spndnchz Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Confirmed that the Rangers have asked the Sabres if they can speak with Lindy. Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 ??? Why would they need permission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 I think he still gets paid under the old contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 ??? Why would they need permission? ??? Why would they need permission? Lindy still gets a pile of moolah, don't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted June 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 ??? Why would they need permission? He was never actually "fired". So he's still under contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 i am with the unwashed masses on not understanding why they've asked for the sabres' permission to speak with a coach whom they fired. it's not like they transitioned him into another role with the franchise -- he was separated -- fired -- "hit the bricks" and all that. He was never actually "fired". So he's still under contract. :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted June 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 i am with the unwashed masses on not understanding why they've asked for the sabres' permission to speak with a coach whom they fired. it's not like they transitioned him into another role with the franchise -- he was separated -- fired -- "hit the bricks" and all that. :blink: He was "relieved of duties". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 i am with the unwashed masses on not understanding why they've asked for the sabres' permission to speak with a coach whom they fired. it's not like they transitioned him into another role with the franchise -- he was separated -- fired -- "hit the bricks" and all that. :blink: Nothing more than professional courtesy, I suppose. He still has a contract with Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 So, strictly speaking, he's still employed by the club? I will tell you: That is a wrinkle that almost no one has mentioned in the wake of the weepy press conference back in February. I went back to the teams's press release on it, and there it is: RUFF RELIEVED OF DUTIES Wednesday, 02.20.2013 / 3:26 PM / News Comment Print Buffalo Sabres General Manager Darcy Regier announced on Wednesday afternoon that Lindy Ruff has been relieved of his duties as head coach of the Buffalo Sabres. More details will be made available at a press conference this afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 @KatieStrangESPN: #NYR Can confirm that Rangers sought and have received permission from BUF to speak with Lindy Ruff #Sabres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 If the Sabres wanted they could make sure Ruff doesn't do anything with his life for the next 5 years (or however long remains) because he is employed by them. I hope Ruff gets NYR - would be a good fit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 If the Sabres wanted they could make sure Ruff doesn't do anything with his life for the next 5 years (or however long remains) because he is employed by them. I hope Ruff gets NYR - would be a good fit Agreed. I've always maintained that Ruff is an upper echelon NHL coach who will likely get his Cup elsewhere, it just wasn't in the cards in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted June 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Nothing more than professional courtesy, I suppose. He still has a contract with Buffalo. Same thing for Vigneault. The Rangers asked and received permission from Vancouver to speak with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 So, strictly speaking, he's still employed by the club? I will tell you: That is a wrinkle that almost no one has mentioned in the wake of the weepy press conference back in February. I went back to the teams's press release on it, and there it is: RUFF RELIEVED OF DUTIES Wednesday, 02.20.2013 / 3:26 PM / News Comment Print Buffalo Sabres General Manager Darcy Regier announced on Wednesday afternoon that Lindy Ruff has been relieved of his duties as head coach of the Buffalo Sabres. More details will be made available at a press conference this afternoon. Wow, I wished MY company would 'punish' me with a 4 month paid vacation while I looked for gainful employment elsewhere. poor, poor Lindy...... how he must be suffering! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Wow, I wished MY company would 'punish' me with a 4 month paid vacation while I looked for gainful employment elsewhere. poor, poor Lindy...... how he must be suffering! :lol: I am intrigued in this connection by the decision to relieve the employee of his duties, to continue to pay him to do nothing. When it comes to so-called key employees, "doing nothing" can be of great value to the employer because, at least in theory, it can mean the employee won't be doing anything for a competitor. Not unless you say it's okay. I don't get the sense that this is how these transitions generally go down -- I mean, Chan Gailey wasn't relieved of his duties. That guy was fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 I am intrigued in this connection by the decision to relieve the employee of his duties, to continue to pay him to do nothing. When it comes to so-called key employees, "doing nothing" can be of great value to the employer because, at least in theory, it can mean the employee won't be doing anything for a competitor. Not unless you say it's okay. I don't get the sense that this is how these transitions generally go down -- I mean, Chan Gailey wasn't relieved of his duties. That guy was fired. Right. If the Sabres own Lindy's ass, and Lindy's ass is elite, and you're trying to win the Cup (OK, make the playoffs), then Lindy's ass stays in Clarence for the rest of his contract. I think we're just missing the obvious contractual explanatory language. Maybe TaroT will saunter along shortly. TaroT, blue and gold courtesy phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Right. If the Sabres own Lindy's ass, and Lindy's ass is elite, and you're trying to win the Cup (OK, make the playoffs), then Lindy's ass stays in Clarence for the rest of his contract. That's not what I was suggesting, necessarily. My interest had much less to do with Lindy (and whether his excellence or lack thereof warranted the maneuver) and more to do with the move in the abstract. Among other things, I wonder whether the team wanted its plans/ideas for the upcoming draft to remain confidential. I think we're just missing the obvious contractual explanatory language. Maybe TaroT will saunter along shortly. TaroT, blue and gold courtesy phone. What might that be? From an employee's standpoint, it'd be a breach of the agreement if the team were to remove you from the position you were hired to perform -- material change in terms or conditions. Could the agreement have granted the franchise the right to relieve Lindy of his duties as coach without breaching the agreement? I guess. But, if so, that'd've been a very employer-friendly agreement -- basically, "Lindy, you're our b!tch." My guess is that the terms of the separation were negotiated and reduced to a separate agreement -- Lindy probably got a few sweeteners to retain his duties of loyalty to the Sabres for a specified period of time, the Sabres probably gave him some assurances that they would not unreasonably withhold consent to his pursuing other opportunities, and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Many NHL head coaches have guaranteed contracts. So just because they have been relieved of their duties does not mean they are relieved of their paycheck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Many NHL head coaches have guaranteed contracts. So just because they have been relieved of their duties does not mean they are relieved of their paycheck. You raise an interesting point, but I'm not sure it's operative. The issue with guaranteed contracts (which are the norm in employment contracts -- i.e., if I agree to employ you for 2 years but then decide in month 5 that it's not working out and fire you without cause, then you're entitled to be paid for the balance of the deal) comes when teams actually terminate, separate the coach -- the coach is an ex-employee who's entitled to collect on the remainder of his contract (because the employer breached it by firing him). But that's not what happened with Ruff apparently -- he never became an ex-employee, by the sounds of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Same thing for Vigneault. The Rangers asked and received permission from Vancouver to speak with him. Pretty standard stuff in all of pro sports, I should think. A coach or manager signs a contract, that contract is still in effect if the club decides he's not doing a good enough job. Same as Ruff wouldn't have been able to leave mid-season, if say Detroit had decided they needed a new coach, and wanted Lindy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Pretty standard stuff in all of pro sports, I should think. A coach or manager signs a contract, that contract is still in effect if the club decides he's not doing a good enough job. Same as Ruff wouldn't have been able to leave mid-season, if say Detroit had decided they needed a new coach, and wanted Lindy. This may be angels on the head of a pin stuff, but the contract is not in effect if the club terminates the coach -- that's breaching the contract and ending the contractual relationship. The coach may (and often will) still collect his salary, but that's because he was fired without cause (I mean "for cause" in a legal sense, not from a fan base's perspective) -- that's the team "eating" the salary in order to move on in a different direction. And as for Lindy leaving mid-season to join another team ... there may or may not have been a legal impediment to his choosing to do so. I mean, a coach could quit 25 games into a season and then try to sign on with another team. The team that lost the coach certainly wouldn't be paying any more salary, that's for sure. I can't recall this ever having happened, though. The team that lost the coach could, in theory, sue to enjoin the coach from taking another job. I should also think that these kinds of contract generally contain certain provisions that if the coach were to resign during a pending season then the coach agrees not to take another position with an NHL club until that season is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 This may be angels on the head of a pin stuff, but the contract is not in effect if the club terminates the coach -- that's breaching the contract and ending the contractual relationship. The coach may (and often will) still collect his salary, but that's because he was fired without cause (I mean "for cause" in a legal sense, not from a fan base's perspective) -- that's the team "eating" the salary in order to move on in a different direction. And as for Lindy leaving mid-season to join another team ... there may or may not have been a legal impediment to his choosing to do so. I mean, a coach could quit 25 games into a season and then try to sign on with another team. The team that lost the coach certainly wouldn't be paying any more salary, that's for sure. I can't recall this ever having happened, though. The team that lost the coach could, in theory, sue to enjoin the coach from taking another job. I should also think that these kinds of contract generally contain certain provisions that if the coach were to resign during a pending season then the coach agrees not to take another position with an NHL club until that season is over. Which is why nobody is ever truly fired or terminated, but rather relieved of duties, just like Lindy. But you're absolutely right, I should think. I don't think I ever saw this happen either, unless the coach is a big name coach, coaching a rather small team. In 2000, Englands current national soccer manager, Roy Hodgson, left Danish side FC Copenhagen to coach Udinese in Italy instead. I'm pretty sure he had a year left on his original deal when he did, so he must've had some sort of backdoor written into his deal, but this is only incident I can remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 Which is why nobody is ever truly fired or terminated, but rather relieved of duties, just like Lindy. This was a question I had: Is this in fact how it always goes down? Don't teams often fire coaches as well? Or is this a post-season/in-season distinction? I go back to a point I made earlier: Teams aren't necessarily within their contractual rights to tell a coach, "You're done behind the bench, but you're still under contract, so go home and relax." In theory, a coach should be able to respond, "Hell no -- you breached our agreement -- I'm outta here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted June 10, 2013 Report Share Posted June 10, 2013 This was a question I had: Is this in fact how it always goes down? Don't teams often fire coaches as well? Or is this a post-season/in-season distinction? I go back to a point I made earlier: Teams aren't necessarily within their contractual rights to tell a coach, "You're done behind the bench, but you're still under contract, so go home and relax." In theory, a coach should be able to respond, "Hell no -- you breached our agreement -- I'm outta here." that would depend on the langauge of the contract i would guess. The ole moved to a advisory position goes as far back as i can remember (20-30 years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.