Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Acceptance is explicit, not implicit.
You are the one who initiated the "legalese" with the the ridiculous assertion that the children would be learning not to obey rules if the coaches violated an invalid demand. Despite your best assertion, you cannot prove acceptance of the conditions... you can only assume (and only that by basing your argument on the "trustworthiness" of individuals as subjectively determined by you). And even if they did accept, it would be invalid on its face. Better luck next time...
Nice try. I said no such thing, nor could I.
The coaches, despite their assertions after the fact, complied with the e-mail throughout the football season. Then they went against it and were fired. Re-hiring them would send the message that it's OK to break the rules with which you disagree.
The legalese was your petulant whining that there was no formal acceptance of some formal contract.
"Despite your best assertion, you cannot prove acceptance of the conditions..."
They coached, didn't they? And the manner in which they coached right up to the last game was consistent with the e-mail, wasn't it?
You want me to believe that was coincidence? Yeah, I bet you do.
Its hopeless to attempt to reason further against "standard troll behavior":
It has been admitted that 'perhaps' the commissioner's inappropriate, rude, condescending, and manipulative conditions were indeed invalid.
Game, set, match.