Glenn & Bishop Stories in the Winnipeg Sun

Glenn:

[url=http://www.winnipegsun.com/sports/football/2009/11/05/11642491-sun.html]http://www.winnipegsun.com/sports/footb ... 1-sun.html[/url]

Bishop:

[url=http://www.winnipegsun.com/sports/football/2009/11/05/11642516-sun.html]http://www.winnipegsun.com/sports/footb ... 6-sun.html[/url]

Wow! That's an expensive Cadillac. I wonder what options it came with?

I like the first story with quotes from Kevin Glenn 's ex-team-mates
about the competitive fire burning behind Kevin's apparent nonchlance.

I like character people and I am impressed with Kevin Glenn
who is a successful business man with Tim Horton's franchises.

I can't say I am impressed with Michael Bishop who spends extravagantly
on a used Cadillac and skips to the U.S with the bulk of his payments owing.

Way to go Winnipeg Sun! Real classy!

Actually, I agree that it is a real low-brow move to print a story about Bishop's personal financial matters which is nobody's business but his own. Perhaps Michael Bishop should publicly request all the financial history/details of everyone who works at the Winnipeg Sun so all can see.

Coach Kelly is looking rather good now for blasting the media as he did.

Well actually, any civil matter ruled on through the court is considered a matter of public record. He was served with documents, did nothing, had a judgment signed against him, & only now when the creditor is trying to get their money back, does he want his "day in court". :roll:

Since this is legitmately a matter of public record, the media is not offside in reporting it. But you are, for suggesting that Bishop should request financial information of Sun employees without having any right to do so outside of some ridiculous notion of vengeance.

And no, Kelly does not now, nor has he ever looked good for "blasting the media". Why do you think Cohon fined him? Yeesh!

The media never has good intentions, they are always on a mission and in this case ever since Kelly said was going to try to control the message of the WFC, they have made his life a living nightmare. They are never about reporting the "facts", it's always about serving their own selfish objectives.

I never thought Glenn was too nonchalant about football. He always struck me as a very competitive guy and the consummate pro. As for Bishop, I don't really care about this trivial story. It's not like he beats his spouse or carries a concealed weapon. Let the court sort it out.

An Argo-Cat fan

The Court alreaday sorted it out. . . he owes the money.

But you're right, it's a trivial matter as far as CFL football fans are concerned.

$114K for an escalade? I wonder what the interest rate is. :lol:

The Caddy was used? What would it have been worth new?

The part of the column that struck a chord to me was:

Under the order, the football club is required to garnishee Bishop's salary until the debt has been paid in full or until such time Bishop ceases to be a Bomber.

If all goes well this Sunday for the Cats.....that day could be Monday.

Well actually unless you've looked at the court records in Toronto you don't know how he was served. For all you know there may have been a Substitution For Service done in which case it would be very probable that Bishop knew nothing about the court case or judgement until the judgement was filed in Manitoba Queen's Bench.

Well actually, even if it WAS substituted service, that requires a court order. And you don’t know how he was served either. In any case, that’s not the point. He’s clearly responsible to know who he owes $ to. And we’re not talking about a 50 bill, we're talking over 100 grand... <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> Maybe you're right, maybe he didn't know...after all, he's the QB with a million arm & a 10 cent head.

Possible I suppose. But, not knowing about the court case or judgement is one thing; not knowing whether or not he owed the money is something else entirely. People should pay their debts and not have to wait until they get sued to do so.

I'm sorry to see Bishop is having financial troubles. It's never pleasant to hear of such things. I hope they get sorted out.

As to Bishop knowing or not knowing about all this and wanting his day in court...well, a court judgment was issued and his wages were garnished. This would happen only after the plaintiff dealership and /or finance company did not receive payment, sued, won a judgment, had an order for garnishment issued, and executed on it. All of that takes a long time and involves a number of procedures. There are several points along the way where documents would have to have been served on the defendant Bishop. If he had a lawyer, he could have arranged for that person to accept service on his behalf, that is routinely done. Even if substituted service was ordered (and it has to be ordered on application), it is granted in cases where there is no reasonable way to serve him personally and the court feels it is probable that the substituted service will in fact come to the attention of the defendant.

If he had the car, knew there were payments required, didn't pay them, watched as the plaintiff went through a series of lengthy processes to get a garnishment order, and saw his wages being garnished, it's a bit hard to fathom how he now needs his "day in court". He could have had that a long time ago if had chosen to.

Court judgments are public, so the media had every right to report on this. Nothing wrong with that at all. Best way to avoid that is to conduct your affairs in such a way as to avoid being involved in court proceedings, especially on the losing end.

The Winnipeg Sun couldn't just put this story
in the back pages where such items usually go

or even save the story to a later date,

they put it in the Sports Pages just before
the Bombers most important game of the season.

Was it their intention to rattle Michael Bishop
and disrupt the fortunes of their home team?

Was it to cast an unfavourable light
on the whole Winnipeg team itself?

These ramifications are beside the point to them,
the important thing to them is selling newspapers,

let the chips fall where they may.

Putting this information in the SPORTS pages
of a local newspaper is going way to far, IMO.

but I know this is standard practice.

How would we fans of the Ticats like it
if the Spec dragged out some dirty laundry

on one of our top players and
ran a story on it tomorrow.

By the way, today the Spec ran the CP edition
of the Michael Bishop story in the Sports Section.

I don't see a problem with putting it in the sports pages, if you're going to put it anywhere. Non sports fans would not care or even know who Michael Bishop happens to be. . . so if you're going to print the story, it makes sense to put it in the sports pages; it's only "newsworthy", assuming that to be the case, because Bishop is in the sports' world public eye.

I dunno Ron,

I don't enjoy other people's dirty laundry very much either, and I'm sorry Bishop is in this mess. But it kind of comes with the territory too I think when you’re a person in the public eye, fair or not.

There are all kinds of repossessions, bankruptcies and debtor cases that never make it into the press... probably 95% of them are just "statistics". I don't think this would have been newsworthy at all, even enough to be in the "back pages", if the subject wasn't a sports personality. I'm not sure the editor of any other section of the paper than Sports would have found it worth printing.

To the Sports editors though, this was newsworthy. It's not the first time a pro player has had issues like this exposed in the press. We read from time to time about players who are deadbeat fathers, go bankrupt, have substance abuse problems, etc. I don’t like to gloat over others’ misfortunes, but that doesn’t mean the piece isn’t of interest to a significant segment of the readership or that it should be suppressed.

Were the Sports editors trying to rattle Bishop? Maybe, but perhaps not likely. I don't know what their motives were, and I don't see a reason to suspect they were ulterior. Maybe they just found the story timely and interesting enough to run it. It's not their fault the incident happened, and just because it’s an unhappy case or comes to light at a critical juncture in the season doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be printed. There’s always editorial discretion in these situations, and in this case I don’t really see a compelling case requiring the editor to refrain from publication, especially since the events are a matter of public record at the courthouse. If there's another side to the story, perhaps that will come out in due course as well. Or maybe it will just fade away when it's no longer topical or interesting to readers.