Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco - Page 39 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

EddyBeers · 03-01-2013, 02:37 PM

So the CBA is an agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA. They are the only two signatories to the agreement. Jay Feaster and his band of advisers do not consult either the NHL or the NHLPA for their interpretation of this clause. They make their own independent interpretation of the clause without consulting either party to the agreement. That is unbelievable.

If I had a client who was looking at buying a corporation that had one major contract and there was an ambiguous clause as between the corporation and another party in that major contract, and I made my own independent judgment on what the clause meant, I would be fired on the spot. The logical thing to do would be to contact one or both parties to get their interpretation of the ambiguous clause, but sadly the Flames do not do what any competent legal counsel would do. Unbelievable.

afc wimbledon · 03-01-2013, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgary2220

Now that it officially comes from the league O'Reilly would have to clear waivers to have played with the Flames if Colorado didn't match should Feaster be let go?

Who's waiver's would he have to clear? Calgarys or the Avs? Maybe I just don't understand how it works.

If it's the Avs that had to put him on waiver's could the Flames just claim him anyways? Besides who ever claims him, would have to pay that new contart. I don't think too many would

Take out the 1st round pick and the 2.5 million signing bonus and the kid is a steal, it is a short term contract on a very young potentially 1st line center. Teams would be lining up (which is how it works) to claim him.

sven · 03-01-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirant

Players on the Reserved List and are RFAs are exempt.

Therefore, the confusion lie in whether or not O'Reilly was an RFA after he came through to Calgary, or whether he was taken off being an RFA, then assigned to Calgary, in which case forcing him on waivers.

Feaster believes the former is possible, while Daly (this morning) intended it to be the latter.

I see. I still would like to see the official CBA... is that all that is really written?

Players on the Reserved List and are RFAs are exempt.

Here's a good read

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...why-im-worried

So basically they are saying that the players have to be on the Reserved List AND be an RFA

that means Feaster loses because being reserve list means that the club owns his rights BUT if Feaster is pressing the issue and saying that the Flames by signing him own his rights, then he would no longer be an RFA

Game set match...looks like I'm smarter than Feaster

nik- · 03-01-2013, 02:39 PM

Eric Duhatschek just blowing up Feasters BS response.

dissentowner · 03-01-2013, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The actual wording of the exemption would make him in-eligible for waivers.

He was on "a club's" Reserved List and RFA list.

It does not state that it is only if he is signed by that club and does not clarify what happens in the case that he is given an offer sheet.

It specifically stated that in the case of a trade the player was wavier exempt, so an oversight by the NHL to not provide the same clarity for an offer sheet.

This will get fixed and in the end it will be that Feaster's understanding will be correct.

In a way I would have liked to have seen how this all played out legally if the Av's had not matched.

Stay Golden · 03-01-2013, 02:40 PM

It was rumoured that O'Reilly was seeking 5m per a season from COL and obviously COL did want to to sign him for 5m per season or a deal would have been completed long ago.

The only fault i have with everyone that supported creating the offer sheet from the Flames upper management didn't offer 13million over the next 2 years.
Really put COL in a serious $ dilemma.
It seemed probable that COL would match 3.5m and 6.5m next year since it averaged to the the initial 5m per that they already new O'Reilly was after.

I negotiate contracts for my sales team and i put forth a number to win the project or to minimize my competition's profit margin if i have no hope of winning a particular contract.
I guess what i am saying i don't believe the Flames brass gave their best offer to force COL to give in and take the picks or squeeze them for salcap down the road.

Erick Estrada · 03-01-2013, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Eric Duhatschek just blowing up Feasters BS response.

He's also saying that he will survive although with a bit of damage to his reputation.

kyuss275 · 03-01-2013, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Eric Duhatschek just blowing up Feasters BS response.

Also said that Calgary is not in good standing with the rest of the NHL because of their reluctance to rebuild. Said this just hurts the the flames reputation even more.

Just said that he could be fired because of this.

edit: he said this is the type of move that could get someone fired.

dissentowner · 03-01-2013, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sven

I see. I still would like to see the official CBA... is that all that is really written?

Players on the Reserved List and are RFAs are exempt.

Here's a good read

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...why-im-worried

So basically they are saying that the players have to be on the Reserved List AND be an RFA

that means Feaster loses because being reserve list means that the club owns his rights BUT if Feaster is pressing the issue and saying that the Flames by signing him own his rights, then he would no longer be an RFA

Game set match...looks like I'm smarter than Feaster

But if the Av's sign him then he would also no longer be a RFA. You can spin it either way.

Flash Walken · 03-01-2013, 02:42 PM

Eric Duhatschek: Ken King basically runs hockey operations.

That's a quote. I missed the first part about 'interested ownership'.

SuperMatt18 · 03-01-2013, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sven

I see. I still would like to see the official CBA... is that all that is really written?

Players on the Reserved List and are RFAs are exempt.

Here's a good read

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...why-im-worried

So basically they are saying that the players have to be on the Reserved List AND be an RFA

that means Feaster loses because being reserve list means that the club owns his rights BUT if Feaster is pressing the issue and saying that the Flames by signing him own his rights, then he would no longer be an RFA

Game set match...looks like I'm smarter than Feaster

Wouldn't that be the case in all situations then.

The second a player is signed they are no longer RFA, that means even if Colorado had signed him he would need to clear waivers.

Not that easy to interpret this mess of a clause...

Phanuthier · 03-01-2013, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Eric Duhatschek just blowing up Feasters BS response.

can you link me?

octothorp · 03-01-2013, 02:42 PM

I think Flames ownership needs to avoid making a knee-jerk decision on this and evaluate this in the context of Feaster's entire tenure here. That said, I think the decision is the same either way you do it: neither the on-ice product, the salary situation, the prospect pool, or the reputation of the team have improved significantly in the time that he's been here, and after this debacle you can't have confidence that that any positive change is coming. Actually, the prospect pool has improved, but it needs to be compared against what the pool would be had they done a rebuild.
In other words, I don't want Feaster fired for this screw-up, I want him fired for the ongoing decline of the team over the last three years. I don't know whether the appropriate time is now or at the end of the season; normally I don't like mid-season management changes, but here I think it might be warranted.

sven · 03-01-2013, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissentowner

In a way I would have liked to have seen how this all played out legally if the Av's had not matched.

look up a couple posts above and read my interpretation...
Feaster would lose because to be exempt, player needs to be on the clubs reserve list AS WELL AS being an RFA. If Feaster is arguing that Flames owned his rights and Flames technically own his rights by signing him, he would not be an RFA which would then make him waiver eligible.

timbit · 03-01-2013, 02:43 PM

Duha confused as to why Flames did not go to NHL for interpretation.

Basically, affirming that the respect factor around the league is very low.

Eric's NHL sources at the league say Feaster is wrong in his interpretation.

Says the Flames would be killed by HNIC....if they were on tomorrow.

Due diligence was not there.

Reputation is badly hurt.

Basically Eric cannot understand how they could take the risk that Feaster did.

nik- · 03-01-2013, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He's also saying that he will survive although with a bit of damage to his reputation.

Sadly, he's probably right and we're stuck with this clown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

can you link me?

Unfortunately it's on the Fan.

Flash Walken · 03-01-2013, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

can you link me?

http://player.rogersradio.ca/cfac/on_air

Badgers Nose · 03-01-2013, 02:44 PM

I was about to put up a fight in his defense, then I read the article. Wow.

sven · 03-01-2013, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Wouldn't that be the case in all situations then.

The second a player is signed they are no longer RFA, that means even if Colorado had signed him he would need to clear waivers.

Not that easy to interpret this mess of a clause...

Good point... lol

SuperMatt18 · 03-01-2013, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

So the CBA is an agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA. They are the only two signatories to the agreement. Jay Feaster and his band of advisers do not consult either the NHL or the NHLPA for their interpretation of this clause. They make their own independent interpretation of the clause without consulting either party to the agreement. That is unbelievable.

If I had a client who was looking at buying a corporation that had one major contract and there was an ambiguous clause as between the corporation and another party in that major contract, and I made my own independent judgment on what the clause meant, I would be fired on the spot. The logical thing to do would be to contact one or both parties to get their interpretation of the ambiguous clause, but sadly the Flames do not do what any competent legal counsel would do. Unbelievable.

This is my biggest issue with the whole thing.

I actually agree with Feaster's interpretation of the rule. Issue is he could have checked with either NHL offices or the NHLPA offices on the actual meaning of the rule.

Instead he risked it and went with the way he and O'Reilly's agent interpreted the rule.

He should be fired just for that reason alone.