Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
This is true. And FWIW I suspect that contractually, the Flames are on the hook. I don't think a court would say that a morals clause includes stuff that happened years before unless there were representations made about no bad past conduct made at the time of hiring (and I doubt there were). Morals clauses are tricky to begin with, but I've never seen one that applies retroactively like that.
That said, Peters has an interest in ending this as quickly and quietly as possible too, and may be trying to avoid a permanent ban by the NHL (which would affect affiliate minor league jobs as well). So he'd be well advised to accept a settlement that the NHL buys into.
|
We don't know what Peters contract looks like. It might have something about maintaining certain professional conducts that does not hurt the team publicly. Even though this incident happened a decade ago, there is a valid argument that his reputation, if he remained with the Flames, does hurt the Flames reputation publicly, and hence there is ground for termination with cause. Most likely there will be a settlement, and the Flames won't pay the full salary; especially with the League stepping in to negotiate. This is entirely my speculation.