[News] Flames offersheet O'Reilly UPDATE: Avs match

[timbit]

One would hope that this is an erroneous point by Sportsnet. However, should it be true, it is unacceptable that Feaster was unaware of ROR playing in Russia after start of season and subsequent waiver provision.

Surely the Calgary media will be all over this and it will be clarified shortly.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Article is bunk, Chris Johnson needs to get a reliable source or read the CBA.
Summary of changes in the new CBA from NHLPA website:

http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/P...ms-1-10-13.pdf
13.23 states:
O'Reilly doesn't have to go through waivers

Reading that, I think Sportsnet's report accurately reflects the intent of the rule. It says that "all players on a club's reserve list or restricted free agent list" is exempt from waivers. O'Reilly was not on Calgary's reserve list or RFA list. The point of clarity - that a team that acquires an RFA who played in Europe via trade will be able to sign without waivers indicates strongly that the only way we could bring O'Reilly into our lineup without waivers would have been to trade for him first.

[d_phaneuf]

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
Good one, forgot about this MT @reporterchris: CAL was in danger of losing picks AND O’Reilly if COL didn’t match…http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2013/..._ryan_oreilly/ …"

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
Some of you are wondering about the new CBA saying this does not apply to RFA's. The language sure makes it sound like that's only if...

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
only the origina team (in this case, COL) does the signing. Irrelevant now, but would have been a great battle for the lawyers.

[Insta]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Article is bunk, Chris Johnson needs to get a reliable source or read the CBA.
Summary of changes in the new CBA from NHLPA website:

http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/P...ms-1-10-13.pdf
13.23 states:
O'Reilly doesn't have to go through waivers

Are you sure you know what you're talking about? The first part of your post wouldn't apply to ROR because he was on Colorado's RFA List not the Flames'. Reading the 2nd part, doesn't that say the player has to go through waivers in order to play?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Stupid eklund

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It already has been clarified. You must have missed the entire last page and still wanted to get your shots in?

Daly clarified this in January already.
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?p...2#.UTDezzAe2So

Makes sense as that rule was kind of silly.

[Geeoff]

The wording in the CBA is rather vague. I imagine that the NHLPA would be firmly in Feaster's corner on that one. No doubt, the wording will change.

[AR_Six]

You guys realize that what Daly thinks is meaningless right? The wording of the document is the only thing that matters.

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
Some of you are wondering about the new CBA saying this does not apply to RFA's. The language sure makes it sound like that's only if...

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
only the origina team (in this case, COL) does the signing. Irrelevant now, but would have been a great battle for the lawyers.

EXACTLY. As usual Friedman right on point.

[Sakari]

Do we actually think Feaster didn't check to see what O'Reilly was doing or where he was playing before offering to pay him 10 million dollars? LOL!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

You guys realize that what Daly thinks is meaningless right? The wording of the document is the only thing that matters.

EXACTLY. As usual Friedman right on point.

What Bill Daly - Deputy Commissioner and chief legal officer of the NHL - has to say is meaningless?

Good luck with that.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

You guys realize that what Daly thinks is meaningless right? The wording of the document is the only thing that matters.

Not if he is advising NHL teams that is how the league interpreted the rule.

[AR_Six]

^I imagine that a team like CBJ, if it wanted O'Reilly on that deal, could argue this and attempt to compel compliance with the CBA whereby they would have the chance to claim him. Same with BUF, or anyone else who'd have that chance.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

What Bill Daly - Deputy Commissioner and chief legal officer of the NHL - has to say is meaningless?

Good luck with that.

Yes. This is how contract law works. Daly does not get to decide what the agreement says after it's been concluded. If this was challenged, it would go to court, and the judge would look at the document. What Daly thinks it means would not resolve the matter, the wording in the document would.

[d_phaneuf]

the CBA is the word of law basically, Bill Daly's interpretation of it is not

if for example Columbus really wanted ROR, and it sounds like the wording is fishy at best as Friedman is usually spot on, I would imagine they lawyer up and at least try and see if they can get him for free

[puckluck2]

Bill Daly was right, but he was talking about the AVS not the Flames.

Flames dodged a bullet.

[Insta]

"All Players on a Club’s Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from the
application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid season signing."

If this really is the official wording, it needs to be clarified. ROR was never on the RFA list of the Flames...

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^I imagine that a team like CBJ, if it wanted O'Reilly on that deal, could argue this and attempt to compel compliance with the CBA whereby they would have the chance to claim him. Same with BUF, or anyone else who'd have that chance.

Yes. This is how contract law works. Daly does not get to decide what the agreement says after it's been concluded. If this was challenged, it would go to court, and the judge would look at the document. What Daly thinks it means would not resolve the matter, the wording in the document would.

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

the CBA is the word of law basically, Bill Daly's interpretation of it is not

if for example Columbus really wanted ROR, and it sounds like the wording is fishy at best as Friedman is usually spot on, I would imagine they lawyer up and at least try and see if they can get him for free

It would be settled by the NHLPA and NHL long before it ever got anywhere near a court.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

You guys realize that what Daly thinks is meaningless right? The wording of the document is the only thing that matters.

EXACTLY. As usual Friedman right on point.

Are you really stupid enough to argue that what Bill Daly thinks about the CBA is meaningless, yet what Elliott Friedman thinks is relevant?

C'mon man. That's just trolling. If you want to cast doubt on Daly's comments, point out that they come from Eklund and presently lack verification from a legitimate source.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

What Bill Daly - Deputy Commissioner and chief legal officer of the NHL - has to say is meaningless?

Good luck with that.

It's meaningless from a Flames perspective. It seems that him going back to the Avs was the impetus for being waiver ineligible.

[LouCypher]

I would think if someone in the position of Daly advised a team on a legal matter like this as it pertains to the CBA and then it turns out he was wrong....I would think the team that was advised by the NHL that a particular rule means:A when it actually means:B would have the right to seek compensation from the league.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Insta

"All Players on a Club’s Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from the
application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid season signing."

If this really is the official wording, it needs to be clarified. ROR was never on the RFA list of the Flames...

It does need to be clarified.. but even as it is, it doesn't say anything about a player requiring to be signed by the team who has him on their RFA list.