Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
It hadn't been ratified but the MOU was in place and binding. And the rules were clear (and the same as in the previous CBA). The league wouldn't have had discretion to let it slide or impose some lesser penalty - it wasn't a grey area. The consequences were automatic - O'Reilly would have to clear waivers.
Feaster said he had a different interpretation but never said what it was or how he came to it, and the NHL had already made its position clear. It's also apparent that Feaster never checked with the league about any interpretation.
|
I really do not want to open this up again, but the MOU was in fact quite ambiguous. There was a very lengthy thread discussing the wording, and it was easy to see how Feaster interpreted it differently.
I think the likely fall-out, due to the ambiguity, would have been a simple cancellation of the signing. It seems EXTREMELY unlikely to me that the league would leave the Flames without the player, and without the picks, based on a single phrase in the MOU that was obviously(due to the confusion) ambiguous. Just cancel everything and send everyone on their way, is what I believe the outcome would have been.