[News] Bill Peters resigns as head coach. No longer part of Flames org. Ward interim HC

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I’m fine with Treliving not having much to say about their hiring process. They conducted a review of the allegations which was the pressing issue. They could absolutely plan to look at their hiring process going forward.

Now I didn’t listen to the whole thing but what I can’t believe is that not one reporter asked if the Flames asked for Peters to resign? Did they ask Treliving if his review found the allegations to be accurate? Did they make an attempt to determine whether any similar incidents occurred while Peters was under their employment? Do they have policies and procedures in place that would allow for such issues to be communicated upwards so that he is confident in knowing whether anything took place?

Of course he doesn’t have to answer any of these but these are all rather pertinent IMO.

But asking whether Peters was asked to resign is just basic. Let Treliving decline to answer if he chooses as he was no doubt prepped for that question.

He was essentially asked this twice I believe and his response was that bill submitted his resignation today and was no longer with the organization

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

https://twitter.com/user/status/1200474500350930944

Completely disagree with this tweet. He condemned the behaviour as repulsive and for all practical purposes, Peters was fired.

Like Jiri said, hockey writers aren't employment law experts and shouldn't pretend they are.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Is it not the narrative that if you were a racist in the past, you have to answer for it with your job now? Is that not why Bill Peters is unemployed today? JT was racist in his past with all kinds of photographic proof, but he kept his job as leader of his organization.

I'm not defending either one of these guys but the double-standard is massive, and as such has a large role in this "discussion" that everyone has been claiming to want.

One is a very public position of entertainment. Relies solely on the general public spending their disposable money on tickets and merch. To keep someone in that position when allegations like this arise is suicide.

The other, we actually get to decide. As a country. You vote. There is no amount of public outrage that will change any sort of “income” the gov receives as a result... these are not the same thing. They are both equally gross, and I’m disappointed as all hell that this dense crook is running the country. But the two are not comparable in how the situation is resolved.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

But asking whether Peters was asked to resign is just basic. Let Treliving decline to answer if he chooses as he was no doubt prepped for that question.

He has to dodge the question, won't comment on the allegations or anything else. This whole situation is a lawsuit waiting to happen if it gets bungled in any way

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Perhaps you could walk us through how you reached this particular conclusion?

You don't think painting your face black and stuffing a sock in your pants at a party to be racist?

Bill Peters repeated in a rage what was in a song, not only should that type of music not have been playing in a professional hockey teams dressing room it really shouldn't be played anywhere.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Is it not the narrative that if you were a racist in the past, you have to answer for it with your job now?

No, that is not the narrative. The narrative is that employers may, from time to time, decide that certain types of employee past misconduct, in certain circumstances, may make such employees unsuitable for their current employment and choose to terminate them, either with or without cause (depending on the circumstances.)

On the other hand, elected officials, who are not actually employees (but instead are office holders), may prove to be unelectable due to past misconduct. That determination is largely made by voters every few years, and no doubt depends on a myriad of factors and calculations, likely different for each and every voter.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

He was essentially asked this twice I believe and his response was that bill submitted his resignation today and was no longer with the organization

I thought he specifically stated that Peters offered the LOR and he (BT) accepted it.

Now there is little doubt that the offer to resign was part of the financial settlement, which assume would be pretty standard protocol in these kinds of things.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by zamler

There are entire websites dedicated to exactly this are there not? And how else are you going to find out about a boss and the company when it comes to internal matters if you don't ask the employees?

.... you ask that persons boss (GM, owner). Who perform yearly season ending interviews with all players.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by zamler

Wow, you're really lost in your own head.

I'm stating very clearly I strongly dislike double standards. I think we can ALL agree what Trudeau did and what Peters did are both highly racist. Since we can't read minds and ever know true intent logically we judge the person on their actions.

I'll just chime in that a double standard can only really exist if the situations are the same, which the Cherry/Peters' and Trudeau's aren't. Hell, even the Cherry/Peters things have a lot of differences.

The common denominator is allegations of racist/bigoted behaviour. From there they each significantly branch.

A more appropriate perspective is that they are contextualized approaches, responses, and actions.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Nobody is going to reach out to every single player or hundreds of players as part of their due dilligence.


They're probably going to reach out to players that they know, or ask the other reference guys ie GM's Assistant coaches and coaches for a list of players that they should talk to.

Agreed. The people suggesting Treliving should ask every former player should go ask their HR departments if they conduct reference checks on every manager's direct reports when they hire someone.

The answer is most likely, "No". Maybe they ask for 1 direct report but they most likely spend the majority of their reference checking time talking to the individual's higher ups.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by zamler

There are entire websites dedicated to exactly this are there not? And how else are you going to find out about a boss and the company when it comes to internal matters if you don't ask the employees?

Very basic protocol would be: review and fact check resume, interview, reference check. Given that hockey circles are relatively small, I am sure that others that you know might be contacted, if they had a prior relationship.

You don't interview dozens of references/employees. The idea that this immediately disqualifying revelation would become known based on a better hiring system is pure folly. As I mentioned in a previous post, BT would have likely needed to interview Aliu himself in order to find this out (and maybe even Aliu wouldn't disclose).

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I thought he specifically stated that Peters offered the LOR and he (BT) accepted it.

Now there is little doubt that the offer to resign was part of the financial settlement, which assume would be pretty standard protocol in these kinds of things.

Yes, your wording is more accurate.

Also agree with part 2, which is why treliving wouldn't answer questions about the context of the dismissal.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

You don't think painting your face black and stuffing a sock in your pants at a party to be racist?

Bill Peters repeated in a rage what was in a song, not only should that type of music not have been playing in a professional hockey teams dressing room it really shouldn't be played anywhere.

You. Don't. Even. Know. If. That's. True.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Very basic protocol would be: review and fact check resume, interview, reference check. Given that hockey circles are relatively small, I am sure that others that you know might be contacted, if they had a prior relationship.

You don't interview dozens of references/employees. The idea that this immediately disqualifying revelation would become known based on a better hiring system is pure folly. As I mentioned in a previous post, BT would have likely needed to interview Aliu himself in order to find this out (and maybe even Aliu wouldn't disclose).

I want to make it clear I don't think Treliving did anything wrong, except I wish he wouldn't have hired Peters in the first place I never thought he was a good coach.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Torture

Completely disagree with this tweet. He condemned the behaviour as repulsive and for all practical purposes, Peters was fired.

Like Jiri said, hockey writers aren't employment law experts and shouldn't pretend they are.

Most hockey writers should stop pretending they are journalists.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by zamler

Most hockey writers should stop pretending they are journalists.

journalist noun
jour·​nal·​ist | \ ˈjər-nə-list \
Definition of journalist
1a : a person engaged in journalism
especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

No, that is not the narrative. The narrative is that employers may, from time to time, decide that certain types of employee past misconduct, in certain circumstances, may make such employees unsuitable for their current employment and choose to terminate them, either with or without cause (depending on the circumstances.)

On the other hand, elected officials, who are not actually employees (but instead are office holders), may prove to be unelectable due to past misconduct. That determination is largely made by voters every few years, and no doubt depends on a myriad of factors and calculations, likely different for each and every voter.

People were calling for Peters head minutes after the tweet was sent out.

The Liberal party could have had him removed as leader quite easily and through multiple ways.

So I guess by not doing so, they are making a pretty telling statement of their own.

Again, its OK for some, but not for others.

Sorry but logic prevents me from buying into your very good attempt to spin this as massively different situations.

[manwiches]

Originally Posted by zamler

Most hockey writers should stop pretending they are journalists.

I agree. And to that effect, most journalists and people should stop pretending they're lawyers too.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

You don't think painting your face black and stuffing a sock in your pants at a party to be racist?

Yes, of course I do (although, for the record, I believe the allegation that Trudeau stuffed a sock in his pants is based on a split second of very grainy video and so very speculative). Of course, this has nothing really to do with the question that I asked so...

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Bill Peters repeated in a rage what was in a song, not only should that type of music not have been playing in a professional hockey teams dressing room it really shouldn't be played anywhere.

Don't even really know where to begin with this nonsense...

[Torture]

So let me get this straight. The people saying "But Trudeau!"

• Want Trudeau to have been fired
• Aren't OK with Bill Peters being fired (because Trudeau wasn't)
• And for the most part, are the same people that think Don Cherry shouldn't have been fired (because Trudeau wasn't)

Anybody else see some inconsistencies in this logic?