Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
I interpreted your post as meaning that you didn't read it. The fact that you thought it mattered whether O'Reilly was another indication.
Can you point me to an "expert" who thinks that Feaster's reading of this language was wrong? What I have seen is fans and media getting exercised over this issue and others saying either that the clause is ambiguous (I happen to disagree) or that Feaster is probably right.
Not all opinions are created equal, and when it comes to interpreting legal language, I will take Jay Feaster over Chris Johnston any day.
However, if your opinion is "it's ambiguous and Feaster should have checked," I think that's reasonable. I happen to disagree, but it's not a ridiculous opinion. What IS ridiculous is treating this like it's completely obvious that O'Reilly would have gone on waivers. Frankly, even the NHL doesn't take that position, but a few in this thread inexplicably do. If you're not one of them, then I apologize for immying that you were.
|
The first sentence in your post in incomplete. I don't know if there's something I should respond or not.
It wasn't just one Sportsnet writer. Here's TSN for example:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=417108
I don't think there are that many people who think that there's no room for interpretation. Like I've said, the whole issue is that there is room for interpretation in the first place and that you shouldn't gamble millions of dollars and the future of the team because you think you have the legal argument on your side. You're supposed to be 100% sure. What I wanted hear from Feaster is that they checked with everyone to make sure.