Hayfield Football Coach Fired

FrankWinston
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:Bit of an update:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/exclusive-hayfield-athletic-director-resigns-effective-dec-2-amid-widening-scandal/article_4d1b1cae-ac2a-11ef-be0f-23f1dd3c4b5e.html


BTW, I love this line: "marking the first resignation in a growing scandal..."

Asra knows she's going to spill the dirt on everyone and is just biding her time...


A Nike contract?!? for a public HS?


An exclusive deal is highly unusual for a public high school. Possibly illegal? Maybe. But not 100% sure.

Lol


I think the students at the St. John’s Academy in NW DC (independent high school) are only allowed to wear Under Amor gear due to the exclusive deal with the company’s CEO who is an alum. That’s one of the problems with these exclusive athletic sponsorships at the prep school level.


The UA deal with St. John's College High School (that's the name of the school you are referencing) doesn't forbid kids from wearing Nike, Adidas etc. If that were the case the school uniforms would have to be UA and I am almost certain they are Flynn O'Hara. The UA deal is specific to the sports teams and the school store. The school store is only allowed to sell UA clothing unless UA doesn't make the type of clothing being sold (e.g. ties) and the athletics teams are only allowed to wear UA uniforms, warmups etc. It makes sense for a UA to make a deal like this with an SJC as SJC is, to HS sports fans, a national brand and good at many sports (and it doesn't hurt that UA's founder is an SJC alum). I would be shocked if Hayfield got a deal that looks even remotely like that. Nike would keep an Overton at a very far distance.



Thanks for the explanation. Looking into this more, Nike has sponsorships with public high schools, especially in Oregon where the HQ is. But both girls and boys sports should get equal treatment, and it appears Nike is only providing uniforms for Hayfield’s popular boys sports at the moment, with the other sports in the back of the queue.


Maybe Nike could make orange prison jumpsuits with the swish logo for Overton, the AD and everyone who had knowledge of the welfare fraud?


This. Is. Gold.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:Bit of an update:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/exclusive-hayfield-athletic-director-resigns-effective-dec-2-amid-widening-scandal/article_4d1b1cae-ac2a-11ef-be0f-23f1dd3c4b5e.html


BTW, I love this line: "marking the first resignation in a growing scandal..."

Asra knows she's going to spill the dirt on everyone and is just biding her time...


A Nike contract?!? for a public HS?


An exclusive deal is highly unusual for a public high school. Possibly illegal? Maybe. But not 100% sure.


Does anyone know what a “Nike contract” means? Did they just provide uniforms, or did they pay the team/coaches/players? And how did Hayfield get a Nike contract when the team had a brand new coach and no accolades?
Anonymous
FrankWinston wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:Bit of an update:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/exclusive-hayfield-athletic-director-resigns-effective-dec-2-amid-widening-scandal/article_4d1b1cae-ac2a-11ef-be0f-23f1dd3c4b5e.html


BTW, I love this line: "marking the first resignation in a growing scandal..."

Asra knows she's going to spill the dirt on everyone and is just biding her time...


A Nike contract?!? for a public HS?


An exclusive deal is highly unusual for a public high school. Possibly illegal? Maybe. But not 100% sure.

Lol


I think the students at the St. John’s Academy in NW DC (independent high school) are only allowed to wear Under Amor gear due to the exclusive deal with the company’s CEO who is an alum. That’s one of the problems with these exclusive athletic sponsorships at the prep school level.


The UA deal with St. John's College High School (that's the name of the school you are referencing) doesn't forbid kids from wearing Nike, Adidas etc. If that were the case the school uniforms would have to be UA and I am almost certain they are Flynn O'Hara. The UA deal is specific to the sports teams and the school store. The school store is only allowed to sell UA clothing unless UA doesn't make the type of clothing being sold (e.g. ties) and the athletics teams are only allowed to wear UA uniforms, warmups etc. It makes sense for a UA to make a deal like this with an SJC as SJC is, to HS sports fans, a national brand and good at many sports (and it doesn't hurt that UA's founder is an SJC alum). I would be shocked if Hayfield got a deal that looks even remotely like that. Nike would keep an Overton at a very far distance.



Thanks for the explanation. Looking into this more, Nike has sponsorships with public high schools, especially in Oregon where the HQ is. But both girls and boys sports should get equal treatment, and it appears Nike is only providing uniforms for Hayfield’s popular boys sports at the moment, with the other sports in the back of the queue.


Maybe Nike could make orange prison jumpsuits with the swish logo for Overton, the AD and everyone who had knowledge of the welfare fraud?


This. Is. Gold.


Yeah, especially since Hayfield’s colors are orange and black (for those who might not know).
FrankWinston
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:Bit of an update:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/exclusive-hayfield-athletic-director-resigns-effective-dec-2-amid-widening-scandal/article_4d1b1cae-ac2a-11ef-be0f-23f1dd3c4b5e.html


BTW, I love this line: "marking the first resignation in a growing scandal..."

Asra knows she's going to spill the dirt on everyone and is just biding her time...


A Nike contract?!? for a public HS?


An exclusive deal is highly unusual for a public high school. Possibly illegal? Maybe. But not 100% sure.

Lol


I think the students at the St. John’s Academy in NW DC (independent high school) are only allowed to wear Under Amor gear due to the exclusive deal with the company’s CEO who is an alum. That’s one of the problems with these exclusive athletic sponsorships at the prep school level.


The UA deal with St. John's College High School (that's the name of the school you are referencing) doesn't forbid kids from wearing Nike, Adidas etc. If that were the case the school uniforms would have to be UA and I am almost certain they are Flynn O'Hara. The UA deal is specific to the sports teams and the school store. The school store is only allowed to sell UA clothing unless UA doesn't make the type of clothing being sold (e.g. ties) and the athletics teams are only allowed to wear UA uniforms, warmups etc. It makes sense for a UA to make a deal like this with an SJC as SJC is, to HS sports fans, a national brand and good at many sports (and it doesn't hurt that UA's founder is an SJC alum). I would be shocked if Hayfield got a deal that looks even remotely like that. Nike would keep an Overton at a very far distance.



Thanks for the explanation. Looking into this more, Nike has sponsorships with public high schools, especially in Oregon where the HQ is. But both girls and boys sports should get equal treatment, and it appears Nike is only providing uniforms for Hayfield’s popular boys sports at the moment, with the other sports in the back of the queue.


Welcome. Penned the prior comment on my phone and not logged on to my account. That said, I would be surprised if what you wrote is true. Not saying you are lying, but knowing the whole picture, this is likely a Hayfield thing and not a Nike thing. I've known of very few arrangements in which a sneaker company, clothing line etc. states, for high school sports programs as insignificant as a Hayfield, that they will provide X to certain programs and only Y to others. Usually, because the "sponsorships" are really only discounted uniform deals, it is the high school making the purchasing decisions. So it's safer to assume, if what you are saying is right, that it was Hayfield that made the decision to upgrade the boy's teams uniforms first.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:Bit of an update:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/exclusive-hayfield-athletic-director-resigns-effective-dec-2-amid-widening-scandal/article_4d1b1cae-ac2a-11ef-be0f-23f1dd3c4b5e.html


BTW, I love this line: "marking the first resignation in a growing scandal..."



Asra knows she's going to spill the dirt on everyone and is just biding her time...


A Nike contract?!? for a public HS?


An exclusive deal is highly unusual for a public high school. Possibly illegal? Maybe. But not 100% sure.

Lol


I think the students at the St. John’s Academy in NW DC (independent high school) are only allowed to wear Under Amor gear due to the exclusive deal with the company’s CEO who is an alum. That’s one of the problems with these exclusive athletic sponsorships at the prep school level.


The UA deal with St. John's College High School (that's the name of the school you are referencing) doesn't forbid kids from wearing Nike, Adidas etc. If that were the case the school uniforms would have to be UA and I am almost certain they are Flynn O'Hara. The UA deal is specific to the sports teams and the school store. The school store is only allowed to sell UA clothing unless UA doesn't make the type of clothing being sold (e.g. ties) and the athletics teams are only allowed to wear UA uniforms, warmups etc. It makes sense for a UA to make a deal like this with an SJC as SJC is, to HS sports fans, a national brand and good at many sports (and it doesn't hurt that UA's founder is an SJC alum). I would be shocked if Hayfield got a deal that looks even remotely like that. Nike would keep an Overton at a very far distance.



Thanks for the explanation. Looking into this more, Nike has sponsorships with public high schools, especially in Oregon where the HQ is. But both girls and boys sports should get equal treatment, and it appears Nike is only providing uniforms for Hayfield’s popular boys sports at the moment, with the other sports in the back of the queue.


Maybe Nike could make orange prison jumpsuits with the swish logo for Overton, the AD and everyone who had knowledge of the welfare fraud?


The AD is likely in a country that does not extradite to the US.


Is that a fact about no extradition?
Anonymous
FrankWinston wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:Bit of an update:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/exclusive-hayfield-athletic-director-resigns-effective-dec-2-amid-widening-scandal/article_4d1b1cae-ac2a-11ef-be0f-23f1dd3c4b5e.html


BTW, I love this line: "marking the first resignation in a growing scandal..."

Asra knows she's going to spill the dirt on everyone and is just biding her time...


A Nike contract?!? for a public HS?


An exclusive deal is highly unusual for a public high school. Possibly illegal? Maybe. But not 100% sure.

Lol


I think the students at the St. John’s Academy in NW DC (independent high school) are only allowed to wear Under Amor gear due to the exclusive deal with the company’s CEO who is an alum. That’s one of the problems with these exclusive athletic sponsorships at the prep school level.


The UA deal with St. John's College High School (that's the name of the school you are referencing) doesn't forbid kids from wearing Nike, Adidas etc. If that were the case the school uniforms would have to be UA and I am almost certain they are Flynn O'Hara. The UA deal is specific to the sports teams and the school store. The school store is only allowed to sell UA clothing unless UA doesn't make the type of clothing being sold (e.g. ties) and the athletics teams are only allowed to wear UA uniforms, warmups etc. It makes sense for a UA to make a deal like this with an SJC as SJC is, to HS sports fans, a national brand and good at many sports (and it doesn't hurt that UA's founder is an SJC alum). I would be shocked if Hayfield got a deal that looks even remotely like that. Nike would keep an Overton at a very far distance.



Thanks for the explanation. Looking into this more, Nike has sponsorships with public high schools, especially in Oregon where the HQ is. But both girls and boys sports should get equal treatment, and it appears Nike is only providing uniforms for Hayfield’s popular boys sports at the moment, with the other sports in the back of the queue.


Welcome. Penned the prior comment on my phone and not logged on to my account. That said, I would be surprised if what you wrote is true. Not saying you are lying, but knowing the whole picture, this is likely a Hayfield thing and not a Nike thing. I've known of very few arrangements in which a sneaker company, clothing line etc. states, for high school sports programs as insignificant as a Hayfield, that they will provide X to certain programs and only Y to others. Usually, because the "sponsorships" are really only discounted uniform deals, it is the high school making the purchasing decisions. So it's safer to assume, if what you are saying is right, that it was Hayfield that made the decision to upgrade the boy's teams uniforms first.


Following the thread from my phone like you. I don't have time to reread everything, but it appears the Fairfax Times / WSJ reporter who broke this whole story has uncovered a deal with Nike that doesn't appear to be above board. Other parents on here are saying that popular boys sports at Hayfield are getting the Nike gear first.
FrankWinston
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:Bit of an update:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/exclusive-hayfield-athletic-director-resigns-effective-dec-2-amid-widening-scandal/article_4d1b1cae-ac2a-11ef-be0f-23f1dd3c4b5e.html


BTW, I love this line: "marking the first resignation in a growing scandal..."

Asra knows she's going to spill the dirt on everyone and is just biding her time...


A Nike contract?!? for a public HS?


An exclusive deal is highly unusual for a public high school. Possibly illegal? Maybe. But not 100% sure.


Does anyone know what a “Nike contract” means? Did they just provide uniforms, or did they pay the team/coaches/players? And how did Hayfield get a Nike contract when the team had a brand new coach and no accolades?


It depends on the school. Stu Vetter was legit getting paid by sneaker companies when he was still coaching HS sports. But a Hayfield, almost certainly not, especially with an Overton circling around. This contract was likely just discounted uniforms (barely discounted) and some free swag for coaches.
FrankWinston
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:Bit of an update:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/exclusive-hayfield-athletic-director-resigns-effective-dec-2-amid-widening-scandal/article_4d1b1cae-ac2a-11ef-be0f-23f1dd3c4b5e.html


BTW, I love this line: "marking the first resignation in a growing scandal..."

Asra knows she's going to spill the dirt on everyone and is just biding her time...


A Nike contract?!? for a public HS?


An exclusive deal is highly unusual for a public high school. Possibly illegal? Maybe. But not 100% sure.

Lol


I think the students at the St. John’s Academy in NW DC (independent high school) are only allowed to wear Under Amor gear due to the exclusive deal with the company’s CEO who is an alum. That’s one of the problems with these exclusive athletic sponsorships at the prep school level.


The UA deal with St. John's College High School (that's the name of the school you are referencing) doesn't forbid kids from wearing Nike, Adidas etc. If that were the case the school uniforms would have to be UA and I am almost certain they are Flynn O'Hara. The UA deal is specific to the sports teams and the school store. The school store is only allowed to sell UA clothing unless UA doesn't make the type of clothing being sold (e.g. ties) and the athletics teams are only allowed to wear UA uniforms, warmups etc. It makes sense for a UA to make a deal like this with an SJC as SJC is, to HS sports fans, a national brand and good at many sports (and it doesn't hurt that UA's founder is an SJC alum). I would be shocked if Hayfield got a deal that looks even remotely like that. Nike would keep an Overton at a very far distance.



Thanks for the explanation. Looking into this more, Nike has sponsorships with public high schools, especially in Oregon where the HQ is. But both girls and boys sports should get equal treatment, and it appears Nike is only providing uniforms for Hayfield’s popular boys sports at the moment, with the other sports in the back of the queue.


Welcome. Penned the prior comment on my phone and not logged on to my account. That said, I would be surprised if what you wrote is true. Not saying you are lying, but knowing the whole picture, this is likely a Hayfield thing and not a Nike thing. I've known of very few arrangements in which a sneaker company, clothing line etc. states, for high school sports programs as insignificant as a Hayfield, that they will provide X to certain programs and only Y to others. Usually, because the "sponsorships" are really only discounted uniform deals, it is the high school making the purchasing decisions. So it's safer to assume, if what you are saying is right, that it was Hayfield that made the decision to upgrade the boy's teams uniforms first.


Following the thread from my phone like you. I don't have time to reread everything, but it appears the Fairfax Times / WSJ reporter who broke this whole story has uncovered a deal with Nike that doesn't appear to be above board. Other parents on here are saying that popular boys sports at Hayfield are getting the Nike gear first.


This is the one area in which I think Nomani might be wrong, but if I am wrong so be it. I think she conflated Fritts' text messages ("I like money") with the claim that Nike now sponsors Hayfield and came to a conclusion that might not be there. I write this not as an expert but someone who has coached for decades (never as a FT job as an FYI) at every level from D1, to competitive HS sports, to AAU and competitive club sports. As I have noted in another comment or two, sponsorships like this are typically just of the discounted merch variety. Nike doesn't do shady deals with nothing high schools. There is no value add for them to do so. As to the claim by other parents that popular boys sports at Hayfield are getting the Nike gear first, again, based on a ton of prior experience, I would have to assume that would be a decision by Hayfield and Nike.
Anonymous
In the form reply going out by School Board- someone posted Rachna’s where she/they say “it is vital that our practices and processes meet the needs of the changing reality of high school athletic”- that 100% reads to me could be trying to say equitable transferring to school. If can transfer for AP/IB then should be able to for sports so can get paid in college since can now make cash in college for football/sports. If this happens, EVERYONE sign up for track and go to whatever school want to as this will make it Wild West and no one will have to worry about boundaries. The boundary study can say whatever it wants to say and kid can go wherever they want by saying whatever no cut sport they want.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I wonder which two were homeless.


Since they're not playing a home game tonight, hopefully the boosters will make good use of all of that food that is being wasted.


What wasted food? The football team meal comes from the "team mom's" fundraising account, not the boosters. Chips, candy, cokes, etc is all prepacked and will keep for basketball season.



Whatever the case, they shouldn't let the homeless student athletes go without during Thanksgiving.


Are you really that obtuse? They are not homeless. They have perfectly good homes in PWC.


That hasn't been proven. You really want everybody to believe that they commuted on the daily from PWC to Hayfield? No less at the whim of whatever their schedule was?


I drive 50 miles to work everyday. 15 miles is nothing.


There's long been a rumor of a hired van driving those PW kids to Hayfield every day.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:Bit of an update:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/exclusive-hayfield-athletic-director-resigns-effective-dec-2-amid-widening-scandal/article_4d1b1cae-ac2a-11ef-be0f-23f1dd3c4b5e.html


BTW, I love this line: "marking the first resignation in a growing scandal..."

Asra knows she's going to spill the dirt on everyone and is just biding her time...


A Nike contract?!? for a public HS?


An exclusive deal is highly unusual for a public high school. Possibly illegal? Maybe. But not 100% sure.

Lol


I think the students at the St. John’s Academy in NW DC (independent high school) are only allowed to wear Under Amor gear due to the exclusive deal with the company’s CEO who is an alum. That’s one of the problems with these exclusive athletic sponsorships at the prep school level.


The UA deal with St. John's College High School (that's the name of the school you are referencing) doesn't forbid kids from wearing Nike, Adidas etc. If that were the case the school uniforms would have to be UA and I am almost certain they are Flynn O'Hara. The UA deal is specific to the sports teams and the school store. The school store is only allowed to sell UA clothing unless UA doesn't make the type of clothing being sold (e.g. ties) and the athletics teams are only allowed to wear UA uniforms, warmups etc. It makes sense for a UA to make a deal like this with an SJC as SJC is, to HS sports fans, a national brand and good at many sports (and it doesn't hurt that UA's founder is an SJC alum). I would be shocked if Hayfield got a deal that looks even remotely like that. Nike would keep an Overton at a very far distance.



Thanks for the explanation. Looking into this more, Nike has sponsorships with public high schools, especially in Oregon where the HQ is. But both girls and boys sports should get equal treatment, and it appears Nike is only providing uniforms for Hayfield’s popular boys sports at the moment, with the other sports in the back of the queue.


Welcome. Penned the prior comment on my phone and not logged on to my account. That said, I would be surprised if what you wrote is true. Not saying you are lying, but knowing the whole picture, this is likely a Hayfield thing and not a Nike thing. I've known of very few arrangements in which a sneaker company, clothing line etc. states, for high school sports programs as insignificant as a Hayfield, that they will provide X to certain programs and only Y to others. Usually, because the "sponsorships" are really only discounted uniform deals, it is the high school making the purchasing decisions. So it's safer to assume, if what you are saying is right, that it was Hayfield that made the decision to upgrade the boy's teams uniforms first.


Following the thread from my phone like you. I don't have time to reread everything, but it appears the Fairfax Times / WSJ reporter who broke this whole story has uncovered a deal with Nike that doesn't appear to be above board. Other parents on here are saying that popular boys sports at Hayfield are getting the Nike gear first.


Wouldn't get too distracted by the Nike thing. Likely just that high school agreed to purchase all of their various uniforms from Nike's uniform branch - in return for very small discount. But Nike doesn't know Hayfield any more than I know Michael Jordan...

Financial shenanigans that Fairfax Times & others should focus on would be coach's for-profit business, whether it's licensed appropriately, what happened to all the money raised for Hayfraud's program but instead of tracking through legit means, it all went to the team mom etc.
Anonymous
Question:

The title of this thread is the coach was fired...

Was Overton fired? I've never seen that in the news reports.

Overton should be fired.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:
FrankWinston wrote:Bit of an update:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/exclusive-hayfield-athletic-director-resigns-effective-dec-2-amid-widening-scandal/article_4d1b1cae-ac2a-11ef-be0f-23f1dd3c4b5e.html


BTW, I love this line: "marking the first resignation in a growing scandal..."



Asra knows she's going to spill the dirt on everyone and is just biding her time...


A Nike contract?!? for a public HS?


An exclusive deal is highly unusual for a public high school. Possibly illegal? Maybe. But not 100% sure.

Lol


I think the students at the St. John’s Academy in NW DC (independent high school) are only allowed to wear Under Amor gear due to the exclusive deal with the company’s CEO who is an alum. That’s one of the problems with these exclusive athletic sponsorships at the prep school level.


The UA deal with St. John's College High School (that's the name of the school you are referencing) doesn't forbid kids from wearing Nike, Adidas etc. If that were the case the school uniforms would have to be UA and I am almost certain they are Flynn O'Hara. The UA deal is specific to the sports teams and the school store. The school store is only allowed to sell UA clothing unless UA doesn't make the type of clothing being sold (e.g. ties) and the athletics teams are only allowed to wear UA uniforms, warmups etc. It makes sense for a UA to make a deal like this with an SJC as SJC is, to HS sports fans, a national brand and good at many sports (and it doesn't hurt that UA's founder is an SJC alum). I would be shocked if Hayfield got a deal that looks even remotely like that. Nike would keep an Overton at a very far distance.



Thanks for the explanation. Looking into this more, Nike has sponsorships with public high schools, especially in Oregon where the HQ is. But both girls and boys sports should get equal treatment, and it appears Nike is only providing uniforms for Hayfield’s popular boys sports at the moment, with the other sports in the back of the queue.


Maybe Nike could make orange prison jumpsuits with the swish logo for Overton, the AD and everyone who had knowledge of the welfare fraud?


The AD is likely in a country that does not extradite to the US.


Is that a fact about no extradition?


He said he would be gone for 2 years. When does the statue of limitations expire?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I wonder which two were homeless.


Since they're not playing a home game tonight, hopefully the boosters will make good use of all of that food that is being wasted.


What wasted food? The football team meal comes from the "team mom's" fundraising account, not the boosters. Chips, candy, cokes, etc is all prepacked and will keep for basketball season.



Whatever the case, they shouldn't let the homeless student athletes go without during Thanksgiving.


Are you really that obtuse? They are not homeless. They have perfectly good homes in PWC.


That hasn't been proven. You really want everybody to believe that they commuted on the daily from PWC to Hayfield? No less at the whim of whatever their schedule was?


I drive 50 miles to work everyday. 15 miles is nothing.


There's long been a rumor of a hired van driving those PW kids to Hayfield every day.


Get the f**k outta hear with your "rumors". Let me guess. It was an FCPS van paid for by Reid?
FrankWinston
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I wonder which two were homeless.


Since they're not playing a home game tonight, hopefully the boosters will make good use of all of that food that is being wasted.


What wasted food? The football team meal comes from the "team mom's" fundraising account, not the boosters. Chips, candy, cokes, etc is all prepacked and will keep for basketball season.



Whatever the case, they shouldn't let the homeless student athletes go without during Thanksgiving.


Are you really that obtuse? They are not homeless. They have perfectly good homes in PWC.


That hasn't been proven. You really want everybody to believe that they commuted on the daily from PWC to Hayfield? No less at the whim of whatever their schedule was?


I drive 50 miles to work everyday. 15 miles is nothing.


There's long been a rumor of a hired van driving those PW kids to Hayfield every day.


It isn't a rumor. There is videotape of the Hayfraud kids getting in and out of a van at the 7-11 outside of Hayfield every day. It was given to Reid et. al. They ignored it.
Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
Go to: