Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
See, this is just crazy talk as far as I can tell. He did not do this while he was employed by the team. There is therefore no cause. You generally can't be fired for cause for something you did before you were hired. The best they could possibly try would be to say that he should have disclosed this to the team when he was hired, but it would be unreasonable for him to be expected to do this.
They're well within their rights to fire him for the team's poor performance OR because they don't want to deal with this mess OR because they don't want a person with this in his past as part of the organization. But people really don't seem to be able to parse "terrible behaviour on the job leads to firing from this job" versus "terrible behaviour long before he took the job leads to firing from this job". They're hugely different issues, from an employer's perspective. If he'd said this stuff while with the Flames, he'd have been fired for cause long before now and it wouldn't even be a close call.
|
I suspect this is precisely why all this is being delayed.
Lawyers involved from Peters, the Flames and the NHL.
The Flames probably want to fire him without having to hand him a single penny.
Peters is trying to get as much $$$ as possible.
The NHL is trying to understand what precedent all this could set.
At this point it's clear to me that he's done as the coach. But the hows of it all are what is taking so long.
Doing it prematurely or in the wrong way would give Peters leverage to use.