Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

AV.

Members
  • Posts

    13,496
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    5

AV. last won the day on December 27 2020

AV. had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

21,290 profile views

AV.'s Achievements

Canucks Franchise Player

Canucks Franchise Player (12/14)

10k

Reputation

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. I mean on the topic of discrimination, and not necessarily as something structural lol
  9. Perhaps, but it's still all intersectional.
  10. Why? The people saying to blow it up will be proven right (as per).
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...