According to the e-mail headers these were sent on an internal NHL Lotus Notes system (ccampbell@nhl.com or whatever). If it were personal accounts I'd agree with you.facey wroteCOLONPersonally I'm majorly against emails being seen as being property of the company/organization/etc. IMO they are more like phone calls and person to person interaction (aka conversation) then they are currently viewed. I know that I personally send some very informal messages with individuals that I know well, with the understanding that they'd get any jokes or exaggerations.
Have you guys read any of this?
Re: Have you guys read any of this?
Re: Have you guys read any of this?
sorry, I missed that.
He's really dumb to be sending informal emails on a company email.
He's really dumb to be sending informal emails on a company email.
-
armandtanzarian
Re: Have you guys read any of this?
These old fuckers dont realize the implications of doing personal shit within a company environment and how you have no rights or privacy while using company email system. I still have to delete stuff after i write it because i think about what I am saying and how it is a government email address. You become complacent and tend for slack off. I am guilty of that.
Cambell got busted saying some dumb stuff that was never meant to be exposed. It was used as evidence in a wrongful dismissal case therefore became public knowledge after some time. I think the NHL made a respectable response to the whole thing. At the time Savard was known to be a pretty lame player with regards to diving and faking. That does not excuse Cambell from making those comments in a position of power. He said some stupid things in a personal format that just shows impartiality is almost impossible when you have a kid playing in the league in which you have power over. I mean, i dont disrespect him for having a passion about his kid.
I just find some of the highlights of this story to not be right. Like GM's requesting certain refs and it being ok or a guy making decisions on fines or suspensions while showing supporting evidence that he has dislike for certain players. How can that not affect your judgment? It is not anything that major but it certainly raises some eyebrows and concern.
I know Jack Edwards is not the best guy to quote from but he did write a good piece that was quoted in that yahoo article. He does make some valid points:
The only person who seems to understand Colin Campbell's pattern of punishment is Campbell himself. The suspensions he hands down are arbitrary and erratic -- swayed by non-evidence, hunch, gut feelings, anecdotes and back-channel influence peddlers -- and they are almost never clearly explained. He establishes precedent and contradicts it. He makes exceptions based on flawed premises and then concludes his arguments illogically and capriciously. No one, no one, knows what is allowed and what is not allowed. It is Dartboard Justice.
Perhaps there is someone patrolling the highways and byways of hockey that has the ability to establish standards of punishment; to draw a clear line that everyone understands; to communicate effectively with players, coaches, managers and fans; and to make the NHL a fair and safe place for the world's most exciting athletes. But Colin Campbell is not that someone.
Cambell got busted saying some dumb stuff that was never meant to be exposed. It was used as evidence in a wrongful dismissal case therefore became public knowledge after some time. I think the NHL made a respectable response to the whole thing. At the time Savard was known to be a pretty lame player with regards to diving and faking. That does not excuse Cambell from making those comments in a position of power. He said some stupid things in a personal format that just shows impartiality is almost impossible when you have a kid playing in the league in which you have power over. I mean, i dont disrespect him for having a passion about his kid.
I just find some of the highlights of this story to not be right. Like GM's requesting certain refs and it being ok or a guy making decisions on fines or suspensions while showing supporting evidence that he has dislike for certain players. How can that not affect your judgment? It is not anything that major but it certainly raises some eyebrows and concern.
I know Jack Edwards is not the best guy to quote from but he did write a good piece that was quoted in that yahoo article. He does make some valid points:
The only person who seems to understand Colin Campbell's pattern of punishment is Campbell himself. The suspensions he hands down are arbitrary and erratic -- swayed by non-evidence, hunch, gut feelings, anecdotes and back-channel influence peddlers -- and they are almost never clearly explained. He establishes precedent and contradicts it. He makes exceptions based on flawed premises and then concludes his arguments illogically and capriciously. No one, no one, knows what is allowed and what is not allowed. It is Dartboard Justice.
Perhaps there is someone patrolling the highways and byways of hockey that has the ability to establish standards of punishment; to draw a clear line that everyone understands; to communicate effectively with players, coaches, managers and fans; and to make the NHL a fair and safe place for the world's most exciting athletes. But Colin Campbell is not that someone.
Re: Have you guys read any of this?
To be fair the NHL clearly explained that he does not have an input on games which his son is involved in.
Re: Have you guys read any of this?
Yeah he doesn't, but he does in games savard plays in. Even if we let that go, I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea that GMs can call Him and try to schedule referees.facey wroteCOLONTo be fair the NHL clearly explained that he does not have an input on games which his son is involved in.
Roster
-
armandtanzarian
Re: Have you guys read any of this?
I understand that but it is evident that he is still interested as "a hockey dad" and he has power to make decisions that affect players that may have done things in games against his son...Basically he seems to hold grudges from his own past as a coach and from players that do bad things to his boy, lol. Either way the entire thing is just ugly and there is evidence of conflict of interest. I am not saying this whole story is anything that major but there is substance and cause for concern on a from more than one viewpoint.facey wroteCOLONTo be fair the NHL clearly explained that he does not have an input on games which his son is involved in.
-
armandtanzarian
Re: Have you guys read any of this?
Savard taking high road...
I have nothing against Coli. I think that stuff was private stuff and I think that the stuff that he was saying was interpreted in a bad way. It had nothing to do with the Cooke incident. I played for Coli and I think that was one of the ways when I first came into the league to stay in the lineup was draw penalties and he encouraged that at the time, if you asked him. I think that’s what he was referring to. But it had nothing to do with the Cooke situation.
I have nothing against Coli. I think that stuff was private stuff and I think that the stuff that he was saying was interpreted in a bad way. It had nothing to do with the Cooke incident. I played for Coli and I think that was one of the ways when I first came into the league to stay in the lineup was draw penalties and he encouraged that at the time, if you asked him. I think that’s what he was referring to. But it had nothing to do with the Cooke situation.
Re: Have you guys read any of this?
Saw this earlier, good on Savard.mr. bruin wroteCOLONSavard taking high road...
I have nothing against Coli. I think that stuff was private stuff and I think that the stuff that he was saying was interpreted in a bad way. It had nothing to do with the Cooke incident. I played for Coli and I think that was one of the ways when I first came into the league to stay in the lineup was draw penalties and he encouraged that at the time, if you asked him. I think that’s what he was referring to. But it had nothing to do with the Cooke situation.
Roster