As someone who thinks that Feaster's interpretation of the rule was incorrect (and it has been argued thoroughly by others in this thread so I won't get into specifics), I am not saying that it is a slam dunk that Feaster had no argument - even if I don't think it was a strong one.
Clearly, if this thread is any indication, this rule has plenty of room for interpretation, and I'm sure the lawyers involved arguing that would have made out like bandits. It's even possible that the NHL would have let it slide this one time, before closing up the language in that clause.
The crux of the issue is that whether Feaster thought his interpretation is correct or not, he must have realized that it wasn't a slam dunk case - and as such was risking everything given up in an offer sheet to potentially not wind up with the player.
That is just extremely poor judgement in my opinion.
|