| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| admin |
Posted - 11/19/2010 : 15:00:04
Should Colin Campbell step down as NHL Vice President |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/25/2010 : 13:48:36
Long story short, the head of the Alberta Health Services was recently fired for answering a serious question about ER wait times by saying, "I'm eating a cookie," and holding the cookie up to the camera.
Regardless, no one has been able to show me any kind of proof that shows Campbell showing favoritism to his son or any other specific NHL player.
So you are saying he should be fired based on an e-mail that proves what?? That he has his own personal opinions?? We'll, is that not the right that we all have living in the civilized world?? I don't believe part of his job is to not have a personal opinion. His job is to make sure those opinions do not impact his decisions.
Have those opinions impacted his decisions??? If so, I would like to see where............. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/25/2010 : 11:21:56
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Ok, I will lay off the sarcasm.
I do think it's time for new blood in the position, however a guy should not be fired based on opinions or assumptions of what he may or may not have meant in an e-mail from 3 years ago.
It's not like he said he was eating a cookie! (Us from Alberta will get that joke!)
People should not be fired based on assumption and accusation unless they are proven true. Although not in good taste and some may perceive as a conflict of interest, no one has been able to prove in any way/shape/or form that Campbell has provided any kind of benefit of favoritism to his son nor has anyone proven that Campbell has mistreated any players based on who they are are what he thinks of that player.
Now, do I think he is good as his job?? Nope. I don't. That is why he should be fired. Not because of the e-mail.
Regardless, I agree with previous posters, until the structure of this position changed it doesn't matter who is doing the job. The person can not succeed in the eyes of owners, players, and fans alike.
Beans.....first off, i have no prob with the sarcasm and didn't wanna come off as though i did.
Second, it's clear i'm not from Alberta, though i did live there for a year, as i have no clue as to the humour in the cookie comment 
Third, i suppose it's just a difference of opinion. Like Slozo, i feel what's been exposed about Campbell and his emails re the refs and his kid, are more than enough to expect this guy to be looking elsewhere for employment!
BTW, i do agree he prob should have been out of this position long AND as far as the consistency thing goes, i'm sure anyone would struggle in this position. A 3 person panel seems like a great idea. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/25/2010 : 07:26:56
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
His office should be held to SOME kind of standard (I don't think it's very high at all, actually) - right now, it is totally unaccountable. Colin Campbell has exhibited extremely poor judgement in my opinion in using a drunken "sliding scale" (ie - a dartboard) to determine suspension lengths in the past. His performance has been very poor, he has never held the referees accountable, and never held himself accountable for any errors in the past.
He should have been fired long ago.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!
We have a winner!!
I completely agree 100%. He SHOULD have been fired a long time ago. But not because of an e-mail. Because he is not consistent at the administration of his position and authority. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/25/2010 : 07:24:48
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Beans, i get your point and your sarcasm, and i know you said you'd like to see "new blood" in his position, but do you not think with what's been exposed in this instance that it's enough to cost this guy his job?
Ok, I will lay off the sarcasm.
I do think it's time for new blood in the position, however a guy should not be fired based on opinions or assumptions of what he may or may not have meant in an e-mail from 3 years ago.
It's not like he said he was eating a cookie! (Us from Alberta will get that joke!)
People should not be fired based on assumption and accusation unless they are proven true. Although not in good taste and some may perceive as a conflict of interest, no one has been able to prove in any way/shape/or form that Campbell has provided any kind of benefit of favoritism to his son nor has anyone proven that Campbell has mistreated any players based on who they are are what he thinks of that player.
Now, do I think he is good as his job?? Nope. I don't. That is why he should be fired. Not because of the e-mail.
Regardless, I agree with previous posters, until the structure of this position changed it doesn't matter who is doing the job. The person can not succeed in the eyes of owners, players, and fans alike. |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/25/2010 : 05:58:44
quote:
tbar: Slozo "He said he would never be involved in regards to his son if it came up, and the emails show that this is a lie."
How do these emails show this is a lie? Did Campbell give his 2 cents? It appears so.
Does this mean he was in any way involved in decision making? NO!
Slozo you keep requesting proof.....where's yours?
Honestly TBAR, if you don't think that Campbell complaining about calls made on his son doesn't have any sort of influence at all on the reffing, you have your head in the sand. It is a clear breach of protocol that Colin himself was forced to hold himself to, in light of the fact that he shouldn't have been in any position of influence regarding his son.
This one exposed instance shows that Colin Campbell lied when he said that he would always step back and never get involved in matters regarding his son. Clearly, being the Senior VP and Dir of Ops is a position of great influence, and when you are questioning calls made on your son with the director of officiating . . . it weilds some weight to it. It can, at its worst, be seen as meddling, even threatening. At worst, it is very unprofessional.
So, the proof that we can all see and read is in the emails, exposed by an independent blogger (not any traditional media outlet).
Any other claims that some posters are making here, trying to insinuate that I am on a witch hunt, or hold Colin Campbell to some ridiculously high standard - is patently false. His office should be held to SOME kind of standard (I don't think it's very high at all, actually) - right now, it is totally unaccountable. Colin Campbell has exhibited extremely poor judgement in my opinion in using a drunken "sliding scale" (ie - a dartboard) to determine suspension lengths in the past. His performance has been very poor, he has never held the referees accountable, and never held himself accountable for any errors in the past.
He should have been fired long ago.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 21:42:45
Beans, i get your point and your sarcasm, and i know you said you'd like to see "new blood" in his position, but do you not think with what's been exposed in this instance that it's enough to cost this guy his job? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 17:15:43
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Slozo "He said he would never be involved in regards to his son if it came up, and the emails show that this is a lie."
How do these emails show this is a lie? Did Campbell give his 2 cents? It appears so.
Does this mean he was in any way involved in decision making? NO!
Slozo you keep requesting proof.....where's yours?
How could you say such a thing?? C'mon! The media said that Campbell has done X, Y, and Z so that means it has to be fact!!
Fire him, fire him right now. Don't base your decision on merit, ability, or past performance! It must be measured on the media's representation and the simple fact that anyone in the NHL management must be exactly perfect in every action they do or they must be teathered to a stake and caned!!!
|
| tbar |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 14:56:37
Slozo "He said he would never be involved in regards to his son if it came up, and the emails show that this is a lie."
How do these emails show this is a lie? Did Campbell give his 2 cents? It appears so.
Does this mean he was in any way involved in decision making? NO!
Slozo you keep requesting proof.....where's yours? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 11:39:47
What are you guys talking about?? Owners?? Business??
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Everyone knows that Gary Bettman makes every decision regarding the NHL and the owners are just pawns in his little game.
The owners have zero say in the NHL, how it's operated, who operates it, where the teams are located, who can own team, who can move teams, and most importantly who gets to decide what happens on a daily basis.
That's all Gary Bettman. Give your head a shake, all of you!!
(Hopefully you can all see this for it's intention which is very tongue in cheek.) |
| ToXXiK1 |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 07:37:41
As much as Coli is a tool, he also has his hands full with ownership. Fans and players scream for longer and more severe suspensions, but, the owners aren't willing to accept a player they're paying X millions of dollars to sit in the press box suspended for 10, 15, 20 games. So, as much as I agree he has to go, the next one will have the same issues. I agree that a panel of 3 independant individuals should be implemented and have the freedom to judge suspension calls on what they are instead of what it'll cost a particular team owner. Until then, the circus will continue. |
| Guest9884 |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 07:19:19
Hahahaha! I'm not Belorussian but I am pretty drunk.
Yes. He should be fired. Then, when they hire the next guy the owners should decide what is more important to them: big hits for the fans, or having enough healthy players to deliver and receive those hits.
Colin Campbell may be a complete moron but if the owners can't decide what the hell they want the person in this position to do they will continue to get more of the same.
C'mon filthy rich guys, get it together! If you ran your real businesses this way you'd all be broke. Shameful. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 16:30:50
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The media, is most every story, make is sound the most sellable. They will make sweet stories look sweeter and the sour stories the most sour they can be.
Almost understand this point, but I have a 3 year old niece that would be able to articulate it better. Are you drunk, or Belarussian?
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2011. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 10:14:57
Well, it is quite clear that my points have been comletely misunderstood again. Yet again. Much like anytime something like this comes out.
I am not going to waste my time with a long elaborate explaination as it would do as much good as bouncing my head off the wall for the next few hours.
However, I will leave you with this.
The media, in most every story, make it sound the most sellable. They will make sweet stories look sweeter and the sour stories the most sour they can be.
Some people can see the three sides to every media story (one side, the other side, and the truth somewhere in the middle) while others can see only the side they agree with. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 10:52:04
My mind has not changed, the following should occur immediately:
1. Campbell should step down or be fired
2. The term "strawman" should be permanently banned from use on this site.
 |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 13:00:08
Beans - so, nothing specific then? Nothing at all, Mr Strawman? You know, if you are going to accuse me of giving you strawman arguments, might help to actually give an example.
Might help to give me any specific proof as to you assertion that the emails in question could have come from a 13 year old.
lol . . . strawman indeed. You should look it up, you give several classic examples there:
1) Insinuate emails could be utter bull by the "could have been written by a 13 year old". Hilarious, and totally false. They were court obtained emails pertaining to a lawsuit, and Campbell has 100% admitted he wrote them, so that is strawman #1.
2) You insinuate that Savard publicly coming to the defence of Colin Campbell somehow negates any wrongdoing whatsoever. It doesn't - Savard could have any number of reasons for doing this - for the good of the Boston Bruins, for his teammate - Colin Campbell's son, because he honestly thinks Campbell is a good guy and is willing to overlook these gross indescretions, etc etc. It's the same as Campbell trying to downplay his actions . . . it has no bearing on the facts whatsoever.
3)"anyone who makes one mistake in the NHL should be fired". Well, here we have strawman #3 - I never said that, and honestly Beans, it's a ridiculous statement that again tries to encompass me being prejudiced on some kind of large scale against NHL management, as opposed to specifically attacking my assertions in this specific case.
4) "how is the view from the glass house"
So - you have no real defence of Campbell's actions now, except to insinuate that I don't hold myself to the same standard that I am holding Colin Campbell to. Priceless.
FYI - This isn't about me - it's about Colin Campbell, Senior VP and Dir of Hockey Operations. He is held to a very high standard of conduct, yes - as he should be, as he is the head 'disciplinarian' and accountability flows downward.
Can you even address and explain away any of Colin Campbell's wrongdoings?
He said he would never be involved in regards to his son if it came up, and the emails show that this is a lie.
People report how classy and fair Campbell is publicly, but calling a player a "little fake-artist" when you are the final judge on suspending him and are supposed to be a fair judge, is TOTALLY unprofessional and unacceptable.
The profane and utterly unprofessional manner that Campbell addresses other people under his watch - players, referees, even coaches - is way out of line, and unacceptable.
He should have been fired long ago.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 12:33:27
you know he needs to be replaced why? not because of any of this drama the ain reason being the NHL needs someone who has been in the new NHL. Someone who has played activly since 2004 and knows how fast dangerous and how the new rules effect the game. Its that simple the game has passed the older generation by! Someone like for example Brendan Shanahan who is a class act played the game hard and tough but relativly clean. But most importantly he has played in this decade, the new NHL.
Pasty |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 12:29:42
Hey Slozo, watch your step coming down from the soapbox. For each time you call me Mr Defender of anything NHL management I can call you Mr Conspiracy of anything NHL related. Anyone who has been on here for any amount of time can see that every item the NHL management has been involved over the past 2-3 years has been heavily scrutinized and negated by you and your typical 'strawman' comments that Bettman is the ruler of the World and every NHL owner bows to the demands of the Fuhrer Commishioner etc, etc, etc.
Before we start talking about fact, every report that I can find tells me the e-mails were made a matter of public record in a wrongful dismissal trial of a former NHL Ref. Secondly, I have found the actual e-mails on various sites an I have yet to find anything including the specific players names in the e-mails. The players invovled was diciphered by the blogger. Just thought I would include that as were are talking about 'fact' here.
This is just another example. This e-mail could have been created by some 13 yr old kid in his basement and as soon as it 'broke' it would have been taken as fact. I guess Savard himself saying the comments were taken out of context means???? Yep, it's all Campbell as this completely dishonest and 'unfair to all" kind of person. People, by nature, make mistakes. Some are forgivable while other are not. However, it seems (and I am making an assumption openly) that anyone at any time in the NHL management must be more than human and never make mistakes. If they do, they should be fired immediately.
How is the view from the glass house??? |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 10:14:33
The original question was "should Colin Campbell step down?" and many people responded to the poll just after the original story broke, and probably before additional facts came out, and before they had a chance to hear from Campbell, and from other people in the game. I'm still curious – has anyone changed their mind about Campbell? (And either way?)
I agree with Irvine and Beans about a committee or panel, and one that would offer (potentially) more consistency and transparency. The logistics would be a bit of a challenge (getting 3 or 5 people together), but with technology (just watch out for e-mails or skype), it's possible to get a group of people together in some form. The timeliness of decision-making could not be compromised, because justice does not only need to be fair, it needs to be swift in the game of hockey.
As far as firing Colin Campbell, could you imagine his wrongful dismissal suit? I bet he has some very interesting e-mails, and with/from a wide range of people in hockey.
One thing for sure. It is virtually impossible to find someone in any position who does not have a bias. It's how people act on their biases which is of critical importance.
If you were to search for someone (or a panel) to replace Campbell, there's no one who has not uttered personal or private comments about players, coaches, referees, etc., comments which could be used by the media (or others) to discredit the person or persons selected for the job. As far as making comments "on the job," yes, Campbell should have been more careful, and people in all other capacities in the NHL (including the league office, team owners, GMs, etc.) have now taken notice.
To restate the point – finding someone who has not made any negative or disparaging comments about players, coaches, referees, etc., or the game of hockey itself – would be virtually impossible. It could not be a former player, coach, gm, etc., because that person could be shown to have a bias, perhaps favouring an old teammate or player on a coach's roster. The person in this role would probably have to come from outside of the hockey realm (definitely not my suggestion) to avoid such criticisms of bias and favourtism. This person would take us past the old boys club in hockey, and bring some fresh points of view, and maybe from another sport, perhaps basketball as an example. Hey, isn't this how we got Gary Bettman? :) |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 09:44:26
Oh, here comes Beans (you are as much as an "armchair critic" as I am , btw) with his defence of all things NHL management. Cripes!
. . . people who follow anything the media says?!? Are you seriously talking about me, Mr. Anti-media?!? And Beans, FYI, it WAS NOT THE MEDIA who broke this story - in fact, they NEVER would have reported it . . . it was broken by an independent blogger. This very fact points to my continued assertion of media COMPLIANCE AND COVER-UP for the NHL . . . they are, in most ways, merely an advertising and damage control arm of the NHL. After all, if reported properly, that the NHL management was acting terribly bush-league with the crookedest of business practices . . . there would be less fans, less hype, and lo and behold, those same reporters might be out of a job.
Get your facts straight, dude! You can't just dismiss something without getting into specifics, so - please, show me specifically, what you mean by what I say about Campbell being some kind of media hearsay.
Be specific, please.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 09:01:20
Oh here comes all the arm chair critics and people who follow anything the media says and calls it 'fact.'
Typical. But the funny thing is the next guy to get the job wouldn't be good at it either.
That being said, I believe there is time for some new blood in the chair that Campbell has occupied for quite some time. One thing I completely agree on is people's comments towards Campbell's actions (specifically regarding discipline) very inconsistent.
If I were King for a day, I would set up an panel of 3 knowledgable 3rd party hockey people that are paid equally between the NHL and the NHLPA and are responsible for discipline for the NHL. |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 07:04:07
No question - Colin Campbell should step down.
FACTS:
He has shown bias towards certain players.
He has used inflammatory and inapropriate language describing players, when he is supposed to be a fair judge of all (yes, even in private conversations with other coworkers!)
He has lost the respect of most hockey fans, and many players and referees (anecdotal as to how much, but some respect has been lost, no question).
He has been shown to not have the faintest clue about what the word CONSISTENCY means, and what the word PROFESSIONALISM means.
And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, he has thrown suspicion and doubt on the integrity of many past decisions, and all future decisions which he may be making or be a part of.
Fired, fired, fired, fired, fired.
Anyone else in any other job anywhere in the western world would be fired for this, unless you were the president's son or, in this case, working for the NHL.
He should have been gone YESTERDAY.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Yewcandoit |
Posted - 11/20/2010 : 18:10:25
I think that system could work. You would just need 5 guys who have very independent ideas. No sheep. |
| irvine |
Posted - 11/20/2010 : 17:03:47
I'm unsure if Colin Campbell has a personal bias towards certain players or not, or if he uses that in his decision making or not.
At this point, it's too late to change what has happened in the past. Suspension wise, etc.
One thing that can change, is how/who deals with upcoming disciplinary action in the NHL.
I don't like the idea (and never have), of one person deciding the fate of players in the NHL.
The NHL needs to utilize a committee of 3 or 5 people. This to me, makes more sense.
--
For this example, we will be say the committee is 5 people.
We'll even say, Colin Campbell remains the VP and head of this discipline committee.
So, Colin Campbell as the HODC (Head of Discipline Committee), sits down with the other 4 members of the committee. They all review the play together, then discuss it.
Upon discussing it, they take a vote. Suspension or not. Majority vote rules. IF, there is a tie (2 For, 2 Against), Colin Campbell becomes the deciding vote.
If the vote is "No". No suspension will be handed down. The comittee will then decide if other disciplinary action should be taken. Example being, a fine. If they choose a fine, they then discuss the amount until all in agreement. One that, is on base with previous incidents similar.
If the vote is "Yes." They then discuss the length/duration of the suspension. The committee should establish guidelines to use for the duration, and base it on similar events that have happened. Keeping things in relative proximity. No two incidents will be exact. Which is why a guideline and to keep things at least relative, is needed. And go from there.
Once looking at the guidelines, establishing what the general suspension should be for the type of incident, all members can express concerns and say if they feel it should be a little longer or shorter and why. If a member does feel it should be longer or shorter, they say how many games longer or shorter. Then a vote takes place.
The end result of the vote, determines the exact amount of games the player will be suspended. If majority votes "No." Then, the suspension is the one set by the guidelines. If the vote is "Yes", the suspension is the one established by the board member.
--
Thoughts on this? It seems a little more fair and organized to me.
Irvine/prez. |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 11/20/2010 : 14:09:47
Now that a few more facts have come out (and Colin Campbell has had a chance to address the criticisms directed toward him), I wonder if anyone has changed their mind about him, or do people still feel he should step down as VP and Director of Hockey Operations for the NHL?
My initial reaction was to question what he was thinking when he sent out the e-mails regarding penalty calls against his son or when he called Marc Savard (a player he previously coached) a "fake artist." The optics didn't look good, but since looking further at the man and his record, I believe the man has a great deal of integrity.
He definitely has the support from the league (which probably doesn't mean much to a lot of hockey fans), but he seems to garner a great deal of respect from players, coaches, and managers in the game. Maybe it's because he played the game, and later coached in the NHL too, before moving on to his role as VP and Directory of Hockey Operations for the NHL. (Taking over from Brian Burke.)
He's doled out over 300 suspensions, and while it would be easy to criticize some of his decisions, I doubt that personal bias or "getting back at someone" factored in on his decision-making.
When Savard was clobbered by Matt Cooke, one could make an argument that Colin Campbell (and the league) would relish an opportunity to suspend Matt Cooke, but the rules then (and they've changed now) didn't provide for that to happen. I highly doubt the decision (to not suspend Matt Cooke) was rendered because Colin Campbell wanted to get back at Savard. And how exactly does Savard benefit by Matt Cooke being suspended anyway? Do his post-concussion symptoms go away?
Savard himself had this to say about Colin Campbell. ""I have nothing against Colie. I think that stuff was private stuff, and I think that stuff that he was saying got interpreted in a bad way. It had nothing to do with the Cooke incident."
This story may not be over yet. There may be more facts and information coming out in weeks to come, some which may further exonerate Colin Campbell, but who knows – there could be some more skeletons in Colin Campbell's closet. But for the time being, my opinion is that based on the context, timing and realities of the e-mails brought forward to question his integrity, it's not enough to fire the guy.
|
| Awesome One |
Posted - 11/20/2010 : 07:43:04
quote:
Originally posted by semin-rules
I am still not exactly 100% sure of what he actually did yet 
I read all the articles and all I got out of it was something to do with a call a ref made that he didn't agree with? Am I missing something or is that it?
He was being very biased to his son Gregory and against Marc Savard.
There was once a license plate in Toronto that abbreviated "Go Leafs" it read "Golfs". |
| doublechamp7 |
Posted - 11/19/2010 : 16:28:27
Does anyone know if he is related to clarence campbell? |
| semin-rules |
Posted - 11/19/2010 : 15:52:27
I am still not exactly 100% sure of what he actually did yet
I read all the articles and all I got out of it was something to do with a call a ref made that he didn't agree with? Am I missing something or is that it? |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 11/19/2010 : 15:44:34
only because he doesn't know what CONSISTENTLY means.
Go OILERS Go!!! |
| Awesome One |
Posted - 11/19/2010 : 15:01:38
I think he should, too much controversy and rumors going around him.
There was once a license plate in Toronto that abbreviated "Go Leafs" it read "Golfs". |
|
|
