Formenton re-signs with HC Ambri-Piotta

[Mingus Dew]

Why should 10% of ownership dictate the roster? If they're being unreasonable, Andlauer should tell them to pound sand.

They don’t dictate shit, they block major decisions that require unanimous approval of the partners.

For example, let’s say Andlauer wants to give the entirety of the CTC’s concession business to a brand new startup that Andlauer happens to own 100% of. Would the minority partners have to just accept that? Or would they maybe have to approve affiliate transactions where there is a conflict of interest?

It depends what the documents say of course, but these are the types of rights that minority partners usually negotiate for.

 

[ottawagm]

Wonder if Staios is looking to sign him. Two new injuries and no bad blood with Dorion gone and the Melnyk team can't dictate anything. Also would be a nice move towards the NHL based on recent events.

Other players under investigation have played, so why can't he. If the NHL wants him not to play then be grown ups and release the findings and the suspension, otherwise, he's an asset for the org and you already forced us to lose Pinto for 41 games and another 1st round pick.

 

[5ive4Fighting]

But it's enough to convince 32 owners and the NHL? Why are they using different logic?

It's a different standard of proof, and it should be. The court is for legal responsibility, the rest of the world can make a judgement on moral repsonsbility.

 

[IpsoPostFacto]

It's a different standard of proof, and it should be. The court is for legal responsibility, the rest of the world can make a judgement on moral repsonsbility.

yep. Innocent until proven guilty is for the courts. Even the Crown thinks there is guilt, otherwise they wouldn't be prosecuting.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

It seems unlikely that say the Dallas Stars would face much scrutiny if they traded for him. There would be questions but they could very easily be answered.

If he was the ring leader of what is alleged to have happened, and everything hints that he was (but we aren't sure), no one wants someone like that on their team.

Can you imagine having him meet other player's wives and girlfriends?! Most players know who was involved, players talk. No thanks.

If we has good enough to put butts in seats there would be more than a dozen teams that would want him. He, and his reputation, are not worth the risks that come with signing him. Simple as that.

 

[OD99]

yep. Innocent until proven guilty is for the courts. Even the Crown thinks there is guilt, otherwise they wouldn't be prosecuting.

Uhhh...

Nobody is charged with anything so the crown is not prosecuting.

Also, nobody on here has nearly enough evidence to even say that they have the moral high ground on Formenton. Let's even forget about the fact that many women have different sexual desires (and your own morality does not supersede them), there just isn't enough information to say with 100% conviction that Formenton is criminally responsible or morally corrupt.

It is a very slippery slope to be judge and jury without evidence or facts.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

yep. Innocent until proven guilty is for the courts. Even the Crown thinks there is guilt, otherwise they wouldn't be prosecuting.

They are not prosecuting.

 

[DrEasy]

If every person with a minor stake in the team is going to blackball one player or another based on their beliefs, we may not have many players to choose from!

 

[Larionov]

Are we really putting a lot of stock in a random rumour from Kypreos? He's another dude who just likes the sound of his own voice...

 

[5ive4Fighting]

Uhhh...

Nobody is charged with anything so the crown is not prosecuting.

Also, nobody on here has nearly enough evidence to even say that they have the moral high ground on Formenton. Let's even forget about the fact that many women have different sexual desires (and your own morality does not supersede them), there just isn't enough information to say with 100% conviction that Formenton is criminally responsible or morally corrupt.

It is a very slippery slope to be judge and jury without evidence or facts.

100% agree. We don't know a lot, and what we do know suggests to me there won't be criminal convictions. I think it's worth noting though that it may still be appropriate to make a what I'm calling a 'moral judgement' for lack of a better term on anybody implicated, once more facts are known. The fact that there isn't criminal responsibility isn't always enough to answer every other question, nor should it be.

Should Jian Ghomeshi have a criminal record for sexual assault? He absolutely should not, based on the case presented against him. Given he was not guilty, should he be back behind the mic in a position of corporate power able to sexually harass and mentally terrorize employees? He absolutely should not.

 

[IpsoPostFacto]

Uhhh...

Nobody is charged with anything so the crown is not prosecuting.

Also, nobody on here has nearly enough evidence to even say that they have the moral high ground on Formenton. Let's even forget about the fact that many women have different sexual desires (and your own morality does not supersede them), there just isn't enough information to say with 100% conviction that Formenton is criminally responsible or morally corrupt.

It is a very slippery slope to be judge and jury without evidence or facts.

I'm well aware that nobody is being prosecuted. That's actually the point of the comment. I was just supporting a general comment from 5ive4fighting who indicated that the courts decide legal responsibility and the rest of us decide moral responsibility the best we can.

That sub-thread was about 32 owners deciding differently than the courts (i.e freezing out Formenton vs. the fact that the system isn't prosecuting). The NHL probably doesn't need a conviction or even need to judge the truth or memory of the woman involved. Maybe they just don't like the noise it creates. I don't know - up to them to figure out.

Put it this way. If some guy makes the paper for an investigation for inappropriate conduct with children, but nothing comes of it, I'm going to weigh what I've read and decide for myself if i'm letting him hire my kid to help out with yard work or not.

for any of your personal interactions with people, you are in fact the judge and jury.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Higher ups know if he's guilty or not. If he's not you have to bring him back. Public speculation and scrutiny be damned.

 

[Ouroboros]

Are we really putting a lot of stock in a random rumour from Kypreos? He's another dude who just likes the sound of his own voice...

He was the hockey advisor for a group that was a serious contender to buy the Senators.

 

[Ice-Tray]

How can something be 100% obvious (without a shadow of a doubt) and not be proven in court?

I understand why the court room would need to be proven riggoursly, but what I don't understand is why someone would accept something as true, without the same rigorous testing?

It's like accepting that God exists without evidence and demanding a bunch of evidence for ghosts existence.

Why not apply the same logic to all?

Isn't court just about convincing a jury (group of individuals such as yourself) that he's guilty?

So if the evidence is enough to be certain by everyone around that he's guilty. Why wouldn't it be enough to convince a jury that he's guilty?

What is it that the jury would find potentially "not guilty" that the people in the inner circle don't agree with?

See, you say everyone knows he's guilty but they can't prove it...so how do they know it? Or are they just guessing it? Or perhaps, it's not as obvious as you think, judging by the lack of charges.

The assault happened and is not being challenged by the defendants lawyers.

The question at heart is about consent, and whether the boys lines that she wasn’t consenting.

Both things can be true: if the young woman says she didn’t give consent, that is accepted as true by the courts. The boys could also have not known that she wasn’t consenting, and it is this issue that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

No one is questioning that the gang bang happened. This alone may be enough to keep him off the roster.

 

[Ice-Tray]

But it's enough to convince 32 owners and the NHL? Why are they using different logic?

Optics dude. OJ was found not guilty, but would you expect a ton of people to immediately make him a public figure for their company?

Extreme example but you’re not considering the realities of this case. The assault happened. The guys’ side isn’t even denying the specifics, they’re just arguing that she was down with it. She says she was drunk and brought into the situation under false pretense, then pressured to make videos and lie to HC and police.

We can draw our own conclusions, but this isn’t exactly a difficult situation to understand for any guy reading the information.

Easy to see why NHL clubs that preach inclusiveness and family friendly sport wouldn’t want this anywhere near their team.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Melnyk girls can pound sand if Andlauer is fine with it.

Formenton is done here regardless

What’s with the sour grapes? Seems like some sins of the father bullshit.

The Melnyk girls own 10% of the team, Andlauer is going to listen to their concerns, especially as they pertain to demographics that he has little connection to.

And from what I can tell if his character so far, there is no chance he wouldn’t he in the same page as the girls.

 

[5ive4Fighting]

The assault happened and is not being challenged by the defendants lawyers.

The question at heart is about consent, and whether the boys lines that she wasn’t consenting.

Both things can be true: if the young woman says she didn’t give consent, that is accepted as true by the courts. The boys could also have not known that she wasn’t consenting, and it is this issue that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

No one is questioning that the gang bang happened. This alone may be enough to keep him off the roster.

If it was an assault, it was criminal. You can't consent to an assault in Canada. I also think consent has to be affirmative - I don't think it's enough to claim not to have known her wishes.

Regardless, as you say, the fact that any of it happened at all may be enough. The police and courts are asking a very narrow question: did any of these players break the law? The NHL, fans, teams, journalists, philosophers and randoms can be asking something very different. If the facts eventually say, for example, that this was an act of collective contempt, sexual exploitation and emotional cruelty - none of which is against the law - that's more than enough for the NHL to just not want the hassle or the association.

 

[ottawagm]

Maybe he's coming back, or maybe the report is about to drop.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Michael Andlauer just paid hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase this hockey team, and was allegedly led astray by the Melnyk estate. I have a very difficult time believing that a self-made billionaire in the trucking business is going to listen to two twenty year olds that inherited a hockey team, especially when it comes to on ice personnel.

That's just the reality. It has nothing to do with "tyranny".

Yeah but that’s just because you don’t like their father and assume that Andlauer is the same as EM all in the same post.

No, he will absolutely be listening to the concerns of his minority partners. This vein of though is so ironic..

The king is dead, long live the king…. Fuuuuuu

 

[Micklebot]

This is wrong.

Control and voting is governed by whatever the partnership documents say. There’s a reason you need a team of lawyers to negotiate these deals. It’s not as simple as 90 is more than 10 (I wish it were).

If it were that easy, your ilk would be out of a job, careful what you wish for, lol.

 

[Ice-Tray]

If it was an assault, it was criminal. You can't consent to an assault in Canada.

Regardless, as you say, the fact that any of it happened at all may be enough. The police and courts are asking a very narrow question: did any of these players break the law? The NHL, fans, teams, journalists, philosophers and randoms can be asking something very different. If the facts eventually say, for example, that this was an act of collective contempt, sexual exploitation and emotional cruelty - none of which is against the law - that's more than enough for the NHL to just not want the hassle or the association.

My point was that it was an assault BECAUSE she said that she didn’t consent to the gang bang.

It remains to be seen whether it can be shown that the boys knew they were assaulting her.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post. Sometimes it’s not enough to sit back and say that degradation and sexual exploitation of a young drunk girl doesn’t matter because the courts can’t prove the guys knew that she didn’t ’want it’.

 

[OD99]

I'm well aware that nobody is being prosecuted. That's actually the point of the comment.

You said:

"Even the Crown thinks there is guilt, otherwise they wouldn't be prosecuting."

And your point was that nobody is being prosecuted? I don't understand.

I was just supporting a general comment from 5ive4fighting who indicated that the courts decide legal responsibility and the rest of us decide moral responsibility the best we can.

OK. I agree.

That sub-thread was about 32 owners deciding differently than the courts (i.e freezing out Formenton vs. the fact that the system isn't prosecuting). The NHL probably doesn't need a conviction or even need to judge the truth or memory of the woman involved. Maybe they just don't like the noise it creates. I don't know - up to them to figure out.

Also agreed although it puts them in a very troubling spot regarding anti-trust and collusion.

Put it this way. If some guy makes the paper for an investigation for inappropriate conduct with children, but nothing comes of it, I'm going to weigh what I've read and decide for myself if i'm letting him hire my kid to help out with yard work or not.

Of course. If that person is indeed innocent then their life really shouldn't be impacted negatively though.

for any of your personal interactions with people, you are in fact the judge and jury.

No you aren't. You just make decisions on whether to hang out with them or not. You don't control what happens outside of your interactions. Even then, many times you can't do anything about it if it is a colleague or shared friend, etc..

 

[Ice-Tray]

Wonder if Staios is looking to sign him. Two new injuries and no bad blood with Dorion gone and the Melnyk team can't dictate anything. Also would be a nice move towards the NHL based on recent events.

Other players under investigation have played, so why can't he. If the NHL wants him not to play then be grown ups and release the findings and the suspension, otherwise, he's an asset for the org and you already forced us to lose Pinto for 41 games and another 1st round pick.

I honestly think that you need to go back and read what happened. Read what she says, read what the lawyer for the boys says, read the transcripts of the text messages and the videos they made her do.

If he was there, or worse, John Doe 1, it’s no longer about what the court says about n my opinion; he isn’t coming back, and likely not to the NHL anywhere.

 

[5ive4Fighting]

My point was that it was an assault BECAUSE she said that she didn’t consent to the gang bang.

It remains to be seen whether it can be shown that the boys knew they were assaulting her.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post. Sometimes it’s not enough to sit back and say that degradation and sexual exploitation of a young drunk girl doesn’t matter because the courts can’t prove the guys knew that she didn’t ’want it’.

I edited my original post to add "I also think consent has to be affirmative - I don't think it's enough to claim not to have known her wishes." And I just would not have chosen the wording "The assault happened and is not being challenged by the defendants lawyers." I don't agree that the defendant's lawyer are not challenging that an assault happened. I don't mean to be pedantic - I know what you mean, I just don't think calling a disputed set of facts an assault works that well.

 

[ottawagm]

I honestly think that you need to go back and read what happened. Read what she says, read what the lawyer for the boys says, read the transcripts of the text messages and the videos they made her do.

If he was there, or worse, John Doe 1, it’s no longer about what the court says about n my opinion; he isn’t coming back, and likely not to the NHL anywhere.

Then make it official already. There have been two police investigations and a full NHL investigation.