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

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

I agree. When Hartley was here he never talked negatively about anyone to the media, on the contrary, always seemed complimentary. Even when Gaudreau, Monahan and Bouma broke team tules and we’re suspended a game he said something along the lines of “no one robbed a bank but they broke the team rules and have to bear the consequences.” I still believe he deserved one more year after the absolute tank job goaltending was his last year.

Hartley was two-faced. That was part of the problem. Mr. Happy and joking with media, but a dictator and POS to the players, by all accounts. I think that was why a guy like Sarich hated him but not Sutter. Sutter was mean, and grumpy, but to everyone. Of course, opinions vary on Sutter too.

[sureLoss]

FWIW Chris Johnston on 960 said that based on the people he is talking to, it "feels like" it will be unlikely the Flames will be able to fire Peters with cause. This means the Flames will be on the hook for paying out the rest of the contract.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

FWIW Chris Johnston on 960 said that based on the people he is talking to, it looks like it will be unlikely the Flames will be able to fire Peters with cause. This means the Flames will be on the hook for paying him.

Who's he talking too? The lawyers on CP?

Or someone who's actually seen the contract between Peters and the Flames?

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

FWIW Chris Johnston on 960 said that based on the people he is talking to, it "feels like" it will be unlikely the Flames will be able to fire Peters with cause. This means the Flames will be on the hook for paying out the rest of the contract.

$4 Million Dollars vs Good Optics...

I think they have to eat that money here.

[GioforPM]

I would guess he's talked to lawyers who've seen other coach contracts. There's no reason to think Peters' is out of the ordinary.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

FWIW Chris Johnston on 960 said that based on the people he is talking to, it "feels like" it will be unlikely the Flames will be able to fire Peters with cause. This means the Flames will be on the hook for paying out the rest of the contract.

Big picture, might not be a bad thing. Having a precedent out there where one could get terminated with cause for actions which occurred long before one was employed with the company wanting to terminate, could open an ugly window.

Before this is construed as me supporting Peters' actions or even think it's just he may end up getting paid, it is not. Again, big picture is what I'm thinking.

[theinfinitejar]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

FWIW Chris Johnston on 960 said that based on the people he is talking to, it "feels like" it will be unlikely the Flames will be able to fire Peters with cause. This means the Flames will be on the hook for paying out the rest of the contract.

Consider it a $4 million dollar lesson in the importance of vetting the character of your chosen hires.


EDIT: At least this time the lesson money doesn't count against the cap.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

FWIW Chris Johnston on 960 said that based on the people he is talking to, it "feels like" it will be unlikely the Flames will be able to fire Peters with cause. This means the Flames will be on the hook for paying out the rest of the contract.

Not surprising. Hopefully the Flames make the right decision because there's not really any going back now.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Big picture, might not be a bad thing. Having a precedent out there where one could get terminated with cause for actions which occurred long before one was employed with the company wanting to terminate, could open an ugly window.

Before this is construed as me supporting Peters' actions or even think it's just he may end up getting paid, it is not. Again, big picture is what I'm thinking.

It might not matter on precedent. I forgot who said it yesterday (maybe Burke?) it is likely all future NHL coaching and executive contracts will have clauses allowing for termination with cause if incidents from the past like this about the coach/executive come to light.

Peters might luck out because he will be the first.

[btimbit]

Ouch. That's a big pill to swallow

[868904]

So fire him for the record.

[Azure]

There is a good chance that the NHL directed the Flames to wait and see if they can set a precedent of being able to fire a coach without pay and sever all ties completely if something like this comes up.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by 868904

So fire him for the record.

Would still have to pay him out.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

FWIW Chris Johnston on 960 said that based on the people he is talking to, it "feels like" it will be unlikely the Flames will be able to fire Peters with cause. This means the Flames will be on the hook for paying out the rest of the contract.

This sounds bad.

Is it bad?

Oh well.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

It might not matter on precedent. I forgot who said it yesterday (maybe Burke?) it is likely all future NHL coaching and executive contracts will have clauses allowing for termination with cause if incidents from the past like this about the coach/executive come to light.

Peters might luck out because he will be the first.

I was thinking even outside hockey/sports circles. But, I am not a lawyer, so perhaps not even a valid thought.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This sounds bad.

Is it bad?

Oh well.

It's not good or bad - it just is.
This has been the big hanging question - can you fire someone for what they did years ago while not working for you.
The answer to that is yes
Can you fire them though without having to pay them?
The answer to that very may well be no.
Which isn't that surprising.

EDIT: I suspect that this ends with the Flames and Peters settling on how much he gets, and in exchange for that, both sides agree they won't speak about it further.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If that conversation took place, it most likely went something like this:

BT: "Hello, Rod Brind'Amour. You worked under Bill in his time in Carolina. Are the rumours I have heard about him true?"

RB: "Hi, Brad. Yeah, Bill's a hard-nosed coach who sometimes pushes boundaries, but when players and management made him aware of the problem he backed right off."

BT: "What sort of issues?"

RB: "I'd rather not get into it. We dealt with it internally, and everything has been fine since."

I suspect that this is a likely approximation for how vetting is conducted in the NHL. Hopefully, this changes.

This would not surprise me in the least. There have been rather a few cases of references being given that were honest...but the person who was being reviewed took umbrage at how they were described (I'd assume that in each case they didn't get the job they were seeking) and tried some form of legal action against the person/company providing the reference.

The safest action is to "damn with faint praise" much like you've described:

"He/she was an adequate employee. We decided ultimately that the fit was a bit off, and we wanted to move in a somewhat different direction."

Unless there are Court decisions that essentially absolve reviewers of their negative comments (I guess one will never be able to say..."Well the guy was terrible at his job and insulted everyone...") it's unlikely to change. This is not confined to sports. It exists in ALL business referrals.

[danny darko]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

FWIW Chris Johnston on 960 said that based on the people he is talking to, it "feels like" it will be unlikely the Flames will be able to fire Peters with cause. This means the Flames will be on the hook for paying out the rest of the contract.

This sounds about right. As far as we know, he hasn't done anything that violates the boundaries of his current contract & obligations with the Flames. This happened a decade ago, and unless anything has happened during his time in Calgary, it will likely end up requiring a settlement payout for the amount that he would have been earning during the remainder of his contract with the Flames. I can't see him ever coaching another game behind the bench in Calgary, I'm pretty sure that decision has already been made, but because this happened so long ago it's now up to the lawyers to resolve things.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If that conversation took place, it most likely went something like this:

BT: "Hello, Rod Brind'Amour. You worked under Bill in his time in Carolina. Are the rumours I have heard about him true?"

RB: "Hi, Brad. Yeah, Bill's a hard-nosed coach who sometimes pushes boundaries, but when players and management made him aware of the problem he backed right off."

BT: "What sort of issues?"

RB: "I'd rather not get into it. We dealt with it internally, and everything has been fine since."

I suspect that this is a likely approximation for how vetting is conducted in the NHL. Hopefully, this changes.

If you call my employer about a reference, should they disclose to you the details of an HR matter for which I was disciplined? Assuming no laws were broken etc. What if some of what happened was subject to interpretation and you begin providing your own opinion on things?

I get that pro sports are different and they are all franchises of the same league. But this still seems like a tricky thing.

[DeluxeMoustache]

About Tre’s due diligence and the Canes as a reference

Peters had a contract with a year left, his option, and he voluntarily resigned

Why should Tre suspect that he had committed offenses worthy of firing?