Duh, the magical department of write-off restitution sends you a cheque for twice the amount you wrote off. That's why big businesses stay big, they make money by writing things off.
Yes, and you complained about the thought of the Flames paying $540k for Wideman to do nothing when the Flames are paying $540k for Wideman to do nothing anyway.
I KNOW
But if the 3rd party says no suspension they SHOULDN'T HAVE
unless Gary has the flux capacitor its a major issue and the Flames will want to be compensated you can bet your ass
But if the 3rd party says no suspension they SHOULDN'T HAVE
unless Gary has the flux capacitor its a major issue and the Flames will want to be compensated you can bet your ass
Sounds like from the CBA:
" If the appeal is successful, the player gets his pay back and can be awarded performance bonuses that could reasonably be inferred he might have made had he not been wrongly suspended during the games he missed."
" If the appeal is successful, the player gets his pay back and can be awarded performance bonuses that could reasonably be inferred he might have made had he not been wrongly suspended during the games he missed."
I don't think any other compensation would come.
You're correct. Which is why it's dumb and players should be able to play during the appeal process. The player get's compensated for his loss of pay, but the team doesn't get compensated for the loss of the performance.
^ And the league might be a bit more motivated to expedite the process.
This is certainly a unique situation though. I wonder, across all sports how often suspensions are reduced on appeal, though? It seems like making a change to the rule might have a greater impact than the very, very few situations where it might make sense. Also gives the team a bit more room for strategy...we play Edmonton tomorrow night? No need to appeal. We know it's a totally warranted suspension, but we play Chicago tomorrow, and then don't play again for 4 days when we play the Oilers...please appeal, but then go ahead and drop it.
That's how it works in baseball and it doesn't seem to create a huge issue. It's not like guys are eyeing up the schedule thinking "hey I could do something to get a 3 game suspension here because we roll into Cincinnati this weekend".
Without allowing a player to play while the appeal process is going on, the appeal process isn't very fair. Wideman will have sat out at least 12 games regardless of what the final ruling is, whether its 0, 5, 10, or 20 games. How is that a fair appeal process to the player?
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
"A subsequent appeal right to a neutral arbitrator will be available for suspensions of six (6) or more games. The neutral arbitrator shall have full remedial authority in respect of the matter. The standard of review will be whether the League’s finding of violation of the League Playing Rules and the penalty imposed were both supported by substantial evidence."
Assuming you got that from the Dept. of Player safety FAQ page, you needed to keep reading a little further:
Quote:
The Commissioner and the neutral arbitrator may consider new evidence relating to the incident even if such evidence was not available at the time of the initial supplementary discipline hearing and decision or, in the case of an appeal to the neutral arbitrator, at the time of the Commissioner’s hearing or decision.
It makes it less clear how the standard of review is supposed to apply if you allow new evidence that was not before the previous decision maker.
There was additional evidence before Bettman that was not in the original hearing...so Bettman ruled that the additional evidence did not persuade him that the previous decision was not based on clear and convincing evidence (I'm paraphrasing here).
Regardless, the arbitrator is supposed to decide whether Bettman's ruling was based on substantial evidence. This should be more like a standard of reasonableness than correctness. Which in appellate law means just because you might have ruled differently than the guy below you, you don't overrule if his decision was within the realm or reasonable outcomes based on the evidence.
To me it actually seems like a hybrid between reasonableness and correctness standards. Reasonableness means you need a palpable and overriding error, which commonly means completely ignoring or not understanding evidence on a crucial point. This one seems like Bettman needed "substantial evidence" to make his ruling.
As expected, looks like decision won't be known until after trade deadline has passed
John Shannon @JSportsnet
The 2 day Dennis Wideman appeal hearing ended in NYC yesterday. Doesn't sound like any decision will come quickly, certainly not by Monday.
Last edited by sureLoss; 02-27-2016 at 08:10 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
