Valderan_CA

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

It wasn't voided because he signed without a registered agent - the court seemed to agree with the arbitrators decision that the breach of the collective bargaining agreement caused by signing without a registered agent wasn't fundamental to the CBA contract and therefore would not void the contract

Not actually... The court ruled that the letter the Tiger Cats sent to Williams to exercise their right to force him to play out the option year in his contract was insufficient per the terms of the contract he signed initially. Essentially at the start of a player's option year the player's team must send a letter to the player telling them that the team is exercising its option to keep the current contract valid for the rest of the year. The letter the Ti-Cats sent was, per the court's opinion, vague in that intent and THEREFORE the Ti-Cats did not adequately meet that requirement of the contract they signed with Williams. --- Basically this won't affect any other teams if their boilerplate letter to the players to inform them that the team is going to renew their contract for the option year isn't as shitty as the Ti-cats boilerplate is.

Khari was fun to watch

Well if Goltz gets hurt early at least we'll see the reps for Simpson we wanted earlier in the season

Consider what the coaches are seeing in practice as well

The Winnipeg Blue Bombers have released import receiver Isaac Anderson and non-import kicker Justin Palardy. --- I guess BlueAndGold is going to lose it

Jon Cornish

Rays of sunlight... nope Bob Irving ‏@BobIrvingCJOB 18m Looks like smoke on the bomber practice field--just another reminder of the black cloud over this team. Irving in a bad mood today?

Interesting... Cauchy must be hurting our defense more than we know if they are already looking at going IMP at that spot That or we go Cauchy at S for plays where we have a all IMP DLand Smith at S when we put an NI on the line

Chris Garrett and our Defense playing LIGHTS OUT won us that semi-final.

BISHOP, M TOR 185/355 52.1% 2920 22 TD 11 INT 87.5 QBR only played like 12 games - Projecting these numbers over 18 4400 yards 33 TD's 17 INT's Compared to Pierce in 2011 261 411 63.5 3,348 92 14 3.4 18 4.482.0 I can't remember how many games Pierce missed in 2011... I think he played like 16 games or something amazing like that I'd rather have Bishop from 2007 than Pierce in 2011

In my opinion, if we had stuck with Michael Bishop in 2010 instead of signing Buck Pierce, this team would be in a better situation right now. I actually don't disagree with this... You should, because it's ridiculous... IMO Bishop was a back-up for a long time, during that period everyone said he was dumb as a brick but had an awesome arm. HOWEVER - I only really see him as having one year where he was in a good situation - 2007 (been with the team awhile, in a scheme that suited his skills, etc) - He was something like 3000 yards 22 td-11 ints having only played 12 games (he got injured on a freak play) 2002-2005 - He was getting used to the Canadian game... 2006 he looked like he might have potential 2008 was a **** show in SSK - he came in to a completely new system halfway through the year (and performed at least somewhat well...) 2009 - Who didn't look like a total ******* idiot in Kelly's system? He did, however, win us some games (I still remember the play where he called the long TD pass to Edwards to the opposing D before the snap and completed it anyways... hilarious) My big problem with Bishop was that he seemed to be really hot/cold and obviously is not a possession style QB (his accuracy does not do Dink/Dunk style schemes) - Build a big play offense around him that uses his arm strength and ability to run... I think he could have been a real decent QB for the Bombers

In my opinion, if we had stuck with Michael Bishop in 2010 instead of signing Buck Pierce, this team would be in a better situation right now. I actually don't disagree with this...

Wonder why Hamilton cut him in may?

First half of last game Hall was basically 12/12 (his passes on the Matthews Drop and Poblah Drop were both VERY catchable) Only 3 drives ended up as punts: -One where Simpson rushed for 0 yards and on second down Hall was forced to scramble - I don't know if anyone got open before Hall could have found them. -When Matthews dropped a catchable pass for a 1st down - a drive where we couldn't get 2 yards running on second down. --- I'm pretty sure the SAM blitz where he got flattened and lost the ball should have been slowed by our RB although I guess if he had stepped into the pocket he might have dodged it - After that point he just wasn't playing quite the same. all in all the first half I thought Hall looked pretty damn good... just some miscues from OTHER PEOPLE on offense stopped us from scoring any points.

Sheets

524 yards of offense and not a single rushing td...

My picking the running back playing Edmonton strategy just got stronger! Seriously that sucks for him... One of the few bright spots on that team

Bob Irving ‏@BobIrvingCJOB 21m Expect sandro deangelis to kick for the bombers on friday. Is Palardy hurt?

In hindsight it looks like we would have made out like bandits trading Glenn for Matthews

^this... Nobody ever said Hebert wasn't a good tackler and didn't have an ability to shed blocks (he was always recognized as a DEMON on special teams) Montreal's defense almost has their WIL playing as a 5th Dlineman (and their safety as a 6th, and their SAM as a 7th) - I guess you could say they are playing a defensive game plan that emphasizes a player like Hebert's strengths and masks his weaknesses (he rarely sits back in coverage)