Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
If it's debatable and subject to interpretation, which it was, there is no way the Flames would have lost the pick(s) and O'Reilly.
|
A lot of things are subject to interpretation, but the problem is you are going against the league's interpretation. It didn't stop New Jersey from being fined and punished for cap circumvention. Had Colorado not matched, NHL would have enforced their own interpretation and the whole matter will likely be resolved by an independent arbitrator just like NJ's cap circumvention case. The picks and O'Reilly were at risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
You're clearly not in law.
And, admittedly, this would not work in all areas.
|
Feaster was acting in the capacity of manager and not a lawyer. And even if he was acting in the capacity of a lawyer, it will depend on the end result and whether he advised his clients or bosses of the risk. If he's right, nothing may come out of it but his bosses might still fire him if he didn't advise them of the risks. If he's wrong, Feaster may win the potential malpractice suit against him, but his clients acting upon his advice will likely fire him for putting their assets unnecessarily at risk as it ended up costing them dearly. If Feaster works for wealthy clients word can spread and he's likely going to lose a lot of clients. If he was working as an in house counsel he may be hard for him to work for another big corporation.