Good afternoon. I received your e-mail through BlueJackets.com regarding this week’s NY Times article. The Blue Jackets are not going to comment on an article that is based on speculation and possibilities. Our team president Mike Priest has been quoted in recent months that our position is to find a solution to ensure that the club can compete effectively here for many years to come and that remains our focus. Thanks for the note and for your support of the Blue Jackets and the NHL.I had already heard from others in the media and fan base that the Jackets don't comment on rumors after sending my inquiry, so this "no comment" response was anticipated. That Sharrock took the time to write back...that's appreciated. Better than the writer of the article, that's for sure!
So we wait...and hope...
Meh, I am disappointed that they respond to this but they don't respond to any of my emails concerning game ops. Maybe because in this they essentially have nothing to say, and for game ops, well...
ReplyDeleteI'm going to cut the CBJ some slack on this one, and not because they actually responded. The assertion in NYT article was, to the best of everyone's knowledge, a rumor. The team has a policy of not commenting on rumors. I can't blame them - if they respond to this one, what about something stupider and wilder? Where would they draw the line?
ReplyDeleteWhat disappoints me more is that the NYT writer hasn't responded. I honestly feel like he has more to add to the story...or he has some explaining to do as to why he printed the revelation in the first place. Perhaps I'll try looking around a little more for his email...