[News] UPD: Friedman: Peters being officially removed as head coach is close

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Oh for #### sakes. Being yelled at or called names by your hockey coach is no where close to sexual abuse, it's a total slap in the face to those who HAVE had to deal with coming out about such things to compare the two. Ugh.

There is certainly nothing worse than sexual abuse in this context, but that does not mean there isn't still a ton of absolutely unacceptable behaviour continuing to occur by competitive coaches.

Of course, that line is much harder to define (acceptable vs. unacceptable hard-ass coaching)...we don't have to limit our condemnation to the equivalents of Cosby/Weinstein/Epstein, though.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Oh geez.

Compare him to the league, not to his (to this point) lousy team.

He is tied for 250th in scoring.

He shows a lot of compete, which is nice, and still has to deal with getting routinely manhandled.

Shows promise but is not yet a second liner on a good team

His points / 60 is ranked 129th for NHL forwards.

With 31 teams that puts him at a top six forward actually.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why shouldn’t he monetize it?

Peters right now is trying to monetize his dismissal. This idea that victims need to be selfless and noble is wrong. Aliu should extract what he can out of this situation. While I agree that monetary incentive does cause credibility to be questioned the victims should approach it in a manner they want to. If that’s being paid to keep quiet that’s fine, if that is shedding light on it for the public that’s fine to.

We don’t get to decide how a victim should behave.

He is?

How's that?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

He is?

How's that?

It’s an assumption on my part.

Right now he is likely negotiating a departure that will pay him as much money as he can. He isn’t resigning and quietly walking away with nothing or this would have been over already.

I could be incorrect here though.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why shouldn’t he monetize it?

For the reasons you suggest. It comes off as petty and vindictive. It cheapens his message. It provides an ulterior motive that brings into question the sincerity of the complaint. The decade it took for him to speak up is problematic, and if he is going for a cash grab and using a racial slur as a means to get some money, then that is a game changer, no?

Peters right now is trying to monetize his dismissal. This idea that victims need to be selfless and noble is wrong. Aliu should extract what he can out of this situation. While I agree that monetary incentive does cause credibility to be questioned the victims should approach it in a manner they want to. If that’s being paid to keep quiet that’s fine, if that is shedding light on it for the public that’s fine to.

Peters has an actual contract with the Flames, so he has every right to monetize his situation. He is being penalized, rightly or wrongly, by his current employer for something that happened a decade a go when he was with another employer in a different league. His contract is likely written where he is paid for his service and it all based on his performance as a member of the Calgary Flames organization. I highly doubt that his actions as a coach of the Chicago Wolves were taken into consideration when he was contracted for this job. Any morality clause would likely be drafted for behaviors displayed while a member of the organization. This is likely why this is taking the time it is. The Flames know they have to sack Peters, but they are making sure that when they dismiss him they are not leaving themselves open to a wrongful termination suit and penalties from damaging Peters' ability to find employment in the industry again. This is it for Peters and he likely knows it. He's done in hockey and he has to leverage this contract to the max. So there is a significant difference between the two situations.

We don’t get to decide how a victim should behave.

A lot of people would argue that. Society has expectations as to how all people should act, and even victims of a real crime are held to certain expectations. I'm not questioning Aliu's feelings, I'm just a little iffy on his motives and actions. He has every right to be offended and hurt, but at the same time there has to be a limitation on how long you get to harbor your feelings for being called a name, no matter how derogatory. Timing is everything. Just like the #metoo movement, some have more credibility than others in their claims because of their behaviors after the incident and the amount of time they allowed to tick by on the clock. At a time when behavioral norms are being assaulted by the most powerful, we should still be very cognizant of how we want people to behave and what we consider right and wrong ways of correcting past or current transgressions against those norms or the law.

[PeteMoss]

First of all - sucks for Babcock that he's linked to this Peters/Aliu issue because being a jerk and being racist are different.

But outside of the Peters/Aliu issue - I'm glad the jerk behaviour of coaches is being called out. Sports and the military are the two big spots (in developed areas at least) where this kind of behaviour is tolerated. Imagine how long we'd all last in our companies if we berated our employees like they do. It's a ridiculously outdated method of communicating.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

First of all - sucks for Babcock that he's linked to this Peters/Aliu issue because being a jerk and being racist are different.

But outside of the Peters/Aliu issue - I'm glad the jerk behaviour of coaches is being called out. Sports and the military are the two big spots (in developed areas at least) where this kind of behaviour is tolerated. Imagine how long we'd all last in our companies if we berated our employees like they do. It's a ridiculously outdated method of communicating.

Stop watching movies. That kind of stuff is being actively removed, and is not tolerated. Hell in 1987 when I was in and working as a basic training instructor we were um strongly encouraged not to swear.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Stop watching movies. That kind of stuff is being actively removed, and is not tolerated. Hell in 1987 when I was in and working as a basic training instructor we were um strongly encouraged not to swear.

That’s great that it wasn’t your experience, but don’t be so dismissive. This isn’t something made up from movies, there are plenty of recent (last 5 years) reports both through the media and from more official bodies on the prevalence of these issues.

Don’t put your head in the sand. These toxic issues span across many in-cultures.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by New Era

For the reasons you suggest. It comes off as petty and vindictive. It cheapens his message. It provides an ulterior motive that brings into question the sincerity of the complaint. The decade it took for him to speak up is problematic, and if he is going for a cash grab and using a racial slur as a means to get some money, then that is a game changer, no?



Peters has an actual contract with the Flames, so he has every right to monetize his situation. He is being penalized, rightly or wrongly, by his current employer for something that happened a decade a go when he was with another employer in a different league. His contract is likely written where he is paid for his service and it all based on his performance as a member of the Calgary Flames organization. I highly doubt that his actions as a coach of the Chicago Wolves were taken into consideration when he was contracted for this job. Any morality clause would likely be drafted for behaviors displayed while a member of the organization. This is likely why this is taking the time it is. The Flames know they have to sack Peters, but they are making sure that when they dismiss him they are not leaving themselves open to a wrongful termination suit and penalties from damaging Peters' ability to find employment in the industry again. This is it for Peters and he likely knows it. He's done in hockey and he has to leverage this contract to the max. So there is a significant difference between the two situations.



A lot of people would argue that. Society has expectations as to how all people should act, and even victims of a real crime are held to certain expectations. I'm not questioning Aliu's feelings, I'm just a little iffy on his motives and actions. He has every right to be offended and hurt, but at the same time there has to be a limitation on how long you get to harbor your feelings for being called a name, no matter how derogatory. Timing is everything. Just like the #metoo movement, some have more credibility than others in their claims because of their behaviors after the incident and the amount of time they allowed to tick by on the clock. At a time when behavioral norms are being assaulted by the most powerful, we should still be very cognizant of how we want people to behave and what we consider right and wrong ways of correcting past or current transgressions against those norms or the law.

Sounds like tone policing to me. We don't like how you're coming forward so we don't have to deal with it. We don't like when you're coming forward, or how polite you're being or the platform you're doing it on. All ways in order to sweep the problem away.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s an assumption on my part.

Right now he is likely negotiating a departure that will pay him as much money as he can. He isn’t resigning and quietly walking away with nothing or this would have been over already.

I could be incorrect here though.

I read “monetize his dismissal” as he is looking for some way to obtain extra money due to his dismissal. Not looking for what he is owed on his contract.

Legal contract battles are completely understandable here, especially if there isn’t an agreed upon mutual split.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

For the reasons you suggest. It comes off as petty and vindictive. It cheapens his message. It provides an ulterior motive that brings into question the sincerity of the complaint. The decade it took for him to speak up is problematic, and if he is going for a cash grab and using a racial slur as a means to get some money, then that is a game changer, no?

How so is it problematic?

A lot of people would argue that. Society has expectations as to how all people should act, and even victims of a real crime are held to certain expectations. I'm not questioning Aliu's feelings, I'm just a little iffy on his motives and actions. He has every right to be offended and hurt, but at the same time there has to be a limitation on how long you get to harbor your feelings for being called a name, no matter how derogatory.

You think the issue here is that Aliu's feelings were hurt because he was called a name? My god. This is about racial profiling and the abuse of authority. If Aliu believes that his career was irreparably damaged by a coach who interfered with his ability to advance (and it certainly appears that he has a legitimate case in this regard), then why shouldn't he do what he can to seek reparations for that now?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Sounds like tone policing to me.

That's actually quite funny in many ways, considering the extent to which this happens here.

We don't like how you're coming forward so we don't have to deal with it. We don't like when you're coming forward, or how polite you're being or the platform you're doing it on. All ways in order to sweep the problem away.

I don't think it is tone policing so much as making people work within the confines of the system. You were subject to a crime, you are expected to work through the legal system to achieve justice; you are not to take the law in your own hands and try to achieve justice through your narrow lens. You don't like the law, you are expected to work the legislative process to change the law; you are not to go full sovereign citizen and decide which laws apply to you. Can we agree that social media character assassination is not a good way of wronging a right, especially if it leads to a legal action to make money?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Has there been an indication that Aliu did this to monetize it, or is this just a narrative you are using to fuel your weird victim-blaming rhetoric?

[Resolute 14]

There is considerable irony in you whining about "social media character assassination" here, Lanny.

Aliu's comments have been corroborated, and others have come forward with stories of their own. Bill Peters is, unquestionably, not a victim of character assassination.

If you want an example of that, look to your own posts, where you are desperately trying to assign nefarious intent on the part of Aliu for... reasons. You are basically telling a victim of racism to just sit down and be quiet. And your arguments are really only making you look like a backwards fool.

Guys like Mike Commodore (willingly) and Mitch Marner (unwillingly) helped create a scenario where guys like Aliu finally felt comfortable speaking up. This is, unquestionably, a good thing.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by New Era

For the reasons you suggest. It comes off as petty and vindictive. It cheapens his message. It provides an ulterior motive that brings into question the sincerity of the complaint. The decade it took for him to speak up is problematic, and if he is going for a cash grab and using a racial slur as a means to get some money, then that is a game changer, no?

I don't know why people find it hard to understand why victims do not speak up. There's been an incredible amount of evidence as to why people do not feel empowered to speak out. As Resolute pointed out above, one of those reasons are people like you victim blaming. This kind of stuff leads to fear, humiliation and career suicide in certain places. Why now? Everything coming out about Babs and the fact that he cannot find a place to play and no longer has anything to lose comes to mind. It's easier to speak out when issues elsewhere are brought to light.

Also, what do you think he has been doing for the last decade? He's been trying to make the NHL and earn some money. If Peters called him an N word and torpedoed his career after he reacted negatively to being called the N word then why does he not have every right to try to monetize this? This is why we have civil courts.

[Krovikan]

I think this is a snowball effect mixed in with insticutial Tribalism. Stuff starts leaking out about Babcock. More and more people feel it's safe for them to stand up, as their is protection in numbers and a tribe of victims forms. I can see exactly why Akim and others after him would not feel comfortable last week, and this week he feels comfortable.




Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Both of these threads have involved a number of people trying to outstupid their predecessors.

And you're right. Every single commentator who has spoken about it has said the Flames are handling it the right way. Even NBCSN, who dedicated a bunch of time to the issue during both intermissions in the Hawks-Stars game last night.

If people want to see a team doing it the wrong way, look to the Houston Astros, whose sexist and misogynistic assistant GM tried to intimidate a female reporter by praising domestic abusers, in front of other reporters. The team first tried to say she made it up, and after other reporters backed her up, they were silent, then tried a half-assed apology, and then grudgingly fired him. They didn't take it seriously at all until they realized that the firestorm of criticism wasn't going to stop. The Flames, on the other hand, have taken this seriously and with sincerity from the moment Aliu made his accusation.

Not quite right. It was the idiot AGM who issued the half assed embarrassment of an apology not the Astros. They apologized a few times after firing him including what I consider an (apparently) sincere private apology to the reporter. You can say they grudgingly fired the guy but it was done within 72 hours of the incident being public. Would you say Flames grudgingly fired Peters if it takes that long? I wouldn’t. The Astros initial refuting of the incident was unequivocally horrible and reflects poorly on those involved, no two ways about it. They deserve the shame.

While I have every belief the Flames will do the right thing, the situation is entirely different. And personally I think it best to reserve the pats on the back until they actually do something.

And while I’m not shocked Peters has had nothing to say publicly, probably because he knows nothing will save his job at this point, it certainly will be interesting to see how he handles.

[sureLoss]

Eric Francis @EricFrancis
Flames coach Geoff Ward said he hasn’t spoken to Bill Peters, nor have the rest of the coaches. Doesn’t know where Peters is. Ward said he hasn’t been told anything about his own status other than being told he was running practice yesterday and will be running the bench tonight.

[Stanley]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Eric Francis @EricFrancis
Flames coach Geoff Ward said he hasn’t spoken to Bill Peters, nor have the rest of the coaches. Doesn’t know where Peters is. Ward said he hasn’t been told anything about his own status other than being told he was running practice yesterday and will be running the bench tonight.

Wow....that's kind of concerning. Peters in hiding? lol yikes

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Stanley

Wow....that's kind of concerning. Peters in hiding? lol yikes

He doesn't have to be in hiding. He's likely at home.

I wouldn't have expected that any of the coaches would be in contact with him.