and there had to have been an impetus to make this move seems like a lot of people ignore that part. So what was the impetus for instituting this fighting rule did the league just institute this rule or was the impetus having Ty Bilcke rack up 35+ fighting majors. Have to love the Kitchener fans some of the worst I have seen.
Actually, a bunch of us have been saying that we wouldnt be shocked if we were one of the next teams to have a ruling against us. BUT, its innocent until proven guilty. I don't think Kitchener went down that road for many reasons (recuitment, STH as shareholders,....). Of course every team is going to feel the same way, I would imagine that some teams even cleaned up their act in '09 when the heard there was a watch dog.

And yes, rules get put in place to fix a problem. Was the new fighting rule because of Windsor...probably not but who knows. My question would be, would Windsor had the same results if Bilcke wasn't in the lineup those years? Is it a really big loss to reduce fighting?

BenchedGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 10:26 AM
  #125
RayzorIsDull
Registered User
 
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchedGuy View Post
Actually, a bunch of us have been saying that we wouldnt be shocked if we were one of the next teams to have a ruling against us. BUT, its innocent until proven guilty. I don't think Kitchener went down that road for many reasons (recuitment, STH as shareholders,....). Of course every team is going to feel the same way, I would imagine that some teams even cleaned up their act in '09 when the heard there was a watch dog.

And yes, rules get put in place to fix a problem. Was the new fighting rule because of Windsor...probably not but who knows. My question would be, would Windsor had the same results if Bilcke wasn't in the lineup those years? Is it a really big loss to reduce fighting?
My point was just to say rules get put in place to fix a problem. I don't think the league suddenly instituted the rules because Windsor was getting real good players. It had to do far before Rychel and Boughner got to Windsor. There were some owners crying poor and wanted to try and even the playing field. This has been going on a long time and Windsor happened to be caught.

RayzorIsDull is offline   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 02:27 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.