Bill Peters Under Investigation

[Auston'sWilly]

Matthew 7:1-5


1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
4 How can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

[doulos]

Matthew 7:1-5


1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
4 How can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Ezekiel 23:20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

[Auston'sWilly]

Ezekiel 23:20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

I'd say that's a little x rated for a family forum, and completely unrelated to the thread topic.

[Axeman33]

Alright, this thread quickly slides off the rails once we starting bringing religion into it. Can we get back on track please.

[Godin]

I'd say that's a little x rated for a family forum, and completely unrelated to the thread topic.

Not sure it was meant to be funny but it got a chuckle out of me.

[Auston'sWilly]

Not sure it was meant to be funny but it got a chuckle out of me.

It was kind of funny, undeniably.
I just wouldn't want my daughter (if I had one) reading something like that on a hockey forum and then asking me what a horse emission is.

[Auston'sWilly]

I'm genuinely curious what Lawman would say about this ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac.../#118da38d781e

If, indeed, the Flames are trying to fire him for cause and therefore get out of paying him, I suspect it will boil down to how his contract is worded regarding past conduct? That's a slippery slope - one could certainly argue that immoral conduct should be limited to behaviour within the time period of the contract being terminated.

[Rylant]

I imagine that there is a code of conduct clause that they will look at. If they can do it legally, they will.

Rylant

[ericdaoust]

The end of the article sums it up well. The Flames will try to fire him with cause, Peters will appeal and they'll reach a settlement, likely including a gag order. Both sides will play it by the book.

I personally have no attachment to how this is settled financially. If he gets paid, so be it. It's purely a legal matter.

[2014olympicgold]

I'm genuinely curious what Lawman would say about this ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac.../#118da38d781e

If, indeed, the Flames are trying to fire him for cause and therefore get out of paying him, I suspect it will boil down to how his contract is worded regarding past conduct? That's a slippery slope - one could certainly argue that immoral conduct should be limited to behaviour within the time period of the contract being terminated.

They're trying to find a way to fire him and void the contract. That's all I can think of, and I said that way back on page1. No other reason why they haven't already, not like they were doing well with him this yr too.

[Dennis]

As the article states there is a very high threshold for determining cause. The Flames claiming just cause is unlikely and an entirely hypothetical though the article guesses the Flames feign just cause and hash out a settlement paying half the contract value which isn't inconceivable.

[Canucks_fan18]

Maybe the Flames surprise everyone and conclude that "Yes he did in fact say those things but people change and he's not the man he once was, doesn't everyone deserve a 2nd chance"....

[ericdaoust]

Maybe the Flames surprise everyone and conclude that "Yes he did in fact say those things but people change and he's not the man he once was, doesn't everyone deserve a 2nd chance"....

It's possible for the team to agree with everything you wrote and still fire him.

[doulos]

It was kind of funny, undeniably.
I just wouldn't want my daughter (if I had one) reading something like that on a hockey forum and then asking me what a horse emission is.

It would be a wonderful opportunity to discuss biology, world religions, and myth in literature with your theoretical daughter. You'd be missing out!

[Godin]

I imagine that there is a code of conduct clause that they will look at. If they can do it legally, they will.

Rylant

Yes. If not, there should be.