Bill Peters' open apology to Treliving. UPD: Aliu responds

[KootenayFlamesFan]

That 'a decade ago' line really bugs the hell out of me. He really should have left that out, not helping his cause at all.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Psytic

You mean since 1865 the end of the civil war? I don't think the "N"words been culturally acceptable for quite some time.

And ask the Dixie Chicks if “cancel culture” is something new.

[Elkyiv]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

That was as much of an air quotes apology as I've ever seen.

How should he have apologized if he was truly sincere?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by The Hendog

Sounds like termination tomorrow with cause after they got the investigation sorted out

See, this is just crazy talk as far as I can tell. He did not do this while he was employed by the team. There is therefore no cause. You generally can't be fired for cause for something you did before you were hired. The best they could possibly try would be to say that he should have disclosed this to the team when he was hired, but it would be unreasonable for him to be expected to do this.

They're well within their rights to fire him for the team's poor performance OR because they don't want to deal with this mess OR because they don't want a person with this in his past as part of the organization. But people really don't seem to be able to parse "terrible behaviour on the job leads to firing from this job" versus "terrible behaviour long before he took the job leads to firing from this job". They're hugely different issues, from an employer's perspective. If he'd said this stuff while with the Flames, he'd have been fired for cause long before now and it wouldn't even be a close call.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Elkyiv

If you are in the "Peters ought to be fired" camp, I am curious to know what you would consider to be an appropriate apology that he could have submitted where he could keep his job? Does such an apology exist in today's cancel culture?

No there isn't an apology that would suffice.

A coach is supposed to be a leader and someone people (players) look up to.

A coach should not symbolize bigotry, racism or hate.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by DropIt

The point where he points out "A decade ago" seems like he is suggesting it was soooooo long ago

Actually raised my temperature. Poor choice of words. The date would have been much better.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well now I'm confused, because he very adamantly says in the apology letter that he went into the locker room afterwords and apologized.

Would he blatantly lie about something like that when it could easily be corroborated by the 20 other guys that were in the locker room at the time?

And before you say he would, think that he obviously had his lawyers help him write this.

Something stinks here.

Apologies can be tricky. In his letter he says he went back into the room and apologized to them team. That can be significantly different and less meaningful and powerful than apologizing to a specific individual that was wronged. Saying "hey guys, I screwed up and apologize for my actions" is a lot different than saying "Sorry xxxx, I shouldn't have used the n word and it was an over reaction due to the immediately stressful situation. I didn't intend to hurt you and it won't happen again."

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

That 'a decade ago' line really bugs the hell out of me. He really should have left that out, not helping his cause at all.

As others have mentioned probably a legal strategy.

The Forbes article I linked in the other thread said that one of the possible ways that Peters could defend himself against termination with cause and keep getting paid is to argue that the incident took place such a long time ago that it had no effect on his employment with the Flames.

[hummdeedoo]

When Treliving says "We need to get this right"

he means "We need to get this termination right"

[WhiteTiger]

As Burke is mentioning, this kind of thing makes me wonder if contracts are going to start having some kind of "Skeleton in the Closet" clause.

[Manhattanboy]

I’ve written letters like this and you can bet every word is deliberate. As is what was left out.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

See, this is just crazy talk as far as I can tell. He did not do this while he was employed by the team. There is therefore no cause. You generally can't be fired for cause for something you did before you were hired. The best they could possibly try would be to say that he should have disclosed this to the team when he was hired, but it would be unreasonable for him to be expected to do this.

They're well within their rights to fire him for the team's poor performance OR because they don't want to deal with this mess OR because they don't want a person with this in his past as part of the organization. But people really don't seem to be able to parse "terrible behaviour on the job leads to firing from this job" versus "terrible behaviour long before he took the job leads to firing from this job". They're hugely different issues, from an employer's perspective. If he'd said this stuff while with the Flames, he'd have been fired for cause long before now and it wouldn't even be a close call.

I suspect this is precisely why all this is being delayed.
Lawyers involved from Peters, the Flames and the NHL.
The Flames probably want to fire him without having to hand him a single penny.
Peters is trying to get as much $$$ as possible.
The NHL is trying to understand what precedent all this could set.

At this point it's clear to me that he's done as the coach. But the hows of it all are what is taking so long.

Doing it prematurely or in the wrong way would give Peters leverage to use.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I’ve written letters like this and you can bet every word is deliberate. As is what was left out.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

See, this is just crazy talk as far as I can tell. He did not do this while he was employed by the team. There is therefore no cause. You generally can't be fired for cause for something you did before you were hired. The best they could possibly try would be to say that he should have disclosed this to the team when he was hired, but it would be unreasonable for him to be expected to do this.

They're well within their rights to fire him for the team's poor performance OR because they don't want to deal with this mess OR because they don't want a person with this in his past as part of the organization. But people really don't seem to be able to parse "terrible behaviour on the job leads to firing from this job" versus "terrible behaviour long before he took the job leads to firing from this job". They're hugely different issues, from an employer's perspective. If he'd said this stuff while with the Flames, he'd have been fired for cause long before now and it wouldn't even be a close call.

Well that’s the whole point up for debate right now isn’t it? Whether he has violated terms of his contract, perhaps through some morality clause. The “for cause” language maybe isn’t the most appropriate.

I assume Flames are working on the exact language they are putting in his termination letter. Or maybe they make him an offer. Here’s a $1 million Bill. Sign a confidentiality agreement so no one knows we paid you this and we terminate your contract. Otherwise go ahead and sue us and you can relive all this #### you put yourself and others through.

Either way it’s time to ####can this loser.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I wonder if this letter is intended to protect himself from being outright fired. No acknowledgement of ongoing other issues, and the mention of "a decade ago" in the very first sentence seem intentional.
I suspect he was guided, by his attorneys, to apologize in this manner to put on the record what he is acknowledging and the fact it happened 10 years ago with a different team.
The apology should have ended with his offer to resign.

That’s exactly what I expected as I read through it.

I’m not sure what the lawyers are hoping to accomplish with this.

They can’t actually believe they can salvage this situation.

[bluejays]

I really don't like Bob McKenzie's statements. An announcement could come tomorrow or it may not. What the heck is this reporting?

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Elkyiv

If you are in the "Peters ought to be fired" camp, I am curious to know what you would consider to be an appropriate apology that he could have submitted where he could keep his job? Does such an apology exist in today's cancel culture?

Not so much about cancel culture.

He has apologized (sort of) for the language incident.
He hasn't apologized for the career sabotage accusation.
He hasn't apologized for accusation of physical abuse and intimidation.

He's hoping the last two just go away.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I can only imagine how angry BT is about that letter.
He's being cool in front of the media, but I suspect he's BOILING underneath.

All sorts of things wrong with the letter, but the cherry on top is sending it WHILE THE GUYS YOU JUST WERE COACHING ARE TRYING TO GET A WIN

Brutal Bill. Eff off.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well that’s the whole point up for debate right now isn’t it? Whether he has violated terms of his contract, perhaps through some morality clause. The “for cause” language maybe isn’t the most appropriate.

Again, you cannot violate a contract before you enter into it. The contract could contain some representation on his part that he has disclosed all relevant information about his past work history to the team, or some such, but a breach of a representation isn't generally enough to terminate a contract.

I assume Flames are working on the exact language they are putting in his termination letter. Or maybe they make him an offer. Here’s a $1 million Bill. Sign a confidentiality agreement so no one knows we paid you this and we terminate your contract.

It's possible they're negotiating, but that doesn't seem like sound strategy to me. It could take a while, all the while the media spotlight is on the team for all the wrong reasons. Just doesn't seem worth it. Fire him first, then negotiate to settle his potential lawsuit, if that's the road you want to go down.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by fleury

I really don't like Bob McKenzie's statements. An announcement could come tomorrow or it may not. What the heck is this reporting?

Could come tomorrow or may not. Perhaps. Either way, working to confirm. Maybe.