|
View Poll Results: Should Jay Feaster be fired?
|
|
Yes he's the head of the hockey department
|
   
|
445 |
60.30% |
|
No one of his reports are in charge of details like this
|
  
|
107 |
14.50% |
|
No the offers sheet wasn't effective so no loss to the team
|
  
|
186 |
25.20% |
03-01-2013, 01:53 PM
|
#641
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Neither here nor there
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Split98
There's 30 pages here, and so far I haven't seen anyone give Feaster the benefit of the doubt.
We were all confused about his $1M salary this year with the $2.5M signing bonus and salary ramping up next year. How is no one considering that part of the agreement with ROR was that he stayed in the A this year and played up next year? (And sorry if I missed someone else bringing this up)
Seems pretty likely. A $1M salary (he won't receive anyway) has a low cap impact for the team, and the $2.5M compensates what he would have made this year playing for the Flames if there wasn't this waivers issue.
IMO, Feaster knew all about it, and ROR was perfectly happy to skip this season and join the Flames next season.
|
According to Bob Mckenzie he would have had to go through waivers regardless
__________________
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity" -Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:53 PM
|
#642
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
It's been mentioned several times but the Flames cannot do this. They have to put him on waivers right away and cannot try and hide him (suspension namely).
|
Gotcha.
Well there goes my optimistic POV.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:53 PM
|
#643
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 403
|
A GM admitting the mistake is like an athlete getting busted for performance enhancing drugs and admitting it right away. It's not gonna happen. Feaster will apologize to Oprah a few years into retirement.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:53 PM
|
#644
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
I like how they say their interpretation continues to be different.
Sorry Feaster, you were wrong, you are wrong, stubbornly clinging to the wrong stance on something doesn't make it right.
I wonder how the Flames would have spun this if Daly hadn't of already clarified that we f'd up.
|
Umm no, that's not true at all. Unless you are highly versed in the CBA, including all of the accompanying documents pertinent to an interpretation of it, you have no idea if he (and the NHLPA and O'Reilly's reps) were wrong.
Daly is not an Emperor, his word is not final.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:53 PM
|
#645
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Split98
There's 30 pages here, and so far I haven't seen anyone give Feaster the benefit of the doubt.
We were all confused about his $1M salary this year with the $2.5M signing bonus and salary ramping up next year. How is no one considering that part of the agreement with ROR was that he stayed in the A this year and played up next year? (And sorry if I missed someone else bringing this up)
Seems pretty likely. A $1M salary (he won't receive anyway) has a low cap impact for the team, and the $2.5M compensates what he would have made this year playing for the Flames if there wasn't this waivers issue.
IMO, Feaster knew all about it, and ROR was perfectly happy to skip this season and join the Flames next season.
|
1. Feaster has come right out and said he interpreted the rule differently than the NHL's interpretation.
2. You can't just have a player "sit out". If Colorado didn't match, O'Reilly would have gone straight to waivers regardless of Calgary's plan for him.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:53 PM
|
#646
|
|
Our Jessica Fletcher
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Split98
There's 30 pages here, and so far I haven't seen anyone give Feaster the benefit of the doubt.
We were all confused about his $1M salary this year with the $2.5M signing bonus and salary ramping up next year. How is no one considering that part of the agreement with ROR was that he stayed in the A this year and played up next year? (And sorry if I missed someone else bringing this up)
Seems pretty likely. A $1M salary (he won't receive anyway) has a low cap impact for the team, and the $2.5M compensates what he would have made this year playing for the Flames if there wasn't this waivers issue.
IMO, Feaster knew all about it, and ROR was perfectly happy to skip this season and join the Flames next season.
|
Bob McK already commented that teams are not allowed to offer sheet a player, then not put him on the roster.
If Colorado hadn't matched, ROR was going on waivers. Nothing Feaster could do about it.
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:54 PM
|
#647
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
It's been mentioned several times but the Flames cannot do this. They have to put him on waivers right away and cannot try and hide him (suspension namely).
|
Still the way it is worded is certainly not clear so it would definitely go to court if the Av's did not match. It would be the NHL vs the NHLPA and the Flames.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:54 PM
|
#648
|
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cowtown
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlh2640
It was a stupid technicality ! I honestly cant blame him as I am sure most other GMs didnt know either.
|
It was a technicality that could have cost the Flames a first and third round pick with nothing in return. Thankfully it didn't work out that way, but if it did it would definitely not be seen as a small issue...
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:54 PM
|
#649
|
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlh2640
It was a stupid technicality ! I honestly cant blame him as I am sure most other GMs didnt know either.
|
It's not a stupid technicality.
It's a rule in the NHL CBA and has been for 9 years and most recently a new exemption was added to the rule which excluded a teams own RFA's.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:54 PM
|
#650
|
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Behind you.
|
Yes, his job to know the rules and throw King in as well.
No draft pick until 4th round! out $2.5MM and no O'Reilly the size of the error would have been collossal.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:55 PM
|
#651
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
If Flames keep Feaster after this, they're really going to be testing my will to continue being a fan of this team. Now I know what it's like to support the Islanders. Yeesh.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:55 PM
|
#652
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sector 7G
|
There's more drama here than a junior high school dance.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to habernac For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:55 PM
|
#653
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by malcolmk14
Neil Smith on the Fan 960 (Former NHL General Manager)
on the statement from the Flames: "Of course they're going to defend their position, they don't want to look like they were not knowledgeable in this situation.
Bill Daly and Gary Bettman wrote the CBA, Daly's interpretation of it is more likely to be correct than Jay Feaster (paraphrase)
|
In part, but so did the NHLPA, and they apparently side with Feaster.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:55 PM
|
#654
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
Bob McK already commented that teams are not allowed to offer sheet a player, then not put him on the roster.
If Colorado hadn't matched, ROR was going on waivers. Nothing Feaster could do about it.
|
they could trade to have him on their RFA list
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:56 PM
|
#655
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Umm no, that's not true at all. Unless you are highly versed in the CBA, including all of the accompanying documents pertinent to an interpretation of it, you have no idea if he (and the NHLPA and O'Reilly's reps) were wrong.
Daly is not an Emperor, his word is not final.
|
Regardless of who's right, it's a massive oversight to not check with the league on the new language to see how they interpret it. Look at the Radulov situation last year. Nashville made a point of clearing it with the league before making any moves because one could argue that he should've been subject to waivers. They didn't just bring him in and hope for the best.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:57 PM
|
#656
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
It's not a stupid technicality.
It's a rule in the NHL CBA and has been for 9 years and most recently a new exemption was added to the rule which excluded a teams own RFA's.
|
Except it is not clearly written that it only pertains to a teams own RFA's.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:57 PM
|
#657
|
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlh2640
It was a stupid technicality ! I honestly cant blame him as I am sure most other GMs didnt know either.
|
I understand, but that isn't good enough. You are dealing with big dollars and the possibility that we could have ended up without a 1st and 3rd round pick, and a player that wouldn't end up suiting up for the Flames. I am sorry, but for all the jabs we take at the team up North, this oversight by management is indefensible. They are only saving face right now and saying they disagree, but they don't provide their interpretation, only that it is different from the leagues. Feaster isn't the only one that ok'd this offer sheet, but he is ultimately responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:57 PM
|
#658
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlh2640
It was a stupid technicality ! I honestly cant blame him as I am sure most other GMs didnt know either.
|
Does not matter if other gm's knew or not. At the end of the day only Calgary's name will be stapled to this fiasco. Flames could not afford bad PR.
This will hurt them in the UFA market. Agents are going to tell their clients that Calgary is a mess. Considering the do not want to go rebuild mode, this hurts them.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:57 PM
|
#659
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Flames Town
|
A part of me wants to lose the picks and the player.
Just so frustrated with this team, maybe then our management and ownership can get their heads out of their behinds.
Honestly, it's pathetic and embarassing being a Flames fan right now. Those of you who are going to sugarcoat and tell me to get off the bandwagon, screw off! There is no bandwagon to climb as the wheels have come off and 28 other teams (other than the Islanders) are mocking us for the past 2 seasons.
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:58 PM
|
#660
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by malcolmk14
Neil Smith on the Fan 960 (Former NHL General Manager)
on the statement from the Flames: "Of course they're going to defend their position, they don't want to look like they were not knowledgeable in this situation.
Bill Daly and Gary Bettman wrote the CBA, Daly's interpretation of it is more likely to be correct than Jay Feaster (paraphrase)
|
If Feaster proved it to be ambiguous though, wouldn't any court rule against the side that wrote it (in this case, Daly) in accordance to Contra Proferentem? His interpretation may be more correct, but unless it's unambiguous in the CBA, it's pretty meaningless.
Not trying to be antagonistic, but that's my interpretation of law. I could be wrong here.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to kirant For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13 AM.
|
|
