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

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by 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.

The commissioner has pretty broad powers in this regard, including the termination of contracts and the imposition of suspensions without pay, so I imagine it's pretty much down to whether the NHL is willing to do this and feels that the penalty is likely to withstand any subsequent appeal by Peters. In the context of its attempts to broaden its appeal, it would certainly seem to be in the NHL's interests to ensure that Peters never again coaches in the league.

Otherwise, the Flames will probably be left holding the bag, being unable to terminate with cause for something that happened before Peters was employed by the team.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

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.

Remember the vast majority of people out there don’t have employment contracts like Peters. This is a question of telling him to stay home and continuing to honor the contract vs. terminating his contract for a breach on his part.

Can you fire Sally or Joe for something they did 10 years ago while not in your employ without exposing yourself to a claim for wrongful termination? I think that’s a different question.

[HighLifeMan]

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.

Can the NHL not step in here and terminate Bill Peter's contract for being “guilty of conduct detrimental to the League or the game of hockey" under Article VI, Section 5 (j)?

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

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.

I'm not sure why Peters would agree to that. If he's getting paid in full why settle? He's already admitted and apologized (however you view the apology) for the incident. Not much more for him to say.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

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.

No, they should not disclose. Well, of course they can - but they may then find themselves on the wrong side of a liability.

At most - and I would think in only the most egregious issue (and I can only think of one of those in the past decade or so) one might be able to say "There was an issue which resulted in us parting ways. I can't further discuss that matter." Not sure I'd be comfy even doing that.

Private matters should remain just that: private.

The venue (sports or biz) doesn't matter.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

I'm not sure why Peters would agree to that. If he's getting paid in full why settle? He's already admitted and apologized (however you view the apology) for the incident. Not much more for him to say.

Guaranteed 2 million or something vs a long protracted fight for his full pay. I agree if the NHL has argument then he won't settle.

[dammage79]

And what Johnson just said is where I suspect Bettman rolls n and negates the contract and suspends Peters for 10 years
Based in the totality of the evidence brought against Peter's. I be he has a good lawyer but they ain't no NHL league lawyers.

End of the day, I think Betmman saves the Flames a BUNCH of money on this.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

I'm not sure why Peters would agree to that. If he's getting paid in full why settle? He's already admitted and apologized (however you view the apology) for the incident. Not much more for him to say.

He didn't really apologize for anything - his lawyer wrote that letter on his behalf.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dammage79

And what Johnson just said is where I suspect Bettman rolls n and negates the contract and suspends Peters for 10 years
Based in the totality of the evidence brought against Peter's. I be he has a good lawyer but they ain't no NHL league lawyers.

End of the day, I think Betmman saves the Flames a BUNCH of money on this.

The NHL likely should impose their opinion and authority on this

This has to do with conduct that reflects on the league and there should be a precedent by which all clubs can abide

The league suspends/ disciplines players a lot more often than teams do

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

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.

i agree

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Personally, that's the route I think it's going as well.

They are trying to negotiate a buyout that sees everyone not interested in speaking to the media in depth about it.

Quickly and quietly is the order of the day I think, but that takes time between a group of representatives.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

No, they should not disclose. Well, of course they can - but they may then find themselves on the wrong side of a liability.

At most - and I would think in only the most egregious issue (and I can only think of one of those in the past decade or so) one might be able to say "There was an issue which resulted in us parting ways. I can't further discuss that matter." Not sure I'd be comfy even doing that.

Private matters should remain just that: private.

The venue (sports or biz) doesn't matter.

The venue doesn’t matter. But does the fact that these are franchises change anything? Is it a violation of your privacy if a McDonald’s franchise owner shares your employment information with another franchise owner? Maybe there is a centralized HR structure for some types of franchises which makes this moot. Or maybe pro sports leagues could be arranged like that but there would likely be serious cross border issues.

edit: Should add my firms policy is to only verify employment start and end dates and titles for the very points you mention. I will bend those rules for people in the business community that I truly trust. And even then, very carefully.

[sureLoss]

Friedman says it appears to be reaching a conclusion, the official firing is close, but unsure when it will happen.

Burke says at this point it appears to be a club level decision without league involvement.
edit: League will come in afterwards.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1200205750896939013

[dammage79]

Calling tomorrow. Actually, someone posted the day of it breaking that a firing should happen on a Friday. So lo and behold, Billy P gets the axe on a friday.

[Erick Estrada]

Tomorrow makes sense as I can't see the Flames wanting this to go into the weekend.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Friedman says it appears to be reaching a conclusion, the official firing is close, but unsure when it will happen.

Burke says at this point it appears to be a club level decision without league involvement.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1200205750896939013

Thanks for the update. Disappointed in the NHL

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Calling tomorrow. Actually, someone posted the day of it breaking that a firing should happen on a Friday. So lo and behold, Billy P gets the axe on a friday.

Not just any Friday.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Not just any Friday.

Oh damn!

[schteve_d]

I appreciate all the time that some posters put into some posts and threads, but there is one thing I've been thinking for a while. I'm not sure I have a great solution, but just want to throw it out there.

Some of these threads get pretty large and I can't always read every single post. Sometimes situations like this drag on and I don't even care to read every single post of speculation, etc. For instance, this thread has 47 pages and 933 posts. When I see the thread title, and it says: "UPD", I don't know where the update is if I haven't managed to keep up with the thread. What if we put something like "UPD @ 902" or something similar? Maybe there's a better way? It's just hard when I haven't been able to keep up with a thread all day, then see "UPD" and I've got to try and find where!

I'm not bitching! Does this make sense to anyone else?

[dammage79]

I just want to post something as it's been on my mind for a couple.of days now. Lindholm and Hanifin said nothing apparently about the troubles in Carolina when they arrived here. Or if they did it fell on deaf ears.

It's an ugly situation this Bill Peter's stuff, but that's been bugging me.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Thanks for the update. Disappointed in the NHL

To be fair he said that the NHL will be doing something about it at a later date. Probably after the face to face meeting between Peters and Bettman