Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco - Page 49 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Enoch Root · 03-01-2013, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

he's an Ivy League schooled lawyer, I dont think this is a 70/30 risk he took, i think he was 99% sure that he found a loophole that couldnt legitimately be argued against

you think he was 99% sure?

well that sounds like pretty good risk management for a $100M /yr business to me.

Vinny01 · 03-01-2013, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

I kinda wish that Colorado hadn't matched, and in 7 days took the compensation and had O'Reilly hit waivers... That would be an epic ####storm of monumental proportions, and Feaster would have for sure been canned.

That would have set this franchise back years!

kyuss275 · 03-01-2013, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

I kinda wish that Colorado hadn't matched, and in 7 days took the compensation and had O'Reilly hit waivers... That would be an epic ####storm of monumental proportions, and Feaster would have for sure been canned.

I rather have the picks and feaster keep his job if that was the case.

Phanuthier · 03-01-2013, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

he's an Ivy League schooled lawyer, I dont think this is a 70/30 risk he took, i think he was 99% sure that he found a loophole that couldnt legitimately be argued against

meh... I have friends that went to Ivy League school for graduate school.....nothing impressive about them. Lots of my friends who went to UofC and UofA were just as good or better.

GGG · 03-01-2013, 04:30 PM

I think that the excemption for a team to sign RFAs would apply and agree with feasters interpretation. I dont think the NHL would have made him go through waivers as they wouldnt want to test the MOU in court. Also the PA would file a greivance is Oreily was forced to go to the islanders.

This isnt forgetting to mail RFA qualifying offers

Yoho · 03-01-2013, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

he's an Ivy League schooled lawyer, I dont think this is a 70/30 risk he took, i think he was 99% sure that he found a loophole that couldnt legitimately be argued against

The fate of a top 5 pick was left to " I think this will work" Brutal man..

nik- · 03-01-2013, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

I kinda wish that Colorado hadn't matched, and in 7 days took the compensation and had O'Reilly hit waivers... That would be an epic ####storm of monumental proportions, and Feaster would have for sure been canned.

Hopefully we can just can him and not completely #### on our franchise to get it done.

Vedder · 03-01-2013, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

hahahaha. who is the current Cup winning coach? Ken King?

Beyond being a good coach, Sutter has a cup because he inherited a team that was built through good drafting and asset management. He proved that he is not capable of either of those things. He is still largely responsible for the Flames current plight.

polak · 03-01-2013, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

he's an Ivy League schooled lawyer, I dont think this is a 70/30 risk he took, i think he was 99% sure that he found a loophole that couldnt legitimately be argued against

How could he possibly have been 99% sure that he would win? How could he possibly be sure that it couldn't be argued against? It flys completely in the face of the NHL's interpertation of the rule. Thats the most ridiculous thing I have seen posted in here.

There has been a ton of arguing in this thread alone with both sides raising good points. Where as Feaster, didn't elaborate on his "interpertation" at all.

Pointman · 03-01-2013, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

their wording states "A team" not "THE team that tenders the offer sheet" Feaster found a loophole, it happens - egg is on face of the NHL and not Feaster IMO

It is CBA's summary, the wording in actual CBA may be different.

Sutter_in_law · 03-01-2013, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The whole thing would have likely been voided and ROR rights would have reverted back to COL.

They would have clarified the situation in the CBA and at that time Flames could consider re-extending the offer sheet.

i think you're right

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor

And if he lost and the Flames lost their 1st and 3rd for nothing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

you think he was 99% sure?

well that sounds like pretty good risk management for a $100M /yr business to me.

yes, thats what i THINK, most people here dont THINK the same as me, including you apparently - i didnt realize that because i am of a differing opinion that im not allowed to share it

99% probabilty I would say is fantastic risk management. if I were given financial advice that was 99% certain I would be over the moon

malcolmk14 · 03-01-2013, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pointman

It is CBA's summary, the wording in actual CBA may be different.

That summary of the Memo of Understanding is all that is available right now. There is no actual CBA.

opendoor · 03-01-2013, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

he's an Ivy League schooled lawyer, I dont think this is a 70/30 risk he took, i think he was 99% sure that he found a loophole that couldnt legitimately be argued against

The phrase "a Club" is used all over the CBA just like it's used in this "loophole". Look at the definition of an Active Roster in the CBA. Feaster might as well try and argue that the Flames own the rights to anyone in the league because an Active Roster refers to "a Club's" Reserve List.

Red Slinger · 03-01-2013, 04:35 PM

The NHL has a general stance of being against offer sheets to RFAs since they drive player cost up. I'm sure they weren't thrilled with the Flames in this case.

So, I don't think that Daly is being an impartial arbiter of justice here. It's also a little odd that he would even comment on it in the manner he did. What's the point, to shame the Flames and try to prevent future offer sheets.

I have no idea who is right or wrong in this case but the NHL has shown itself to be vindictive in the past and I wouldn't put it past them here.

However, no matter what the Flames should have clarified with the NHL prior to the offer.

Phanuthier · 03-01-2013, 04:35 PM

^ Rather than this "98.6793762% sure this will work, or rounded up to 99%" ... in the future, just draft and develop your own damn prospects rather then sending out stupid offers sheets that will cripple your franchise. I don't need to go to a rich Ivy League school to figure that out.

Yoho · 03-01-2013, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

i think you're right

yes, thats what i THINK, most people here dont THINK the same as me, including you apparently - i didnt realize that because i am of a differing opinion that im not allowed to share it

99% probabilty I would say is fantastic risk management. if I were given financial advice that was 99% certain I would be over the moon

I like the "100% probability" by picking up the phone and calling the NHL head office

Enoch Root · 03-01-2013, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

i think you're right

yes, thats what i THINK, most people here dont THINK the same as me, including you apparently - i didnt realize that because i am of a differing opinion that im not allowed to share it

99% probabilty I would say is fantastic risk management. if I were given financial advice that was 99% certain I would be over the moon

You obviously don't understand risk management.

And if anyone ever tells you they are 99% certain with investment advise (which is completely different), you should run away as fast as you can.

Oh, as for opinions, yours is as welcome as anyone else's. It is only risk management that I am talking about (not a personal attack in any way)

SuperMatt18 · 03-01-2013, 04:37 PM

That is the real kicker here, the NHLPA would have raised a #### storm if he had to go through waivers had Colorado not matched.

The waiver clause would pretty much make offer sheets irrelevant during the season unless the player didn't go play somewhere else.

Could have been ugly between Flames, NHLPA, and NHL and I doubt NHL would have battled against such a small issue putting the MOU at risk.

Otto29 · 03-01-2013, 04:38 PM

Wow CP....I'd like to offer my services as official supplier of pitchforks and torches to CP. I feel it would be a great source of income to me.

Everyone just needs to relax. They released a statement. The interpretation of the rule wasn't clear and it seems like people here are more about heads rolling then looking at the reality of where the Flames are today...Same place as two days ago.

This season is a wash and I think everyone from the people working at the dome to the owners know this. Feaster has done a decent job to nnow and a mistake was made and you all want his head on a stick. The rule was interpreted the same way by ROR's agent and several others.

Phanuthier · 03-01-2013, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You obviously don't understand risk management.

And if anyone ever tells you they are 99% certain with investment advise (which is completely different), you should run away as fast as you can.

Oh, as for opinions, yours is as welcome as anyone else's. It is only risk management that I am talking about (not a personal attack in any way)

Yup. I know a guy who was 99% something would work for Apple on their iPhone4... a week later, he was canned and there were 23 new job listings for antenna engineers...