Quote:
Originally Posted by Joborule
I ain't no lawyer, but the official wording from the NHL CBA doesn't seem that difficult to grasp when they include the "trade player from A to B" line. It seems pretty implied that if the Flames traded for ROR, then they have the RFA rights over him so wouldn't have to worry about the mid-season wavier issue since he is Flames property.
I'm surprised so many people seemed confused by what's written. The first sentence could've been done much better with it being more direct and straightforward, but seems to outline the rules pretty clearly. If the trade part was absent, then it would make sense since it would be extremely ambiguous at that point.
Feaster as a lawyer should've caught on this, or at the very least clarify with the NHL prior to make this move. Really inexcusable when he could've avoided this messy situation that thankfully didn't muster into anything.
|
You're right, you ain't no lawyer.
Sorry, not trying to be a ****, just making the joke that was sitting there.
It is not as obvious as you think it appears.