Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Yes, the Colorado Avalanche have filed the Right of First Refusal with the league, and the Avalanche and O'Reilly have BOTH signed a 2-year, $10M contract.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the info. Well, dodged a bullet then!

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

In case anyone was wondering, Ryan O'Reilly has taken his medical with COL and signed his contract with the Avalanche

Commence star trek gifs?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yeah, I'm sure that's how it'll play out.

Are you seriously arguing that rules about signing RFAs aren't applicable because once they're signed they're no longer RFAs? OK...

I'm not arguing that. Daly is. His argument is that O'Reilly ceased to be an RFA the moment he signs an offer sheet.

He doesn't then become an RFA again as soon as Colorado matches, and then go through a magical status where he is both signed and an RFA at the same time in order to avoid waivers.

I'm merely saying that if Daly is going to take that stance, he should stick to it. O'Reilly goes to waivers. The Flames are the most likely team to acquire him on a 6.5 million contract for 2013/2014.

The Flames get O'Reilly for free. Colorado and the NHL can sort out their own squabble.

[RedMileDJ]

I take it that the statement from the Flames, regarding all this, has already been posted?

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=658072

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

In this case, there are two possible interpretations. 1. the phrase "a club's RFA list" refers to the club that holds the RFA rights originally, and does not apply where another club offer sheets that player, because the club tendering the offer sheet does not have the player on their RFA list. 2. the phrase "a club's RFA list" means ANY club's RFA list, in which case the club tendering the offer sheet gets the benefit of the exemption and the Flames would've got him without going through waivers.

I really think a court with go with interpretation #2. There's a big difference between "a club" and "the club."

[sven]

Originally Posted by blankall

No it's not "ridonk". Daly is taking a slavish interpretation of the CBA. He should apply that interpretation consistently and fairly.

Lol dude you are in denial. I guess you and Feaster can hold each others hands and reassure each other that everything will be ok...

except the problem is, Feaster knows he messed up and dodged a bullet. (Just wont admit it to save job/face)

You just blindly follow like a puppy

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Except that this is wrong. I mean, yes, you would talk to them to get the context, but basing your determination of the proper interpretation of the contract on what the parties tell you they think it means doesn't settle the issue. You HAVE to make an independent judgment on what the clause means. Blankall's interpretation of the wording in this instance is batcrap crazy, but he's right about one thing: what Bill Daly says he thinks the rule means is not the final word.

No, that is not correct. If both parties gave you confirmation of their interpretation of the clause and it is the same interpretation, it is not longer ambiguous. The only parties that matter are the parties to the contract, in this case the NHL and the NHLPA. The logical thing is that you ask them first. You only have to make an independent judgment if the interpretation of the parties in question differs. Then you have to make an independent judgment. No lawyer in their right mind would make an independent judgment that opposes the interpretation of the parties to the actual contract. Not asking the NHL and NHLPA is absolutely insane, asking another party that is not a party to the contract (ROR's agent) and using that as confirmation of your erroneous interpretation is crazy.

[sven]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm not arguing that. Daly is. His argument is that O'Reilly ceased to be an RFA the moment he signs an offer sheet.

He doesn't then become an RFA again as soon as Colorado matches, and then go through a magical status where he is both signed and an RFA at the same time in order to avoid waivers.

I'm merely saying that if Daly is going to take that stance, he should stick to it. O'Reilly goes to waivers. The Flames are the most likely team to acquire him on a 6.5 million contract for 2013/2014.

The Flames get O'Reilly for free. Colorado and the NHL can sort out their own squabble.

I agree that if one was to interpret the rules in your asinine way, it should be consistent in that now AVs should waive him.

Regardless, Flames would have no chance in hell of getting him

You think Columbus, Washington, Florida Buffalo would ALL pass?

haha

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by sven

except the problem is, Feaster knows he messed up and dodged a bullet. (Just wont admit it to save job/face)

Feaster said he wasn't going to comment on the matter anymore, so you must have some inside knowledge or know Feaster. Please indulge the rest of us! Try to gauge his willingness to trade key players for younger players this year and if there's a certain schedule he's working on going forward. By trade deadline, before, this off season, a little of both?

So excited to have someone on the inside.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

No, that is not correct. If both parties gave you confirmation of their interpretation of the clause and it is the same interpretation, it is not longer ambiguous. The only parties that matter are the parties to the contract, in this case the NHL and the NHLPA. The logical thing is that you ask them first. You only have to make an independent judgment if the interpretation of the parties in question differs. Then you have to make an independent judgment. No lawyer in their right mind would make an independent judgment that opposes the interpretation of the parties to the actual contract. Not asking the NHL and NHLPA is absolutely insane, asking another party that is not a party to the contract (ROR's agent) and using that as confirmation of your erroneous interpretation is crazy.

Sorry dude, this is not how the law works. If a document can be interpreted coherently within the four corners of the document, it doesn't matter if both parties swear up and down that they meant something different.

Now, in this case, you might predict that a court would say the meaning is too ambiguous to resolve simply by looking at the contract itself (including not just the wording but the agreement as a whole and the surrounding language to see if that sheds light). In which case they start looking at extrinsic evidence, such as prior drafts of the agreement, old CBA's and yes, potentially testimony from the parties to try to resolve the issue. And you might be right to make that prediction.

But the order you suggest - ask the parties what it means and only come to an independent judgment if they disagree - is simply wrong at law. Which is why the first thing you do is make that independent and objective judgment just looking at the words on the page.

However, as you'll note, I did agree with you that they SHOULD have asked the NHL, from a practical point of view.

[FlameFan21]

Feaster played Russian roulette with five of six chambers loaded and won.

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Commence star trek gifs?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

We give legal advice all the time on these sorts of things. The view of the parties to the contract is largely irrelevant as of course they are going to offer an interpretation favourable to their position.

If you're advising an acquirer of a target that has a contract of major significance that may or may not say what you want it to say it's certainly not irrelevant what the parties to the contract interpret it as saying. If they're in agreement you have nothing to worry about, but if they're coming at it in completely different ways you could have a massive issue down the road. That's what due diligence is all about, confirming that things are what they seem to be.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm not arguing that. Daly is. His argument is that O'Reilly ceased to be an RFA the moment he signs an offer sheet.

He doesn't then become an RFA again as soon as Colorado matches, and then go through a magical status where he is both signed and an RFA at the same time in order to avoid waivers.

I'm merely saying that if Daly is going to take that stance, he should stick to it. O'Reilly goes to waivers. The Flames are the most likely team to acquire him on a 6.5 million contract for 2013/2014.

The Flames get O'Reilly for free. Colorado and the NHL can sort out their own squabble.

No it isn't. It's that had Colorado waived its right of first refusal that Calgary would've signed a player who wasn't on their own Reserve List and therefore that player needs to clear waivers before joining the team.

Daly was quoted in January about waivers for O'Reilly if a team traded for him and said:

No, he would not be subject to waivers. He would have been under last year's rules, but that was changed in collective bargaining.

Now he's saying that he would be subject to waivers if signed to an Offer Sheet. His contention appears to be that teams can sign players on their own Reserve List without them being subject to waivers but cannot sign players on other teams' Lists

But really, the fact that the Flames were ignorant about this when it was their owner who spearheaded the negotiations is pretty ridiculous. If anyone should know the league's position on the new rules it should be Edwards.

[The Coppernian One]

Originally Posted by blankall

The CBA provision mentions absolutely nothing about "at the time of an SPC coming into effect". I agree there is a distinction, but not one dealt with in the CBA.\

In fact, the CBA suggests the exact opposite:

Obviously, we're dealing with an offer sheet and not a trade here. The distinction is that the the player is not an RFA for the new team in the case of the offer sheet. However, if the NHL is going to apply that distinction, they need to apply it consistently and apply it to Colorado. O'Reilly has been signed to an offer sheet by Colorado. According to Daly's interpretation he ceased to be an RFA, and must now pass through waivers.

Daly is the one misinterpreting things here. It's pretty clear. Once again, Daly is no more of an authority on the correct interpretation than any one of us. If Daly is going to keep with his interpretation, he must apply it evenly. O'Reilly needs to pass through waivers. Columbus, Florida, and the Islanders cannot afford to pay his salary next year of 6.5 million. Washington and Buffalo cannot afford to fit it under their cap structure.

If Daly is goign to open his mouth about this, the following needs to be enforced immediately:

1) O'Reilly ceases to be an RFA and is placed on waivers.

2) Calgary the first team in line that can afford O'Reilly's contract claims him, while giving up nothing.

3) Colorado then sues the NHL, finds out Daly's interpretation is totally wrong. They can't go after the Flames, as they are innocent party who merely acquired a player off waivers. They get some kind of recourse against the NHL (money or additional picks). Whatever it's not really a concern to the Flames.

QED

Just because he ceases to be an RFA under your definition does not mean he ceases to be on Colorado's RFA List that already exists. The CBA specifically says that players on a team's list do not need to pass through waivers to play for that team.

O'Reilly is on Colorado's RFA list because he was an RFA whose rights belonged to Colorado at the time that list was created and filed. The fact that he gets signed by anyone has no impact upon his inclusion on that already existing list. The CBA deals with this clearly, he does not need to pass through waivers to play for Colorado. He does need to pass waivers for anyone else unless Colorado has traded O'Reilly to that team, which is not what happened here.

[polak]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I really think a court with go with interpretation #2. There's a big difference between "a club" and "the club."

Then why even include the club portion at all? It would be "ANY RFA or Reserved..."

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by jd456

Haven't posted in a long time, but I've been trying to be patient with Feaster and the Flames' direction lately. I was trying to give Jay the benefit of the doubt, but I honestly can't after the statement. If there were any doubt at all, you'd think Feaster would contact the league to be 100% sure. Its just common sense. At this point, I personally don't trust him with building/rebuilding this team. Throwing away a 1st and 3rd could set the team back for years. Also, I don't see ROR as a franchise player. A good player, yes. Franchise player, no.

Realistically there is nothing Feaster could have said in a statement that people wouldn't pick appart after the fact. But I agree, own it, resign..

[Hockey_Ninja]

Laughing stock of the league. What a great, great day to be a Flames fan.

[MolsonInBothHands]

I think this is the first time I have climbed on the fire someone bandwagon, and I gotta say, I don't like it. The best case scenario to view the sequence of events is that Flames management was aware of the waiver interpretation, and they were willing to fight it. The fact they did not run this by the league is still a large enough error (gamble?) to warrant heads should roll.

The recent parade of players moved between the Heat and Calgary just adds salt to this gaping wound for me. I do not want to see the entire staff canned. IMO Weisbrod is responsible for bringing in guys with hockey IQ, and I am willing to give credit for signings like Hudler and Wideman. I understand the team is in dire need of a type of player that is probably the most difficult to find, and this generally doesn't happen at the snap of a finger. Waiver issues aside, I am happy the Flames were trying to address the issue with what could have been a long term solution. Draft picks are on a wait and see basis.

So, declaring I think Feaster should be canned in this thread does not mean I will throw temper tantrums in subsequent threads with one line drive-bys to convince myself I am clever: The answers are in the room, intellectual honesty, rock solid plan, whenever something else irritable happens. To me, these are the most annoying posts on this board, and please hand me a plate of pubes if I digress to that point.

I can't cheer for this team to fail, so knowing Feaster is going to be around a while longer, I hope that he manages to make more moves that improves this team, and I still hope the Flames win games, and climb in the standings.

Go Flames Go.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

We give legal advice all the time on these sorts of things. The view of the parties to the contract is largely irrelevant as of course they are going to offer an interpretation favourable to their position.

It isn't a contract, but rather a CBA. It is completely different and the "view" of the respective parties takes priority over the wording of the document.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Sorry dude, this is not how the law works. If a document can be interpreted coherently within the four corners of the document, it doesn't matter if both parties swear up and down that they meant something different.

Now, in this case, you might predict that a court would say the meaning is too ambiguous to resolve simply by looking at the contract itself (including not just the wording but the agreement as a whole and the surrounding language to see if that sheds light). In which case they start looking at extrinsic evidence, such as prior drafts of the agreement, old CBA's and yes, potentially testimony from the parties to try to resolve the issue. And you might be right to make that prediction.

But the order you suggest - ask the parties what it means and only come to an independent judgment if they disagree - is simply wrong at law. Which is why the first thing you do is make that independent and objective judgment just looking at the words on the page.

However, as you'll note, I did agree with you that they SHOULD have asked the NHL, from a practical point of view.

Party intent is always going to be a guiding principle. There's no way that the four corners rule gets you anywhere here, the fact that there's an argument over what the words mean and how they would be applied to these specific facts tells you as much. You're right that you start with the document by itself, but you don't stay there for more than split second in a situation like this.