Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I would be surprised if this is not something that everyone wants. Saying it is one thing, but putting it into action is another.
This was an unprecedented situation faced by a NHL club, and I was happy that the Flames responded immediately, and decisively inasmuch as they are able to within legal constraints. It sure looks to me that the Flames have enacted a policy of zero tolerance.
|
I understand the liability issues at stake here but perhaps something could have been said that reflects the organization’s values?
It was agreed by both parties that is is best for Bill and the Flames to part company. The league has informed us they will be completing the investigation that we began and we will have no further comment. I want to make a few things perfectly clear. Our organization has no tolerance for racist language or behavior. We have no tolerance for physical, mental or emotional abuse of our employees....”
Some things should be said explicitly IMO. Many CEO’s and executives have been fired for improper conduct while still agreeing to a settlement. The public statements, while lacking detail, will at least confirm the company’s stance on issues that arose and were alleged.
Just my opinion, but in return for the big cheque the Flames just cut Mr. Peters, they could have secured his and his attorney’s sign off on a public statement regarding the termination of his contract that would have put the organization in the best possible light without slandering him. I’m surprised they didn’t do this. And again he has admitted to some of this.
They may well have zero tolerance for this stuff and in fact, I expect they do. It’s a shame because this is essentially a problem they inherited with perhaps only a very, very small inkling this could have been in his history (where there’s smoke, there’s fire).
Now it’s really the league that will be doing this and more. Which is good for the Flames from a liability perspective.