Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
It says if the team loses exclusive rights "except as a result of failing to tender a REQUIRED Bona Fide Offer" and then later says a bona fide offer is not required for teams to retain exclusive rights to college players.
That to me says that a bona fide offer is not required to receive compensation in Jankowski's case
|
It's definitely ambiguous and resists an obvious interpretation, and I do this for a living. I see both sides. I still prefer my interpretation based on the contexts of each paragraph, but the word "required" does stick out.
Reading that horrific drafting helps me understand why Feaster could in good faith claim that his interpretation of the CBA was that O'Reilly would not be subject to waivers. At least, in theory. Maybe that section was pretty clear, but based on the above I have my doubts.