Around the NHL XXXIX

[Micklebot]

I will try to explain my thoughts this way.

Your team sucks.
You get let go as coach. The team has to pay your contract. Maybe a year or two later a couple teams interview you about coaching. This is what we are used to. Coaches never sue over this stuff because that is the nature of the business. They all know this, you can look at Jaque Martins divorce papers to confirm that.

However, if you are fired for something you said a long time ago for a different organization and this is all made out in the public, regardless of how much is left on your contract, you are not getting another offer from another club down the road. Your name is mud now. Could he sue based on loss of future revenue? Could he name the NHL in the suit? How about the player? He admits he called the music a racial slur, but did he call the player one? As a result of the players tweet it looks like he will never coach again.

Again, I am not defending him. I am just curious to see how this all plays out.

I don't think he could sue the team (or rather win if he did) as it's not the team that dragged his name through the mud. His loss of future revenue has nothing to do with Calgary parting ways and everything to do with information getting out. If the information is true, I don't see how he could sue anyone (and win) for damages.

 

[BonkTastic]

If the information is true, I don't see how he could sue anyone (and win) for damages.

Well... There probably WAS a chance (however slim) he could sue, in the case where they tried to fire him with cause, and potentially win because nothing was "proven" (which can get ambiguous).

Now that he's admitted to it, though, any remote chance he had to pursue that claim went out the window, obviously.

 

[Very Stable Genius]

The mainboard thread is giving me a massive headache. "Its just a word no big deal", "Why do black people use it and white people can't?", "It happened 10yrs ago, who cares?"

I see society devolving right in front of my eyes...

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I will try to explain my thoughts this way.

Your team sucks.
You get let go as coach. The team has to pay your contract. Maybe a year or two later a couple teams interview you about coaching. This is what we are used to. Coaches never sue over this stuff because that is the nature of the business. They all know this, you can look at Jaque Martins divorce papers to confirm that.

However, if you are fired for something you said a long time ago for a different organization and this is all made out in the public, regardless of how much is left on your contract, you are not getting another offer from another club down the road. Your name is mud now. Could he sue based on loss of future revenue? Could he name the NHL in the suit? How about the player? He admits he called the music a racial slur, but did he call the player one? As a result of the players tweet it looks like he will never coach again.

Again, I am not defending him. I am just curious to see how this all plays out.

The NHL is a strange animal. On one hand, they say the creme rises to the top, and if you deserve a shot as one of the best players/coaches/GMs or whatever, you'll get chances. But on the other hand, we see some guys get labeled (fairly or unfairly) as problem players in junior, and often don't get more than a whiff unless they have incredible skill....and then kids who have the distinction of being a first round pick get chance after chance even when it's obvious they aren't NHL quality.

I don't think it's possible for a coach or player or whomever to say 100% he would've gotten another chance if it wasn't for 'XX' incident. I just don't know....Keenan was gold...until he wasn't and basically banished to Russia. Patrick Roy was the biggest coaching target for half a decade...until he flamed out. And then a guy like Tortorella that most folks make fun of day in and day out can be a head coach for damned near two decades onward. Babcock was The One....now he may never coach again. Who the hell knows anymore.

 

[Tighthead]

Well... There probably WAS a chance (however slim) he could sue, in the case where they tried to fire him with cause, and potentially win because nothing was "proven" (which can get ambiguous).

Now that he's admitted to it, though, any remote chance he had to pursue that claim went out the window, obviously.

He doesn’t have a claim against the Flames or AA for damage to reputation or loss of earnings.

On the cause issue, the biggest hurdle the Flames would have is that he was not in their employ when the actions occurred. I’m sure there is caselaw on that, but each situation is unique in its facts, and he is in a very niche industry.

 

[BonkTastic]

He doesn’t have a claim against the Flames or AA for damage to reputation or loss of earnings.

On the cause issue, the biggest hurdle the Flames would have is that he was not in their employ when the actions occurred. I’m sure there is caselaw on that, but each situation is unique in its facts, and he is in a very niche industry.

That's fair, yeah.

 

[BatherSeason]

No doubt eh, looking back on that story its kind of surprising it didn't get more negative national attention, Lee's, Babcock and Peters actions are all worthy of termination in my eyes but what RL did was next level imo, especially considering todays political/social climate. Perhaps it was somewhat glossed over because there were 3 or 4 active Sens related PR disasters at that specific time?

It seems as though hockey media tries to keep everything under wraps as best they can unless they have absolutely no choice. In Lee's case, there was no real public outcry outside of Ottawa, therefore, why even discuss it? They had no choice with Peters/Babs, social media caught wind and it created a poopstorm, so the mainstream guys had no choice but to talk about it. Even now, they are all still pretending that all of this is shocking to them, when we all know that they have all been around the game long enough to know what probably goes on behind the scenes with a lot of these coaches/managers, etc.

 

[Upgrayedd]

It seems as though hockey media tries to keep everything under wraps as best they can unless they have absolutely no choice. In Lee's case, there was no real public outcry outside of Ottawa, therefore, why even discuss it? They had no choice with Peters/Babs, social media caught wind and it created a poopstorm, so the mainstream guys had no choice but to talk about it. Even now, they are all still pretending that all of this is shocking to them, when we all know that they have all been around the game long enough to know what probably goes on behind the scenes with a lot of these coaches/managers, etc.

Couldn't agree more, it's a real problem and hopefully many of these corrupt gatekeepers so to speak will be exposed for the cowards they truly are!

All these clowns claiming to be plugged in and then these stories come out and they deny at first and round up support from similar minded buddies, then try and deflect attention away to other matters or injustices, then act completely shocked once its confirmed beyond their ability to spin and try to become the champion for the cause hoping everyone will ignore their years of enabling, its so phony!

 

[coladin]

I am confused that now Peters said that he apologized to the room after what he said, either Aliu wasn't in the room, or Aliu left it out, or Peters is lying. Going to have to hear some more

 

[BatherSeason]

Couldn't agree more, it's a real problem and hopefully many of these corrupt gatekeepers so to speak will be exposed for the cowards they truly are!

All these clowns claiming to be plugged in and then these stories come out and they deny at first and round up support from similar minded buddies, then try and deflect attention away to other matters or injustices, then act completely shocked once its confirmed beyond their ability to spin and try to become the champion for the cause hoping everyone will ignore their years of enabling, its so phony!

As little as 2 years ago, all of these gatekeepers worshipped the ground Mike Babcock walked on, its funny how quickly they swerved once the Marner story came out. They all know whats going on.

 

[Tighthead]

I am confused that now Peters said that he apologized to the room after what he said, either Aliu wasn't in the room, or Aliu left it out, or Peters is lying. Going to have to hear some more

Did Aliu say that there was no apology? Figure quicker to ask than search...

 

[Upgrayedd]

As little as 2 years ago, all of these gatekeepers worshipped the ground Mike Babcock walked on, its funny how quickly they swerved once the Marner story came out. They all know whats going on.

It was a swift toss under the bus this time...again rightly so, but simply watching these media guys go from staunch defense one day to acting like they have been championing the cause for years the next legit makes me feel like im crazy, it's such a charade its sickening. I want genuine people not a bunch of Ron Burgundy's!

 

[Laphroaig]

Did Aliu say that there was no apology? Figure quicker to ask than search...

Did Aliu say that there was no apology? Figure quicker to ask than search...

Aliu has called the letter "insincere, misleading and concerning". Neither Aliu or the other witnesses have said that any apology was issued at the time.

 

[swiftwin]

I obviously wasn't overthinking it as this is exactly what is going on.

Not at all. The Flames could fire him without cause (thus, still paying him his contract) whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and there's nothing Peters can do about it. That's what happens to 99% of coaches when they are "fired". That's what happened to Babcock. However, the Flames would rather fire him with cause, meaning Peters would not earn the rest of his contract. That's why an investigation needs to be done, otherwise, Peters can sue for wrongful termination.

Here's a pretty good overview from a lawyer's perspective:
An attorney's POV on the Bill Peters investigation - Sportsnet.ca

 

[maclean]

Did Aliu say that there was no apology? Figure quicker to ask than search...

Pretty sure he said there was no apology when he was called into the coach's office to discuss it

 

[swiftwin]

Did you even listen to the segment you linked or are you just reacting to the sensationalist headline?

They suggested he's probably out because they might be trying to trade him (and don't want him to get injured before getting the trade done), or he might have an injury.

They talked about how because of Duchene and Johanson, there's no natural position for Turris on the team, and said he was playing really well before getting sat, the host even said while he thought he should be traded before the season but changed his mind after seeing how he was playing. Mentioned he's not practicing with the team and that suggests there's an internal problem in the locker room or a trade rather than performance.

How is this evidence that at all going the way of Boedker or Ryan? If anything it's the exact opposite.

How is that any different from Boedker? It's obvious Smith wants a specific type of player on his 3rd/4th line, and Boedker isn't that. Boedker was still producing more last season than Turris was last season or this season.

edit: Not to mention the fact that Turris was a healthy scratch last season too, before Duchene joined the team, so that blows that theory out of the water.

 

[Tighthead]

Pretty sure he said there was no apology when he was called into the coach's office to discuss it

I'm not sure there is much mitigation in an apology anyway. You can't unring the bell.

Not sure what the play is for the Flames here. He has admitted he said it, you either let him go or you keep him. They could claim cause and rescind or negotiate later.

 

[Micklebot]

How is that any different from Boedker? It's obvious Smith wants a specific type of player on his 3rd/4th line, and Boedker isn't that. Boedker was still producing more last season than Turris was last season or this season.

Again, did you listen to the clip? Who is claiming that we should keep Boedker based on his play this year? Because that's what the host said about Turris. Who is saying that Boedker might be scratched because we are trying to trade him and don't want to risk him getting hurt, or that potentially there is a personal issue between him and the coach rather than performance issue? Because that's what's being said about Turris.

I mean, it's fine if you disagree with the guys in the podcast, I'm sure there are plenty of Preds fans that disagree with them and just think Turris is bad, but what they are saying about his situation is not at all similar to what's happened with Boedker or Ryan. Unlike them, we all for the most part completly understand and agree with how Ryan and Boedker are being handled, they are saying they can't understand it on it's face value and there must be something happening behind the scenes.

I get it, you think Turris is bad and we were right to trade him. That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. The podcast you linked to really doesn't support that position. It's coming from the perspective that Turris should be in the lineup and could be helping them, with the host going so far as to suggest he thought they shouldn't trade him.

 

[maclean]

I'm not sure there is much mitigation in an apology anyway. You can't unring the bell.

Not sure what the play is for the Flames here. He has admitted he said it, you either let him go or you keep him. They could claim cause and rescind or negotiate later.

I certainly don't envy them. At this point I think it's pretty clear they're better off getting rid of him, but if all they can turn up is stuff that happened years ago somewhere far away, that will be hard to do. He can certainly argue that he's turned over a new leaf since those days, and though I doubt it's true, they can't refute it if they can't find anything he's done, say, in Calgary recently.

 

[swiftwin]

Again, did you listen to the clip? Who is claiming that we should keep Boedker based on his play this year? Because that's what the host said about Turris. Who is saying that Boedker might be scratched because we are trying to trade him and don't want to risk him getting hurt, or that potentially there is a personal issue between him and the coach rather than performance issue? Because that's what's being said about Turris.

I mean, it's fine if you disagree with the guys in the podcast, I'm sure there are plenty of Preds fans that disagree with them and just think Turris is bad, but what they are saying about his situation is not at all similar to what's happened with Boedker or Ryan. Unlike them, we all for the most part completly understand and agree with how Ryan and Boedker are being handled, they are saying they can't understand it on it's face value and there must be something happening behind the scenes.

I get it, you think Turris is bad and we were right to trade him. That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. The podcast you linked to really doesn't support that position. It's coming from the perspective that Turris should be in the lineup and could be helping them, with the host going so far as to suggest he thought they shouldn't trade him.

I think it's a bit of both. I think more highly of Boedker than most around here, and think lower of Turris than most around here. So when I say that Turris is gone Boedker's way, I mean both that Boedker should be playing in the NHL but is not because of a lack of a role for him on this team, and that Turris is in a similar position in Nashville.

 

[swiftwin]

Again, did you listen to the clip? Who is claiming that we should keep Boedker based on his play this year? Because that's what the host said about Turris. Who is saying that Boedker might be scratched because we are trying to trade him and don't want to risk him getting hurt, or that potentially there is a personal issue between him and the coach rather than performance issue? Because that's what's being said about Turris.

I mean, it's fine if you disagree with the guys in the podcast, I'm sure there are plenty of Preds fans that disagree with them and just think Turris is bad, but what they are saying about his situation is not at all similar to what's happened with Boedker or Ryan. Unlike them, we all for the most part completly understand and agree with how Ryan and Boedker are being handled, they are saying they can't understand it on it's face value and there must be something happening behind the scenes.

I get it, you think Turris is bad and we were right to trade him. That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. The podcast you linked to really doesn't support that position. It's coming from the perspective that Turris should be in the lineup and could be helping them, with the host going so far as to suggest he thought they shouldn't trade him.

To add to my other post, if anything, this whole thing highlights how everyone around here measures the performance of players as some sort of referendum on the GM. Hoffman is playing much better than Boedker, therefore, Boedker must be the worst player ever and needs to be put down all the time. Tierney and DeMelo? Both have been very steady and consistent players for us, yet everyone is trying to run them out of town because we got them for Karlsson. and so on....

 

[BatherSeason]

Not at all. The Flames could fire him without cause (thus, still paying him his contract) whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and there's nothing Peters can do about it. That's what happens to 99% of coaches when they are "fired". That's what happened to Babcock. However, the Flames would rather fire him with cause, meaning Peters would not earn the rest of his contract. That's why an investigation needs to be done, otherwise, Peters can sue for wrongful termination.

Here's a pretty good overview from a lawyer's perspective:
An attorney's POV on the Bill Peters investigation - Sportsnet.ca

 

[swiftwin]

You replied to my post saying that "I was overthinking" things. I know I am not.

You should re-read the post. I was replying to Bonk, who said:

"I wonder if this had actually made it harder to fire him, in some twisted way.

Like, if the Flames wanted to fire him 3 days ago because he sucks as a coach, then whatever. But if they fire him now, even if it were for entirely hockey-related reasons, his firing will always be linked to Aliu and the investigation it caused."

Here's the link to that post: Around the NHL XXXIX

The Flames could still fire him today without cause (due to poor team performance), and there's nothing Peters can do about it.

My reply to your post was this: Around the NHL XXXIX
I'm suspecting this is why we were getting conflicting reports this morning. I'm guessing he's basically fired right now, but they're getting lawyers going through the process to get him fired with cause. But then again, that could be tricky because this happened 10 years ago.

I just can't see how he remains on as coach after all this.

I agreed with you.

 

[HSF]

Not at all. The Flames could fire him without cause (thus, still paying him his contract) whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and there's nothing Peters can do about it. That's what happens to 99% of coaches when they are "fired". That's what happened to Babcock. However, the Flames would rather fire him with cause, meaning Peters would not earn the rest of his contract. That's why an investigation needs to be done, otherwise, Peters can sue for wrongful termination.

Here's a pretty good overview from a lawyer's perspective:
An attorney's POV on the Bill Peters investigation - Sportsnet.ca

yup this is exactly why it is taking time

 

[Ice-Tray]

Maybe your short-term memory is kicking out here. I'm not reaching at all. Its ok to admit when the Ottawa Senators do something wrong. The whole Randy Lee thing was handled very poorly by the organization. Their only defence to the way it was handled was that it was a bizarre, unique situation. Either way, he should have been suspended with pay immediately, just as Peters is/was.

The Ottawa Senators former assistant GM was arrested on May 31. The club defended him.

Sens’ AGM Randy Lee Charged with Harassment

Not sure what happened, but the club finally suspended him a full 2 weeks later:

Randy Lee suspended by Senators pending court investigation

Peters hasn’t been officially suspended without pay has he? When did that happen?

Last I read he was removed from the team for now while management conducts an investigation. He has also admitted guilt immediately.

I find it pretty sad when a person bases the veracity of their opinions based solely on how many other anonymous forum dwellers agree with them. It’s such a shady hive mind robot way of forming opinions, and shows a lack of conviction in ones own opinions. The tyranny of the majority doesn’t make it correct. And often the defending opinions of a few are correct.

So many people can’t handle their opinions being challenged, it’s like university is the only safe space now for discourse.