AV.

Probably not for schedule congestion reasons.

She's had a few not-so-subtle digs at the team after her employment here, and has previously dug into the old GM, team, etc before employment here. Thing is, if she was working in TV or radio, and not tweeting, would those remarks or assessments be seen as unprofessional or toxic like it's being stated here? Likely not. I agree with your assessment that most of her tweets are just that: infantile. I'd add to that and say they're also not as funny as intended, perhaps needless in the grand scheme of things, but still stand by point that they're meant to be banter, light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek. Kevin Bieksa just the other night made a comment about how the Canucks needed their five goal lead to avoid the third period collapse, yet, his comment wasn't met with accusations of toxicity or unprofessionalism, but an understanding that it was made in a light-hearted, jokey tone. Obviously, this isn't in direct to you, but trying to contextualize that this whole notion of unprofessionalism via Twitter is severely unfounded.

I've seen the tweets. If they are anything, they're needlessly annoying or just not funny. But toxic or negative, that's a stretch and that notion only comes from the same group of Canucks fans who hate the fact that people viewed/view the organization as a joke, or on par with Buffalo/Arizona/Ottawa. This is the truth and the sooner you come to terms with it, the better. On that note, you do realize you are the one who shadows my posts, continually chooses to engage with me, quote my posts, so on and so forth, and have been told many times from people here to either block me, hold your tongue, etc. if I cause you this much stress? You are the one who has publicly said that it's your "mission" to "call me out", and have broken many board rules in doing so. So, maybe you should take your own advice? Hope this helps.

Again, the "tweets" aren't negative. They're light-hearted and operate as nothing other than to be banter. If they were actually negative and toxic, as you say, then there would be more people in hockey (outside of Vancouver) that would be taking issue with that. You'd have to possess the emotional temperament and emotional intelligence of a young child to be taking offence to those criticisms made on Twitter.

Not really tbh. If that was the case, I'd be a supporter of, like, 97% of hockey fans/pundits/stakeholders outside of Vancouver, since they all say and maintain the correct assessments of the Canucks and this team. Don't really care to engage with the rest of your mindless drivel, but you keep peddling this notion that somebody with tons of education, a fair bit of experience in the league and sport, as well as other accolades isn't a hard worker. If you're not ignorant to what hard-work is, then clearly you just have a personal issue with her because of what was said on Twitter. In that case, grow up lmfao.

It's not hypocritical. It is entirely possible to praise an organization (or rather, individuals in it), while also demanding that organization, as a whole, answer for the wrong-doings or things they should be accountable for (such as, failure to provide a safe workplace). The problem is you resent Doerrie for being critical of the Canucks before being hired here (i.e "the tweetz"), and like a few others here, have used it entirely as your basis to invalidate her claims against this organization, under the guise of her being some bad, unprofessional person.

Spot on. Even the very notion of "progressive" is still quite performative on the surface in the NHL, the Canucks being no exception (see their employment of Todd Harvey). I can't remember where I had read or heard this (may have been during or shortly after the fallout of the Blackhawks investigation, which would have been around a year ago), but allegedly Bettman had encouraged teams, in an attempt to smoothen the image of the league, to hire more diverse backgrounds in the front office. I don't think that's a coincidence that we've seen 3+ woman executives (we'd have to date back to Anaheim in the 90s for the last woman executive) and the first POC GM in 2022. Again, great notions, but not exactly seemingly stemming from genuine places, which is quite unfortunate and disappointing, although par the course for this league.

And this is the key thing that many in here are neglecting to account for. Of course, we don't know what the exact triggers are and what was communicated to the organization regarding considerations, but it's reasonable to infer that things were said/not said? in order for it to lead to suffering anxiety attacks and requiring medical attention and assistance. I alluded to this, and still stand by that. I don't know that this is a case where there are "good" and "bad" sides (maybe there are and we will find out), but I absolutely believe everything said did happen as a result of the team having poor communication processes + gaps in their infrastructure to adequately provide mental health support.

I mean on the topic of discrimination, and not necessarily as something structural lol

Perhaps, but it's still all intersectional.

Yep..we're FAcked..

More or less this.

Why? The people saying to blow it up will be proven right (as per).

Subjective, but in any event, you're also omitting the MSc program. The experience is working for NHL teams, university teams, and many other relevant positions in the sport. On the surface, tons of insights to be learned, connections to made, and experience to be gained. Not sure what Emilie's resume has to do with anything, but I'm sure it is thorough and demonstrative of "hard-working". That's the beautiful thing about "hard-work", though - it doesn't need to be a zero-sum game, and it certainly isn't determined by years of experience on the job.

Thing is, according to what you're saying, not many people would be considered hard working, or would have put in the time or perseverance, if you're willing to overlook all of that in somebody who holds multiple university degrees, country-wide and expat work experience in the sport, etc, whilst, as we learned, managing a physical and mental disability. Unless, to you, age supersedes education, work experience, etc., there's nothing to suggest the person you're criticizing is not hard-working nor could be considered entitled. Quite the opposite, I would say. Preferred numbers, not imminent terms that could or would get leaked to the media. In any event, where every GM and executive always maintains that "we want to sign X player/ we prefer to keep them", Jim Rutherford is one of the few who will say that and add "if not, we'll consider moving them if we have to". Again, far more candid and open than he needs to be since the latter is usually implied if a deal doesn't get done. That's the gist of what I was saying.

Lol. Maybe because, unless they're sitting on a deal for months, they don't actually have numbers to leak in the first place? C'mon now...

Lol. The same Jim Rutherford who jumps at every opportunity to do media duty and give as much candid and open dialogue as possible regarding players, coaches, trading, etc?

Exactly. Usually, something contentious needs to be happen within the game for managers to avoid each other, and even then, that often comes with criticism. Canadian media seems more content to ignore that and instead, continue infantilizing the team for scoring their first goal. And, again, not to invalidate the moment, but more so raise the standard to legitimize belonging at this level.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/zlatko-dalic-says-john-herdman-202846158.html For all of the talk of belonging at this level and putting Canada on the map, a great way to undo all of that is to engage in petty, amateurish stuff like this. Can't remember the last time, if ever, that a team showed this much poor sportsmanship, not only in the buildup, but in the aftermath of the match. As much as I wished for a better fate for the players, and as much as I like Herdman as a coach and what he's done for the federation, you can't help but feel he got exactly what he deserved with this result. A proper humbling. It won't get talked about by Canadian media, but if we have serious ambitions to be seen as a footballing nation, we need to call out this pathetic, inferior mentality.

For me, I don't know that it's based so much on an actual work-related or performance issue, and certainly not anything to do with Doerrie on a personal or behavioural level, as some seem to suggest. Rather, it is a series of instances where poor communication is occurring in an organization that hasn't exactly fostered a network of clear, healthy communication channels for a number of years now. Among many, these details stick out to me: -- 27. Ms. Castonguay responded to Ms. Doerrie’s explanation of what occurred by saying: “you’re not important enough to be cared about” and “no one in the media is your friend”. 28. Further, and significantly, in terms of her mental and physical well-being, despite Ms. Doerrie’s strong work performance and the praise she had received from her colleagues, Ms. Castonguay told Ms. Doerrie:“I don’t know if you have what it takes to do the job, mentally” 36. This was further confirmed to Ms. Doerrie when, at the end of this discussion with Ms. Castonguay, Ms. Doerrie asked for feedback from Ms. Castonguay on how she could improve after being told she was not mentally fit for the job, and instead of providing coaching and assistance to Ms. Doerrie, Ms. Castonguay responded bluntly that this was an HR issue now -- For example, was using the word "mentally", perhaps meaning to allude to a certain personality or disposition, actually perceived to have been a literal remark about mental illness by Doerrie? In other words, is it a poor selected choice of word to use that's caused needless harm? Are the sentiments from 27 meant to have been communicated in a blunt, transparent manner to articulate the professional or desired expectations of front-office employees, but, because of the language used or its delivery, comes across as hostile or triggering remarks, instead? Do the events from 36 qualify as an instance where the promise to ensure a safe and healthy environment (that is, to receive constructive communication in this "environment") was perceived to have been broken or disregarded? It's tough to say without knowing too much about either individual, but the first thought I had was that there was a lack of transparency and a fair share of ambiguity in communication between all parties. I'm sure more will come out soon.

Topically relevant. Can't pass on those opportunities!

How nice of the Canucks to pick up as many wins this weekend as they do lawsuits against their employees.

Just another day in the office for Josko Gvardiol. Such a bright talent.

Only one team effing up the other one

Croatia's midfielder quality starting to come into the game. And as I type this....*sigh*