Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

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%
Voters: 738. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-04-2013, 01:51 PM   #1721
zamler
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trublmaker View Post
And Lowes hockey background seems to be working wonders up there, I'll take Kings business background thanks
Why? What good has his business background done to help the team win? What's interesting is right now, the Flames and Oilers are basically tied in the standings, so what makes you think K. King is so much better at his job exactly?
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 01:59 PM   #1722
opendoor
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403 View Post
Or, that the worst case scenario is that the NHL and NHLPA clarify the language and void the offer sheet, which is exactly what I expect would have happened.

I don't see any way that the horror situation people have created of losing the picks and the cash would have come to pass given the lack of clarity in the language. The NHL would prefer not to see its franchises crippled, particularly one with fairly significant clout, and the NHLPA doesn't want the clause interpreted in a manner that restricts players. The Flames clearly would have at minimum had a strong case for a contrary interpretation, and it would likely have been fully supported by the NHLPA. If the NHL voids the deal and works with the PA to clarify the intent they are much more likely to get a result that please everyone. If they dig in their heels they're going to piss off a valued ownership group, the PA and risk an arbitrator ruling against them. I know which one I'd say is more likely to occur.
I can't fathom a scenario where the NHLPA would take action to void a member's contract, especially when it's considered to be an overpayment.
opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Old 03-04-2013, 02:05 PM   #1723
Flash Walken
Lifetime Suspension
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
I can't fathom a scenario where the NHLPA would take action to void a member's contract, especially when it's considered to be an overpayment.
And will serve as a benchmark for overpayments for a good percentage of their membership.
Flash Walken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:08 PM   #1724
MolsonInBothHands
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier View Post
Which rules did he interpret differently from other GM's that got him this special advantage?
I will try to find the relevant CP discussions, I am getting swamped with work right now, so I can't spend anymore time searching for it. Off the top of my head, it was to do with the KHL transfer agreement I think, there was a point made that players could not be approached until they were done with World Championships. However, he didn't attend WCs due to a finger injury, so Calgary jumped in and made their pitch before other teams, who were waiting for the tournament to conclude.

I will try to find the details when I have a bit more time. My apologies.
MolsonInBothHands is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MolsonInBothHands For This Useful Post:
Old 03-04-2013, 02:08 PM   #1725
dino7c
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Exp:
Default

I think its pretty obvious there is an issue with the way the CBA is written and it will be clarified. The Avs could have told the whole world that an offer sheet would not be possible and saved themselves millions. Not sure how Feaster can be fired for this, not to mention he surely talked to the owners before he made the offer sheet.

This whole story is a bit of a media fabrication to be honest...just let it die
dino7c is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
Old 03-04-2013, 02:08 PM   #1726
valo403
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
I can't fathom a scenario where the NHLPA would take action to void a member's contract, especially when it's considered to be an overpayment.
A situation that leads to a number of other members seeing their movement impeded?

I guess it depends on what the PA intended that clause to say when it was drafted.
valo403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:09 PM   #1727
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moon View Post
If everyone means the Flames management, Avs management and ROR agents then I think that "everyone is stupid" is certainly a very good possibility.
You know, if they just didn't realize, I could probably forgive them a lot easier as let's be honest, most people didn't realize. Colorado certainly didn't, and he was (and is) their player..

It's the fact that Feaster says they thought about it, but they were prepared to fight after the fact... that is the part that bothers me.

I think Valo is probably correct that the NHL likely would have voided the deal and gave the Flames a mulligan if they indeed walked into a trap unknowingly, but the fact that Feaster admits that they pondered the double meaning and planned on fighting it, would probably kill a lot of the sympathy within the NHL head office. Feaster pretty much admitted that he wanted to exploit the MOU, which was drafted very quickly with the intention of getting everyone back to work. Not only did he virtually pull a "Lowe" and kill 2nd contracts before the ink was dry, but he was already looking for exploits.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:13 PM   #1728
moon
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lethbridge
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands View Post
I will try to find the relevant CP discussions, I am getting swamped with work right now, so I can't spend anymore time searching for it. Off the top of my head, it was to do with the KHL transfer agreement I think, there was a point made that players could not be approached until they were done with World Championships. However, he didn't attend WCs due to a finger injury, so Calgary jumped in and made their pitch before other teams, who were waiting for the tournament to conclude.

I will try to find the details when I have a bit more time. My apologies.
I thought Cerevenka said that he had other offers from other teams and had had offers in previous seasons that he didn't take. He may have been blowing smoke since he signed with Calgary but it seemed like he picked out Calgary not that he went with them because they were first.
moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:22 PM   #1729
opendoor
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403 View Post
A situation that leads to a number of other members seeing their movement impeded?

I guess it depends on what the PA intended that clause to say when it was drafted.
But how would the PA allowing the NHL to void O'Reilly's contract help anyone in the future? Presumably in that situation the NHL's original interpretation would stand going forward and any RFA who played outside the league after the season started would still need waivers to clear after an offer sheet. It'd basically be the PA sacrificing O'Reilly to give the Flames a get out of jail free card which is something I couldn't see ever happening.

Maybe the PA would pressure the league to interpret the clause as the Flames say they did, but like you said it would depend on what both sides intended when they put that in the MOU. I just don't see any way the PA would be party to one of their members having his contract voided. IMO that would open up just as big a can of worms as the Flames losing a draft pick from a lack of diligence.
opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:26 PM   #1730
Bend it like Bourgeois
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
You know, if they just didn't realize, I could probably forgive them a lot easier as let's be honest, most people didn't realize. Colorado certainly didn't, and he was (and is) their player..

It's the fact that Feaster says they thought about it, but they were prepared to fight after the fact... that is the part that bothers me.

I think Valo is probably correct that the NHL likely would have voided the deal and gave the Flames a mulligan if they indeed walked into a trap unknowingly, but the fact that Feaster admits that they pondered the double meaning and planned on fighting it, would probably kill a lot of the sympathy within the NHL head office. Feaster pretty much admitted that he wanted to exploit the MOU, which was drafted very quickly with the intention of getting everyone back to work. Not only did he virtually pull a "Lowe" and kill 2nd contracts before the ink was dry, but he was already looking for exploits.
I don't think feaster admits that.

The only thing the flames said is they have an interpretation different than what the league said after the fact.

Maybe it was finding a loophole. Maybe it was a flat out different reading.
Bend it like Bourgeois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:27 PM   #1731
Flash Walken
Lifetime Suspension
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
But how would the PA allowing the NHL to void O'Reilly's contract help anyone in the future? Presumably in that situation the NHL's original interpretation would stand going forward and any RFA who played outside the league after the season started would still need waivers to clear after an offer sheet. It'd basically be the PA sacrificing O'Reilly to give the Flames a get out of jail free card which is something I couldn't see ever happening.

Maybe the PA would pressure the league to interpret the clause as the Flames say they did, but like you said it would depend on what both sides intended when they put that in the MOU. I just don't see any way the PA would be party to one of their members having his contract voided. IMO that would open up just as big a can of worms as the Flames losing a draft pick from a lack of diligence.
Not to mention the appeal that would come out of columbus to say, "Hey, we just got screwed out of Ryan O'Reilly."
Flash Walken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:34 PM   #1732
Vinny01
Franchise Player
 
Vinny01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CGY
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
But how would the PA allowing the NHL to void O'Reilly's contract help anyone in the future? Presumably in that situation the NHL's original interpretation would stand going forward and any RFA who played outside the league after the season started would still need waivers to clear after an offer sheet. It'd basically be the PA sacrificing O'Reilly to give the Flames a get out of jail free card which is something I couldn't see ever happening.

Maybe the PA would pressure the league to interpret the clause as the Flames say they did, but like you said it would depend on what both sides intended when they put that in the MOU. I just don't see any way the PA would be party to one of their members having his contract voided. IMO that would open up just as big a can of worms as the Flames losing a draft pick from a lack of diligence.

I would think the PA would be pushing to get the player to play for the team he signed for if his team let his rights go for draft picks. There would likely be stronger language written into the actual CBA but this would be treated as a one off case due to lack of clarity in the situation. Columbus doesn't have assets at play and considering a Sportsnet reporter uncovered this the next day and not something the league released right away makes me think there would have been a bit of a get out of jail free for the Flames. O'Reilly gets to go to the team he signed with, and Colorado gets the picks that were entitled to them for not matching. Columbus had nothing to lose or gain in the original transaction. I just doubt the league and PA would have totally screwed the Flames on this had the Avs taken the draft pick compensation.
Vinny01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:35 PM   #1733
Phanuthier
Franchise Player
 
Phanuthier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Silicon Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands View Post
I will try to find the relevant CP discussions, I am getting swamped with work right now, so I can't spend anymore time searching for it. Off the top of my head, it was to do with the KHL transfer agreement I think, there was a point made that players could not be approached until they were done with World Championships. However, he didn't attend WCs due to a finger injury, so Calgary jumped in and made their pitch before other teams, who were waiting for the tournament to conclude.

I will try to find the details when I have a bit more time. My apologies.
No, this is good. My memory has been refreshed, i remember reading about it now, so its all good. Kudos to mgm for getting first to on this one.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Phanuthier is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Phanuthier For This Useful Post:
Old 03-04-2013, 02:35 PM   #1734
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois View Post
I don't think feaster admits that.

The only thing the flames said is they have an interpretation different than what the league said after the fact.

Maybe it was finding a loophole. Maybe it was a flat out different reading.
There is no way a lawyer of his calibre wouldn't have read it and realized it wasn't unclear at the very least and warrant further investigation. Especially when you read further in the document and it becomes more clear that his definition wasn't the intended one.

If Feaster thought it was crystal clear in his favour, I would be amazed and little scared.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Old 03-04-2013, 02:39 PM   #1735
Vulcan
Franchise Player
 
Vulcan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken View Post
Yep.

I think it's prudent to no longer refer to it as 'smoke', either. Bob McKenzie last year stated on national television that the Flames have maybe the most hands on ownership of any team in the league, and Eric Duhatschek said 2 or 3 days ago on local Calgary radio that King, "basically runs hockey operations,".

When two of the most respected journalists in hockey are telling you something, you'd have to be a child with your fingers in your ears not to accept it.

It's not smoke, it's a full blown 5 alarm'er.
Yeah, I'd rather see King fired but it won't happen while he has a fall guy.
Vulcan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:39 PM   #1736
valo403
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
You know, if they just didn't realize, I could probably forgive them a lot easier as let's be honest, most people didn't realize. Colorado certainly didn't, and he was (and is) their player..

It's the fact that Feaster says they thought about it, but they were prepared to fight after the fact... that is the part that bothers me.

I think Valo is probably correct that the NHL likely would have voided the deal and gave the Flames a mulligan if they indeed walked into a trap unknowingly, but the fact that Feaster admits that they pondered the double meaning and planned on fighting it, would probably kill a lot of the sympathy within the NHL head office. Feaster pretty much admitted that he wanted to exploit the MOU, which was drafted very quickly with the intention of getting everyone back to work. Not only did he virtually pull a "Lowe" and kill 2nd contracts before the ink was dry, but he was already looking for exploits.
The funny thing about that is if he found one that worked we'd be praising him for digging through everything and finding a loophole.
valo403 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Old 03-04-2013, 02:41 PM   #1737
Bend it like Bourgeois
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
There is no way a lawyer of his calibre wouldn't have read it and realized it wasn't unclear at the very least and warrant further investigation. Especially when you read further in the document and it becomes more clear that his definition wasn't the intended one.

If Feaster thought it was crystal clear in his favour, I would be amazed and little scared.
I think everyone's gone round the horn enough on that so to each their own.

My point was that he does not admit to exploiting a loophole. He only says they had a different view.
Bend it like Bourgeois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:48 PM   #1738
valo403
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
But how would the PA allowing the NHL to void O'Reilly's contract help anyone in the future? Presumably in that situation the NHL's original interpretation would stand going forward and any RFA who played outside the league after the season started would still need waivers to clear after an offer sheet. It'd basically be the PA sacrificing O'Reilly to give the Flames a get out of jail free card which is something I couldn't see ever happening.

Maybe the PA would pressure the league to interpret the clause as the Flames say they did, but like you said it would depend on what both sides intended when they put that in the MOU. I just don't see any way the PA would be party to one of their members having his contract voided. IMO that would open up just as big a can of worms as the Flames losing a draft pick from a lack of diligence.
Well I guess my thinking is that if the ultimate decision was in favor of Feaster's interpretation then everyone wins. O'Reilly gets the offer, the Avs get the opportunity to match and it's business as usual. Where it gets tricky, and I didn't really consider the sacrifice of O'Reilly here and that's a good point, is if it goes the other way.

I think if the PA wanted it to read as Feaster does there's a reason for it, and that basis isn't going to be so insubstantial that they'll let it go over one player. But you're right, there would be some divided interests there.
valo403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 03:10 PM   #1739
afc wimbledon
Franchise Player
 
afc wimbledon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinny01 View Post
I would think the PA would be pushing to get the player to play for the team he signed for if his team let his rights go for draft picks. There would likely be stronger language written into the actual CBA but this would be treated as a one off case due to lack of clarity in the situation. Columbus doesn't have assets at play and considering a Sportsnet reporter uncovered this the next day and not something the league released right away makes me think there would have been a bit of a get out of jail free for the Flames. O'Reilly gets to go to the team he signed with, and Colorado gets the picks that were entitled to them for not matching. Columbus had nothing to lose or gain in the original transaction. I just doubt the league and PA would have totally screwed the Flames on this had the Avs taken the draft pick compensation.
I would expect the PA, like any union, would go to their member and ask him the equivalent of 'brother O'Reilly, on behalf of the Union executive I'd like to know which fithy capitalist team do you wish to slave for' or whatever the syntax is that pertains to 22 year old multi millionaires at which they would likely follow his directions, it is also always in the unions interest to uphold waivers as the waiver system is very usefull to them not just to increase wages but to also reduce the teams power to punish players with the minors or not playing etc. on top of that several teams that would have a chance at the waiver would sue the crap out of the league if it attempted to arbiterally stop the waiver.

The Flames might have won in court or arbitration but the league would have had to take it to that level just to sheild themselves from counter suits.

Last edited by afc wimbledon; 03-04-2013 at 03:15 PM.
afc wimbledon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 06:40 PM   #1740
FAN
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Exp:
Default

Keep in mind that the existence of an exception to the waiver rule that allows teams to resign their RFAs (that have played in Europe after the NHL season started) without having the player to pass through waivers is already a change to the old rule where no exceptions were allowed. My guess is that the PA would not have sided with Feaster on this one.
FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:48 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy