The Sicatoka Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I am not sure who the "good old boys" are ... They're the guys with the RV in the first "Blues Brothers" movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Walrus Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 They're the guys with the RV in the first "Blues Brothers" movie. could not help myself... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR9m_ebXR-c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Buning wanted a chance to talk with one of the good ol' boys... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6LHi81gHsk...ted&search= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7NationalTitles Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 A while back I posted that negotiations were underway. A couple skeptics asked me if I was "sure" via PMs. Like my post said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however .... Yeah, pretty sure. Further..... Since someone insisted upon invoking my name .... True or False: Contract negotiations to extend Hakstol's contract with UND have been, and are, underway. True. And that's all I have to say about that, for now. Now, Sicatoka, I find this interesting. You posted on August 20 that contract negotiations were currently underway. Later on September 5, you quoted your August 20 post in order to prove a point that contract negotiations were underway and to pat yourself on the back. Yet in the Herald article reporting on an email from Hakstol to Buning on August 20, it was stated: "In an Aug. 20 e-mail to Buning, Sioux men's hockey coach Dave Hakstol said he wanted to drop discussions on a contract extension, which many felt was long overdue. "I have carefully reviewed your most recent proposal (Aug. 15) and it remains unacceptable," Hakstol told Buning. "I am completely committed to achieving our goal of bringing home our eighth national championship during the 2007-08 season. It is my intention to focus all my energy towards preparing for the coming season. I do not, therefore, think it appropriate for this continued negotiation and the distraction it creates to continue at this time. We can discuss this matter further at the conclusion of our hockey season." I have one question, how, on the same day, can contract negotiations be underway as you said they were on August 20 and also be called off on August 20? Or did you get your information at 11:00 am and negotiations were called off at 11:01 am? I'm guessing though (well actually I'm stating this as fact) that Hakstol didn't come to his decision to call off contract talks the morning of August 20 and notify Buning that same day since Buning's prior proposal was August 15, so by deductive reasoning, that leads me to believe Hakstol had made the decision to call off contract talks prior to the day he sent his email to Buning. Like someone once said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however...... I ask you one question, isn't it now true that those pm's to you were actually correct and it was you who was incorrect? What's that? Oh sorry, I thought I just heard the faint sound of eating crow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stromer Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Further..... Now, Sicatoka, I find this interesting. You posted on August 20 that contract negotiations were currently underway. Later on September 5, you quoted your August 20 post in order to prove a point that contract negotiations were underway and to pat yourself on the back. Yet in the Herald article reporting on an email from Hakstol to Buning on August 20, it was stated: "In an Aug. 20 e-mail to Buning, Sioux men's hockey coach Dave Hakstol said he wanted to drop discussions on a contract extension, which many felt was long overdue. "I have carefully reviewed your most recent proposal (Aug. 15) and it remains unacceptable," Hakstol told Buning. "I am completely committed to achieving our goal of bringing home our eighth national championship during the 2007-08 season. It is my intention to focus all my energy towards preparing for the coming season. I do not, therefore, think it appropriate for this continued negotiation and the distraction it creates to continue at this time. We can discuss this matter further at the conclusion of our hockey season." I have one question, how, on the same day, can contract negotiations be underway as you said they were on August 20 and also be called off on August 20? Or did you get your information at 11:00 am and negotiations were called off at 11:01 am? I'm guessing though (well actually I'm stating this as fact) that Hakstol didn't come to his decision to call off contract talks the morning of August 20 and notify Buning that same day since Buning's prior proposal was August 15, so by deductive reasoning, that leads me to believe Hakstol had made the decision to call off contract talks prior to the day he sent his email to Buning. Like someone once said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however...... I ask you one question, isn't it now true that those pm's to you were actually correct and it was you who was incorrect? What's that? Oh sorry, I thought I just heard the faint sound of eating crow. No where in this post do you prove anything. Do you expect "The Sicatoka" to be receiving real time updates of the situation? If he was, then there are more problems than we think in the Athletic department. If a reasonable person heard info even on the 19th that contract negotiations were underway, a post on the 20th stating this info can not possibly be expected to take into account real time events that are currently breaking. Furthermore, even if Hak decided before the 20th to call off negotiaiton, until he notifies Bunning, they are ongoing. Hell, depending when the President stepped in, there might not have been any break in the the negotiatons. You really are grasping at straws here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7NationalTitles Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 No where in this post do you prove anything. Do you expect "The Sicatoka" to be receiving real time updates of the situation? If he was, then there are more problems than we think in the Athletic department. If a reasonable person heard info even on the 19th that contract negotiations were underway, a post on the 20th stating this info can not possibly be expected to take into account real time events that are currently breaking. Furthermore, even if Hak decided before the 20th to call off negotiaiton, until he notifies Bunning, they are ongoing. Hell, depending when the President stepped in, there might not have been any break in the the negotiatons. You really are grasping at straws here. Let me repeat this for you so you understand. I don't expect him to have real time updates. So I'll let his August 20 post go because of the timing. But yet, now here's the part you should read slowly so you understand since you missed this point in the earlier post, Sicatoka came online on September 5 and patted himself on the back after Hakstol signed his contract to state that what he posted on August 20 was still correct on September 5. Certain people tried to tell him contract talks were called off on August 20 via pm, but he didn't believe that and went on to make his post on September 5. So I'll give you credit that he may not have had real time access to information, but in the two weeks leading up to September 5, if he actually had the correct information and filled in all the pieces over that two-week span, he wouldn't have tried to re-validate his August 20 post by posting what he did on September 5. Those pm's that he referred to were correct in stating that Hakstol had called off contract talks on August 20 but he didn't believe that (because he didn't know that) and that is why he went on to make his post on September 5 to try and prove that those pm's were wrong. Do you get it now or do I need to draw you a picture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 Do you get it now or do I need to draw you a picture? Could you draw me a picture showing how it was that Hakstol signed a new contract after negotiations ended? The way I see it, for negotiations to be over, the two sides negotiating (i.e. Hakstol and UND) both have to stop negotiating. Obviously, that didn't happen. The e-mail published by the Herald shows that Hakstol wanted to stop negotiating after he received an unacceptable offer from Buning. That result wasn't acceptable to UND's administration, which then stepped in and came up with a better offer. So while Hakstol may very well have thought that negotiations were over until after hockey season, they weren't. The fact that he signed a new contract before the season started proves it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7NationalTitles Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Could you draw me a picture showing how it was that Hakstol signed a new contract after negotiations ended? The way I see it, for negotiations to be over, the two sides negotiating (i.e. Hakstol and UND) both have to stop negotiating. Obviously, that didn't happen. The e-mail published by the Herald shows that Hakstol wanted to stop negotiating after he received an unacceptable offer from Buning. That result wasn't acceptable to UND's administration, which then stepped in and came up with a better offer. So while Hakstol may very well have thought that negotiations were over until after hockey season, they weren't. The fact that he signed a new contract before the season started proves it. "Could you draw me a picture showing how it was that Hakstol signed a new contract after negotiations ended?" Things change. Didn't Jordan Parise say he would be back for another year and then left later in the summer? Things change....you know that....I know that.....so let's put our differences aside and agree on that. So one party can't end contract talks, it has to be mutual? Perhaps if you got out your pen and paper and did an interview asking questions about this rather than asking Hakstol what he thought of the black jerseys, you might find out that talks were off for a few days. Yes, the negotiations did start up again, but only after a few days had passed when Harmeson started to drive the deal to get done. So for those few days in between before Hakstol was contacted about upping the low-ball offer, contract talks were off. Contract talks can start up again, I'll give you that, but that's not to say they weren't off for a few days. Your a jounalism major, surely you can follow the steps in this process without having to have a picture drawn. You know how this works so don't play stupid just because you don't like me. Come on, can I have a big hug now? "Hakstol may very well have thought that negotiations were over until after hockey season, they weren't." So in other words, just because one person thinks something it may not be true.......Is this kind of like when someone says they are not a journalist but writes that they are a "member of the media" and "are a reporter" writing an article and conducting interviews that they actually are in some way a journalist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 This is getting ridiculous. The only one's I see 'crowing' around here are the one's who appear to be gloating and cheering that they won!! It looks like the AD is gone and they can't get over celebrating, rubbing it in to those who didn't jump on their wagon and licking their chops at how bright the future looks for 'their side'. To the world beyond the borders of Grand Forks County who are reading about this situation, the UND administration and those on the 'Lynch Buning' band wagon, look like a bunch of back water, illiterate rubes who have no idea how to clean house. Piling trash on the front lawn is NOT the way to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Quite frankly, both sides of this argument -- the "insiders" that started the whisper campaign and those that defend Buning and rail against the "good old boys" -- are both equally annoying in my view. To me, the only thing that matters is whether the comments Buning made about the athletic department not having the resources for the DI transition are true. That's it. The rest is a soap-opera and is immaterial to me. All I care about is whether UND -- as an institution -- is prepared to successfully make this transition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-per Fan Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Quite frankly, both sides of this argument -- the "insiders" that started the whisper campaign and those that defend Buning and rail against the "good old boys" -- are both equally annoying in my view. To me, the only thing that matters is whether the comments Buning made about the athletic department not having the resources for the DI transition are true. That's it. The rest is a soap-opera and is immaterial to me. All I care about is whether UND -- as an institution -- is prepared to successfully make this transition. I think it is obivious now that the "good old boys" won't be funding the move with Tom Buning as the AD. What remains to be seen is how long Phil Harmeson will last, I can not believe this helped his presidency hopes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 So one party can't end contract talks, it has to be mutual? If the contract talks had ended, then there would be no contract. Right? My position on this issue from the very beginning was that if Hakstol wanted to stay at UND and UND wanted him to stay, a contract would be signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fs1 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 No where in this post do you prove anything. Do you expect "The Sicatoka" to be receiving real time updates of the situation? If he was, then there are more problems than we think in the Athletic department. If a reasonable person heard info even on the 19th that contract negotiations were underway, a post on the 20th stating this info can not possibly be expected to take into account real time events that are currently breaking. Furthermore, even if Hak decided before the 20th to call off negotiaiton, until he notifies Bunning, they are ongoing. Hell, depending when the President stepped in, there might not have been any break in the the negotiatons. You really are grasping at straws here. In sicatoka's mind and according to his sources the negotiations had been stopped sometime between Aug26-29,(those are the dates he indicated to me) when it is now apparent to everyone he was off by a roughly a week or more. So his posting: "Like my post said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however .... Yeah, pretty sure." is not correct. Not even close based on the dates he himself has indicated. Heck the contract had already been agreed upon by the time he said the negotiations were called off. I for one am waiting for his retraction on that earlier post. Sorry to all if that seems trivial(it is to me also) but the post he made was directed at me. When I post things some people are quick to jump on me as being for lack of better words arrogant, but yet I havent seen anyone jump on him for his "arrogant" posts(and that one in particular). So if he made the comment, and it is now obviously incorrect, I was hoping he would post something similar to "Like my post said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however .... I guess I was wrong and they were right". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Like many others who don't know what Buning's work performance was, this is my perception of the situation This is getting ridiculous. The only one's I see 'crowing' around here are the one's who appear to be gloating and cheering that they won!! It looks like the AD is gone and they can't get over celebrating, rubbing it in to those who didn't jump on their wagon and licking their chops at how bright the future looks for 'their side'. To the world beyond the borders of Grand Forks County who are reading about this situation, the UND administration and those on the 'Lynch Buning' band wagon, look like a bunch of back water, illiterate rubes who have no idea how to clean house. Piling trash on the front lawn is NOT the way to do it. If, as many believe, Buning wasn't doing the job he was hired to do and if he refused to do the job after (if) it was pointed out to him, then, yes, he should be fired. There's a good way to fire someone and a bad way. The Buning situation goes waaaay beyond the bad way, IMO. And I truly believe that as long as Harmeson, or, whoever is unlucky enough to get the position of AD when it is available, follows the dictates of those behind the public mud slinging of Buning, he'll do fine. BUT, heaven help him or her, if they waver and have an opinion that hasn't been spoon fed to him or her!!! I may be the only one here to say that Harmeson (and new AD) will do fine as long as they kiss the right a$$es and "Yes sir. Whatever you say sir." to those same a$$es but believe me, I'm not the only one who believes it. I guess I do support Buning; not in the way you think. I don't happen to be a fan of lynching.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The number of people who are acting like 14 year old girls about this whole situation almost makes you wish you were a Bison fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The number of people who are acting like 14 year old girls about this whole situation almost makes you wish you were a Bison fan. Finally, the voice of reason has spoken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The number of people who are acting like 14 year old girls about this whole situation almost makes you wish you were a Bison fan. Bite your tongue!! Now go stand in the corner until I tell you to go to bed!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Finally, the voice of reason has spoken. Dirty?? The voice of reason??? OMG. OK, I'm done............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Dirty?? The voice of reason??? OMG. OK, I'm done............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-per Fan Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Lets compare to a similar situation. Like the one with REA lead by Todd Berning, and the REA now lead by Jody Hodgson. When the REA 1st open it was lead by Todd Berning, who ended up being a crook. He alienated the coaches, athletic staff, and his own employees. Rumors where running wild, for years 1-4 REA lost huge amounts of money and did not help UND Athletics, pissed off fans, alumni. Then they hire a new director who has been able to communicate with coaches, athletic staff, and his employees is hard working and has been well received and respected, and I might add honest. Why would changing AD be any different. To my knowledge Jody is not a member of the "Good Old Boys" Do your job and you will succeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Buning's sudden departure causes speculation Ralston doesn't really seem like the DI transition has any resource problems... Ralston says that the Division I transition is just being continued and won't be affected by Buning's sudden departure, as many of the committees and departments involved had already been established by the end of last year. As to speculation on the reasons behind the leave of absence, she said, "I don't really feel it's any of my business or anybody else's." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7NationalTitles Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Could you draw me a picture... In sicatoka's mind and according to his sources the negotiations had been stopped sometime between Aug26-29,(those are the dates he indicated to me) when it is now apparent to everyone he was off by a roughly a week or more. So his posting: "Like my post said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however .... Yeah, pretty sure." is not correct. Not even close based on the dates he himself has indicated. Heck the contract had already been agreed upon by the time he said the negotiations were called off. I for one am waiting for his retraction on that earlier post. Sorry to all if that seems trivial(it is to me also) but the post he made was directed at me. When I post things some people are quick to jump on me as being for lack of better words arrogant, but yet I havent seen anyone jump on him for his "arrogant" posts(and that one in particular). So if he made the comment, and it is now obviously incorrect, I was hoping he would post something similar to "Like my post said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however .... I guess I was wrong and they were right". X XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX PCM, that's the best picture I could draw for you for the point of my earlier post. (arrow means read above) I know it's futile to try and point it out to you since you don't like me and will always try to refute anything I post, but oh well, I've got nothing better to do right now. I'm still waiting for that hug by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMeNow Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 This is getting ridiculous. The only one's I see 'crowing' around here are the one's who appear to be gloating and cheering that they won!! It looks like the AD is gone and they can't get over celebrating, rubbing it in to those who didn't jump on their wagon and licking their chops at how bright the future looks for 'their side'. To the world beyond the borders of Grand Forks County who are reading about this situation, the UND administration and those on the 'Lynch Buning' band wagon, look like a bunch of back water, illiterate rubes who have no idea how to clean house. Piling trash on the front lawn is NOT the way to do it. You nailed it! UND needs to put this behind them as FAST* as they can right now...the way it unfolded has been STUPIDLY EMBARASSING! One of the biggest PR disasters in UND history and now all they've done is guarentee this will be drawn out for WEEKS until it's resolved...just the fact the Heraldo can print a headline like "BUNING SPEAKS OUT" on their front page saturday then all they have is some tepid emails they got through their lawyer? GREAT! They sold papers! They accomplished their purpose! What is UND doing to accomplish their goals? (* - and before "you guys" dive on this post - remember! Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house - i can name names if necessary! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Since folks are into quoting me, and timelines, I'll follow suit and note I long, long ago said: .... why is anyone disrespecting that choice and dragging what others wanted kept in confidence or private out into a public forum like this? Instead, the Herald was clued in to start digging really hard. How? By this site. The Herald has more than once said things about "internet sites" discussing the situation. Instead of a dismissal that could have been readily handled quietly, behind the scenes, by "mutual agreement" or some other polite phrasing in a news release, we now have a mess, a very public and unforgiving mess. And those on the "inside" could've smirked knowingly what "mutual agreement" really meant while the "unknowing" masses speculated if winter was too cold for a guy originally from Florida. As an added bonus we now have the "Buning letter" to Harmeson (it's a good read if your name is "Joe Chapman" and you need a laugh at your neighbor's expense). I'm sure it's being copied to eternity by some of UND's "friends". I'm guessing they'll be enclosing a copy to everyone on their Christmas card list. I'll give you August 20 .... if you give me June 12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMeNow Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Instead, the Herald was clued in to start digging really hard. How? By this site. The Herald has more than once said things about "internet sites" discussing the situation. and yet they call us internet idiots...NO RESPECT I SAY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.