Bill Peters Allegations - Update: Story corroborated, possible assault. (SEE MOD WARNING IN OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,955
8,449
Taking the racist stuff aside, the physical abuse alone makes me want him gone. That's recent, and that's not ok

My thoughts exactly. I was willing to wait to listen more about his side and give him the benefit of the doubt for the Aliu thing, but there's too much on the physical abuse side to the point that I think I've pretty much made my mind. I don't even need the Aliu thing to tilt the odds. I think it's pretty much cut and dry from me now purely based on the Carolina stuff. I want him gone. There was atonement potential for purely the Aliu situation IMO. Not really for the Carolina one though. Too recent. I don't think we need to tar and feather him on the way out though.


For some of you though, you guys have a crazy understanding of due diligence.

Per Wiki:
Due diligence is defined as: the investigation or exercise of care that a reasonable business or person is expected to take before entering into an agreement or contract with another party, or an act with a certain standard of care.

The term “due diligence” means "required carefulness" or "reasonable care" in general usage, and has been used in this sense since at least the mid-fifteenth century.

Some of you are seriously not understanding the concept of "reasonable". The Carolina thing was an internal thing. Very likely Treliving wasn't privy to that information and didn't know anything about that until the tweets were made. Heck, that's typical labour law. You could be the crappiest employee ever, showing up to work and snorting off cocaine at your desk, and if someone called in because you were listed as a reference, you literally cannot say a damn thing about it due to confidentiality reasons. Otherwise, you literally could be sued. I'd say the same of the Aliu incident. Treliving doesn't have access to this information, most people don't have this information on the tip of their mind waiting to spew all the beans, those that still remember it aren't talking about it... you have to go into witch hunt territory to get this stuff out into the open. The thing about witch hunts, is that they're not considered "reasonable". Without Aliu's recent tweet as the catalyst, anything beyond the basics for figuring out if Peters is a sociopath or not is not a reasonable approach.


Seriously speaking, too many people act like those that have access to behind the curtain are all knowing behind the curtain. That's not the case. Treliving could easily have done way more due diligence than any of you guys have imagined and still not found enough evidence to even imagine that the guy possibly could be this bad. Also, might I remind you that you'd be doing this diligence for every single candidate. Not just some random one. You have to have a very good reason to go any further. Otherwise, you'd get in trouble for being discriminatory.

Keep in mind that Treliving also interviewed a ton of candidates 2 years prior to Peters. He already essentially knows everything he needs to know on the entire pool of coaching candidates he can approach based on perceived ownership restrictions. Why does he have to go through them all again? He just asks around and looks up information and tops up his existing knowledge on those guys. That's very reasonable in terms of due diligence as well. He didn't literally do nothing even though he only interviewed Peters formally that summer. I heard on the radio that our current interim coach Geoff Ward was interviewed in the same period as Gulutzan for HC. We was hired without a formal interview to be an AC to Peters, but there's no damn way I'd agree with anyone who thinks that we didn't do enough due diligence on him either. Peters IMO is a long shot "maybe" at best.
 

super6646

Registered User
Apr 16, 2018
17,765
15,509
Calgary
My thoughts exactly. I was willing to wait to listen more about his side and give him the benefit of the doubt for the Aliu thing, but there's too much on the physical abuse side to the point that I think I've pretty much made my mind. I don't even need the Aliu thing to tilt the odds. I think it's pretty much cut and dry from me now purely based on the Carolina stuff. I want him gone. There was atonement potential for purely the Aliu situation IMO. Not really for the Carolina one though. Too recent. I don't think we need to tar and feather him on the way out though.


For some of you though, you guys have a crazy understanding of due diligence.

Per Wiki:
Due diligence is defined as: the investigation or exercise of care that a reasonable business or person is expected to take before entering into an agreement or contract with another party, or an act with a certain standard of care.

The term “due diligence” means "required carefulness" or "reasonable care" in general usage, and has been used in this sense since at least the mid-fifteenth century.

Some of you are seriously not understanding the concept of "reasonable". The Carolina thing was an internal thing. Very likely Treliving wasn't privy to that information and didn't know anything about that until the tweets were made. Heck, that's typical labour law. You could be the crappiest employee ever, showing up to work and snorting off cocaine at your desk, and if someone called in because you were listed as a reference, you literally cannot say a damn thing about it due to confidentiality reasons. Otherwise, you literally could be sued. I'd say the same of the Aliu incident. Treliving doesn't have access to this information, most people don't have this information on the tip of their mind waiting to spew all the beans, those that still remember it aren't talking about it... you have to go into witch hunt territory to get this stuff out into the open. The thing about witch hunts, is that they're not considered "reasonable". Without Aliu's recent tweet as the catalyst, anything beyond the basics for figuring out if Peters is a sociopath or not is not a reasonable approach.


Seriously speaking, too many people act like those that have access to behind the curtain are all knowing behind the curtain. That's not the case. Treliving could easily have done way more due diligence than any of you guys have imagined and still not found enough evidence to even imagine that the guy possibly could be this bad. Also, might I remind you that you'd be doing this diligence for every single candidate. Not just some random one. You have to have a very good reason to go any further. Otherwise, you'd get in trouble for being discriminatory.

Keep in mind that Treliving also interviewed a ton of candidates 2 years prior to Peters. He already essentially knows everything he needs to know on the entire pool of coaching candidates he can approach based on perceived ownership restrictions. Why does he have to go through them all again? He just asks around and looks up information and tops up his existing knowledge on those guys. That's very reasonable in terms of due diligence as well. He didn't literally do nothing even though he only interviewed Peters formally that summer. I heard on the radio that our current interim coach Geoff Ward was interviewed in the same period as Gulutzan for HC. We was hired without a formal interview to be an AC to Peters, but there's no damn way I'd agree with anyone who thinks that we didn't do enough due diligence on him either. Peters IMO is a long shot "maybe" at best.

Again, I can understand the idea of the Rockford incident not being seen as something that could be reasonably foreseeable, but he clearly didn't exercise his due-diligence when investigation his time in Carolina. Peters was hired less than a week after GG was canned (and speculation of his hiring had come days before that), you can't investigate in any reasonable manner in that time period at all. And even if Carolina was being coy about it, you telling me there are absolutely 0 other ways to dig for info? BS.

Tre gets paid millions of dollars to make the right choices, and this is an absolute FAIL. He had tunnel vision and got lazy thinking that nothing could go wrong. For a GM who I thought was so pragmatic and patient to the "process", yeah, big F in my eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flameshomer and DFF

Calculon

unholy acting talent
Jan 20, 2006
16,578
4,035
Error 503

Friedman: This process is reaching it's conclusion. Don't know exactly when but getting close to Peters being removed as coach of the Calgary Flames
 

Unlimited Chequing

Christian Yellow
Jan 29, 2009
23,612
9,552
Calgary, Alberta
How is it that coaches get fired all the time but Peters is dragging out? Is it because it didnt happen in or with Calgary?

It's because they get fired for doing a crappy job coaching.

This is very different because it involves misconduct and lawyers will need to get involved. And yeah, the fact that this happened a long time ago and not in Calgary has a bit to do with it.
 

lightstorm

Registered User
Oct 17, 2016
2,239
1,191
Because if they just fire him, they have to pay him remainder of his contract.

They are trying to find a way where they dont pay him and Peters doesnt have a strong case if he decides to sue. You cant just take away $3mil owed to a guy, its not as simple as cancelling him on Twitter.

I suspect they will try to reach a settlement, with Chicago, Carolina and NHL chipping in.
 

Calculon

unholy acting talent
Jan 20, 2006
16,578
4,035
Error 503
While hockey fans may be wondering why it’s taking so long for the Flames to determine the future of coach Bill Peters after explosive allegations of a racial slur directed toward a former player, the team is handling this controversial case the way any business would be advised.

“An investigation is absolutely part of the employment law playbook,” said Eric Macramalla, an Ottawa-based partner for Gowling and a sports legal analyst for Forbes. “The Flames are doing a good job on this.”
“What’s happening right now is absolutely par for the course. The Flames are doing this precisely the right way,” Macramalla said. “When you have an event like this that involves an allegation like this, the first thing you do as an employer is you initiate an investigation. And then if the allegations are so damning and so offensive, as they are here, you have the option to put the employee on leave, because if he is not on leave, then that might create a stress on the business and on other employees there. The Flames have done that, too.

“The Flames have to do their due diligence here. They have to make sure, as best they can, they determine whether Bill Peters said what he said. Now, Bill Peters seemed to concede (in his letter Wednesday) that he used that language, but now the Flames need to just figure out, ‘OK, is there enough here from a legal standpoint, as well, to fire him without paying him out?’ That is, to allege just cause. If they fire him without cause, then they would owe him what is left on his deal.”

Peters is believed to be signed through the end of next season at a salary of approximately $2 million per year.
“If (Treliving) went in and fired him merely based upon an allegation, and the allegation turns out to be wrong, then Bill Peters could sue for defamation, plus what is owed on his deal, plus loss of future earnings. It would be a multi-million-dollar proposition for Bill Peters,” Macramalla said. “So as an employer, you do what every employer does — you do it the right way. And it takes time. This is going quickly, but you still have to make sure that you have all your ducks in a row before you do something as dramatic as firing somebody.”
“In a case like this, it really doesn’t matter,” Macramalla answered. “The ‘N’ word is so toxic and so damning that the Flames can allege that your use of that word, even though it was 10 years ago, has brought our organization into disrepute, has made our lives very difficult and makes it unable for you to lead.

“Every case is different, but in this specific circumstance, with the use of that specific word a number of times, it doesn’t really matter.”
Flames are handling Peters saga ‘precisely the right way’: legal expert
 

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,955
8,449
Again, I can understand the idea of the Rockford incident not being seen as something that could be reasonably foreseeable, but he clearly didn't exercise his due-diligence when investigation his time in Carolina. Peters was hired less than a week after GG was canned (and speculation of his hiring had come days before that), you can't investigate in any reasonable manner in that time period at all. And even if Carolina was being coy about it, you telling me there are absolutely 0 other ways to dig for info? BS.

Tre gets paid millions of dollars to make the right choices, and this is an absolute FAIL. He had tunnel vision and got lazy thinking that nothing could go wrong. For a GM who I thought was so pragmatic and patient to the "process", yeah, big F in my eyes.

The funny thing is that I do not disagree with you overall. I totally get where you're coming from and I think your ideas are pretty solid. But IMO your ideas are hinged upon something very minor details suddenly turned major with hindsight. It's nearly a full on semantics argument rather than a fundamental disagreement. I would actually perceive that many others are like this. I've peered over most of the responses here and I actually think nearly everyone is more similar than different in our opinions. We just voice it differently and most of of us are disagreeing on the most minuscule aspects of the whole situation, and building completely different opinions based on differing weightings of very thin information. These differing assumptions are huge in changing how we determine our conclusion. Everyone is frustrated about differing conclusions and focusing on discussing the conclusions. In some senses, I'm saying that if our group focus the discussions on the details instead, I think we suddenly realize that were the blind men interacting with an elephant. For those that see the actual big picture details that the blind men cannot, they realize that the blind men are all correct, yet completely incorrect at the same time. That's my POV.


I don't think you're correct in your assumptions about the Gully firing in a chicken/egg or egg/chicken approach. Treliving didn't fire Gully, then wing the due diligence before hiring Peters. Treliving had completed his due diligence prior to the firing and was firing Gully to hire Peters. The interview was the dotting of the i's and crossing the t's. It was not basic due diligence at that point. Treliving IMO had completed the due diligence on Peters along with a dozen other potential and realistic HC candidates years prior to the Peters hiring. Peters had a weird clause in his contract with Carolina for which he was allowed to interview with other teams a season earlier than his contract completion date. Treliving realized that of the very, very narrow band of options available for HC, one that he liked the most was suddenly available. Treliving fired Gully to hire Peters. If Peters is not potentially available, Gully stays as bench boss IMO. He did not fire Gully to contemplate someone else. He literally cleaned house to pursue Peters. (Can agree to disagree. It's again like chicken/egg or egg/chicken argument)

Which leads me to the next part. I can't help but think that Treliving literally has files on people. Inches thick. He started building on on Peters the moment he met him and accumulated/added more stuff as he went along. He did the same with all the HC candidates he interviewed prior to hiring Gully. Let's that a slight walk away from Peters for a moment:
- Treliving hired Geoff Ward.
- The only person that was interviewed that summer in person was Bill Peters.
- Geoff Ward was hired without an interview that summer.

Does that mean no due diligence was done on Geoff Ward? IMO, absolutely not. 2 years prior, Treliving already built an extensive file on Ward. Treliving himself probably knows more about Ward than more than 90-95% of all management types in the entire NHL from that interview. Furthermore, the qualifications and situations for NHL coaching and AC are so specific, that in 2 years, things aren't going to change that much. We are talking head coaching and associate coaching here. In the NHL, there are likely something like a dozen schools of thoughts on how to coach a team. Everyone is specialized and every approach is completely legitimate unless the approach is literally neutralized by more than half of the other schools of thought. The only question is about fit. The due diligence he did previously is still adequate.

So back to Peters, let's say that Treliving being Treliving had grilled the hell out of Peters previously when he worked with him. In some senses, he'd already informally interviewed him. Again, he's asked questions that probably few others have ever asked. Again he probably knows more than 90-95% of all management types out there. Over the years, he hasn't heard of anything come out of the woodwork over time about Peters. Why on earth would he have any reason to think he needs to do a crazy amount of due diligence on Peters to see if he's a sociopath? That's where we differ. Where you think there were obvious cues from the get go that indicated that Treliving needed to dig deeper to find out these events, and then avoid Peters, I'm saying that I think the cues weren't there at all.

You think I am saying there was no way to dig for info. That's not what I am saying. I am literally saying that Treliving had run into nothing that indicated that he needed to dig. Burke was around at the time as well, I am also thinking that he also did not run into anything that indicated that he or Treliving needed to dig. My point is, from a reasonable person's perspective, why would you dig?

Now let's say I'm wrong and you're correct and Treliving had indeed glazed over some detail/cue that he should have dug to get to the bottom of. I am 100% in agreement with you. Treliving deserves criticism. But I don't think I am wrong with how I have evaluated the information at hand and IMO with how little we all have to work with, I think it's fair to agree to disagree. It's hard to come up with a concrete conclusion on all facets of everything with what little we know of everything right now.
 

tmurfin

That’s the joke
May 8, 2010
11,242
1,279
This can be shared a million times and people will still grumble “why isn’t this over yet!”. It’s a LONG process.

Example from my experience, a former coworker of mine (a supervisor who got paid salary), was on leave for a MONTH, this was someone who 1)Didn’t show up to work basically %20 of the time 2) Only worked 5 out of 8 of the hours he did show up 3) showed up drunk/extremely hungover on a regular basis and the last nail 4) Was verbally abusing and bullying another coworker in the open, not funny stuff, just cruel, on a daily basis.

It took the companies lawyers a month before they finally rubber stamped everything and sent the paperwork to fire him with cause and without a payout, to protect themselves from wrongful termination claims. And this is with a small company, that has zero media coverage and thousands of dollars on the line not millions.

I guarantee the Flames have a team of lawyers pounding this thing out to get it done within the next few days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: super6646

super6646

Registered User
Apr 16, 2018
17,765
15,509
Calgary
The funny thing is that I do not disagree with you overall. I totally get where you're coming from and I think your ideas are pretty solid. But IMO your ideas are hinged upon something very minor details suddenly turned major with hindsight. It's nearly a full on semantics argument rather than a fundamental disagreement. I would actually perceive that many others are like this. I've peered over most of the responses here and I actually think nearly everyone is more similar than different in our opinions. We just voice it differently and most of of us are disagreeing on the most minuscule aspects of the whole situation, and building completely different opinions based on differing weightings of very thin information. These differing assumptions are huge in changing how we determine our conclusion. Everyone is frustrated about differing conclusions and focusing on discussing the conclusions. In some senses, I'm saying that if our group focus the discussions on the details instead, I think we suddenly realize that were the blind men interacting with an elephant. For those that see the actual big picture details that the blind men cannot, they realize that the blind men are all correct, yet completely incorrect at the same time. That's my POV.


I don't think you're correct in your assumptions about the Gully firing in a chicken/egg or egg/chicken approach. Treliving didn't fire Gully, then wing the due diligence before hiring Peters. Treliving had completed his due diligence prior to the firing and was firing Gully to hire Peters. The interview was the dotting of the i's and crossing the t's. It was not basic due diligence at that point. Treliving IMO had completed the due diligence on Peters along with a dozen other potential and realistic HC candidates years prior to the Peters hiring. Peters had a weird clause in his contract with Carolina for which he was allowed to interview with other teams a season earlier than his contract completion date. Treliving realized that of the very, very narrow band of options available for HC, one that he liked the most was suddenly available. Treliving fired Gully to hire Peters. If Peters is not potentially available, Gully stays as bench boss IMO. He did not fire Gully to contemplate someone else. He literally cleaned house to pursue Peters. (Can agree to disagree. It's again like chicken/egg or egg/chicken argument)

Which leads me to the next part. I can't help but think that Treliving literally has files on people. Inches thick. He started building on on Peters the moment he met him and accumulated/added more stuff as he went along. He did the same with all the HC candidates he interviewed prior to hiring Gully. Let's that a slight walk away from Peters for a moment:
- Treliving hired Geoff Ward.
- The only person that was interviewed that summer in person was Bill Peters.
- Geoff Ward was hired without an interview that summer.

Does that mean no due diligence was done on Geoff Ward? IMO, absolutely not. 2 years prior, Treliving already built an extensive file on Ward. Treliving himself probably knows more about Ward than more than 90-95% of all management types in the entire NHL from that interview. Furthermore, the qualifications and situations for NHL coaching and AC are so specific, that in 2 years, things aren't going to change that much. We are talking head coaching and associate coaching here. In the NHL, there are likely something like a dozen schools of thoughts on how to coach a team. Everyone is specialized and every approach is completely legitimate unless the approach is literally neutralized by more than half of the other schools of thought. The only question is about fit. The due diligence he did previously is still adequate.

So back to Peters, let's say that Treliving being Treliving had grilled the hell out of Peters previously when he worked with him. In some senses, he'd already informally interviewed him. Again, he's asked questions that probably few others have ever asked. Again he probably knows more than 90-95% of all management types out there. Over the years, he hasn't heard of anything come out of the woodwork over time about Peters. Why on earth would he have any reason to think he needs to do a crazy amount of due diligence on Peters to see if he's a sociopath? That's where we differ. Where you think there were obvious cues from the get go that indicated that Treliving needed to dig deeper to find out these events, and then avoid Peters, I'm saying that I think the cues weren't there at all.

You think I am saying there was no way to dig for info. That's not what I am saying. I am literally saying that Treliving had run into nothing that indicated that he needed to dig. Burke was around at the time as well, I am also thinking that he also did not run into anything that indicated that he or Treliving needed to dig. My point is, from a reasonable person's perspective, why would you dig?

Now let's say I'm wrong and you're correct and Treliving had indeed glazed over some detail/cue that he should have dug to get to the bottom of. I am 100% in agreement with you. Treliving deserves criticism. But I don't think I am wrong with how I have evaluated the information at hand and IMO with how little we all have to work with, I think it's fair to agree to disagree. It's hard to come up with a concrete conclusion on all facets of everything with what little we know of everything right now.

You’re point is fair enough. And I do agree w/o peter’s availablity it’s likely we don’t fire gg. Absolutely think that was part of the whole tunnel vision thing though.

Idk, it stills feel like a massive miss on tre’s part. He may have well spent years gathering files on peters, how all this baggage just didn’t appear on tre’s radar at all mystifies me even more in that sense. Throughout all those years, tre didn’t pick up anything from talking to people about him, and then it turns out peters had a boatload of issues in the end? You just end up with more questions than answers. With all the smoke coming out of Carolina, it just feels like you’d eventually get some sort of red flag from someone, right?

We’ll likely never be fully privy to the whole situation in the end sadly. Ultimately, I just can’t shake off the feeling that the process was sloppy and rushed in order for Tre to get his man. Even if Carolina was tight lipped, you’d think tre would get at least a sense of a hint. Oh well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flameshomer

Khrox

Registered User
May 31, 2018
1,146
874
Again, I can understand the idea of the Rockford incident not being seen as something that could be reasonably foreseeable, but he clearly didn't exercise his due-diligence when investigation his time in Carolina. Peters was hired less than a week after GG was canned (and speculation of his hiring had come days before that), you can't investigate in any reasonable manner in that time period at all. And even if Carolina was being coy about it, you telling me there are absolutely 0 other ways to dig for info? BS.

I would agree normally about the due diligence thing, except remember, Tre and Peters have worked together before as well. They both have a history together with Team Canada, and he was already eyes for the job when we got Gully (But he ended up getting an extension with Carolina instead).

As for digging deeper into the abuse in Carolina, that is incredibly tough to do. It may be a bit different in North Carolina/USA, but I know in Alberta, it is actually illegal to give a bad reference to another (I was a manager at a restaurant for a while, and reading Alberta and Canadian labour laws was mandatory). If you say something negative, you (and the business you represent) can be sued for slander and/or libel (depending on the medium in which said information was given, whether it was spoken word, or via text/e-mail/letter). Even if everything you said was provable, a former employer can not say a negative thing about a former employee towards another potential employer, unless it is something already on a legal record (if an assault happened, and charges were pressed, you could mention that specific case. In the Carolina incident, no charges were pressed, so they can't actually say "Well there was a time he abused an employee."). Even saying something like "You don't want him as a coach" can constitute slander. At the very most they could refuse a reference, but in this case it was a weird clause in Peters contract that after year 3, he had a window to pursue another HC job, and if that window closed he was there for year 4/final year. So that was the whole reason we were even able to get him anyways (and Carolina was already rumoured to be pulling an Edmonton, not firing him, but just "promoting him out of the coach position" type thing since they would have been paying him anyways, and that was heavily speculated because of their sub-par record, nothing indicated the abuse).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nanuuk

DFF

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
22,275
6,525
You’re point is fair enough. And I do agree w/o peter’s availablity it’s likely we don’t fire gg. Absolutely think that was part of the whole tunnel vision thing though.

Idk, it stills feel like a massive miss on tre’s part. He may have well spent years gathering files on peters, how all this baggage just didn’t appear on tre’s radar at all mystifies me even more in that sense. Throughout all those years, tre didn’t pick up anything from talking to people about him, and then it turns out peters had a boatload of issues in the end? You just end up with more questions than answers. With all the smoke coming out of Carolina, it just feels like you’d eventually get some sort of red flag from someone, right?

We’ll likely never be fully privy to the whole situation in the end sadly. Ultimately, I just can’t shake off the feeling that the process was sloppy and rushed in order for Tre to get his man. Even if Carolina was tight lipped, you’d think tre would get at least a sense of a hint. Oh well.


Keep in mind this abusive coach thing is a recent phenomenal. Apparently it was not that big a deal to Carolina. They didn't do squats to him so not sure if that would have prevented trevling from hiring peters. Guys like Keenan, Sutter's, Bowman etc may be in jail today based on stories I have heard.

But in general I agreed. BT is not this God some people make him out to be, he did some good things but he has fatal flaws....
 

DFF

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
22,275
6,525
I keep waiting to hear a statement from Ron Francis. Anyone heard anything or is he still in hiding?
I think the white house block him from testifying lol

I agreed that would be interesting and it may open up some can of worms on the nhl culture of abusive coaches...
 

Tkachuky

Registered User
Dec 30, 2009
5,280
2,883
In the Dome
How is it that coaches get fired all the time but Peters is dragging out? Is it because it didnt happen in or with Calgary?

Since the other thread got closed and I wil stand up for myself to your bs:

1. Bill is not my uncle.
2. In what world is it ok to not give someone a chance to be proven guilty before being crucified?

Is it that hard to understand? I said he’s innocent until proven guilty when the allegations came out. He’s been proven guilty with the other players coming out.

Does that make me a racist as proposed by the one member in the thread?
 

Flameshomer

Likeaholic
Aug 26, 2010
3,830
1,039
Edmonton
Since the other thread got closed and I wil stand up for myself to your bs:

1. Bill is not my uncle.
2. In what world is it ok to not give someone a chance to be proven guilty before being crucified?

Is it that hard to understand? I said he’s innocent until proven guilty when the allegations came out. He’s been proven guilty with the other players coming out.

Does that make me a racist as proposed by the one member in the thread?
I'm not sure what other thread you're referring to, but if your post history includes questioning Aliu's motives or asking why he delayed 10 years to say this, or trying to argue that Peters was just uncomfortable with a song lyric, or that this is similar to a black coach telling someone to shut off their honkey tonk hick music, I would have to say yes.
Wanting more proof before jumping on the firing train is fine (and responsible) but immediately disparaging or attacking the accusers credibility/ trying to create false equivalencies or loose justifications are not.
 

Nanuuk

Registered User
Nov 16, 2013
2,574
1,218
Calgary, Alberta
My thoughts exactly. I was willing to wait to listen more about his side and give him the benefit of the doubt for the Aliu thing, but there's too much on the physical abuse side to the point that I think I've pretty much made my mind. I don't even need the Aliu thing to tilt the odds. I think it's pretty much cut and dry from me now purely based on the Carolina stuff. I want him gone. There was atonement potential for purely the Aliu situation IMO. Not really for the Carolina one though. Too recent. I don't think we need to tar and feather him on the way out though.


For some of you though, you guys have a crazy understanding of due diligence.

Per Wiki:
Due diligence is defined as: the investigation or exercise of care that a reasonable business or person is expected to take before entering into an agreement or contract with another party, or an act with a certain standard of care.

The term “due diligence” means "required carefulness" or "reasonable care" in general usage, and has been used in this sense since at least the mid-fifteenth century.

Some of you are seriously not understanding the concept of "reasonable". The Carolina thing was an internal thing. Very likely Treliving wasn't privy to that information and didn't know anything about that until the tweets were made. Heck, that's typical labour law. You could be the crappiest employee ever, showing up to work and snorting off cocaine at your desk, and if someone called in because you were listed as a reference, you literally cannot say a damn thing about it due to confidentiality reasons. Otherwise, you literally could be sued. I'd say the same of the Aliu incident. Treliving doesn't have access to this information, most people don't have this information on the tip of their mind waiting to spew all the beans, those that still remember it aren't talking about it... you have to go into witch hunt territory to get this stuff out into the open. The thing about witch hunts, is that they're not considered "reasonable". Without Aliu's recent tweet as the catalyst, anything beyond the basics for figuring out if Peters is a sociopath or not is not a reasonable approach.


Seriously speaking, too many people act like those that have access to behind the curtain are all knowing behind the curtain. That's not the case. Treliving could easily have done way more due diligence than any of you guys have imagined and still not found enough evidence to even imagine that the guy possibly could be this bad. Also, might I remind you that you'd be doing this diligence for every single candidate. Not just some random one. You have to have a very good reason to go any further. Otherwise, you'd get in trouble for being discriminatory.

Keep in mind that Treliving also interviewed a ton of candidates 2 years prior to Peters. He already essentially knows everything he needs to know on the entire pool of coaching candidates he can approach based on perceived ownership restrictions. Why does he have to go through them all again? He just asks around and looks up information and tops up his existing knowledge on those guys. That's very reasonable in terms of due diligence as well. He didn't literally do nothing even though he only interviewed Peters formally that summer. I heard on the radio that our current interim coach Geoff Ward was interviewed in the same period as Gulutzan for HC. We was hired without a formal interview to be an AC to Peters, but there's no damn way I'd agree with anyone who thinks that we didn't do enough due diligence on him either. Peters IMO is a long shot "maybe" at best.
Well said.
 

Tkachuky

Registered User
Dec 30, 2009
5,280
2,883
In the Dome
I'm not sure what other thread you're referring to, but if your post history includes questioning Aliu's motives or asking why he delayed 10 years to say this, or trying to argue that Peters was just uncomfortable with a song lyric, or that this is similar to a black coach telling someone to shut off their honkey tonk hick music, I would have to say yes.
Wanting more proof before jumping on the firing train is fine (and responsible) but immediately disparaging or attacking the accusers credibility/ trying to create false equivalencies or loose justifications are not.

I was pushing for proof before Aliu’s story was confirmed by his old teammates.

Also, the whole waiting 10 years to bring this up is a tough topic, nonetheless it doesn’t erase what Peters did. Me questioning Aliu was siting 10 years doesn’t mean that I’m saying Peters isn’t an idiot for his actions.

People like to jump to conclusions.
 

Rangediddy

The puck was in
Oct 28, 2011
3,710
809
1) People being tried for murder take months if not years to be found guilty (or not) and even longer to be levied a sentence. It's been not even a full work week. Peters isn't coaching, he's not with the team, he's not around players, he's not going to be kicking anyone or shouting racist things around players anytime soon. Everyone wanting him fired NOW needs to take a breath *which as I write this it looks like he's out so you can all sleep a lot better tonight*.
2) If these complaints of abuse against Peters were never addressed when they happened (Jordan said he and his agent kept it a secret), then how is Treliving supposed to look for something he doesn't know exists? You think he's telling his team "We want a coach who runs a structured system, values possession and hasn't kicked anyone during a game. Go find me that person." Give me a break. If it wasn't an issue with the Hurricanes then, how is Treliving supposed to undercover it as one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Hoxville

BobColesNasalCavity

Registered User
Oct 15, 2016
4,633
6,695
West Side
Again, I can understand the idea of the Rockford incident not being seen as something that could be reasonably foreseeable, but he clearly didn't exercise his due-diligence when investigation his time in Carolina. Peters was hired less than a week after GG was canned (and speculation of his hiring had come days before that), you can't investigate in any reasonable manner in that time period at all. And even if Carolina was being coy about it, you telling me there are absolutely 0 other ways to dig for info? BS.

Tre gets paid millions of dollars to make the right choices, and this is an absolute FAIL. He had tunnel vision and got lazy thinking that nothing could go wrong. For a GM who I thought was so pragmatic and patient to the "process", yeah, big F in my eyes.

Brian Burke said he did the same thing in hiring Trev. I don't think it's uncommon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->