Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Right. The example they gave articulates that this is the rule, and that "a Club" means "any Club." That's why it's "for greater clarity."
I think people are reading a bit too much into the "for greater clarity" clause. I agree that it's clumsily drafted, but when a clause gives an example "for greater clarity" it generally either elucidates the principle behind the rule, or gives an example of the sort of thing that the rule includes. In this case, trading of the rights of a player "on the Reserve List" is the sort of thing that the exemption contemplates as included. That's why that language is in there: it's not limiting language that excludes other scenarios--such as signing an offer sheet.
I'll stress this again: if the rule is read the other way, being an RFA is worthless to O'Reilly. Free agency status has to have some value to players, and that value comes from their ability to entertain offers from other teams, subject only to the restrictions attaching to their status under the CBA. A rule that had the effect that an RFA could not exercise any leverage over their team would likely not have been acceptable to Don Fehr and the NHLPA.
|
this i think is what you're not understanding fully.
O'Reilly spoiled it himself by playing after the season started. He had leverage and wasted it, which is why Kyle Turris did not play in Europe while holding out on the yotes.