Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubicant
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.
|
I agree with your post.
Feaster claims to have done due diligence.
If he realized that the league would challenge his interpretation and still proceeded with the offer sheet on the chance he would get a ruling that O'Reilly would not need waivers, then he gambled the 1st and 3rd and risked losing them for nothing (regardless of how strong a case he or anyone may think the Flames have)
If an NHL executive with similar experience and education of Feaster's should have realized there was ambiguity and multiple interpretations and the risk of waivers was there but Feaster didn't see it, then Feaster should be fired for incompetence.
However if it is reasonable (again assuming you had the same experience and education of that of a veteran NHL executive) to reach the same interpretation that O'Reilly wouldn't need waivers without it being a violation of the spirit of the exemption or realizing an alternative interpretation exists that puts the organization at risk is possible, then I don't see how you can fault Feaster.
This is something only his peers and colleagues will be able to judge him on.