Quote:
Originally Posted by sven
Besides hockey Insider, are there any other sources that state Daly retracts statement and that Feaster had it right?
If so, I will be the first to apologize to Feaster.
And this makes Daly a huge ###### for unnecessarily stirring up trouble with wrong information.
This also would make me a ###### for going out with a pitchfork without getting my facts straight
|
I haven't been able to find out what their source is, and no twitter account to ask them myself. It's been mentioned previously in this thread, but like everything else that's just farts in the wind. Could also be it was taken out of context from an email supposedly sent to Eklund and posted on his site...
Quote:
An email from NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly confirms that O'Reilly would be the first case under the newly amended rules if and when he returns to the NHL this season.
Daly wrote, " No, he would not be subject to waivers. He would have been under last year's rules, but that was changed in collective bargaining."
So there you have it. O'Reilly can come right back to the Avalanche this season -- or another team, if he is traded -- without the team having to worry about losing him to waivers.
|
The most recent Daly quote that comes up is very noncommital...
Quote:
|
"We agree with the Flames in the sense that the entire issue has become an academic point," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in an email to The Canadian Press. "Ryan O'Reilly has signed a contract with the Colorado Avalanche and the contract has been registered. We have nothing further to say on the subject."
|
But in my search I found an interesting article (hope it hasn't already been posted a billion times)...
http://offsidesportsblog.blogspot.ca/
Quote:
Articles 10 and 13 of the old CBA, the portions that govern offer sheets and waivers, are chalk full of references to the “Prior Club” (the Avalanche) and the “New Club.” (the Flames) This is significant because it shows that the NHL and the NHLPA have treated the Prior Club and the New Club differently in other provisions of the CBA.
So the MOU does not distinguish as to the club signing the player. So the language is such that the parties understood there would not be a distinction between the Prior and New Clubs in this regard.
This gives the Flames an arguable case that O’Reilly should not have been placed on waivers. Not surprisingly, the Flames have stated that their interpretation is not consistent with the League’s interpretation on this point.
|