redwing77 Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Come on lets not be silly. Did you not read the posts on this thread and the thread following Buning's hiring? Seriously, it's like hiring Hakstol. He was only hired because he's O'Keefe's son in law. Let's not forget that. Yes, I was being facetious with the first comment. However, the second comment I'm quite serious about. All the Bollinger or whomever fans are jumping up and down and dancing about this. The rest of us who gave Buning the benefit of the doubt are just waiting for the truth to come out. Regardless though, this thread needs to be closed. Not relevant to hockey any longer.
Eskimos Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 The rest of us who gave Buning the benefit of the doubt are just waiting for the truth to come out. Regardless though, this thread needs to be closed. Not relevant to hockey any longer. Why is it that when you don't agree with the way the discussion is going, you ask for the thread to be closed?
The Sicatoka Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Seeing someone mentioned that post of mine (from another thread), namely: In my experiences, a LoA (when not directly requested by someone for personal or professional reasons) The media reports lead to the conclusion that Buning requested the LoA. What that means I won't claim to know.
administrator Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Why is it that when you don't agree with the way the discussion is going, you ask for the thread to be closed?This thread really has just become people attacking each other instead of talking about Hakstol's contract, hockey, or even Buning's leave of absence. Discussion on Buning's leave of absence remains very welcome -- let's consolidate it over here.
Recommended Posts