TSN: 2 teammates independently corroborate Akim Aliu's allegations against Peters

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by nik-

Why would they be open to a lawsuit? Coaches can be fired at the whim of the GMs, they'll just have to pay out the remainder of his contract.

Yeah, the only suit would be if they claimed that he breached the contract so they didn’t have to pay him. It wouldn’t come to that. They’d agree on a payment.

Frankly, I think they check which way the wind’s blowing.

[CaptainCrunch]

This is different then a performance based termination, its a personal reputation based termination, and in this case if you fire him based on just an accusation, without corroborating evidence, or a admission, yeah you're probably getting sued.


And the Flames firing him 28 games into this season after a stellar first season would both be stupid, and probably would mean that not many coaches would be interested in stepping into a potentially unstable environment with a GM with no patience. Plus I doubt the Flames owners would be all that thrilled with paying a coach for not coaching after the Hartley firing.

[SofaProfessor]

Originally Posted by nik-

This has the potential to age well.

I'm screenshotting the original with your reply for my future signature pending the outcome of the Billy Peters investigation. Been waiting for a moment like this tbh.

[Ashasx]

The organization is going to face major backlash if they don't act, regardless of whether it's true. What a #### situation.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by transplant99

They can easily justify a paid LOA while they gather facts and talk to people before making a final decision.

It would be the prudent thing.

Especially when you have someone like Oliver Kylington in the room.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Well they can't fire him for using a racist term on the word of one player without a proper investigation, it opens the Flames up to a huge law suit.

You can relieve him of his duties and continue paying his salary, as is usually the case with coach firings.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This is different then a performance based termination, its a personal reputation based termination, and in this case if you fire him based on just an accusation, without corroborating evidence, or a admission, yeah you're probably getting sued.


And the Flames firing him 28 games into this season after a stellar first season would both be stupid, and probably would mean that not many coaches would be interested in stepping into a potentially unstable environment with a GM with no patience. Plus I doubt the Flames owners would be all that thrilled with paying a coach for not coaching after the Hartley firing.

I’m no employment lawyer, but couldn’t he be fired with cause in this instance?

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I doubt that's going to happen at all. You can't hang a man based on accusations.


Doing stuff like that without actual for real proof is going to open the Flames up to a Lawsuit.

We see the NHL suspend players for all kinds of things, maybe Peters gets asked to step aside until either Flames or the NHL investigates the allegations? Not sure if the Flames would be opened to lawsuit, wouldn't that be under NHL guidelines and jurisdiction? Flames certainly could fire Peters on performance?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by troutman

Isn’t Darryl an old school motivator as well?

There's a vast difference between being an old school motivator and being a rich white man calling a poor black kid the N-word, regardless of intent.

White people aren't allowed to say it. I'm sorry. We're not. Anyone troubled by this arrangement should take solace in the knowledge that every single time they've been pulled over by the cops, they've committed a moving violation.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

There's a vast difference between being an old school motivator and being a rich white man calling a poor black kid the N-word, regardless of intent.

White people aren't allowed to say it. I'm sorry. We're not. Anyone troubled by this arrangement should take solace in the knowledge that every single time they've been pulled over by the cops, they've committed a moving violation.

Agreed and it drives me nuts when some dimwit points to its use in music as an excuse.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I’m no employment lawyer, but couldn’t he be fired with cause in this instance?

This would all depend on the wording of his contract.

[bubbsy]

I wonder how akward this all must be for kylington in the dressing room....

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This would all depend on the wording of his contract.

Out of curiosity, is there a “skeletons in the closet” provision in a lot of contracts?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

We see the NHL suspend players for all kinds of things, maybe Peters gets asked to step aside until either Flames or the NHL investigates the allegations? Not sure if the Flames would be opened to lawsuit, wouldn't that be under NHL guidelines and jurisdiction? Flames certainly could fire Peters on performance?

Those suspensions pretty much come after an investigation and or hard evidence of a misdeed.



This is a verbal accusation, right now that's all it is, its not grounds for dismissal and if the Flames lets say did, its a reputation killer for Peters, and I'm pretty sure his lawyers are going after the Flames.



I'm probably on the side of them putting him on a paid leave of absence pending a full investigation, probably by the league and not the Flames.



But the Flames have to tread carefully on all sides on this one and its not going to go away over the next few days or weeks.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Out of curiosity, is there a “skeletons in the closet” provision in a lot of contracts?

No. But in these types, where the person is in a public role, there may be behaviour clauses.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Agreed and it drives me nuts when some dimwit points to its use in music as an excuse.

Coincidentally it’s the most frequently used excuse while also being the dumbest.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by ToraToraTora

Yeah, Canada is one of the least racist places there is.

However, that doesn't mean racism isnt a problem here. I mean, we had a government that systematically stole first Nations children on very loose grounds in many people on this board's lifetimes, and certainly in our parents lifetimes. And it was worse before then (residential schools, previous Indian acts, voting acts). And still first Nations are overrepresented in just about every negative demographic there is (prison population, HIV infection rates, suicide rates). All of that carries on because of a very strong history of racism. Even our previous immigration policies really only encouraged northern or Western Europeans to settle.

So yeah, Canada is not as racist as a lot of places, but it's still racist. And those things pop out a lot more if youre a visible minority.

I thought about this a lot with the don Cherry thing, about the "you people who come here.". It seems pretty minor compared to a lot of things. But I always find it helps to put on the lens of a half Japanese kid in grade 1 in pincher Creek who goes home at lunch to ask his parents why other kids said they don't want to play with "you people". Or that you aren't a Canadian, even though you, your parents, and 3 of your 4 grandparents were born in Canada.

So anyways, racism exists in canada. It is a big problem. You might not see it, but it exists, and it's ****, especially for the kids.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Let's also take a moment to reflect and acknowledge that, historically speaking, this is one of the very few times in the entirety of our species when it has been frowned upon to be racist. Truly, the last sixty or so years may be the only time when our societies haven't been viciously segregated.

Racism is a cancer of the human condition that is, at best, only in remission; it never disappears. It's important that none of us skip our chemo, because otherwise, a lot of people die when they don't have to.

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I’m no employment lawyer, but couldn’t he be fired with cause in this instance?

I used to do employment law, and I'd say probably no.

Now for the more lawyery response. It all depends. Was it a question asked during the interview? Did it happen more than once? What was the full context?

It's likely that if this was a private business, with no pr side to it, that it wouldn't amount to a cause termination. It would lead to disciplinary measures, but likely would not be cause.

The real question is if this was misconduct that has caused irreparable harm to the employment relationship. It just might have because of the profile of the job.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[FunkMasterFlame]

You'd think after the Juicy Smolette case people would be a little more hesitant to jump on the outrage bandwagon based on single source accusations.

Lets let them investigate before calling for scalps and pounds of flesh.

[Flash Walken]

Neither side would fight a termination.

Hockey is a closed society. If Bill Peters wants to work in pro hockey again, he's not going to sue his employer.

John Vanbisbrouck has illustrated how to come back from something like that, and if Peters wants this to go away the path is easy: bow out, keep his head low and wait for the relationships he's established and maintained in the hockey world to welcome him back after a sufficient time period away from the game.

I'd say there's basically zero chance a former player doesn't support Aliu's accusation by the end of the week. Especially in light of the media appetite for stories like this in the social fabric right now.