Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
The case that resulted in appeal to the board of directors in 2017 was unique in that incorrect information was given to the person who appealed to the NAC by the Executive Director and as a result the person appealing the decision to the NAC felt that he had not been given the opportunity to fully state his case. I don't anticipate that unique set of circumstances to happen again and it is likely that there may not even be any appeals to the NAC. I don't anticipate the board of directors hearing any more appeals from NAC matters.
At the risk of opening old wounds, I take full responsibility for Nikolay holding back all of the information, it was not Bob's doing. One has to understand that the existing CFC Handbook was written in the day where information passed by Canada Post. Here is the CFC Handbook

"1248. The CFC Business Office will write to the players involved, the TD, and the members of the AC, providing them with the information provided by the appellant, and requesting them to confirm the facts and provide any additional facts or other relevant information.

1249. When all the relevant information has been received the CFC Business Office will forward it to the members of the NAC, who will thereupon consider and rule on the appeal."

Again, I think these instructions are a bit archaic, and with a timeline to name a player looming, I talked to Bob and instructed him to send the NAC members all of the e-mails of the players and officials, with the idea the NAC would contact who they wanted to speak to (and at the very least Nikolay). Either this was lost in translation or they decided they didn't need any information, and Nikolay was unable to give them his additional information. He was allowed to present it to the Executive for the Appeal of the NAC decision. My opinion was that the members of the Executive who were on the NAC should not be involved in the appeal to the Executive - as it turned out the vote was something like 4-1, without them.