Fireantz TROUBLE!!!!!!!!

The Southern Professional Hockey League (SPHL) forum
#1 Guard Fan
Site Admin
Posts: 741
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:19 pm
Location: Fayetteville, NC

Fireantz TROUBLE!!!!!!!!

Post by #1 Guard Fan » Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:22 pm

Sounds like more trouble with the Fireantz. It has been a bad year on the ice so far and sounds like things are really bad off the ice too.

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/201 ... sac=Sports
GO FORCE and ICE

robster2001
Site Admin
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:02 pm

Post by robster2001 » Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:25 pm

Interesting that one of the accused players was traded the day after the incident.

You have to wonder if Louisiana knew about this when they took on the accused. :)

Hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:37 am

Post by Hockey » Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:08 pm

This is a bad move by the newspaper. Its a bad idea to write about these minor crimes when it could seriously hurt the health of the franchise. The insignificant actions of two players is not worth damaging a local sports franchise that provides a good chunk of newspaper content. Local sports is one of the only reasons people buy newspapers any more. If the Fireantz lose fans, the newspaper loses readers.

Oh and good luck getting good interviews from the players now.

nksports
Site Admin
Posts: 3669
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Newton, KS (the land of Oz)

Kill the messenger

Post by nksports » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:31 am

So the newspaper shouldn't report an arrest of a player because it will hurt the team. Did the players think about the welfare of the team when they were allegedly doing coke? For that matter, since it was reported one of the people arrested was a soldier, should the arrest not be reported because it could hurt the U.S. Army?
Sorry folks, but a newspaper's job is to report the news -- good, bad or indifferent. If you want fluff, there's plenty of places to find it.

BTW Hockey, they weren't charged with a minor crime, they were charged with felony possession. (If you want to argue the fairness of drug laws, that's a different debate). I'll bet the rest of the team still talks to the paper. They are probably pretty angry about the incident, but I'll bet are more angry at their teammates than anything the paper wrote about it.

One last thought, cocaine is so 1970s and 1980s. They might want to update their drugs.

Post Reply

Return to “SPHL”