Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDutch
I think we need more information to make that conclusion. Did Tre know about this at any point? If no, then no. If yes, then yes.
People vouch for others all the time. Yes some personal credibility is put on the line, but you only know what you know. If everyone he talked to clammed up due to "hockey culture", then how is this on Tre?
What matters is what he does when he actually knows information. On that he was forthright and honest last night. He is doing the right thing in taking it serious and not waving it off due to risk to himself.
I am willing to put money on him firing Bill at this point no question if this is proved to be detrimental to the organization.
That said, Flames need to hire Tre a real adviser not name Connie, as he has shown himself very weak in this area.
I get some don't like Bill and Glenn, but to expect anyone to be fired over something they didn't know at all is so over the top it is ridiculous.
Some need to understand the optics to "100 other coaches" out there that are watching this for a fair shake if/when they are called for an interview.
|
Im not really saying reliving should be fired over something he didn't know, something he did, or even fired at all.
I just think that when an employee brings this amount of negative attention to your brand or organization, that the person put in place to make that hire is going to attract a warranted and reasonable amount of heat.
This is an extremely uncommon situation. It's not just a 'firing the coach' situation that happens 15 times a year in the NHL. This is a public relations nightmare.
The thing of it is, Treliving and Peters worked together in a professional capacity, that's the basis of the relationship according to treliving. They found agreeable common ground. Philosophically, interpersonally, Treliving felt a connection with Peters which resulted in the hire.
It's so common that there's a cliche for it. A GM usually only gets to hire 2 or 3 coaches.
With this latest hire proving to be such a spectacular and public failure, remember that Treliving had to stand up for this coach just a week to ten days ago, the organization needs to be asking themselves here if Treliving the one who should be making decisions on behalf of the on-ice product going forward.
Is one of the ways out this, for both their internal and external reputations, to move on without treliving as well. To 'transition' him into 'taking a step back' for the organization.
Does removing Treliving AND Peters have a better reputational and product/consumer outcome than keeping Treliving in place?
I think it might. Especially with Maloney waiting in the wings able to pick up the slack without skipping a beat.