Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatle17
Please read the following for a legal perspective. Also the NHLPA would have grieved the waiver ruling on behalf of the player and the Flames, and Bettman also stated that the wording of the MOU was unclear and would be fixed before the agreement was signed.
Feaster used what was legally an option and probably would have won in arbitration:
The NHL's interpretation seems to be:
If team A signs RFA Y to their team, and he plays overseas, he doesn't have to pass through waivers.
If team B offer sheets RFA Y from team A, the process goes like this is team A doesn't match:
a) Team A doesn't match.
b) Team B surrenders picks to Team A
c) Team B exposes RFA Y to waivers.
d) Team B obtains rights to RFA Y (at least until he's claimed on waivers).
There are two huge problems with this:
1) This process is not explicitly spelled out in the MOU, leaving room for legal interpretation. And the author of any good legal document leaves as little room for differing interpretations as is feasible. Sometimes it's not possible, but this one is way more vague than it has to be.
2) You have to have the player under contract/have to have rights to the player to put them on waivers. You can't expose a player you do not have on contract to waivers. Thus, c) cannot happen before d). However, if d) happens before c) as such has to happen before c) can be possible, that means that they are obtaining the rights to said RFA and signing their own RFA to a contract. Thus, it logically follows that per the exemption in the MOU, they are not required to proceed with c) and expose their own signed RFA to waivers.
It's quite simple: either a team is exposing a player with whom they do not have a contract or rights to waivers--which is not possible!--or they do have the rights to that player, they sign that player to a contract at which point they legally can put him on waivers, but they are not obligated to because that player is now their RFA and there is an MOU exemption to overseas RFAs and waiver exposure.
I think Feaster was silly to bank a 1st and a 3rd on this, but if the above is his interpretation I agree with him 100%, as much as it pains me to agree with Feaster.
|
13.23 as it's written in the final CBA operates exactly as you say it cannot. The exemption only applies when signing a player whom you already owned the rights to. For everyone else waivers are required.
Quote:
|
13.23 In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season (including Playoffs) only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers. For the balance of the Playing Season, any such Player who has been obtained via Waivers may be Traded or Loaned only after again clearing Waivers or through Waiver claim. This section shall not apply to a Player on the Reserve List or Restricted Free Agent List of an NHL Club with whom the Player is signing an NHL SPC or is party to an existing SPC with such NHL Club.
|
It's quite possible to sign players' on other teams' RFA list which is what Calgary would've been doing. The order of events would've been as follows:
1) Calgary signs O'Reilly who is on another teams' RFA list to an offer sheet.
2) Once Colorado declines to exercise its right of first refusal the contract with Calgary takes effect and he is then transferred to the Flames in return for the compensation spelled out in the CBA.
3) That contract kicking in makes him subject to rule 13.23 which requires waivers, just as is the case with a UFA who signs with an NHL team after playing in Europe the same year.