Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
This. Never. Would. Have. Happened.
Give it a rest.
The Feaster MOU interpretation was correct, as written, hence the change in the actual CBA, to what was meant.
|
The league said it was incorrect. The fact they changed it doesn't mean they agreed with Feaster. It means they wanted to avoid the situation. So the best case scenario is that Feaster had to go to an arbitrator (Bettman) to get a ruling and then appeal that.
Maybe a prudent GM would have checked out his interpretation with the league. Just like accountants can check an interpretation on a tax issue with CRA.
Feaster' explanation that he had a different interpretation always smelled like backfilling to me.