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

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by WacoKid

You might get re-elected.

Knock it off.

[Textcritic]

There is a terrific interview with Steven Brunt on this issue ongoing on SN960 and SN 650 taking place right now...

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Stanley

Who knows if there's a morals clause in the contract that covers this type of behavior, regardless of timeline. But it's definitely the timeline thing that makes this a legal/contractual/PR nightmare.

I suspect there probably is (if SPC's have them then I don't see why a coaches contract wouldn't)...

"conduct yourself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League, or professional hockey generally"

... I figure the Flames (or more accurately their lawyers) are reviewing case law to see if A: the allegations violate that standard, and B: if the behavior coming to light now under his current contract meets the standard even though the behavior occurred prior to it's commencement.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by WacoKid

You might get re-elected.

Huh?

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Technically, we don't have a flux capacitor...

Speak for yourself.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Given everything I've seen about our GM, he leaves no stone un-turned.

When it comes to possible transactions, yes. Background research? Debatable.

Originally Posted by Torture

People don't say bad things in reference checks which is why they're pretty much useless.

Generally true, unless you have a good relationship with the referee...then they are likely to give you some good info (OTR of course). Between Neal and this, it is fair to ask if he has built those relationships. Of course it's hard to have them across all 30 teams, so maybe just bad luck to have no good connections in LVK, NAS, CAR, or CHI.

Originally Posted by Corral

Whatever that is. Everyone can be let go with adequate severance for no reason whatsoever. There is no legal reason. Its either about money or something more dramatic. I'm guessing the latter because there is no shortage of money at the Flames desk. they hand it out like candy.

Adequate severance being full pay for his contract in this case. The Flames definitely do not hand out money like candy - it may seem like it for players, but their liability is totally mitigated by the CBA. They seem to cheap out on front office/mgmt.

Originally Posted by dino7c

That isn't what happened...what if I tell your boss you said the Nword 10 years back when you worked for someone else. You get fired that day?

If you tell the whole world and I'm a public face of my company, then maybe/probably...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Because he wasn't fired doesn't mean that disciplinary action wasn't taken.

Personnel issues are rarely, if ever, resolved publicly with everyone knowing what happened. That is just a fact of business life.

Anything else, frankly, is irresponsible on the part of the employer.

If the individual wishes to publicly address the employment issue and its consequences, they have every right to do so, and it is solely that person's choice. No one has a "right" to know otherwise. Period.

Yes but in the court of public opinion everyone seems to think the only reasonable expectation is that heads should roll everytime something like this happens. Anything short of that is deemed unacceptable.

Unless you're Flash, then whatever the Flames did is unacceptable, and whatever everyone else did is okay.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Corral

Whatever that is. Everyone can be let go with adequate severance for no reason whatsoever. There is no legal reason. Its either about money or something more dramatic. I'm guessing the latter because there is no shortage of money at the Flames desk. they hand it out like candy.

This post is stupid

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dino7c

That isn't what happened...what if I tell your boss you said the Nword 10 years back when you worked for someone else. You get fired that day?

Plus an ordinary employee doesn't have a contract that specifies the behaviour that gets you canned without compensation. This is a pretty unusual situation where the act happened years before, so I imagine it's not exactly spelled out.

Now that only means they could just let him go with full compensation, end of story. Except I think they (a) want to save money and think they deserve to do so, given it's his fault and (b) want to be able to say the let him go for this reason, implying there was some cause.

[Strange Brew]

Everything we are hearing now makes Peters sound like a bad leader. Beyond the deplorable language from 10 years ago.

Isn’t it somewhat reasonable to question the process that led to the Flames believing he was the right person for the job?

[Owen15]

If Peters is bought out is it possible for the Flames to sue Chicago and Carolina to share the cost? I could see the NHL as a whole being culpable for not having adequate whistleblower policies in place or better processes to address unethical behaviour.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I suspect there probably is (if SPC's have them then I don't see why a coaches contract wouldn't)...

"conduct yourself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League, or professional hockey generally"

... I figure the Flames (or more accurately their lawyers) are reviewing case law to see if A: the allegations violate that standard, and B: if the behavior coming to light now under his current contract meets the standard even though the behavior occurred prior to it's commencement.

This is the grey area that I think is at the heart of any analysis here. I doubt it explicitly says so, and even if it did, there would be some concerns about enforceability.

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Everything we are hearing now makes Peters sound like a bad leader. Beyond the deplorable language from 10 years ago.

Isn’t it somewhat reasonable to question the process that led to the Flames believing he was the right person for the job?

I keep thinking his "style" is what caused the team to crack at the allstar break last year. I sure hope thats the case anyway.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

I keep thinking his "style" is what caused the team to crack at the allstar break last year. I sure hope thats the case anyway.

Yeah. That would be the best possible outcome. Hope you’re right

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

bingo

I'm on the hot seat?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm on the hot seat?

Always. Especially with certain posters.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yeah. That would be the best possible outcome. Hope you’re right

It seems most plausible. This team went from the #2 highest scoring team with 190 goals in 51 games; to fourteenth with 99 goals in 31 games; to 27th with 64 in 27—all with virtually the same group of players intact. That's a fall from 3.7 G/GP to 2.37.

It has been obvious that something is very wrong, and has been getting progressively worse. If not the abusive and demoralizing coach, then what?

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It seems most plausible. This team went from the #2 highest scoring team with 190 goals in 51 games; to fourteenth with 99 goals in 31 games; to 27th with 64 in 27—all with virtually the same group of players intact. That's a fall from 3.7 G/GP to 2.37.

It has been obvious that something is very wrong, and has been getting progressively worse. If not the abusive and demoralizing coach, then what?

The same core that failed two coaches prior to him?

[stang]

So, is there anyway that Peters stays?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

The same core that failed two coaches prior to him?

Yes.