Island Nucklehead wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Ummm why would Pronger have to "retire" before taking this deal?
Well if the NHL decided that (like Clam posted) that CBA clause didn't emphasize "undisclosed", or they decided it applied to undisclosed AND disclosed contracts, then they would have to tell Pronger if you want this job you need to retire, and then you get into the "but I'm injured and the Flyers cap etc etc" type discussion. I'm just speculating, but in such a scenario, circumvention and/or collusion could be brought up.
The fact that Gary Bettman had to clarify that this wasn't an issue tells you how much a sideshow this hiring of a "depth executive" has been.
The fact that Gary Bettman clarified this issue tells me two things.
1). Pronger does not need to "retire" before taking this deal.
2). This hiring has created a major "sideshow"....
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Drunk Rant :lol: wrote:
Retired or not, he can technically be paid by an NHL team and and whomever else (commercials movies NHL)
But he wouldn't on the roster of an NHL team. I don't care if Mark Messier is selling Lays and deciding suspensions, or if Pronger is on LTIR and working for SNet. Do you not see the conflict of interest (admitted, by the NHL) in having this guy in a position where he has impact on NHL games at the league level while still being paid by an NHL club?
Yeah. Big difference.
Holy fuck dude, did you not see the word "technically" there?
I agreed from the get-go that the potential for future "conflict of interest" is there.
And that on the surface it's a really really really ridiculously stupid hiring.
But
technically (legally) the NHL/Pronger can do this.
Of course there will be clauses in place to minimize Pronger being involved in Flyers-related issues, etc...
Don't forget that the potential for conflict of interest is there in almost every hiring the league makes
(small hockey world - most who are qualified for the position have been with an NHL team or two).
Retired or not, the league,
as it says, can legally hire Chris Pronger for this position.
The onus is on you to prove otherwise.
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Drunk Rant :lol: wrote:
And it seems as stupid a move to me as it does to you.
But yeah on the surface it seems completely crazy.
I'm just arguing with you because you seem to be saying it's
illegal somehow.
(also I'm slightly intoxicated).
... only slightly?
I think we agree on this one, bud. I understand the contract isn't illegal. I'm saying it SHOULD be.
Well thanks for clearing
that up.
Are you also saying Pronger SHOULD legally have to retire before taking this job?
... even though, as it stands, he legally does
not have to retire before taking this job.