NHL 2023-2024 Out of Town: Stanley Cup Playoffs - Devils to hire Sheldon Keefe as head coach

[jgatie]

It is NEVER phrased as still being under contract when a guy gets fired. Never. Sure, everyone understand when a coach gets fired that he is still due the rest of the money owed to him. If he gets hired by another team then there is offset language. I just have never seen it reported this way that a team needed permission to speak with a fired coach. Like I said we just saw this with Belichick. Nobody was reporting that teams needed permission to interview him.

Whatever. Believe what you want. Or don't.

 

[4ORRBRUIN]

It is NEVER phrased as still being under contract when a guy gets fired. Never. Sure, everyone understands when a coach gets fired that he is still due the rest of the money owed to him. If he gets hired by another team then there is offset language. I just have never seen it reported this way that a team needed permission to speak with a fired coach. Like I said we just saw this with Belichick. Nobody was reporting that teams needed permission to interview him. It's basically like saying the Leafs could tell the Bruins or Habs to go pound sand if they wanted Keefe. "Hell with you guys, we will not give you permission and we will just pay him what he is due". It doesn't happen.

It does happen and teams do need to ask permission, The fired coach is STILL under contract in most cases.

 

[Johnnyduke]

It does happen and teams do need to ask permission, The fired coach is STILL under contract in most cases.

Great insight!

 

[ODAAT]

Shanny must have pictures of higher up`s with MLSE to still have a gig

 

[4ORRBRUIN]

Great insight!

Its not rocket science , its common sense.

This is not the NFL, contracts have an actually meaning in the NHL

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

It is NEVER phrased as still being under contract when a guy gets fired. Never. Sure, everyone understands when a coach gets fired that he is still due the rest of the money owed to him. If he gets hired by another team then there is offset language. I just have never seen it reported this way that a team needed permission to speak with a fired coach. Like I said we just saw this with Belichick. Nobody was reporting that teams needed permission to interview him. It's basically like saying the Leafs could tell the Bruins or Habs to go pound sand if they wanted Keefe. "Hell with you guys, we will not give you permission and we will just pay him what he is due". It doesn't happen.

Fired means relieved of duty when you are under contract. They are still a paid employee.

Just easier for the masses to hear “Fired “

 

[Johnnyduke]

Fired means relieved of duty when you are under contract. They are still a paid employee.

Just easier for the masses to hear “Fired “

Right, I understand they are still paid the money they are due. It is just never reported that a "fired" coach needs permission to go to another team. As I keep saying with Belichick. There was time left on his contract. Nobody was reporting that teams needed permission to then interview/talk to him. It just doesn't make any sense. But whatever. It makes it sound like there would be a scenario where the team doing the firing doesn't allow permission. And that is what I am saying never happens in sports.

Its not rocket science , its common sense.

This is not the NFL, contracts have an actually meaning in the NHL

That's player contracts. Coaching contracts work the same way across sports.

 

[4ORRBRUIN]

Claude Julien was given permission to talk to the Scabs after he was let go from the B's

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

Right, I understand they are still paid the money they are due. It is just never reported that a "fired" coach needs permission to go to another team. As I keep saying with Belichick. There was time left on his contract. Nobody was reporting that teams needed permission to then interview/talk to him. It just doesn't make any sense. But whatever. It makes it sound like there would be a scenario where the team doing the firing doesn't allow permission. And that is what I am saying never happens in sports.


That's player contracts. Coaching contracts work the same way across sports.

Being granted permission is reported all the time.

 

[Johnnyduke]

Being granted permission is reported all the time.

No it isn't. Not when a coach has been fired. But congrats to the Leafs on granting permission for another team to talk to the guy they kicked to the curb.

Claude Julien was given permission to talk to the Scabs after he was let go from the B's

Was Mr. Jacobs gonna make him sell concessions for a year? The premise is idiotic because no team ever prevents a fired coach from seeking employment elsewhere. Useless to even report it. Which is why it never is. A fired coach landing a job somewhere else also means previous team is off hook for salary/offset.

 

[RiverbottomChuck]

No it isn't. Not when a coach has been fired. But congrats to the Leafs on granting permission for another team to talk to the guy they kicked to the curb.


Was Mr. Jacobs gonna make him sell concessions for a year? The premise is idiotic because no team ever prevents a fired coach from seeking employment elsewhere. Useless to even report it. Which is why it never is.

You know they’d never trust Clode around all that food. The profit loss would be insane.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

No it isn't. Not when a coach has been fired. But congrats to the Leafs on granting permission for another team to talk to the guy they kicked to the curb.


Was Mr. Jacobs gonna make him sell concessions for a year? The premise is idiotic because no team ever prevents a fired coach from seeking employment elsewhere. Useless to even report it. Which is why it never is.

It really is reported all the time. Especially for the high profile teams.

 

[Johnnyduke]

It really is reported all the time. Especially for the high profile teams.

High profile teams? Say, like the New England Patriots? You see "permission" reports when another team is interested in a very not fired up and coming assistant coach.

 

[jgatie]

High profile teams? Say, like the New England Patriots? You see "permission" reports when another team is interested in a very not fired up and coming assistant coach.

Dude, multiple people have corrected you. Why the hell are you choosing this hill to die on when you are so obviously wrong?

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

No it isn't. Not when a coach has been fired. But congrats to the Leafs on granting permission for another team to talk to the guy they kicked to the curb.


Was Mr. Jacobs gonna make him sell concessions for a year? The premise is idiotic because no team ever prevents a fired coach from seeking employment elsewhere. Useless to even report it. Which is why it never is. A fired coach landing a job somewhere else also means previous team is off hook for salary/offset.

It is reported all the time. You just proved it. Not sure what the hubbub is about

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

High profile teams? Say, like the New England Patriots? You see "permission" reports when another team is interested in a very not fired up and coming assistant coach.

What is your point here? That the Devils didn’t need permission? That the author made it up?

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Dude, multiple people have corrected you. Why the hell are you choosing this hill to die on when you are so obviously wrong?

 

[4ORRBRUIN]

Lets get going early boys

 

[Johnnyduke]

It is reported all the time. You just proved it. Not sure what the hubbub is about

I have no idea what this means. Makes absolutely no sense.

What is your point here? That the Devils didn’t need permission? That the author made it up?

That it's positively useless reporting. That's all. There is nothing to make up. Just no need to report it as a team that fired a coach is giving permission to another team.

Dude, multiple people have corrected you. Why the hell are you choosing this hill to die on when you are so obviously wrong?

Because I am not wrong. Whether you technically need permission or not is immaterial to how this is typically communicated/reported on in regard to a coach who has been FIRED.

 

[Chevalier du Clavier]

I have no idea what this means. Makes absolutely no sense.


That it's positively useless reporting. That's all. There is nothing to make up. Just no need to report it as a team that fired a coach is giving permission to another team.


Because I am not wrong. Whether you technically need permission or not is immaterial to how this is typically communicated/reported on in regard to a coach who has been FIRED.

Guardians Receive Permission to Interview Big-Name Manager

Nearly a full month has passed since Terry Francona managed his last game for the Cleveland Guardians, and the team is still searching for his replacement. The

factoryofsadness.co

REPORT: Guardians Ask Permission To Interview Craig Counsell - Sports Illustrated Cleveland Guardians News, Analysis and More

The Cleveland Guardians reportedly have interest in Milwaukee Brewers manager Craig Counsell.

www.si.com

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/NAMES-GAMES-Francona-will-interview-for-Red-Sox-11690971.php

Report: Cubs ask for OK to talk with Epstein

The Cubs made the next step in pursuing Theo Epstein Tuesday night, asking the Red Sox for permission to talk with him, according to the Boston Globe.

www.espn.com.au

Finding these took me 15 seconds.

 

[Johnnyduke]

You realize that Craig Counsell wasn't fired, right? Maybe try reading words that are said. He was currently managing another team. That is entirely different.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

You realize that Craig Counsell wasn't fired, right? Maybe try reading words that are said. He was currently managing another team. That is entirely different.

Just take the loss man

 

[Johnnyduke]

Just take the loss man

There's no loss to be taken. He referenced a situation where a guy was still the active manager of a team. Good try though.

 

[UncleRico]

Do the rangers sweep?

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

There's no loss to be taken. He referenced a situation where a guy was still the active manager of a team. Good try though.

Do you know the details of the contract?

what really bothers you with this?