Randolph Appeal and Article

LSandA
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 9:25 pm

Re: Re:

Post by LSandA » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:04 pm

Hey Rudy, or is it Randolph?<br><br>Regardless of if and when Randolph is re-instated, don't try to take pot shots at the current staff and players. To say that you know for a fact that some current players want Randolph back, but are afraid to voice an opinion for fear of affecting their playing time is a flat lie. This years East team played a four line rotation all year with five D's and gave all three goalies several fair chances before they settled on the rotation. The team played 14 seniors, 8 juniors, and 2 sophmores and got within two goals of the state finals.The coaching staff was extremely fair and supportive of all their players. The fact that you have the nerve to take a jab at Landon or Mathison is sad. Mathison came all the way up in the East program and played very well this year. Landon evolved into a reliable and strong winger and a great team leader as a senior. You may not like what they have to say, but they are saying it for a reason. Additionally the word on the street is the East team is rallying around team Wentworth, and will present a letter directly to the school board. This is without any kind of solicitation from the current staff or a steering comittee. The hard, cold fact is Landon's and Mathison's team this year had the best record for the past five years with a new staff. This year's player's really are the only truly qualified ones to speak. Many of the guys from the previous year's team who some of you claim had no talent. How can you be so stupid? You should probably go post on a basketball site. The difference between the current staff and Randoph is the current staff will not play politics to keep a coaching job. They realize the program is about the players, not the coaches.<br><br>Randolph will be reinstated. Hoever the only reason he will be reinstated is because he lowered himself to playing politics. One may of thought he would of taken his lumps like a man, just like all the kids he cut for 15 years had to take their lumps. Are great coaches suppose to play politics?...I don't think so. Pretty pathetic stuff. the current staff should just resign and give the baby his job back....then all the wimpering and political crap will finally end. <br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

goalie91
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:06 pm

No Talent?

Post by goalie91 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:08 pm

Cloquet98, If you have been following that program you should know about teams with no talent. Cloquet is known for hard work not talent. With the obvious exceptions.I think the East team from 2003 had a lot of talent. It just took awhile to jell as a team.They had quite a few players who should be playing college hockey very soon. Jacques, Dalhberg, Knutson,P. Johnson, C. Johnson, R. Johnson,and Maida to name a few. I'm sure Cloquet thought with Randolph gone it would be easier for you. Guess you were wrong. <p></p><i></i>

cyozzie36
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 4:15 pm

LSandA and the Bandwagon

Post by cyozzie36 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:25 pm

LSandA--<br>Inform us a little on why you are a memberof the anti-Randolph campaign. You seem bitter (calling a man a baby) and I'm wondering where it's coming form? Also, I have yet to see any writer on this topic write about a players talent, like you are claiming? Rudy, offered points that have some fact behind them I believe. Yes, he like I, are biased because we played for him and believe in him as a coach. Please realize that we also both played for this years staff and noone is downgrading or questioning them or their accomplishments. I can truly speak for him but it seems we all want the system to be just and for Randolph to recieve what he deserves and earned. <br><br>If Randolph has done something horribly wrong, which doesn't seem to be the case we would admit he shouldn't be coaching. I have not lived in Duluth since high school but my contact along with what I've read tend me to firmly believe this was a witchhunt by people to get rid of him. That is not right. <br><br>The hockey world in the East End of Duluth is competitive and people will not always be happy so instead of getting a man removed why not challenge your son to work harder and improve. Kids will get cut and a coach will always put the team he feels will get the job done on the ice. If playing the game is all that matters their exist opportunities to play that don't involve an East sweater. Parents have long worn rose-colored glasses in regards to their kids. Most parents believe their kid will be the next Spehar, Angell, Coole, Wheeler, Licari but not every high school athlete goes on to college sports. In fact most don't, just like most college athletes career ends there, but to gather support to get rid of a man who has given so much for no apparent real reason is flat out wrong.<br><br>Like I said before, I've written enough......................for now. <p></p><i></i>

packerboy
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:51 am

4 lines

Post by packerboy » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:28 pm

LS, I dont get the significance of the fact that East ran 4 lines last year. So what? If Randolph was fired because of politics, is it OK because the new coach has a differnet philosophy about involving everyone at the high school level? (which is fine with me) <br>Should coaches who play only 3 lines be axed by trumped up charges and politics and then be replaced by people who share our opinions about playing time? <br><br>I think 1. He was treated poorly by people who had it in for him <br>2.Whats done is done and he should move on and not be reinstated because the program needs to heal. (What, next election Wentworth is back in?)<br>3. Wentworth did great job but how many lines he plays shouldnt mean anything in this discussion <p></p><i></i>

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN

Give me a break

Post by east hockey » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:30 pm

"The fact that you have the nerve to take a jab at Landon or Mathison is sad."<br><br>And the fact that you try to imply that Rudy is Randolph is moronic. <br><br>Speaking of identities, I'm only aware of two people in this thread who've made their identities known. Who? I'll give everyone a hint who <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>not</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: LSandA. Interesting how some hide behind a nickname in a Message Board. Let me do a check on your IP and see where you're posting from. You don't mind, do you? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Also, Rudy didn't take pot shots at Mathison any more than you have at Randolph. Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you? <br><br>14 seniors and they made state. Wow. Want to see a real coaching job, look at what Randolph did the season before, coaching a team with little experience and still getting them to state in what was a much tougher 7AA. Not to hammer Todd and his staff, but East went to state this past season from a section which was as weak as it had ever been. I'm actually surprised they lost as many games as they did during the season. So spare me the "best year they've had in five years" garbage. From a coaching standpoint, it wasn't even close.<br><br>Also, I noticed that you didn't register here until the night <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>after</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> East defeated Grand Rapids to get to the State Tournament. Way to wait until you had something to crow about, newbie.<br><br>As someone who has been supporting East hockey since probably before you were born, I'm not impressed by someone showing up at the last minute and trying to cry foul about the School Board trying to right a wrong created by Laurie Knapp, a small group of disgruntled hockey parents, and a School Board which used to be led by a guy who had a personal axe to grind with Mike. <br><br>Of course a Mars-led Board did the right thing. After all, it wasn't a firing, it was a "contract not being renewed". Makes all the difference here, right Iwo3? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... s/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Lee <p></p><i></i>

cyozzie36
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 4:15 pm

Re: LSandA and the Bandwagon

Post by cyozzie36 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:54 pm

Lee- I know that you deleted the post I was replying about with a long reply that coudn't be posted but is their a way that my reply could be put on and I will take out the aspects directed to dropdamitts. I felt it was worth talking about on this topic. If not I understand and I appreciate you deleting his post but it took me a while to write that reply. <br>By the way I hope all is well and Hawaii was great. <p></p><i></i>

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN

Re: LSandA and the Bandwagon

Post by east hockey » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:58 pm

Once I've deleted a post, no way to get it back that I'm aware of. He started the post by referring to Mike in a manner which was possibly insulting enough to get him banned (which he accomplished with a subsequent post), but I don't know what he said other than that. <br><br>Mitch, once a post is gone, it's gone, right?<br><br>Thanks, ozzy...Hawaii was fantastic. Still trying to work up the ambition to post some pics and a review to my website.<br><br>Lee <p></p><i></i>

cyozzie36
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 4:15 pm

Thanks

Post by cyozzie36 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:06 pm

Lee--<br>Thanks. Its funny because in my reply to him I said I'm sure you just got yourself banned for attacking me. Character thats for sure. I just though some might have enjoyed reading about my take on recruiting, cutting seniors for 8th graders, wreath sales, and players playing football. <br><br>Oh well though no biggie if it comes back up I can write about it again.<br>Later <p></p><i></i>

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN

Re: Thanks

Post by east hockey » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:09 pm

Oh man, I think the rest of my neurons just reconnected...are you saying that one of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>your</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> replies was deleted? Cause if that's the case, Mitch would have done it unless I really got click happy. I know I deleted two of his posts but thought that was all I'd nuked.<br><br>Lee <p></p><i></i>

packerboy
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:51 am

Lee's opinion

Post by packerboy » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:15 pm

Lee, you know my views on this thing. I think the guy was poorly treated and a few political hacks used their office to settle some old scores.<br><br>But, as a Duluthian and a longtime East supporter,what do you think the outcome should be? Assuming the new politicians would have him reinstated. <p></p><i></i>

cyozzie36
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 4:15 pm

Re: LSandA and the Bandwagon

Post by cyozzie36 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:16 pm

Lee--<br>Yep, I was writing a reply and when I hit "Add reply" the next screen that came up was that either the post I was repling to was deleted or mine was. I know I was done writing it and tried to post it but it wouldn't work and then I tried going back but by then my message was gone. I am by no means a computer guru so who knows. Not a biggie but it was long and I thought one of my better posts.<br>Oh well. Thanks though. <p></p><i></i>

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN

Re: Lee's opinion

Post by east hockey » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:37 pm

packerboy, I really don't know. I mean, how unpredecented would this be? I've never heard of a high school coach lose their job and then get it back a year later through any kind of political process. Certainly not in as visible a program as East Hockey and absolutely not in the case of someone as well known as Mike Randolph (by the way, those who insist on spelling it "Randolf", here's a quarter...go buy a clue)<br><br>Oh, this is going to set off all kinds of crap (assuming that Mike gets reinstated and it looks probably right now, by at least a 4-3 vote). Scenario One has East not doing as well as last year. "See!!" Mike-bashers will scream, "we told you they were better off with Todd!!". Never mind the fact that they graduate 14 seniors...Mike-bashers never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, as I've seen.<br><br>Scenario Two has Mike reinstated but he says "thanks, but no thanks" (someone suggested this earlier and I'm too lazy to go look up who this was), in a "I just wanted my name cleared" type of thing. I give this scenario <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>very</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> little chance, but I've been wrong before when it comes to East hockey.<br><br>Scenario Three? One of the four votes many of us assume is a "yes" turns out to be a "no" and the whole issue is dead. I can almost see that happening (Grover? Akervik?). Then everyone including Mike moves on.<br><br>What do I think <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>should</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> happen? It's a year late and his name has already been dragged through the muck; give him back his job. Set parameters. Get it down on paper <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>exactly</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> what the expectations are. Review this every season. Be consistent. <br><br>But you know what? Something tells me that Laurie Knapp will try to have Mike removed again; you know full well that his bashers will redouble their efforts. And <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>that</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> speaks more to what the whole atmosphere out there in the East End can be like than anything else. It's been ugly and it could get even uglier.<br><br>I dunno; like I said, there simply is no precedent for this. It's a weird, almost eerie situation.<br><br>Lee <p></p><i></i>

cyozzie36
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 4:15 pm

Grievance?

Post by cyozzie36 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:04 pm

Lee--What about your take on the grievance process? It would seem to me he has a great shot at winning this. Anytime a teacher applies for a position they should get it before someone from outside the district. If nothing wrong was found than his application should have been valid and given the job because he was the only teacher that applied, I believe.<br><br>That itself tells me their are people out for him because it would seem to me that principals and adminstrators should or would want to help out a member of the union and a teacher. You really have to have an issue with someone when you aren't willing to give a teacher the break. Teachers don't make enough anyways and when you have one willing to step up and do a lot more for youth adn not make nearly enough than they shoudl be rewarded. Just another take and perspective. I would love to see the school board hold off until the grievance goes through, unless they believe that they messed up in the past which is very possible and if that is the case then they should vote before the grievence to right the wrong. <br><br>It will be interesting but I would imagine Coach would take the position back if he is offered it. Than we will see if the team truly doesn't want him back by transferring or open enrolling elsewhere. Who knows?<br><br>Also--can you give us your take on things pre-Randolph compared to the Randolph years and even the Wentworth year if you can. I think it may add value to this thread.<br>Thanks. <p></p><i></i>

Eddie Shore
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 8:38 am

Re: Grievance?

Post by Eddie Shore » Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:19 pm

Ozzie-<br><br>In a Star Tribune article this morning, it stated that the Duluth Federation of Teachers has proposed a scenario which would pave the way for Randolph's reinstatement. It also states taht the school board may choose to accept the proposal, thereby eliminating the need to formally vote him in.<br><br>It seems the buzz is that the propoasal is being made because the arbitrator's ruling is set to go in Mike's favor. <br><br>By the way, East hockey pre-Randolph was a circus. The final year before Mike came on board (Art Amundson was the coach), a senior dominated (maybe 14 or 15 seniors) team led by Sean Hill lost something like nine games and lost in the first round of the playoffs. That was considered a run-of-the-mill season. East would have great success at the youth levels and then almost never advance past the first round of the playoffs. Lee may be able to lend more insight to this trend. <p></p><i></i>

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN

Re: Grievance?

Post by east hockey » Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:22 pm

Eddie, thanks for the update on the grievance status.<br><br>You also pretty much summed up with one word what went on pre-Randolph; circus. Not that Bourdeau, Amundson and Hill were bad coaches but there was just something missing. The talent was there, as you said, achieving some good success at the lower levels. Then, they'd get to East and it'd be an ongoing pattern of coming up short. Underachieving, if you must call it that. Hey, folks like me got used to it. Take a look, starting with the season after their 1975 State consolation championship:<br><br>1976 thru 1978--lost to Mounds View (Sec 2 finals)<br>1979--lost to Irondale (Sec 2 finals)<br>1980--lost to Denfeld (semis)<br>1981--lost to Cloquet (quarters)<br>1982--lost to Denfeld (first round)<br>1983--lost to Cloquet (quarters)<br>1984--lost to Cloquet (first round)<br>1985--lost to Anoka (finals)<br>1986--lost to Denfeld (quarters)<br>1987--lost to Roseville (finals)<br>1988--lost to Denfeld (quarters)<br>1989--lost to Cloquet (first round)<br><br>As I said, we just got used to post-season failure. A lot of people don't know the history here; East has been to State nine times in the past fourteen seasons, so it <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>seems</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> like their success dates back to the Stone Age. Keep in mind, too, that those teams which came up short from 76-89 weren't exactly losing to exceptional teams, either. Section 2 didn't win a single state championship during those years. The Mounds View team which beat East in the '76 finals and went to the State Tourn. as an undefeated team? Lost their first game at State. And so on. Section 2's record in the championship bracket between 76-90 was 9-15. I remember thinking when they realigned the sections after the 1973-74 season "good, now we don't have to get past the Range schools anymore" and that was a correct feeling. The Range had been absolutely dominating the Duluth area schools in the Region 7 tournament. <br><br>But anyway, those years were ugly. You kept waiting for something to happen to derail their season, and it always happened. Mike had a ton to do with changing that and it carries through to today. For that, he deserved better than what he got. <br><br>Lee<br> <p></p><i></i>

cyozzie36
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 4:15 pm

Re: Grievance?

Post by cyozzie36 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:45 pm

Thanks for the great updates. As I felt from the beginning, it seemed a wrong was done. Glad to hear things are looking up for the Randolph camp (not that any of us are anti-Wentworth in any way). If everything goes according to what Star Trib had to say that would be great news taht due process came through and people should not have to worry about others with personal issues and vendettas.<br><br>Lee- You do amazing background work and its appreciated. Definately showed the years of futility pre-Randolph, especially because you know their was talent ther, though I do know that cathedral was a dominant player in the past in Duluth and could have taken some talent from East. <br><br>Anyways thanks for all the updates and I would imagine their will be more debate in the near future which will be fun.<br> <p></p><i></i>

txhockey
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 12:14 pm

Re: '89 team

Post by txhockey » Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:09 pm

the '89 team was Randolphs first year. i think that was his learning experience because he changed our routine two days before the playoffs. plus, he had us shadow a very sick derek plante (i think he had like a 102 temp and was throwing up on the bench). among other reasons, we felt like he let us down. we heard all about how he was pretty mcuh the reason the denfeld teams got to state. but i will say this, he did do alot for that team with his famous saying - "I'll give you the recipe", the problem, he did not follow his own recipe that first round loss to cloquet. still haunts me every fricken valentines day.<br><br>btw - Todd Wentworth, great job this year. i coached with him, did not agree all the time, but he does a great job.<br><br>GO HOUNDS! <p></p><i></i>

wild77
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:54 am

Communication

Post by wild77 » Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:17 am

I read an opinion piece authored by Mary L Cameron, chairwoman of the Duluth School Board, in the Duluth News Tribune this morning (Friday). It was lengthy and well written. The purpose of the article, IMO, was to detail why she supports the rehiring of Mr. Randolph. She listed 6 points of the dismissal that disturbed her. The points or aspects as she called them were printed in bold and are<br>Survey not shared, Activity director excluded, Athletic grievance process irregularity, No Activity council review, No Administrator-coach meetings, and Statement of Ethics problem.<br>Ms. Cameron pointed out in her last point that "The National Association of Secondary School Principals Statement of Ethics for School Administrators says: "The educational administrators supports the principle of due process and protects the civil and human rights of all individuals." She continues "It does not exclude hockey coaches. Due process in the work place involves examining the problem with the employee, spelling out corrective action, clearly explaining to the employee the consequences of failure to follow the plan of action, executing the plan and monitoring plan execution progress."<br>After reading the article I found it ironic that a hockey coach was let go without any real communication from his superiors, without a corrective plan of action, or without the chance to review all evidence compiled against him. Perhaps if Mr. Randolph gets his job back he can be revolutionary and implement due process into his preseason tryouts. I know it wouldn't be long before ALL hockey coaches adhered to the "principles of due process", communicated performance problems with each potential hockey candidate, and worked out a corrective plan of action to ensure the civil and human rights of the student athlete. Wow, wouldn't it be something? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub33.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUser ... >wild77</A> at: 4/16/04 7:28 am<br></i>

cyozzie36
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 4:15 pm

Link

Post by cyozzie36 » Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:35 am

Here is the link to Mary Camerons article. Makes it seem there were people out for Randolph thats for sure.<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/dulut ... 445431.htm" target="top">www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribun ... <!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

packerboy
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:51 am

the cure will kill you

Post by packerboy » Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:18 pm

Lee, I agree. There is no way graceful way out. Randolph was wronged but to correct that wrong creates a whole new set of issues and wrongs that may have even more sever negative consequences.<br><br>If we are interested in the overall well being in the program, maybe reinstatement isnt the way but thats easy for me to say. <p></p><i></i>

Duluthhockeyfan
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 2:18 pm

bad situation

Post by Duluthhockeyfan » Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:37 pm

Well I believe that the accountablitiy of this issue should be handled at the level in which it started. The administration is the one that decided to not renew without following its own policy. Shouldn't they be the ultimate ones responsible for all this. I heard School Board member Laura Condon speak of how this is a subject that is taking up the time of the board when there are more pressing issues, ie money, and building issues. How much money did this decision cost the district in leagal fees, before and after the abritrator. If this was handled in a better, or the right way from the get go, it wouldn't have lingered for over a year. <br><br>I do think it is an unfortunate thing that Wentworth will be out after all this, I think he really wanted to continue on with the tradition and success of the program. Again who's fault is it that the players, will have to re-adjust to a new coach, well, I think it comes back to the administration.<br><br>Mike deserves to get his job back, and he deserves to go out on his own terms. Are there people who won't like it? Yes! Are there people who just don't like him? Absolutly. However I think it is obvious from everything that has gone on the past 13 months, from the rallied support at the start, to the outcome of the previous school board election, there is a great majority of people who do want him there. <br><br>Finally, when he was fired there was a tremendous outpouring of supporters who began to work very hard for him to get his job back. All along we have heard that there is an even larger group who wants him out. My question is where are you now? I think you are mostly all to coward to step forward and say who you are now that you can't hide behind the deception, and lies anymore. It would have probably been easier for you all to prove your cases if you had the guts to come out from behind your annomous letters, ie "Deep Throat".<br><br>As far as Mike getting it back and saying he doesn't want it or he is going to go a different direction, that is crazy. Mike has integrity and he would not do that to all the people who put their neck out on the line for him. He has show class through this whole ordeal. If he wasn't thinking about the kids, he would not have waited till the season was over to take care of his grievence, which he did. He did not want to take focus away from the kids, and what they were doing.<br><br>I hope the program continues to grow and improve, and that we can all get on with our lives.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

cloquet98
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:24 pm

Goalie 91

Post by cloquet98 » Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:39 pm

didn't mean to offend last years team, but I was just quoting what Coach Randolf himself said on John Gilberts morning program that the'02/'03 year was his best coaching effort ever because he had a team with little or not talent and got them to State, I am not saying I agree with him that is just what he kept saying over and over again to Gilbert. I agree with you they had some very good players, I don't know why Randolf didn't see it that way. <p></p><i></i>

cloquet98
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:24 pm

duluth hockey fan

Post by cloquet98 » Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:49 pm

Couldn't agree with you more on Coach Randolf's integrity. I am little bit away from the Duluth politiccs but i have heard all the stories how Randolf built a 70,000 addition to his house from wreeth money and Larry trashel owned the wreath company and still got kick backs and they had secrect accounts that only they controlled. Frankly I really don't believe any of it. Why would so may people support a guy like that if it was true. They would have to all be complete idiots. <p></p><i></i>

Brooke Jr
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:38 pm

Is there two sides to this issue?

Post by Brooke Jr » Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:38 pm

I just find it interesting that nobody has considered the fact that Mike’s contract was not renewed yet he went and applied for the exact same position that he was let go from. If this were the “real” world, his application would be laughed at right into the recycling bin. The simple fact is that not having your contract renewed happens everyday in the business world.<br><br>I am neither for nor against Mike. I have only heard Mike’s point of view. I am looking forward to the East High School Administration telling their side of the story. With every issue, there are two sides of the story. It seems like many people have forgotten that. Do you really think the administration would put themselves on the line and make such a controversial decision if the didn’t have all their ducks in a row? Mike may be reinstated because the school board likes him, but does that mean that is the right thing?<br><br>I think the biggest part of the picture keeps being ignored - the Team. Mary Cameron specifically stated (in a private conversation) that she would NOT talk to the kids. Why? Is she scared of what she will hear? Maybe the kids do not want Mike back. Would bringing Mike back be the right thing to do if the kids did not want him back? Maybe we should start think about the kids first.<br><br>Lee, why are you so concerned who everyone is. LsandA obviously knows the game of hockey and follows East closely. He/she made some good points that you may not have agreed with because it is obvious you are not objective but I think you banning him/her is a little extreme. I have actually spoken with several people this morning who have tried to post messages and they were deleted immediately. Is this an discussion forum or a Pro-Mike forum?<br><br>And yes, go ahead and attack me for being a newbie also. Maybe people (such as myself) read the forum just to keep current and to get people’s opinions but then see a lack of objectively and try to bring a different side of the story to the table. I don’t mind if you search for my IP either. I am entitled to my opinion. Ever heard of free speech?<br><br>Kevin Oswald, your lack of objectivity is shocking. Never saw this side of you!<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub33.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUser ... ejr>Brooke Jr</A> at: 4/16/04 9:32 pm<br></i>

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN

Re: Is there two sides to this issue?

Post by east hockey » Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:06 pm

"Lee, why are you so considered who everyone is"<br><br>Is that a sentence or a question??<br><br>"LsandA obviously knows the game of hockey and follows East closely. He/she made some good points that you may not have agreed with because it is obvious you are not objective but I think you banning him/her is a little extreme."<br><br>He/she <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>wasn't</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> banned. Where did you read that?<br><br>"Kevin Oswald, your lack of objectivity is shocking"<br><br>Yes, but you're trying to put on airs that you <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>are</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> objective. I'm not buying into it.<br><br>"I have actually spoken with several people this morning who have tried to post messages and they were deleted immediately"<br><br>One person had two of his messages deleted. The second one which was deleted also warranted banning of the person for reasons which, quite frankly, are none of your business.<br><br>Try again.<br><br>"Ever heard of free speech?"<br><br>Ever hear of defamation of character? I'm not saying that you're guilty of this but a few could have been subjected to a lawsuit in the past over the Mike Randolph issue. As I've said before, all too easy to hide behind an anonymous nickname on a Message Board and talk trash about Mike. I think this was mentioned by another person but most of those on the anti-Mike side are basically cowards who don't want to step forward and publically identify themselves, and they aren't exactly short of "reasons" why they don't want to be identified by name. Go figure.<br><br>Lee <p></p><i></i>

Locked