Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco - Page 37 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

$ven27 · 03-01-2013, 02:22 PM

Does anyone actually see Feaster getting fired over this? I have a feeling he won't..

Parallex · 03-01-2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $ven27

He may get a lot of flack, however he is a good GM and defiantly an upgrade on Feaster.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Clever_Iggy · 03-01-2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvp2003

So basically Feaster is claiming:

- They knew about the waiver issue
- They consulted with the NHLPA rep, but apparently not the NHL
- They proceeded with the offer sheet on the basis that their "interpretation" was correct, with the risk of losing two picks and $2.5M if they were wrong
- NHL (via Daly) saying this morning they were wrong
- They consider the issue dead because the Avs said last night they would match
- No evidence that Avs have officially matched

Is that it?

If so, Feaster isn't stupid or necessarily negligent but borderline reckless in handling the assets of this team. Flames owners can't be happy about the negative PR that this is generating; at worst they will be very unhappy if they end up losing the picks and $2.5M after all.

There really is no excuse for getting confirmation from BOTH the NHLPA and NHL. If their interpretations match, great, go ahead. If their interpretations differ, the Flames could have been guided on how to proceed or back away altogether.

polak · 03-01-2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

The rule was changed. Interpretations of language in the past CBA are only applicable to the extent that language remains. Where things have changed, and in this case it has, it's no longer applicable.

I can agree with that.
Frankly I'm not going to pour over the CBA to prove my point that any challenge of Daly's interpretation is far-fetched (I don't think many people disagree with me on that?) because regardless of that, there is no way Feaster should have went ahead with this without clarifying such a move beforehand. I think the lack of elaboration in his press release and ROR's agent supposedly not knowing about the rule speaks to the theory that he flat out didn't know about the rule until this morning.

As for the "a clubs RFA list", I could see that being a contestable point (but again, a far fetched one) but only if the "a clubs" part doesn't clearly refer to the team who owns the rights, elsewhere in the CBA.

mrdonkey · 03-01-2013, 02:23 PM

Yes. Inexcusable.

I like that he is trying things, but he has dodged some major bullets already with ROR and Brad Richards. And he has drawn a lot of negative attention to this team with his inability to keep his mouth shut.

He, and anyone above him who is imposing the "win now" mentality, need to go. This team is becoming a bigger side show than the Oilers.

keenan87 · 03-01-2013, 02:23 PM

What gets me the most is if Yzerman or a hockey GM made this move, it will be really bad but I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

This is what Feaster's speciality is. A lawyer, someone who should know the CBA inside out. If he can't do this properly, what can he do?

malcolmk14 · 03-01-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvp2003

So basically Feaster is claiming:

- They consulted with the NHLPA rep, but apparently not the NHL

Incorrect. The "players representative" referred to in the statement was O'Reilly's agent, not the NHLPA rep.

At least I think so.

keenan87 · 03-01-2013, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

i would feel so much better either way if he we had some kind of confirmation that Colorado have ACTUALLY filed the paperwork to match.

The Avs should screw with us. Match the offer 5 mins prior to the deadline and just wreck Feaster for 6 more days.

speeds · 03-01-2013, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

i would feel so much better either way if he we had some kind of confirmation that Colorado have ACTUALLY filed the paperwork to match.

https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...88031190294528

Yoho · 03-01-2013, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atb

Thing that bugs me the most about the Flames statement is that it implies they were willing to risk a 1st and 3rd fully aware of this rule. They must have at some point said 'What if the NHL doesn't see it this way?". So they must have know there was a chance (even if they believed it a slim chance) there could be a huge legal storm, with the chance of losing 2 picks for nothing.

That's almost as foolish as not knowing about the rule in the first place, and is really quite scary.

No way he knew, this is just a bad spin. Previous poster right nobody plays with a top 5 pick so "footloose and fancy free"

TopChed · 03-01-2013, 02:26 PM

Apologies if this has already been answered, but if Colorado hadn't matched, could the Flames have left O'Reilly in Russia until next year so he wouldn't have to clear waivers? Or would he have to clear regardless?

keenan87 · 03-01-2013, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Incorrect. The "players representative" referred to in the statement was O'Reilly's agent, not the NHLPA rep.

At least I think so.

That's even worse. ROR wanted a contract so his agent got him one. If this is true, good job for the agent and Feaster got screwed.

Igottago · 03-01-2013, 02:26 PM

Well, a huge and potentially costly oversight. I don't know if firing is the solution here. Its a mistake that could've been made by many organizations. But important to learn the lesson, whoever does the Flames legal reviews need to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Easy to pile on right now, but not sure the organization deserves it.

sven · 03-01-2013, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Everybody interpreted the rule the way Feaster did until one reporter found differently.

There was heavy talk of an offer sheet before what the Flames did. Bob McKenzie highlighted it as a possibility.

I'm not taking away the significance of this situation. I think something has to happen.

But it is funny. Everybody was talking about a potential offer sheet for ROR. Now that the Flames are the ones who made it, everyone acts as if the rule was obvious.

I'm not an NHL GM but if I was, I would be the first to know the CBA inside out as it would be my JOB

For those that said the CBA is confusing... I honestly don't see what is confusing or ambiguous

I only found the 2005 CBA

13.23 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. For the balance of the
Playing Season, any such Player who has been obtained via Waivers may be Traded or
Loaned only after again clearing Waivers or through Waiver claim.

Now does anyone have a link to the new CBA because I don't understand how this is confusing or ambiguous

Resolute 14 · 03-01-2013, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopChed

Apologies if this has already been answered, but if Colorado hadn't matched, could the Flames have left O'Reilly in Russia until next year so he wouldn't have to clear waivers? Or would he have to clear regardless?

According to Bob McKenzie, no.

malcolmk14 · 03-01-2013, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopChed

Apologies if this has already been answered, but if Colorado hadn't matched, could the Flames have left O'Reilly in Russia until next year so he wouldn't have to clear waivers? Or would he have to clear regardless?

He'd go to waivers immediately.

keenan87 · 03-01-2013, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopChed

Apologies if this has already been answered, but if Colorado hadn't matched, could the Flames have left O'Reilly in Russia until next year so he wouldn't have to clear waivers? Or would he have to clear regardless?

No, he would be put on waivers right away regardless

afc wimbledon · 03-01-2013, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $ven27

Does anyone actually see Feaster getting fired over this? I have a feeling he won't..

Depends on if there is someone safe and convenient that has previous ties to the team that won't rock the boat available, has Brent been hired yet as if not....

kirant · 03-01-2013, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopChed

Apologies if this has already been answered, but if Colorado hadn't matched, could the Flames have left O'Reilly in Russia until next year so he wouldn't have to clear waivers? Or would he have to clear regardless?

Bob MacKenzie has been fielding that one for a while. The wording is that as soon as the player is given a contract, he's assigned to your team. Therefore, you can't leave him in Russia.

malcolmk14 · 03-01-2013, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sven

I'm not an NHL GM but if I was, I would be the first to know the CBA inside out as it would be my JOB

For those that said the CBA is confusing...

I only found the 2005 CBA

13.23 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. For the balance of the
Playing Season, any such Player who has been obtained via Waivers may be Traded or
Loaned only after again clearing Waivers or through Waiver claim.

Now does anyone have a link to the new CBA because I don't understand how this is confusing or ambiguous

All Playerson 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.

Page 19 : http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/P...ms-1-10-13.pdf