Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour
Yup...It's not out of the realm of possibility, he was paid more to resign. His resignation made this issue a lot cleaner and a lot easier for the Flames, and the NHL.
|
Exactly. The complexities are numerous
The Flames operate in Alberta. Rockford operate in Illinois. If the Flames dismiss Peters, I would imagine they are subject to Alberta labour laws, unless NHL coach contracts specify that labour laws of a particular jurisdiction govern the agreement. I am not sure about that. Labour laws certainly vary widely by province, state, etc. That’s just a minor thing, relatively. Maybe it would even be straight forward.
It is a bigger picture, high visibility issue, involving two socially sensitive topics (racism and abuse of authority), that affects the entire league, and I am confident a league which is image conscious would not want to be in the spotlight on this any longer than it has to be.
Had the Flames dismissed Peters, they would have to take a position as to whether he is dismissed with cause or without cause. One implication is whether or not they have to pay, but that’s absolutely not the bigger picture issue. If they elect to say it is with cause, they are taking a stand that prior conduct constitutes just cause. Maybe establishing or arguing if there should be a statute of limitations on prior conduct. The sides would definitely take opposing positions as to whether Peters words were addressing the music or directed, whether directly or indirectly at Aliu.
I am pretty darn confident neither the Flames nor the NHL want to be involved in any of those battles. It would set a precedent for other leagues and other situations, and would have to be probably pretty fiercely battled, and high visibility. The NHL wants neither that burden nor negative publicity.
If Peters does not resign, the Flames have to take a position and action and justify it, and the league would also potentially have to take action to determine what an appropriate suspension and / or fine may be for conduct that occurred at another time and under another (albeit affiliated) league.
While technically Peters may have “voluntarily resigned”, for practical purposes he absolutely did not voluntarily resign. Treliving would not have been surprised by the resignation of Peters.
There was an assessment of options moving forward. The respective representatives of the Flames, NHL, and Peters worked together, no doubt to choose the cleanest option.
I am sure the Flames were chapped that they are paying a guy not to coach, but this is a matter of picking your battles and paying for the situation to go away.
It is unbelievably naive to think the Flames’ top priority was whether or not to pay Bill