[News] Judge confirms Arbitrator's decision to cut down Wideman's suspension

[Robo]

how much money did Bettman waste on this

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by dino7c

10 was always the number...such much bad publicity for the league just for the sake of Gary's ego

Despite the simple-minded arguments of some fans, this was never about Bettman's ego. The league had a legitimate concern about the intent of the process. And if not for a silly contradiction that got through all the lawyers, I think they may well have prevailed.

[Jacks]

This wound has almost healed, let's not pick at the scab.

[David Struch]

It would have been fair for the Flames to receive a compensatory draft pick from the League.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Despite the simple-minded arguments of some fans, this was never about Bettman's ego. The league had a legitimate concern about the intent of the process. And if not for a silly contradiction that got through all the lawyers, I think they may well have prevailed.

I'm not sure the contradiction was "silly" so much as "unintended" or maybe "unanticipated". This happens in tax law surprisingly often and typically seems to be where the drafters of the law fail to consider somewhat opposing fact situations within a given single event or series. You can't have an "if this then that" when the "then that" cannot be carried out or ascertained. Such is what it seems to be here.

In this case I believe it *was* Bettman's ego talking: he should have known that the only question is whether the Arbitrator met the standard of review - but he couldn't let go of the fact that NDA's decision reversed his own.

Anyway - interesting reading and I hope this just puts it to bed. I'm pretty sure the language will be different in the next CBA.

[FlameFan21]

[TheAlpineOracle]

Whose going to have to cut Wideman that cheque? I'm assuming the NHL since the Flames were without his service for those games.

[calgarywinning]

You know what! I want Ref's to start calling the game fairly! He was high sticked and cut in the Pittsburgh game. Enough is enough. We either have professional ref's or we don't. RGMG. Price paid.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Whose going to have to cut Wideman that cheque? I'm assuming the NHL since the Flames were without his service for those games.

The Flames still had to pay him the money while he was suspended, but the money went to the NHLPA instead of to Wideman. So I assume the NHLPA would have to cut him that cheque.

[FlamesAddiction]

Good.

20 games was way too punitive. I actually didn't care that much until Bettman made his snippy "well, he still sat for 19 games so blah blah blah...".

At that point, Bettman made it a matter of "winning" the debate, and not administering a just punishment. It was pretty unprofessional and I am glad he has egg on his face now.

[CroFlames]

Flames as a club should be compensated, as should the player for sitting unjustly for 9 games.

A draft pick seems like fair compensation from the league.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Flames as a club should be compensated, as should the player for sitting unjustly for 9 games.

A draft pick seems like fair compensation from the league.

Wideman missing 9 extra games was enough compensation.

[Looch City]

They should build us a new arena as the compensation.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I'm not sure the contradiction was "silly" so much as "unintended" or maybe "unanticipated". This happens in tax law surprisingly often and typically seems to be where the drafters of the law fail to consider somewhat opposing fact situations within a given single event or series. You can't have an "if this then that" when the "then that" cannot be carried out or ascertained. Such is what it seems to be here.

In this case I believe it *was* Bettman's ego talking: he should have known that the only question is whether the Arbitrator met the standard of review - but he couldn't let go of the fact that NDA's decision reversed his own.

Anyway - interesting reading and I hope this just puts it to bed. I'm pretty sure the language will be different in the next CBA.

I'm sorry, but no. There is no chance whatsoever that the BOG and the league's lawyers would authorize a fishing expedition to salve Bettman's ego. That argument is absurd.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I'm pretty sure the language will be different in the next CBA.

Yeah, but since the ruling came down in favor of the players the league will have to give something up for it. Hey Gary... sure we can talk about making the language regarding the powers neutral arbitrator more specific, but first how about we talk about that Olympic participation?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Yeah, but since the ruling came down in favor of the players the league will have to give something up for it. Hey Gary... sure we can talk about making the language regarding the powers neutral arbitrator more specific, but first how about we talk about that Olympic participation?

That would almost be as silly as when that time the league said they'd send the players to the Olympics if they'd extend the CBA.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Still glad he served 19. It should have been 40 for that BS.

Hi Gary.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm sorry, but no. There is no chance whatsoever that the BOG and the league's lawyers would authorize a fishing expedition to salve Bettman's ego. That argument is absurd.

I really think he was working to appease the NHLOA.

[ToraToraTora]

I like this quote:

"On January 27, 2016, at a NHL game between the Calgary Flames and the Nashville Predators, Miikka Salomaki (a Predators' player) legally cross-checked Dennis Wideman (a player for the Flames), causing Wideman's head to hit the boards, and causing Wideman to suffer a concussion."

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm sorry, but no. There is no chance whatsoever that the BOG and the league's lawyers would authorize a fishing expedition to salve Bettman's ego. That argument is absurd.

Disagree on that. Gary has done lots for the BOG and owners: he's pummeled the players and the NHLPA into submission (at least for the last two CBAs), made the owners considerably richer while allowing them to "manage" funding streams that are not shared, expanded the game by getting half a billion from Vegas. Why wouldn't they do it to salve his ego? They have little to lose and - from past experience - everything to gain by supporting him.

As long as it's covered in the overall NHL operating budget, and I'm sure there is a large line item for legal, why not? It's not costing them anything they wouldn't have spent otherwise.