[News] Flames offersheet O'Reilly UPDATE: Avs match

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Are you really stupid enough to argue that what Bill Daly thinks about the CBA is meaningless, yet what Elliott Friedman thinks is relevant?

C'mon man. That's just trolling. If you want to cast doubt on Daly's comments, point out that they come from Eklund and presently lack verification from a legitimate source.

Well he is a lawyer so I think he'd have knowledge about the issue.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It would be settled by the NHLPA and NHL long before it ever got anywhere near a court.

Presuming that all the teams would have signed off, including the ones who stood to gain from the opposite interpretation, but you're probably right.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Are you really stupid enough to argue that what Bill Daly thinks about the CBA is meaningless, yet what Elliott Friedman thinks is relevant?

C'mon man. That's just trolling. If you want to cast doubt on Daly's comments, point out that they come from Eklund and presently lack verification from a legitimate source.

Yes, because I have a law degree - I am not saying that what Friedman thinks is relevant, only that I agree he's right that it SOUNDS like it applies only to the Avs (in this case) RFA list, and that it would be a good battle for the lawyers. Others are speaking as if Daly's interpretation is authoritative and his comments end the discussion - it is not. "Meaningless" is too strong a word, but what Daly says is not the be-all end-all here. You read the words in the document and come to a conclusion about their plain meaning.

Not to mention as Puckluck says, Daly's response was to a question framed as if the Avalanche had re-upped with ROR, which doesn't address the issue here.

[MissTeeks]

Sweet Jesus, I'm about ready to stop posting tweets:

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
For what it's worth, Bill Daly says any quotes from him refuting my story aren't legitimate.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Insta

"All Players on a Club’s Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from the
application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid season signing."

If this really is the official wording, it needs to be clarified. ROR was never on the RFA list of the Flames...

It doesn't say that the player has to be on the signing team's list... just a club's list (not THE club's list). So it could be interpreted that an RFA on any team's list is exempt.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Sweet jesus, I'm about ready to stop posting tweets:

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
For what it's worth, Bill Daly says any quotes from him refuting my story aren't legitimate.

That went without saying, given the source was Eklund.

[Henry Fool]

nm

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That went without saying, given the source was Eklund.

Yeah, I honestly hesitated posting it but figured of all the things Eklund makes up, surely it wouldn't be quotes.

[LickTheEnvelope]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It already has been clarified. You must have missed the entire last page and still wanted to get your shots in?

Daly clarified this in January already.
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?p...2#.UTDezzAe2So

Ya... but the exception that was put into the new CBA only applies to teams re-signing players off their own RFA list...

CBA rule 13.23 states, "In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season (including Playoffs)only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers."

However, one of the player-friendly changes negotiated in the new CBA was a relaxing of rule 13.23 in certain situations. According to the Summary of Terms (Page 19, Article 13, section 1) of the new NHL-NHLPA agreement is the following amendment: "All Players on a Club’s Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid-season signing."

It was put in for NHL teams to be able to pull back their un-signed RFAs this season and give them some time to negotiate.

[nik-]

Ok, so my interpretation of this is the CBA was changed so players returning from overseas that are on the signing team's RFA list do not have to pass through waivers. Otherwise they do. Is that what everyone else is getting here?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Yes, because I have a law degree - I am not saying that what Friedman thinks is relevant, only that I agree he's right that it SOUNDS like it applies only to the Avs (in this case) RFA list, and that it would be a good battle for the lawyers. Others are speaking as if Daly's interpretation is authoritative and his comments end the discussion - it is not. "Meaningless" is too strong a word, but what Daly says is not the be-all end-all here. You read the words in the document and come to a conclusion about their plain meaning.

Don't get me wrong - my read on the document is the same as yours and Friedman's. But surely you realize how silly your post comes off when your response basically reads as "Bill Daly's comments are meaningless, Elliott Friedman's are not."

If Daly's alleged comment accurately reflected the theory that the league agreed that any team signing an RFA could do so without waivers in this situation, that would most definitely not be irrelevant. It might not be the trump that defeats any legal challenge from another team, but it would matter.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

the CBA is the word of law basically, Bill Daly's interpretation of it is not

if for example Columbus really wanted ROR, and it sounds like the wording is fishy at best as Friedman is usually spot on, I would imagine they lawyer up and at least try and see if they can get him for free

The fact that both the NHL and the NHLPA agree that he wasn't eligible would mean they would have amended the rule long before it ever went to court. I'm pretty sure Feaster checked with Daly before proceeding. Like I said, the guy's a lawyer. This is what he does. The fact that someone on Sportsnet caught it before he did is borderline ludicrous.

[return to the red]

Sweet Jesus, so if i'm reading this correct the Flames dodged a big one?

If so this should be the tipping point of the Management team running the ship in Calgary, this is heading into K-lown territory.

[J pold]

Some tell me what to think.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ok, so my interpretation of this is the CBA was changed so players returning from overseas that are on the signing team's RFA list do not have to pass through waivers. Otherwise they do. Is that what everyone else is getting here?

That's what it SOUNDS like the clause says, but there is an arguable point to be made that it means ANY club's RFA list. However, the language is from a 25 page summary and not the actual full CBA. It's unclear if more complete language has been drafted in a final document at this stage that might shed more light on the issue.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ok, so my interpretation of this is the CBA was changed so players returning from overseas that are on the signing team's RFA list do not have to pass through waivers. Otherwise they do. Is that what everyone else is getting here?

well it doesn't say signing team's RFA list... just says "a club's RFA list"

whether that applies to just limited to the signing's team list or any team's list seems to be the issue

[Ashasx]

The media only has access to a 25 page summary of the new CBA.

There's no way this actually would have happened. Lawyers would have been all over it.

[LickTheEnvelope]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ok, so my interpretation of this is the CBA was changed so players returning from overseas that are on the signing team's RFA list do not have to pass through waivers. Otherwise they do. Is that what everyone else is getting here?

I had not looked at it until now, but yes that looks right.

And it's not really a CBA rule, it's an exception to the existing rule that players must go through waivers if starting the season overseas.

The exception just says that if the player was on a team's RFA reserve list at the start of the year they are exempt.

[CGY12]

Was just listening to hockey central at noon and they had this Chris Johnson character on and he stated Bill Daly confirmed with him O'Reilly would have had to clear waivers, this is down right bizarre.

[MissTeeks]

This pretty much covers Twitter this week:

Jesse Spector ‏@jessespector
Jay Feaster and Rick DiPietro walk into a bar... Or they don't... Or they do... Or they don't...

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Sweet Jesus, I'm about ready to stop posting tweets:

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
For what it's worth, Bill Daly says any quotes from him refuting my story aren't legitimate.

Take a pause and a long breath " MissTeeks". We need you to keep posting tweets.