Ken King on the Fan now

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The NHL doesn't exactly mind referring to exact wording - see how they handled the McAmmond situation even though it was pretty clear it was not violating the "spirit of the rule."

The exact wording supported the Flames position IMO.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I didn't see anything that supported the idea that we've have to waive him except Daly's off the cuff quote which he did not seem to support later on.

That's extremely convenient to brush it off like that.

Let's not turn this into another ROR thread though - but as an STH I do feel like I am owed a much better answer than I got.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well from how I read the wording Feaster had a slamdunk case ("a team's list"). Didn't really understand the position of those who thought we'd have to waive him. Daly's off the cuff response seemed strange to me.

Then when you step back from the wording and look at the intent of the rule that also supports Feaster's position. That is where the part about trading the player and not having to waive them came into play.

I didn't see anything that supported the idea that we've have to waive him except Daly's off the cuff quote which he did not seem to support later on.

Thats not what I asked - I asked if the decision is left to the legal coarts, or the NHL to make a decision?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

That's extremely convenient to brush it off like that.

Let's not turn this into another ROR thread though - but as an STH I do feel like I am owed a much better answer than I got.

I agree with FDW's view on it, however, I agree with you that I want more of an explanation than we've gotten so far (and as a STH, feel I deserve one).

However, I also don't want to turn this into another ROR thread.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Saint Troy

You seem comfortable leaving alot to assumption, as a season ticket holder I am not. Question should have been asked, and then addressed by King, rather than pretending it never happened.

They did address it and about the only way they could have. They said they interpreted the rule in a particular way.

We'll never know how the league would have ruled. Daly's comments are not enough to say with certainty that the league would have ruled that way.

The answer you are looking for is one that the Flames cannot give. Only the league can choose to say how they would have ruled. But they have zero incentive to do that and the situation is not likely to ever be repeated. Expect the wording to be clarified in the next CBA.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by browna

Interesting that he has gone out of the way to define what "meddling" means in his context. Certainly some semantics can be argued there.

I do think Sutter had free reign when it was clear he had the ability to make deals around the league and pull the rabbits out of the hat as GM. When things tightened up a bit and the Phanuef thing went south after that season, those above him wanted a secondary set of eyes, and the reigns were pulled back from Sutter's autonomy, from powers above him.

Sutter gets canned, Feaster talked himself a good game to get the full time gig, but also I am guessing those above him retained the deciding power, and, knowing Feaster was going to be a yes man for the most part. Thus then, techinically those above Feaster aren't "meddling" if Feaster is saying he goes along with it 100%.

IMO.

The "win now " mandate had to be a big factor in the Phaneuf trade, IMO.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Thats not what I asked - I asked if the decision is left to the legal coarts, or the NHL to make a decision?

I'm not sure. I would guess the NHL rules and if the team appeals it then maybe the lawyers are involved. But it becomes complicated by the fact that there wasn't a lawyer approved CBA that this falls under but rather a memorandum of understanding. Plenty of wiggle room to argue things like intent, spirit of the rule, etc.

The whole issue is far from clear and will obviously never be fully clarified because it would require to league to rule on a situation that hasn't come about. I've come to accept that I guess. Some people clearly haven't. We will never get the answers that some are demanding so all we can do is move on.

It is up to KK and the ownership to determine Feaster's competency even though the fans want to be the judges and jury in this case.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Table 5

They haven't answered one single question about the situation. What dead horse? The pony is still in the womb, waiting to be born.

I'm not expecting them to give us much, but are we really expected to bury our heads in the sand? I don't even care about OReilly, I would just like to hear their thoughts on trading their 1st round pick this year.

I would love to hear something too Table but it's certainly not a pony about to be born and nowhere near story of the year.

Maybe it would have been if the Flames had signed him and lost him on waivers but that didn't so it wasn't. It happened on a Thursday, by Saturday poop hit the fan and by Monday everyone had moved on.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Table 5

They haven't answered one single question about the situation. What dead horse? The pony is still in the womb, waiting to be born.

I'm not expecting them to give us much, but are we really expected to bury our heads in the sand? I don't even care about OReilly, I would just like to hear their thoughts on trading their 1st round pick this year.

They gave an explanation. not sure what else there is to say.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Thats not what I asked - I asked if the decision is left to the legal coarts, or the NHL to make a decision?

Final word from me:

CBAs have a dispute resolution process spelled out in it, but for most CBAs it is this:

If there is discrepancy in the language the two parties will talk about exactly what it means and come to a resolution (NHL and PA), if they cannot agree, they will take it to Binding Arbitration.

You can have a passage in a CBA which says something a layman would think means one thing, but as long as both parties agree that it means something else, it means something else.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

They gave an explanation. not sure what else there is to say.

Well there will be nothing else said in all likelihood, I just find it amazing that the Flames explanation "We were right, they were wrong" had virtually no scrutiny applied to it by the Calgary media, or at a minimum the Calgary media never asked someone responsible from the organization any questions like:

1) We understand your position is we were right and they were wrong, why do you think you were right?
2) Is that position the appropriate approach to asset management;
3) Did you ever ask the NHL for clarification prior to offering the contract;
4) Who is the players representative whose opinion you partially relied on?;
5) If the players representative is supposedly ROR's agent, why did he say that you guys never discussed this peculiarity?

But those questions will never be asked, they never were asked and the explanation from the Flames was "We were right and they were wrong". Dubious at best, it would have been nice for the FAN to do a little bit of journalistic probing on that issue today or in the future.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Ken King sounds a lot more like a greasy sales guy than he used to.

That's because the product he's selling sucks a lot more than it used to.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

So, what exactly do you want them to say about it other than what they have previously said? Unless I missed something, they explained their take on the rule and that is where it ends. I can't imagine that any of them can add to that or give you guys the warm fuzzy feeling you are looking for.

They made a mistake and other then the "sudden Geniuses" who "of course knew the rule" most of the rest of the league had the same assumption.

A whole lot of fur flying over nothing on that one....the whole thing would have been cleared up pretty quick of lawyers got involved.

I think they already knew the situation and were prepared to challenge the league if O'Reilly offer sheet was not matched. Once it was not matched they really had nothing more to add on the leagues position.

[nik-]

This thread has made me want a Pony. I bet it would be delicious.

[Joborule]

And to think, the whole ROR fiasco could've been avoid with a 5 minute phone call to league offices...

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Joborule

And to think, the whole ROR fiasco could've been avoid with a 5 minute phone call to league offices...

Which is what makes me think their explanation is bunk. They didn't know and almost got caught.

[dammage79]

And we would still be left with even more nothing done than was actually tried. Which inherently would have made me bang my head against a wall in frustration. At least they tried once so far this year. Which is exponentially better than zero tries.

[killer_carlson]

I love that he clarifies the definition of meddling and that they have not prevented someone from doing what they want, and people here are still mad about some conspiracy.

Get over yourselves

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by calgARI

Not much evidence of a plan other than to become really soft and have 2 NHL centers on the roster.

Did you see any evidence of the O'Reilly offer sheet before it happened? A move that would have added a very good young centre?

I sure didn't, which leads me to accept that even though I don't have their plan laid out before me today there could well be a solid, even bold one in place.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I would love to hear something too Table but it's certainly not a pony about to be born and nowhere near story of the year.

Maybe it would have been if the Flames had signed him and lost him on waivers but that didn't so it wasn't. It happened on a Thursday, by Saturday poop hit the fan and by Monday everyone had moved on.

I agree but this is an outgoing (King and Feaster) franchise that went out publicly to defend Jay Bouwmeester when he was criticized by a hockey panel when most teams wouldn't say anything. You have a much bigger ordeal where the Flames sign a player to an offer sheet in which there was found to be some grey area that led to the team being widely criticized and you don't hear peep for a rebuttal. Nothing. I get that maybe they felt embarrassed but they have left fans in the dark here.

This whole ROR thing is now in the past and maybe we should move on but for a couple of guys that love to toot their own horns in King and Fester they come off somewhat as poor sports here choosing not to disclose any more information other than that one terse statement by Feaster.