New code of conduct coming? Or?

[LadyStanley]

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/akim-aliu-nhl-investigation-racism-bill-peters-dec-3-1.5382904

Training? More follow through on allegations? Aliu spoke with Bettman and other brass about his history. Says "big changes" are coming.

Click to read more...

 

[LadyStanley]

Coaches want to be part of solution

 

[LadyStanley]

So, on hold until meeting (next week?).

 

[tarheelhockey]

It will be interesting to see how this manifests itself in the next CBA.

 

[mouser]

It will be interesting to see how this manifests itself in the next CBA.

I would guess it’s more likely to be handled outside of the CBA.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I would guess it’s more likely to be handled outside of the CBA.

I hope the negotiations are, because what a crummy thing to be stuck trying to work through alongside everything else. Even the appearance of trying to tie this issue to things like salary distributions would be an extremely ugly look.

But it's hard to imagine the outcome of this process won't end up encoded in the CBA somehow. With so much of the agreement covering off-ice behavior, morality clause, processes for arbitrating disputes, etc., it seems like one way or another they will end up needing to insert something about player-coach relationships.

 

[LadyStanley]

31 Thoughts: A 'Code of Conduct' is coming to the NHL - Sportsnet.ca

Friedman starts his bi-weekly 31 Thoughts with information on Code of Conduct

 

[Ted Hoffman]

OK, I'll ask. How exactly is this a "business of hockey" topic as we've come to know this forum to be?

Yes, it's hockey-related. Yes, it has potential impacts for franchises as it relates to hiring coaches and monitoring coaching actions. But I don't see where this really pertains to the financial aspect of hockey unless someone wants to tie it to the impact not having a CoC has on potential advertisers, decisions to purchase tickets and merchandise, etc. and I don't know that it really impacts the business aspect of franchise operations either (aside from hiring decisions, which IMO is stretching it for here). Maybe this proposed CoC it ends up in the CBA and thus it's applicable, but as @mouser suggests it likely doesn't end there [IMO because of who's involved and because coaches are effectively employee agents of the team and thus can't be bound to a CBA in name].

I don't feel so strongly about this that I'm willing to put up a strong fight about it, I think it's certainly a topic worth discussion, I'm just putting $0.02 on it here and saying I think it should go elsewhere - say, the NHL Talk forum.

 

[mouser]

The Business of Hockey isn’t limited to purely financial matters.

The Bill Peters situation has the potential to create image issues for the NHL. How the league reacts and adjusts going forward is absolutely a business of hockey subject even if we can’t easily quantify the financial numbers at stake.

Especially if the response involves input from multiple parties like the NHL, PA and coaches association.

 

[Channelcat]

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/akim-aliu-nhl-investigation-racism-bill-peters-dec-3-1.5382904

Training? More follow through on allegations? Aliu spoke with Bettman and other brass about his history. Says "big changes" are coming.

Essentially they discuss policy changes, Aliu accepts a payment and agrees to endorse it then go away.

 

[tarheelhockey]

OK, I'll ask. How exactly is this a "business of hockey" topic as we've come to know this forum to be?

Yes, it's hockey-related. Yes, it has potential impacts for franchises as it relates to hiring coaches and monitoring coaching actions. But I don't see where this really pertains to the financial aspect of hockey unless someone wants to tie it to the impact not having a CoC has on potential advertisers, decisions to purchase tickets and merchandise, etc. and I don't know that it really impacts the business aspect of franchise operations either (aside from hiring decisions, which IMO is stretching it for here). Maybe this proposed CoC it ends up in the CBA and thus it's applicable, but as @mouser suggests it likely doesn't end there [IMO because of who's involved and because coaches are effectively employee agents of the team and thus can't be bound to a CBA in name].

I don't feel so strongly about this that I'm willing to put up a strong fight about it, I think it's certainly a topic worth discussion, I'm just putting $0.02 on it here and saying I think it should go elsewhere - say, the NHL Talk forum.

I would be very surprised if this issue weren't part of negotiations for the next CBA. If they avoid that, it will only be because they got ahead of it and struck an agreement in advance.

 

[HugoSimon]

The Business of Hockey isn’t limited to purely financial matters.

The Bill Peters situation has the potential to create image issues for the NHL. How the league reacts and adjusts going forward is absolutely a business of hockey subject even if we can’t easily quantify the financial numbers at stake.

Especially if the response involves input from multiple parties like the NHL, PA and coaches association.

Image issues are a tricky one, the taking a knee stuff has done a ton of damage to pro sports. Catering to people who aren't necessarily sports fans is a tricky business.

If there is any excessive regulation you can rest assured the teams that will be winning cups will be the teams who can ignore the rules.

I can easily see these rules being used by disgruntled players as a way of attacking their previous teams.

There is just way too much pressure on professional athletes to think they can adhere to the same sorts of politics found in a typical office.

If you over regulate aggression in such a high pressure environment you're likely to create an environment of passive aggression and manipulation.

Obviously physical violence is unacceptable but "verbal abuse" is a slippery slope.

But the fact is competent human beings are far better at regulating social behavior than Lawyers.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Image issues are a tricky one, the taking a knee stuff has done a ton of damage to pro sports. Catering to people who aren't necessarily sports fans is a tricky business.

If there is any excessive regulation you can rest assured the teams that will be winning cups will be the teams who can ignore the rules.

I can easily see these rules being used by disgruntled players as a way of attacking their previous teams.

There is just way too much pressure on professional athletes to think they can adhere to the same sorts of politics found in a typical office.

If you over regulate aggression in such a high pressure environment you're likely to create an environment of passive aggression and manipulation.

Obviously physical violence is unacceptable but "verbal abuse" is a slippery slope.

But the fact is competent human beings are far better at regulating social behavior than Lawyers.

OK, but actual physical abuse is quite prominently an issue right now. The fact that this is happening and going under the radar for years/decades at a time is clearly something that needs to be cleaned up. The union can't just sit there and say nothing about coaches punching and kicking players.

 

[Elias GOATtersson]

Lots more on his twitter feed.

 

[LadyStanley]

And in BOG thread

 

[Lempo]

OK, I'll ask. How exactly is this a "business of hockey" topic as we've come to know this forum to be?

Yes, it's hockey-related. Yes, it has potential impacts for franchises as it relates to hiring coaches and monitoring coaching actions. But I don't see where this really pertains to the financial aspect of hockey unless someone wants to tie it to the impact not having a CoC has on potential advertisers, decisions to purchase tickets and merchandise, etc. and I don't know that it really impacts the business aspect of franchise operations either (aside from hiring decisions, which IMO is stretching it for here). Maybe this proposed CoC it ends up in the CBA and thus it's applicable, but as @mouser suggests it likely doesn't end there [IMO because of who's involved and because coaches are effectively employee agents of the team and thus can't be bound to a CBA in name].

I don't feel so strongly about this that I'm willing to put up a strong fight about it, I think it's certainly a topic worth discussion, I'm just putting $0.02 on it here and saying I think it should go elsewhere - say, the NHL Talk forum.

When the coaches' contracts and Standard Player's Contract start referring to a specific official NHL Code of Conduct, it will be an official part of the legal structure of the NHL and very much a "business of hockey" thing.

There already is paragraph 2(e) in the SPC (which itself is the CBA Exhibit 1), where "the Player further agrees":

(e) to conduct himself on and off the rink according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and to refrain from conduct detrimental to the best interest of the Club, the League or professional hockey generally.

If they are going to be adding more meat onto the bones there, I guess a separate NHL Code of Conduct (with set procedures when needed) that gets referred to in the CBA, the SPC and any bilateral contracts between the team and the personnel is the wisest way to go.

 

[Lempo]

I would be very surprised if this issue weren't part of negotiations for the next CBA. If they avoid that, it will only be because they got ahead of it and struck an agreement in advance.

It's not going to be difficult negotiation... it will be hard for anyone to argue that they will need to be able to use some ethnic slurs and abuse the players to certain extent.

The procedures that will be taken after someone is accused of behavior against the Code of Conduct obviously will need some work, as the legal protection of the accused will need to be ensured. That's the bummer for the NHL here when setting it legally up, because when a case arises the twitter mob will want immediate blood and not any "due process" talk.

A thing like "immediate suspension for the duration of the investigation" would get tricky if accusations at a coach were made during a playoff series.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's not going to be difficult negotiation... it will be hard for anyone to argue that they will need to be able to use some ethnic slurs and abuse the players to certain extent.

The tricky part, as in the next two paragraphs, is how you define this and draw actionable boundaries.

If I’m a coach, clearly I can’t call my player ethnic slurs. Less clearly, I probably can’t call him a f*****t. Can I call him a p****y? Can I call him a b**ch? Can I call him MY b**ch while bag skating him? Is that abuse or just being a caveman of a coach? Does it matter if I do it once, or does repetition come into play? This stuff is going to matter because it gets tested starting Day One is training camp, and the absolute last thing they’re going to want is an early case which is too vague to determine.

The coaches are organized now too, so it’ll be interesting to see how that negotiation is handled. Does the NHLCA have a seat at the table during the NHLPA’s collective bargaining?

 

[Lempo]

The tricky part, as in the next two paragraphs, is how you define this and draw actionable boundaries.

If I’m a coach, clearly I can’t call my player ethnic slurs. Less clearly, I probably can’t call him a f*****t. Can I call him a p****y? Can I call him a b**ch? Can I call him MY b**ch while bag skating him? Is that abuse or just being a caveman of a coach? Does it matter if I do it once, or does repetition come into play? This stuff is going to matter because it gets tested starting Day One is training camp, and the absolute last thing they’re going to want is an early case which is too vague to determine.

The coaches are organized now too, so it’ll be interesting to see how that negotiation is handled. Does the NHLCA have a seat at the table during the NHLPA’s collective bargaining?

Now I have a mental image of Gary Bettman channeling his inner George Carlin and listing unacceptable words in an upcoming presser.

If f*****t is supposed to be the six-letter word meaning loud motorcyclists, Ryan Getzlaf already got it cleared out that anything that can be seen as homophobic is a nocando.

Anything that could be perceived as misogynic, like calling men-assumed players with a word generally used for or specifically related to women, is a nocando. So the coach can't call them Cheryl either, and if Winnipeg tries the Katy Perry chant again, the house will be emptied.

 

[LadyStanley]

For starters, NHL coaches, minor league coaches (under contract from NHL team), GMs and AGMs will all have to take annual training on this. Guessing NHLPA may step up and require it for players too.

NHL is contracting with professional organization to put this training together.

There was mention of call line for reporting, as well as Bettman/Daly want to be notified immediately by teams if something breaks (as they were blindsided by Peters news recently).

Things are in flux and still in embryonic form. Much more to come.

 

[LadyStanley]

Montgomery fired as Stars coach

And Stars just fired HC for breaking team core values.

 

[LadyStanley]

31 Thoughts: Jim Montgomery firing hockey's latest bombshell - Sportsnet.ca

Friedman's 31 thoughts

[Executive Vice-President of Social Impact, Growth Initiatives & Legislative Affairs Kim] Davis was asked point-blank if hockey has a racism problem. “I believe society has a racism problem,” she answered. “To categorize this as a hockey problem minimizes our ability to use this moment in our sport to understand that we are a microcosm of society. I think that we have all kinds of problems in our society. Are there cases and incidents of racism? Of course there are. But to say that the culture of hockey is racist, I think is inappropriate and I don’t think it is accurate.

Kim and NHL have been working on coming up with ideas to help change the culture in hockey, and recent allegations and discoveries have accelerated their plans. Many paragraphs from Kim on whys (and possible hows) and other stories in this week's 31 Thoughts.

 

[LadyStanley]

More analysis