Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

The Flames statement did not go into specifics, so I don't think that confirmation exists, and probably never will.

Which is why I really wish Johnston had a Flames statement in his story, so that we could know what their thinking was at the time. For Feaster to say it was O'Reilly's unsigned status now, well I'm sure the easy response is "Yeah, right Feaster. NOW you say that. You're just covering your ass"

Which is exactly what what he is doing, anyone who doesn't see this is an easy victim to telemarketing schemes, timeshare presentations, and letters to free a Nigerian prince captive somewhere in the world.

He didn't knowingly expose a "loop hole", he unknowingly exposed himself as a GM..

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Yoho

[/B]


Which is exactly what what he is doing, anyone who doesn't see this is an easy victim to telemarketing schemes, timeshare presentations, and letters to free a Nigerian prince captive somewhere in the world.

He didn't knowingly expose a "loop hole", he unknowingly exposed himself as a GM..

You proved my point most eloquently. Thank you.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Iggy3x

I read on National Post and ESPN that The NHL refused to make comment on the waiver clause - Article 13.23:

"The NHL declined on Friday to clarify whether O'Reilly would have had to clear waivers if the Avalanche didn't match Calgary's offer sheet."

I think Feaster definitely should have checked with the league (but I can also see why he didn't). However, as a league, I think it is the responsibility for it to clarify so the fans, players, GMs and owners know what is the official interpretation. By not clarifying, it is irresponsible.

Please explain, because I have no idea what the downside of Feaster making a 3 minute phone call to the league would have been. Why would he not have checked first?

[trew]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Please explain, because I have no idea what the downside of Feaster making a 3 minute phone call to the league would have been. Why would he not have checked first?

It's the legal equivalent of "better to ask forgiveness than consent". Especially given how badly this thing is worded, Feaster's interpretation is more than plausible. If a legal agreement can be read cleanly in two different ways, then both can apply, unless clarification was made ahead of time. Avoiding clarification might be desired in a situation like this.

[Titan]

I'm not sure I agree with the McSorley's Stick article completely. Is an RFA not a player who is under contract but with limited rights? In that case he is a signed player. In any event 13.23 is specific in saying a prof. player or former prof. player which would include a former player under contract that is no longer under contract.

Having said this the interpretation comes back to "a team" or "the team". To rephrase the question, "Was ROR on a RFA list of a team?" The clear answer to this is yes. Therefore, he is exempt, having played in the KHL after the start of the NHL season.

The trick and the jeopardy is that the clause is from a summary of a CBA that is not complete yet. There is no context and there is no way to determine what was meant by this "clause" by the drafters of the agreement and by the parties who agreed. The first place to look would be the old CBA s. 13.23. In there the CBA refers to: "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..." There are two hints here that are important. The first is the use of the language "a league". Clearly, they are not going to list every leage in the world outside NA so they leave it open the the phrase "a league" to mean it could be any of numerous leagues. This enhances Feaster's interpretation. Secondly, that portion uses the term "his team". Again, this is a clear indication that the NHL/NHLPA are drawing a distinction and the the situation only applies when it is the team the player is under contract with. This is also very clear and easy to understand. The fact that the Summary did not use the more specific language indicates that the drafting was intentional and that Feaster's interpretation was correct; ROR was on a RFA list and as such was exempt from waivers.

It would be easy to see why the clause in the summary would not garner more attention or even signal that a call to the league was necessary.

We don't actually know if Jay called the league and the league has not clarified their position on that clause. Everything else is speculation.

Finally, even if it went down as the anti-Jay crowd state, it would not have gone down that way.

We all know the consequences of that scenario. The NHL is a club with 30 members. They write their own rules. Clearly the drafters of the Summary did not put the thought or effort into it they should have but having said that there is no way the Flames or the NHLPA would allow the worst case interpretation. Quite simply it would prohibit rfa offer sheets. The fact the exemption was added indicates that the NHL and NHLPA agreed on this point and it was a win for the NHLPA. To then turn around interpret it as only applying to the team would put all the cards in the teams hands. In this case the AVS say to ROR, take our deal or sit out, you have no options. That is clearly not the intent of the exemption.

The NHL and NHLPA would sit down and say WTF that one slipped by, lets clarify this. Then they would send a note to the GM and away we go. There is no way anyone lets Calgary pay $2.5 signing bonus (not that I think that would happen ...) giive away two draft picks and then lose the player to waivers. That is a non-sensical outcome, although it is supported by one interpretation of what "a team" means. As they say, this would be against social policy to let this stand and as such it is clearly not what was intended and they strike it out and make it right.

It's not like they have to go back to parliament.

As to what Daly has to say, I would argue it is in fact pretty important. However, his input is more valuable in determiningwhat the parties were trying to accomplish by the exemption in the Summary. At that point he would be able to say what he thought the clause meant and the NHLPA would say what they thought it meant and then they could figure it out from there.

An interesting question is who does provide guidance on the CBA? Is it Daly? A staffer? A lawyer? It is pretty important but as far as I know that process has never seen the light of day. This may make that so.

[Enoch Root]

an RFA is not under contract

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Jay Feaster is a trained lawyer, but isn't Gary Bettman who helped write the rules also a trained lawyer?

I have said it before and i will say it again:

Going by Feasters statement he knew about the rule and was ready to challenge if it came down to it. That challenge would have taken weeks for a decision. Even if Feaster had won, this team would more than likely have been out of it and handing the Av's a top 5 pick.

Sorry but that is not a good back up plan.

Would it have taken weeks? Judging how it's a mere clarification on a single article, I can't imagine how it wouldn't take more than a week with a arbitrator. Two at most.

And there were a number of lawyers on both sides helping write the CBA.

Again the top 5 pick is not guaranteed.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

an RFA is not under contract

nm

[Roof-Daddy]

Can I change my vote?

It's starting to look more and more like Feaster was the smart one in this situation, and the rest of us were wrong.

[Titan]

Ok. So an RFA is a player whose contract has expired but he does not qualify to be an unrestricted free agent. So he is not under contract but he is under certain restrictions. I was under the wrong impression.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Titan

Can you provide some context for that? I am not sure it matters as the clause in the CBA captures former players and the Summary states on the RFA list. Either way ROR is caught by the clause and the Summary. Don't RFA's play all the time? What is the definintion? I will google that.

an RFA is a restricted free agent, that means he is a player without a contract who's rights are restricted by age (and game played in certain instances). You cannot be both signed and without a contract.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Titan

Ok. So an RFA is a player whose contract has expired but he does not qualify to be an unrestricted free agent. So he is not under contract but he is under certain restrictions. I was under the wrong impression.

Basically the same as a draft pick. He is your property but doesnt count as one of your 50 signed players.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Can I change my vote?

It's starting to look more and more like Feaster was the smart one in this situation, and the rest of us were wrong.

I still haven't voted because I want to try and understand what is happening, in fact I don't think I have even commented on the situation yet.

But I will break my silence and say after reading everything posted in the past 2 days that I agree with you. It's looking like Feaster has clear wording in the MOU that should win him a court case if it came to that.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Titan

The trick and the jeopardy is that the clause is from a summary of a CBA that is not complete yet. There is no context and there is no way to determine what was meant by this "clause" by the drafters of the agreement and by the parties who agreed.

Would have thanked your post, Titan, but I'm all out.

I would expect in a case where the intent of a clause is unclear that they'd start with the language they do have (the MOU) and go from there. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps someone more experienced could comment.

At any rate I'm glad this thread has turned into a discussion now, and not the witch-hunt it started as.

[LouCypher]

While I voted Yes initially I have to admit the water looks a lot muddier now. Not as clear as it first seems. I dont think it'll get to the point where its clearly laid out, Feaster seems to firmly believe his position and his statement seems to indicate that he would be ready to legally defend his interpretation of the rule. Even if he is absolutely wrong or right there appears to be a protective layer of doubt going both ways that will prevent him from being held accountable on this issue.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Can I change my vote?

It's starting to look more and more like Feaster was the smart one in this situation, and the rest of us were wrong.

the poll is flawed anyways, there should have been an option for "No, he did nothing wrong"

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I still haven't voted because I want to try and understand what is happening, in fact I don't think I have even commented on the situation yet.

But I will break my silence and say after reading everything posted in the past 2 days that I agree with you. It's looking like Feaster has clear wording in the MOU that should win him a court case if it came to that.

I wish more people were like you and looked at all the facts before just believing everything the media was spewing about this.

I find it funny that people always jump all over media members, yet when this story broke only a small few questioned it and the rest immediately reached for their pitchforks.

I have never been a Feaster fan, and its odd for me to be standing up for him, but I see no fault in what he did whatsoever.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

but I see no fault in what he did whatsoever.

So he didn't make a mistake by not clarifying the issue with the league before proceeding?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I still haven't voted because I want to try and understand what is happening, in fact I don't think I have even commented on the situation yet.

But I will break my silence and say after reading everything posted in the past 2 days that I agree with you. It's looking like Feaster has clear wording in the MOU that should win him a court case if it came to that.

It's incredibly reckless and dangerous to go through with that without simply touching base with the NHL still. Let's say that Avs didn't match and the process had to go through, the court case decision would take a while to get done. Therefore the Flames still wouldn't have ROR and their picks would be gone while this is in limbo.

It just wasn't worth the risk to get into a very messy situation. It was stupid and quite simply a fireable offense from him. I can't trust him to make good or wise decisions going further.

[FaFaFlamey]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

Let's never mention rebuild. I still get nightmares from the days of "young guns".

If only today's era was all a bad dream. Just how long is this "retooling era" going to last?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

the poll is flawed anyways, there should have been an option for "No, he did nothing wrong"



I wish more people were like you and looked at all the facts before just believing everything the media was spewing about this.

I find it funny that people always jump all over media members, yet when this story broke only a small few questioned it and immediately reached for their pitchforks.

I have never been a Feaster fan, and its odd for me to be standing up for him, but I see no fault in what he did whatsoever.

When I first saw the thread yesterday my thought was "seriously? because Colorado matched? Then I read what was going on and my next thought was "that can't be right, there is no way a decent lawyer would overlook that". With Feaster being a decent lawyer (or so I would assume based on where his career has taken him) I just needed to read more because it was confusing that someone could make that mistake with his credentials.