This is a Single Point link, or quick commentary on the article or page linked above. (Follow the title link above to the source for full background on the commentary below).

Published on February 27, 2010 11:28 AM by dbo.

I wanted to link to this article from Tuesday that confused me. First, reporter Con Griwkowski states:

At the team’s annual general meeting Tuesday, Maciocia said he had several new players under contract. He’s reserving the right to keep their identities a secret right now, but chances are good one of them will be another defensive-line stud.

Then he quotes Maciocia:

β€œI’d say he’s extremely interesting,” said Maciocia. β€œHe’s somebody we’ve pursued for a long, long time. It would sort of make my day if we’d signed him.”

He initially refers to this “stud” as part of the group of “new players under contract”. Then Maciocia says it would make his day if the Esks signed him. He is either signed and under contract or not and it seems like the reporter here doesn’t understand that. Maybe it got lost at the editor’s desk, but this is part of the reason print is losing readers — you can’t make any sense of what is printed.


Comments are closed.


Signed or Not? was published on February 27, 2010 11:28 AM by dbo.

This link is tagged with edmonton-eskimos.

Related Stuff