Confirmed with Link: Bill Peters has 'resigned' (for real this time) (MOD Warning OP)

[super6646]

It’s done.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

Title should be updated. Bill Peters resigns.

 

[JPeeper]

Let's get back to playing some hockey.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Title should be updated. Bill Peters resigns.

"Resigned"

 

[Fig]

Wow, it's official now.

This isn't really celebration or anger from me. I just feel... lost. The whole thing was straight up kind of unbelievable.

 

[BobColesNasalCavity]

Thought Trev was going to start crying when he said that this has been the hardest thing he's done in his career.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Starts around 12:00

 

[Corpus X]

Thought Trev was going to start crying when he said that this has been the hardest thing he's done in his career.

I don't doubt it. There is a lot of empathy from Treliving there, as there should be. It was a good speech which should satisfy most of the masses. Let's move forward.

 

[Rangediddy]

I don't doubt it. There is a lot of empathy from Treliving there, as there should be. It was a good speech which should satisfy most of the masses. Let's move forward.

Unfortunately, the masses are vindictive, irrational and petty. Justin Bourne was going on about how nobody was held accountable for any of this and Treliving didn't do enough. Seriously?! Peters lost his job and his resigning likely means that he doesn't get paid the remainder of his contract. He has been held accountable! His name is mud, he's lost out on millions of dollars, he'll never work in the NHL again, seriously what more do people want!?! Should he be taken to the town square to be stoned?

 

[InfinityIggy]

Unfortunately, the masses are vindictive, irrational and petty. Justin Bourne was going on about how nobody was held accountable for any of this and Treliving didn't do enough. Seriously?! Peters lost his job and his resigning likely means that he doesn't get paid the remainder of his contract. He has been held accountable! His name is mud, he's lost out on millions of dollars, he'll never work in the NHL again, seriously what more do people want!?! Should he be taken to the town square to be stoned?

This is very likely an incorrect assumption, Treliving was very careful to not get into the status (and payment) of Peters contract going forward despite being asked several questions about it. It suggests the opposite actually, that he is being paid in some form for the remaining value of his contract.

 

[Mobiandi]

I wonder what other associates will be brought in or if it'll be Geoff Ward and Huska for the rest of the season. Anyone know what the Blues did?

 

[Rangediddy]

This is very likely an incorrect assumption, Treliving was very careful to not get into the status (and payment) of Peters contract going forward despite being asked several questions about it. It suggests the opposite actually, that he is being paid in some form for the remaining value of his contract.

I don't doubt there is some sort of deal that was worked out in order for Peters to be the one to resign (rather than the team fire him which would create the legal issues), but would it not make sense that any coach resigning from their position would be forfeiting their remaining salary?

 

[Rangediddy]

I wonder what other associates will be brought in or if it'll be Geoff Ward and Huska for the rest of the season. Anyone know what the Blues did?

Gelinas is already an assistant coach, he's just not doing it from the bench. He would likely move down on an interim basis, or we see Conroy stay there too. I don't see any big changes for now until they see how the players respond to the current coaches. If it's not working then we'll probably see changes.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I don't doubt there is some sort of deal that was worked out in order for Peters to resign, but would it not make sense that any coach resigning from their position would be forfeiting their remaining salary?

Under normal circumstances absolutely.

 

[Rangediddy]

Under normal circumstances absolutely.

So it's possible that ownership wanted him gone without having to pay the rest of the salary, but Treliving (or the league) told them they'd have to pay him something to make him go away.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

So it's possible that ownership wanted him gone without having to pay the rest of the salary, but Treliving (or the league) told them they'd have to pay him something to make him go away.

If you watch the press conference, you'll note that Treliving slipped and classified the resignation letter as "an offer". My guess is that there was a deal struck where Peters goes away, and in consideration for the resignation a settlement of some sort was struck.

The resignation does ensure that the contract was terminated - so no future money owing from the Flames on the contract.

 

[Fig]

Unfortunately, the masses are vindictive, irrational and petty. Justin Bourne was going on about how nobody was held accountable for any of this and Treliving didn't do enough. Seriously?! Peters lost his job and his resigning likely means that he doesn't get paid the remainder of his contract. He has been held accountable! His name is mud, he's lost out on millions of dollars, he'll never work in the NHL again, seriously what more do people want!?! Should he be taken to the town square to be stoned?

This is very likely an incorrect assumption, Treliving was very careful to not get into the status (and payment) of Peters contract going forward despite being asked several questions about it. It suggests the opposite actually, that he is being paid in some form for the remaining value of his contract.

II is correct. You cannot assume that as a resignation, Peters doesn't get to walk away with a severance. This is actually a common approach in O&G in Calgary and it's perhaps a little skeezy how they deploy it. But if you accept and "resign" and they pay more than the minimum requirement for severance, you literally have no legal recourse afterwards and it's a clean cut from the company's perspective.

I've seen it used several times on women in the last year or so who are returning from maternity leave and it takes the form of something like:

LETTER:
This offer is made in non-prejudice. We are planning to get rid of your role. You have two options.

1. Sign this form and voluntarily resign as of XYZ date. You will be entitled to severance compensation of ABC.
2. Refuse the offer. Offer expires as of whatever date, you continue to work for us.

This is a confidential offer. You are allowed to share with spouse or parents. If you share with anyone else, we are entitled to legal recourse... blah blah blah...

PHONE CALL
"Did you get the letter? First off, this is all non-prejudice. Second off, you're probably confused about the second option on the letter. You'll come back to whatever role. But who knows when you'll get working notice after you get back. Most people choose option 1 because they don't prefer to be escorted away by security in front of their colleagues."

Let's just say I've met at least 3-4 women who have been put in this situation already. And then I know more people who either know of more examples of this, or many "rumors" it was another example of this.

If you watch the press conference, you'll note that Treliving slipped and classified the resignation letter as "an offer". My guess is that there was a deal struck where Peters goes away, and in consideration for the resignation a settlement of some sort was struck.

The resignation does ensure that the contract was terminated - so no future money owing from the Flames on the contract.

No money on the original contract. But possibly some money in the form of some severance which also requires confidentiality to be upheld.

 

[crackdown44]

II is correct. You cannot assume that as a resignation, Peters doesn't get to walk away with a severance. This is actually a common approach in O&G in Calgary and it's perhaps a little skeezy how they deploy it. But if you accept and "resign" and they pay more than the minimum requirement for severance, you literally have no legal recourse afterwards and it's a clean cut from the company's perspective.

I've seen it used several times on women in the last year or so who are returning from maternity leave and it takes the form of something like:

LETTER:
This offer is made in non-prejudice. We are planning to get rid of your role. You have two options.

1. Sign this form and voluntarily resign as of XYZ date. You will be entitled to severance compensation of ABC.
2. Refuse the offer. Offer expires as of whatever date, you continue to work for us.

This is a confidential offer. You are allowed to share with spouse or parents. If you share with anyone else, we are entitled to legal recourse... blah blah blah...

PHONE CALL
"Did you get the letter? First off, this is all non-prejudice. Second off, you're probably confused about the second option on the letter. You'll come back to whatever role. But who knows when you'll get working notice after you get back. Most people choose option 1 because they don't prefer to be escorted away by security in front of their colleagues."

Let's just say I've met at least 3-4 women who have been put in this situation already. And then I know more people who either know of more examples of this, or many "rumors" it was another example of this.



No money on the original contract. But possibly some money in the form of some severance which also requires confidentiality to be upheld.

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the league paid a decent portion of whatever the severance was

 

[Calculon]

Should put some heat on Chicago, Carolina and Ron Francis for there roles in all this.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

If you watch the press conference, you'll note that Treliving slipped and classified the resignation letter as "an offer". My guess is that there was a deal struck where Peters goes away, and in consideration for the resignation a settlement of some sort was struck.

The resignation does ensure that the contract was terminated - so no future money owing from the Flames on the contract.

Not just that, but if he leaves without putting up a fight some may perceive that as remorse and it can be looked upon positively should he get the opportunity to coach in the league again down the line.

 

[Bounces R Way]

 

[DFF]

II is correct. You cannot assume that as a resignation, Peters doesn't get to walk away with a severance. This is actually a common approach in O&G in Calgary and it's perhaps a little skeezy how they deploy it. But if you accept and "resign" and they pay more than the minimum requirement for severance, you literally have no legal recourse afterwards and it's a clean cut from the company's perspective.

I've seen it used several times on women in the last year or so who are returning from maternity leave and it takes the form of something like:

LETTER:
This offer is made in non-prejudice. We are planning to get rid of your role. You have two options.

1. Sign this form and voluntarily resign as of XYZ date. You will be entitled to severance compensation of ABC.
2. Refuse the offer. Offer expires as of whatever date, you continue to work for us.

This is a confidential offer. You are allowed to share with spouse or parents. If you share with anyone else, we are entitled to legal recourse... blah blah blah...

PHONE CALL
"Did you get the letter? First off, this is all non-prejudice. Second off, you're probably confused about the second option on the letter. You'll come back to whatever role. But who knows when you'll get working notice after you get back. Most people choose option 1 because they don't prefer to be escorted away by security in front of their colleagues."

Let's just say I've met at least 3-4 women who have been put in this situation already. And then I know more people who either know of more examples of this, or many "rumors" it was another example of this.



No money on the original contract. But possibly some money in the form of some severance which also requires confidentiality to be upheld.

Most of the time it is not resigned, it's involuntary termination or layoffs due to factors not within your control, it doesn't go on your record as being fired. The severance package is your acceptance of the terms and not to sue them.

 

[Boomstick]

I'm just glad this is all over and done with.
I hope the victims all recover and have a better future. Nobody should have to endure physical or verbal abuse in the world today. We all need to treat each other with respect no matter who you are. Nobody needs unethical treatment.
Let's move forward and play hockey fellas.
Looks like they had music cranking from Rasmus Andersson and they had a fun practice.
Go Flames Go!

 

[Rangediddy]

Unregardless of how the resignation is structured, Peters is definitely held to account for what he's done. I just don't get why some people think he should be tar and feathered?




*I know unregardless isn't a word, don't @ me