Argofans

argolio wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 7:58 pm This has gone from ridiculous to farce. Total sh:tshow.

Shouldn’t any and all conditions have been clearly laid out at the beginning of this process, doesn’t reflect well on the league or Ambrosie which should be of no surprise to anyone who has observed his tenure as CFL Commissioner.

Ambrosie is so stupid. He never even had to bring up the subject of "Last Chance". If Kelly was to F up on any level, Ambrosie would be able to suspend him indefinitely anyway. Why add the drama to this?

AngeloV wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 8:26 pm Ambrosie is so stupid. He never even had to bring up the subject of "Last Chance". If Kelly was to F up on any level, Ambrosie would be able to suspend him indefinitely anyway. Why add the drama to this?

This is 100% correct, there is absolutely no need for a last chance clause. Going forward, Kelly would be accountable for his conduct, and any infractions would need to be dealt with accordingly, allowing him procedural fairness according to the collective agreement.

It really is ridiculous.

ARGO57 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 8:09 pm

argolio wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 7:58 pm This has gone from ridiculous to farce. Total sh:tshow.

Shouldn’t any and all conditions have been clearly laid out at the beginning of this process, doesn’t reflect well on the league or Ambrosie which should be of no surprise to anyone who has observed his tenure as CFL Commissioner.

You wonder if this could damage the league's ability to get players to come and play in the league. I'm sure that there are numerous cases of players on the fence about continuing their pro football careers after getting cut by the NFL or even finishing college. There may be some quality players who could opt not to come here as a result of these types of cases and the league would be worse off for it.

I'm confused as to why people apparently believe the league should not be allowed to require a last-chance agreement, yet should be allowed to suspend him indefinitely if Kelly were to screw up again in the future.

An employer trying to impose a last-chance agreement on an employee whose behaviour it deems inappropriate or egregious is not uncommon, even in unionized environments. I don't find it surprising that Ambrosie has apparently gone that route here, especially given that he apparently did exactly the same thing with Manziel.

It's also not surprising that Kelly would resist accepting such an agreement. We'll have to wait to see whether/how aggressively the PA is prepared to push back on his behalf.

I once imposed a last-chance agreement on a unionized employee for inappropriate behaviour. I'm sure the union could have filed a grievance, but it chose not to do so. I believed then and continue to believe that the likelihood of the union winning a grievance in that particular case was 50/50 at best., with the caveat that arbitrators can be unpredictable.

paulwoods13 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 9:27 pm I'm confused as to why people apparently believe the league should not be allowed to require a last-chance agreement, yet should be allowed to suspend him indefinitely if Kelly were to screw up again in the future.

An employer trying to impose a last-chance agreement on an employee whose behaviour it deems inappropriate or egregious is not uncommon, even in unionized environments. I don't find it surprising that Ambrosie has apparently gone that route here, especially given that he apparently did exactly the same thing with Manziel.

It's also not surprising that Kelly would resist accepting such an agreement. We'll have to wait to see whether/how aggressively the PA is prepared to push back on his behalf.

I once imposed a last-chance agreement on a unionized employee for inappropriate behaviour. I'm sure the union could have filed a grievance, but it chose not to do so. I believed then and continue to believe that the likelihood of the union winning a grievance in that particular case was 50/50 at best., with the caveat that arbitrators can be unpredictable.

Maybe because Kelly agreeing to this is an admission of guilt. To this point, he has not admitted to doing the things he is accused of. If in his mind, he is innocent, and took the punishment on urging from the team and his representatives, then he should not agree to this.
But as I said, the league doesn’t need his agreement to suspend him as they see fit going forward. This type of agreement opens the door to any future accusation, be it real or made up.

paulwoods13 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 9:27 pm I'm confused as to why people apparently believe the league should not be allowed to require a last-chance agreement, yet should be allowed to suspend him indefinitely if Kelly were to screw up again in the future.

An employer trying to impose a last-chance agreement on an employee whose behaviour it deems inappropriate or egregious is not uncommon, even in unionized environments. I don't find it surprising that Ambrosie has apparently gone that route here, especially given that he apparently did exactly the same thing with Manziel.

It's also not surprising that Kelly would resist accepting such an agreement. We'll have to wait to see whether/how aggressively the PA is prepared to push back on his behalf.

I once imposed a last-chance agreement on a unionized employee for inappropriate behaviour. I'm sure the union could have filed a grievance, but it chose not to do so. I believed then and continue to believe that the likelihood of the union winning a grievance in that particular case was 50/50 at best., with the caveat that arbitrators can be unpredictable.

The question is whether or not the last chance agreement was put on the table from the beginning. The optics do not look good for the league if they suddenly introduce it now, regardless of their right to do so and as I pointed out attracting good players is very important to maintain the league's perception and product quality. Furthermore, even with a lost grievance, it wouldn't stop Kelly from taking legal action against the league, which could damage the league's reputation even more especially if the league loses not to mention the financial penalties incurred.

I know from my son's knowledge (he is a lawyer) that it is not easy to fire someone in Ontario unless you want to pay a proper severance. As a member of a large union, I know that last chance agreements are only introduced when other remedies are exhausted to the employer. I also realize that all unions are not the same as some are stronger than others which is important in the outcomes for employers and employees alike. Have all remedies been exhausted for Kelly or is it just Ambrosie's preference to root out "bad actors" before there are more problems in his mind?

I hope Jason Maas takes heed to Randy's treatment of Chad Kelly. If he continues to swear on the sidelines like he and other coaches have done for years (Workplace Profanity) he could see himself suspended with a "Last Chance" condition imposed.

primetime321 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 10:18 pm

paulwoods13 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 9:27 pm I'm confused as to why people apparently believe the league should not be allowed to require a last-chance agreement, yet should be allowed to suspend him indefinitely if Kelly were to screw up again in the future.

An employer trying to impose a last-chance agreement on an employee whose behaviour it deems inappropriate or egregious is not uncommon, even in unionized environments. I don't find it surprising that Ambrosie has apparently gone that route here, especially given that he apparently did exactly the same thing with Manziel.

It's also not surprising that Kelly would resist accepting such an agreement. We'll have to wait to see whether/how aggressively the PA is prepared to push back on his behalf.

I once imposed a last-chance agreement on a unionized employee for inappropriate behaviour. I'm sure the union could have filed a grievance, but it chose not to do so. I believed then and continue to believe that the likelihood of the union winning a grievance in that particular case was 50/50 at best., with the caveat that arbitrators can be unpredictable.

The question is whether or not the last chance agreement was put on the table from the beginning. The optics do not look good for the league if they suddenly introduce it now, regardless of their right to do so and as I pointed out attracting good players is very important to maintain the league's perception and product quality. Furthermore, even with a lost grievance, it wouldn't stop Kelly from taking legal action against the league, which could damage the league's reputation even more especially if the league loses not to mention the financial penalties incurred.

I know from my son's knowledge (he is a lawyer) that it is not easy to fire someone in Ontario unless you want to pay a proper severance. As a member of a large union, I know that last chance agreements are only introduced when other remedies are exhausted to the employer. I also realize that all unions are not the same as some are stronger than others which is important in the outcomes for employers and employees alike. Have all remedies been exhausted for Kelly or is it just Ambrosie's preference to root out "bad actors" before there are more problems in his mind?

Yeah that's an interesting point. I used to work for the Government of Ontario and I remember a scenario where they wanted to get rid of an employee who was really abusing the system (endless sick days etc.) and it was pretty close to impossible for them to fire the employee, even though they weren't doing their job. But once they put on the record (HR) that there had been problems and they had repeatedly given this employee chances, counselling etc. and opportunities to improve their performance, they were finally able to terminate the employment. Sounds alittle bit like what Ambrosie wants to do, to put on record that there was a issue, including a suspension that required Kelly to fulfill some requirements and that if anything else happens they can cut Kelly lose without any repercussions.

kellynjk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 10:47 pm

primetime321 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 10:18 pm

paulwoods13 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 9:27 pm I'm confused as to why people apparently believe the league should not be allowed to require a last-chance agreement, yet should be allowed to suspend him indefinitely if Kelly were to screw up again in the future.

An employer trying to impose a last-chance agreement on an employee whose behaviour it deems inappropriate or egregious is not uncommon, even in unionized environments. I don't find it surprising that Ambrosie has apparently gone that route here, especially given that he apparently did exactly the same thing with Manziel.

It's also not surprising that Kelly would resist accepting such an agreement. We'll have to wait to see whether/how aggressively the PA is prepared to push back on his behalf.

I once imposed a last-chance agreement on a unionized employee for inappropriate behaviour. I'm sure the union could have filed a grievance, but it chose not to do so. I believed then and continue to believe that the likelihood of the union winning a grievance in that particular case was 50/50 at best., with the caveat that arbitrators can be unpredictable.

The question is whether or not the last chance agreement was put on the table from the beginning. The optics do not look good for the league if they suddenly introduce it now, regardless of their right to do so and as I pointed out attracting good players is very important to maintain the league's perception and product quality. Furthermore, even with a lost grievance, it wouldn't stop Kelly from taking legal action against the league, which could damage the league's reputation even more especially if the league loses not to mention the financial penalties incurred.

I know from my son's knowledge (he is a lawyer) that it is not easy to fire someone in Ontario unless you want to pay a proper severance. As a member of a large union, I know that last chance agreements are only introduced when other remedies are exhausted to the employer. I also realize that all unions are not the same as some are stronger than others which is important in the outcomes for employers and employees alike. Have all remedies been exhausted for Kelly or is it just Ambrosie's preference to root out "bad actors" before there are more problems in his mind?

Yeah that's an interesting point. I used to work for the Government of Ontario and I remember a scenario where they wanted to get rid of an employee who was really abusing the system (endless sick days etc.) and it was pretty close to impossible for them to fire the employee, even though they weren't doing their job. But once they put on the record (HR) that there had been problems and they had repeatedly given this employee chances, counselling etc. and opportunities to improve their performance, they were finally able to terminate the employment. Sounds alittle bit like what Ambrosie wants to do, to put on record that there was a issue, including a suspension that required Kelly to fulfill some requirements and that if anything else happens they can cut Kelly lose without any repercussions.

Hey I remember working with you back then!