Quote:
Originally Posted by taxbuster
It's highly amusing to read the thrashings of many who clearly have no legal background or understanding of how legal agreements work. The words are the point - not what Bill Daly "thinks" or some SN writer gets people to prattle - and Daly is certainly not the final arbiter of how the CBA or MOU is to be interpreted. (An arbitrator would be doing that.)
Thanks to those in this thread who do, indeed, clearly have legal training or are lawyers for actually reading the words of the article and understanding and defending the rather significant difference between "a club" and "the club".
The wording in the MOU is unclear and imprecise and the NHL would have had absolutely zero choice but to allow the deal to conclude in its intended manner. No waiver would be required. How that particular article might show up in the drafted CBA is another matter - but we likely won't find that out for quite some time.
Feaster did what a good lawyer does - he found a loophole and used it.
|
The fact the MOU is slightly vague is exactly why Holland said you have to call the league to get clarification before you do something like this. There is a more detailed document that hasn't been distributed yet, but the league can use it to clairfy any vague issues. If Holland knows this, Feaster should too.