Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Honestly man you really have no idea how many cases there are that you think would be simple that aren't. You seem to just be glossing over my previous responses to you, but the bottom line is that if the parties didn't have an actual meeting of intent a court/arbitrator can completely reconstruct or discard with the clause.
|
First it was the exemption that was being argued.
Now we are arguing a rule that has been in place for 9 years and has been used in the Radulov case.
I understand that the courts can restructure the rule but the Flames would need to convince them that their interpretation is legitimate. I'd love to see how they could put together such an argument.
"Well, we didn't know that he's no longer a restricted free agent once we signed him to a contract after the avalanche didn't match the offer sheet?"
Obviously this team has qualified and traded for the rights of plenty of restricted free agents in the past. I just can't see anyone, even a small child being convinced otherwise.