flyercanuck Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 The million dollar question? Would you feel the same way if the same scenario was happening with a team not named the Flyers? What the LTIR? Savard...and the guy is legitimately hurt. He CAN'T play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Hockey Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 What the LTIR? Savard...and the guy is legitimately hurt. He CAN'T play.One more time! First Savard is NOT on a 35+ contract and secondly Savard has not signed a 2nd contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 First he's on LTIR which Pronger is as well. Second EVERYONE on here agrees Pronger signing a second contract is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Hockey Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 First he's on LTIR which Pronger is as well. Second EVERYONE on here agrees Pronger signing a second contract is wrong.Savard can retire without any cap hit. There must be a chance he can come back?LTIR is not the part in question. 35+ is at question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted November 2, 2014 Author Share Posted November 2, 2014 @Old School Hockey Can you find where Chris Pronger is being paid by the NHL? For everything I've seen states that he is being paid by the Flyers as per his contract, .... as per Article 26 of CBA. No one being paid by a team can be paid by the league. PRONGER “So, basically what you’re asking me is, you’re questioning my integrity and whether I can do the job while being paid by somebody else - when I’ve already just told you I’m not the guy making the calls. If you think I can persuade (Stephane Quintal) that much, then you’re a better man than me. “And by the way, just for the record, (Brendan Shanahan) had a conflict with each and every team he played on. Any person who is in the Player Safety Department on the former player side is going to have a conflict somewhere. I understand there’s money involved, but they’re going to have a conflict somewhere along the line, a relationship with a player or GM, guys they’ve played with, team owners, there’s going to be conflicts all the way up and down the line. You’re trying to beat a dead horse here.” PRONGER: “I’ve asked a number of times about the cap situation and my predicament as it relates to that. And, as it was told to me, is another reason why I took the job, is I was told it wasn’t going to hurt the Flyers’ cap situation. To answer your question, no I would not have taken it if it would’ve hurt the Flyers.”quotes from Pronger in an interview by Frank Seravalli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Hockey Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 @Old School Hockey Can you find where Chris Pronger is being paid by the NHL? For everything I've seen states that he is being paid by the Flyers as per his contract, .... as per Article 26 of CBA. No one being paid by a team can be paid by the league. quotes from Pronger in an interview by Frank SeravalliYou say potato I say potatoe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted November 3, 2014 Author Share Posted November 3, 2014 You say potato I say potatoe! In other words you haven't found any reference that Pronger is being paid by the league and the Flyers. Thus he is basically a committed volunteer for the NHL getting the opportunity to gain knowledge for possibly a future paid position when his contract with the Flyers ends. He has done some training for the Flyers defensive prospects also last year, I'll doubt he received extra pay for that job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Hockey Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 In other words you haven't found any reference that Pronger is being paid by the league and the Flyers. Thus he is basically a committed volunteer for the NHL getting the opportunity to gain knowledge for possibly a future paid position when his contract with the Flyers ends. He has done some training for the Flyers defensive prospects also last year, I'll doubt he received extra pay for that job.Yes because Gary and boys have never lied/fabricated anything in the past? Ask them to define HRR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Would you feel the same way if the same scenario was happening with a team not named the Flyers? I have pondered this aspect (of dual contracts), and my brain says yes I would. Given that I do contract work, I am allowed to sign multiple contracts, yet those contracts are specified for a particular assisgnment (ie it will take 20 hours a week to fulfill contract 1 and 20 hours a week to fulfill contract two- as an example). Prongers job with the NHL if a full time job. His job with the Flyers was a full time job. I think the one should relinquish the other. There is no legality to it and barely a thread of logic, but if Pronger wants to start a new carreer than I think his former one should be releived- so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted November 3, 2014 Author Share Posted November 3, 2014 Prongers job with the NHL if a full time job. His job with the Flyers was a full time job. I think the one should relinquish the other. Generally speaking full time work is 35-45 hours / week. I don't think it is out of the ordinary for a person to have a full time job and contract out something on the side -- usually unrelated. I don't think it has been said how many hours per week Pronger spends researching, advising, teaching player safety for the league. He just can't be paid for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 I don't think it is out of the ordinary for a person to have a full time job and contract out something on the side -- usually unrelated. I don't think it has been said how many hours per week Pronger spends researching, advising, teaching player safety for the league. He just can't be paid for it. Yeah, I was thinking that too. My argument is weak and thus while I ended my post that I just think that Prongers position with the NHL should relinguish his "contract" with the flyers. At a minimum, there should be a buy-out provision (ie. he gets his money, but is off the books with the Flyers). I have zero foundation reasoning why that should occur, just a wish-a kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 NHL player contracts all have exclusivity clauses to prevent crazy dual league employment and things like that. So for Pronger to take a contract with the NHL it violates his signed contract with the Flyers. That's just a standard. I think everyone here agrees there should not be two concurrent contracts. Where we disagree is whether Pronger's contract with the Flyers should be terminated, and/or whether the LTIR should be used to shelter the Flyers from the over 35 penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 NHL player contracts all have exclusivity clauses to prevent crazy dual league employment and things like that. So for Pronger to take a contract with the NHL it violates his signed contract with the Flyers. That's just a standard.I think everyone here agrees there should not be two concurrent contracts. Where we disagree is whether Pronger's contract with the Flyers should be terminated, and/or whether the LTIR should be used to shelter the Flyers from the over 35 penalties. The LTIR is being used exactly as it is intended to be used - to take a guy who is injured and allow the team to recoup some cap based on that injury. Pronger is injured. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the 35+ rule that says LTIR cannot be used. There wasn't then. There isn't now. Other teams have gotten LTIR relief from injured guys on over 35 contracts. The same thing is happening with Kimmo Timonen right now. If Craig Adams goes down with an injury this season, the Pens would get relief via LTIR. If Datsyuk goes down with an injury, the Red Wings would get relief the same way. It is really not difficult, complicated or controversial at all. The second contract with the NHL is a flat out joke. Should never have been allowed. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 @Old School Hockey Geez bro, let it go. Nobody here is disagreeing with you. You are freaking out and everyone is in basic agreement with you. At this point, the onus is on you to produce proof that Pronger is getting paid by the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 At this point, the onus is on you to produce proof that Pronger is getting paid by the league. I don't think the rule says "being paid" as much as "under contract" The league itself admits it "hired" Pronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 @radoran I guess it comes down to....is it wrong to have a second contract...even when it appears he's not being compensated for his efforts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 The LTIR is being used exactly as it is intended to be used - to take a guy who is injured and allow the team to recoup some cap based on that injury. Pronger is injured.There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the 35+ rule that says LTIR cannot be used. There wasn't then. There isn't now. Other teams have gotten LTIR relief from injured guys on over 35 contracts.It is really not difficult, complicated or controversial at all.And again I disagree. Again I point to the LTIR is meant for players missing at least 24 calendar days and at least 10 regular season games, but where the intent of the LTIR was cap relief where players would return after the injury.Pronger will not return and is ONLY staying under contract to protect the Flyers from their own stupidity. Admitted by Holmgren and Pronger both.A loophole in the CBA because owners didnt think they had to write it all out doesn't make it right. Allowed/legal? Yes. But not, as you put it, "as it is intended to be used". Do you really want to repeat ourselves over and over again every time somebody adds another post to this thread? Yes we disagree. I get it. You're just wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Yes we disagree. I get it. You're just wrong This is a democratic board...whats say we vote on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 This is a democratic board...whats say we vote on it? Okay but electoral vote where every non-Flyers fan vote counts as ten! Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 @radoran I guess it comes down to....is it wrong to have a second contract...even when it appears he's not being compensated for his efforts? http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/puck-daddy/stop-whining-about-chris-pronger-s-conflict-of-interest--the-f-a-q-143738560.html Beats me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/puck-daddy/stop-whining-about-chris-pronger-s-conflict-of-interest--the-f-a-q-143738560.htmlBeats me. Very opinionated piece after stating the facts. I think it comes down to the fact that the CBA prohibits it quite clearly, despite what anyone thinks of the Flyers contract, his injury, or the man himself. But the NHL has shown it's quite willing to violate the CBA and the NHLPA isn't going to fight against one of its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 where the intent of the LTIR was cap relief where players would return after the injury. Where do you get that? Because it's not the CBA. From the CBA: "Injured Reserve List" or "Injured Reserve" means the list of all Players who,because of injury, illness, or disability are deemed by their respective Clubs to be unable torender playing services to such Clubs for an extended period of time as set forth in Article 16 ofthis Agreement. Do you see anything about "intent" to only apply where players would "return after injury"? 'cause I don't. Here's Article 16 16.11 Injured Reserve List/Injured Non-Roster.(a) The Injured Reserve List is a category of the Reserve List. A Club may place aPlayer on the Injured Reserve List only if such Player is reasonably expected to be injured, ill ordisabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockey Player for a minimum of seven (7) daysfrom the onset of such injury, illness or disability. A Player who finishes an NHL Season on theInjured Reserve List and continues to be disabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockeyPlayer by reason of the same injury at the time he reports to the Club's Training Camp in the nextLeague Year, will again be eligible to be placed on the Club's Injured Reserve List. For anyother Player who fails the Club's initial physical examination in any League Year, or is injured,ill or disabled while not on the Club's Active Roster, he shall not be eligible for, and may not beplaced on, Injured Reserve, but instead shall be eligible to be, and may be designated as, InjuredNon-Roster.(b) A Player on whose behalf a Club has exercised the Bona Fide Long TermInjury/Illness Exception shall be placed on Injured Reserve for the period of such Exception,including any period the Player is on a Bona Fide Long Term Injury/Illness ExceptionConditioning Loan.© Players on the Injured Reserve List may attend team meetings, travel with theClub (at the Club's option) and participate in practice sessions with other Players on the Club'sActive Roster. Players on Injured Reserve are prohibited from appearing in NHL Games,participating in pre-game warm-ups with their Clubs, or dressing in game uniforms on NHLGame days. Players on Injured Reserve and Injured Non-Roster shall have access to the Club'sprimary training and medical facilities during regular business hours provided, however, that theClub may restrict such Players' access during periods when Players on the Club's Active Rosterare expected to be present at such primary training and medical facilities (e.g., pre-game skates,practices, games, medical and physical treatments for other Players) and within a reasonableperiod of time before and after such time periods.(d) Once a Player is placed on the Injured Reserve List, the Club may replace saidPlayer on its NHL Active Roster with another Player, and during such period of his designationas an Injured Reserve Player he will not count against the Club's Active Roster limit, provided,however, that the Injured Reserve Player's Player Salary and Bonuses and his replacement'sPlayer Salary and Bonuses are each included in calculating a Club's Actual Club Salary andAveraged Club Salary, and the Players' Share, for purposes of Article 50.(e) Any determination that a Player is eligible to be placed on the Injured ReserveList, or designated as Injured Non-Roster, shall be made by the Club's physician in accordancewith the Club's medical standards and documented by a verification signed by the Club physicianand countersigned by a Club executive in the forms attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 28(which shall also be signed by the Player) and 28-A, respectively. Such forms must be receivedby Central Registry and sent to the NHLPA and the Player, all in accordance with Exhibit 3,prior to the Player being added to the Injured Reserve List or designated as Injured Non-Roster,as applicable.(f) The Commissioner may take whatever steps he deems necessary to investigate thecircumstances under which a Player is: (i) placed, or remains, on the Injured Reserve List, or (ii)designated Injured Non-Roster. If the Commissioner has reason to believe that the InjuredReserve List or Injured Non-Roster status has not been utilized properly by the involved Club orotherwise Circumvents any provision of this Agreement, or if he determines that the Club hasused the Injured Reserve and/or Injured Non-Roster designations to evade the Active Rosterlimit, he may take such disciplinary action against the Club as he deems appropriate.(g) A Player placed on the Injured Reserve List will be ineligible to compete in NHLGames for a period of not less than seven (7) days from the date of the injury, illness or disabilityfor which the Player was placed on the Injured Reserve List. A Player will be eligible foractivation to play in NHL Games beginning on the 8th day following the date of injury, illness ordisability for which the Player was placed on the Injured Reserve List or any day thereafter thatthe Player is medically cleared to play by the Club physician. The Club must notify CentralRegistry, the NHLPA and the Player, in accordance with Exhibit 3, of its intent to activate aPlayer who is on the Injured Reserve List, or to remove the designation of Injured Non-Roster,prior to the Player playing in an NHL Game by way of a verification signed by the Clubphysician, and countersigned by a Club executive, attached as Exhibit 28-B. This form must bereceived by Central Registry, the NHLPA and the Player, all in accordance with Exhibit 3, on theday the Club activates the Player to play and, upon Central Registry's receipt of such verification,the Player will be officially removed from the Injured Reserve List or have the designation ofInjured Non-Roster removed. Again, do you see anything about "intent" to only apply where players would "return after injury"? In fact, there is specific language covering this specific situation. Who's wrong again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Very opinionated piece after stating the facts. I think it comes down to the fact that the CBA prohibits it quite clearly, despite what anyone thinks of the Flyers contract, his injury, or the man himself. But the NHL has shown it's quite willing to violate the CBA and the NHLPA isn't going to fight against one of its own. I was trying to digest the CBA language in it. Then I went and read the damn CBA itself. To wit: you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 @radoranSomewhere on these forums is a quote from Holmgren i believe stating he knows that's not the intent of the LTIR but since it's not written he sees no issue with using it. It's in one of the numerous other threads started over the CBA, or Pronger, or over. 35 contracts, or ice cream, or Olympic swimming, or toyotas, or.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 On a side note... Pronger is one if only three players in history to be suspended twice in the same postseason, and is one of the most suspended players of the modern era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.