AV.
-
Posts
13,496 -
Joined
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by AV.
-
-
1 minute ago, lmm said:
I saw one about the wolf blowing down the Little Piggies house
Like many tweets, I didn't get
seemed infantile
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.-
1
-
-
Just now, IRR said:
You are so ignorant / lack so much commons sense - logic it is unreal!!!
If accessible still, you better go re-read all of her tweets.
I guess there is a lot of young children out there then! I guess all of her employers who fired her are young children as well!
I’ve never seen someone so off about so much in my life! If it’s not clear enough, I don’t like you, I don’t like how you go about things on here and I sure don’t share your views. Please stop quoting me / responding to me, I have nothing to discuss with you!
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. -
33 minutes ago, IRR said:
I wasn’t talking about the accountability aspect…..don’t talk about hockey culture and then do the exact thing you are calling out…..not hard to understand. If there is something to be accountable for, then they need to be accountable. But, she is immature and constantly post negative / passive aggressive things and they’re usually a bunch of crap.
But, as usual you go twisting everything! Big surprise!!
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. -
5 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:
Is that why you are supporting her, because she talked a lot of smack about the Canucks before being hired here?
One would have to turn their brain off to be able to support her in this case.
Sorry, she is not a person of colour or LGBTQ and she has the nerve to bring that up while claiming her own harassment.
No sympathy and no moral high ground that she can claim here.
She should've been more addicted to hard work as opposed to social media and victimhood that seems so prevalent.
This is insulting to people that have real issues and actually need to go to the Human Rights Tribunal.
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. -
2 minutes ago, IRR said:
To add to my post, she speaks very highly of so many in the organization in the interview, yet after she was fired, there was more immature, negative, toxic tweets! Contradictions / hypocrisy left, right and centre from her.
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. -
Just now, Jester13 said:
It sure sounds like someone (JR) dropped the ball, which fair enough, as disability accommodation in the workplace is still fairly new, but they then fired her, which optically looks terrible now.
One thing that Rachel alluded to in her interview was the culture of hockey and that of silence. Too many people want to believe that the Canucks are the most progressive in the league simply because they hired women, but that doesn't automatically change the culture of hockey, as these women who have been hired are still very much involved in the culture of hockey, so there's a very good chance they are still perpetuating the damaging culture.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.-
1
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Jester13 said:
Something that needs to be taken into account is that Rachel disclosing a personal disability(ies) means JR needs to create an environment that takes her disability into consideration, which means Castonguay would need to ensure she's dealing with Rachel appropriately with incidents such as reprimanding her for her social media. Telling Rachel she's "not important enough to be cared about” can be humiliating for someone with a disability, especially when the issue was allegedly about her sharing positive remarks made by Boudreau about her on her social media. They then proceeded to fire her, which could very well look like retaliation. Of course, everything will come out eventually with this, but I don't think it's fair to assume just yet that Rachel is playing the victim card or that EC is merely being blunt.
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.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Canucks Curse said:
really? "intersectional" people with mental health considerations, people of color, people of other sexual orientations and genders... that seems like a generalization like what RD made lol
I mean on the topic of discrimination, and not necessarily as something structural lol
-
19 minutes ago, Canucks Curse said:
she also I think she over steps her boundaries when she talks about hockey for people of colour and LGBTQ community
Perhaps, but it's still all intersectional.
-
Just now, Alflives said:
Too bad there’s one VERY BIG stumbling block in the way of us properly rebuilding.
Yep..we're FAcked..
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Depends on what is meant by “blow it up”?
Im all for diving to the bottom for two drafts, and collecting as many high picks as we can during that time to draft lots of good prospects. To me we should build around Petey, Hughes, Demko. Okay. KABOOM!
More or less this.
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, fanfor42 said:
Update Nov 27
Canucks are now tied with Calgary and a point behind Edm.
We have 79 goals - one behind Vegas with a game in hand. We are about to become the top scoring team in the pacific division.
We started 0 - 5 - 2 and have gone 9 - 5 - 1 since.
I think the blow it up cheerleaders need to take a back seat and see what happens in the next 20 games.
This might just be a top offensive team that needs to add two good D and will be a solid playoff team. Maybe they can do that maybe not. But blow it up - nah. Not yet.
Knee jerk blow it up cheerleaders may yet turn into bandwaggoners and start cheerleading for us to go deep in the playoffs. Let's see..
Why? The people saying to blow it up will be proven right (as per).
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:
Look up the program of Sports Management that she finished in Ontario.
Getting a bachelor's from SFU or UBC would be much harder.
What's her experience, holding down a bunch of jobs for a few months each?
Refer to Emilie's resume for an example of a hard working individual who has put in their time.
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. -
25 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:
There's lots of hard working millennials that put in their time and persevere.
Respect is earned, not entitled.
Emilie Castonguay has earned her respect and has an amazing resume and list of accomplishments.
Taking this matter to court on grounds of discrimination leaves me feeling no sympathy.
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.
20 minutes ago, DeNiro said:Of course they have numbers, how do you think contract negotiations work?
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, DeNiro said:
Yet he keeps things like contract negotiations close to the chest.
I would imagine he prefers to keep locker room issues inside the locker room too.
Just now, Angry Goose said:You gotta love non-sequiturs
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... -
7 minutes ago, DeNiro said:
If management had done their basic homework on her they would have never hired her.
Its obvious she leaks info to the media. Castonguay probably knew this in her role as an agent.
Add to that the fact that it states she’s good friends with Patrick Johnston. No wonder JR canned her. He doesn’t need the media having unlimited access to their discussions.
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?-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:
Players from opposite teams literally hug each other and exchange jerseys after their matches, coaches on opposing teams hug each other never mind shake hands after important matches. Telling Croatia, the 2018 World Cup finalists, that "we are going to f*** you up" and then not even shaking the other coaches hand after the game is a minor league move by Herdman and shows he doesn't really follow football at all. That's now how the greatest coaches in football act or behave. Carlo Ancelotti, Pep Guardiola, Jose Mourinho, Jurgen Klopp, these guys all have class and respect each other and their opponents.
We need to get more experienced people on board if we ever want to be taken seriously on the world stage. We are co-hosting the 2026 World Cup so we qualify automatically. Maybe we should spend more time on developing our game here in Canada over these next 4 years so we can do better in 2026. Our women's team won a gold medal at teh Olympics. Julia Grosso, who scored the golden goal, now plays in Italy for the Juventus women's team. The men need to follow in the women's footsteps on the world stage.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.-
1
-
-
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.-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:
Why?
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.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6
-
-
Just another day in the office for Josko Gvardiol. Such a bright talent.
-
1
-
-
Only one team effing up the other one
-
Croatia's midfielder quality starting to come into the game.
And as I type this....*sigh*
Should the NHL expand the playoffs to include more teams ? we haven't had a change since 1980.
in General Hockey Discussion
Posted
Probably not for schedule congestion reasons.