Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-hole
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.
|
But if you read the whole context of 8.6, it specifically outlines in which cases a Bona Fide Offer is required to retain rights and for how long those rights are retained.
Without section 8.6, there is no other place that defines where a bona fide offer is needed to retain rights and for how long, thus making the statement
Quote:
|
In the event a Club loses its draft rights to an Unsigned Draft Choice drafted in the first round of the Entry Draft (except as a result of failing to tender a required Bona Fide Offer (as defined below))
|
meaningless, because no where else is it defined how tendering a Bona Fide Offer can retain rights.