Who was the other team that offer sheeted RoR back in 2013?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The inexcusable failure was the Flames not seeking a clear ruling on what would happen BEFORE making the offer sheet.

Yes indeed. As I said, accountants and tax lawyers do this all the time with CRA - they seek an advance tax ruling. They don't always get a clear answer but they make the attempt. It's also done with the competition bureau. And possibly the securities commission.

[Jacks]

Personally I don't think the Flames knew that O'Reilly had played in the KHL when they made the offer sheet. His agent said he didnt' know, O'Reilly was listed on the KHL roster sheet with a different spelling (can't find evidece now but remember seeing a picture of the roster list at the time). If the Avalance had known they would have made sure all teams were aware since it would have destroyed O'Reilly's bargaining power. I think they tried to cover their asses after the fact but didn't know at the time. Several teams inquired and there was more than one offer sheet so it makes you wonder.That would also explain why they didn't get clarification from the league.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The inexcusable failure was the Flames not seeking a clear ruling on what would happen BEFORE making the offer sheet.

So why are we excusing the other team that gave O'Reilly an offer sheet?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So why are we excusing the other team that gave O'Reilly an offer sheet?

We shouldn’t be

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes indeed. As I said, accountants and tax lawyers do this all the time with CRA - they seek an advance tax ruling.

Actually, typically not. It takes forever to get, the CRA isn't bound by their own rulings, and it's mostly a good way of saying to the people whose job it is to reassess you that "hey we're thinking of doing this slightly shady transaction that might not be strictly legal". It's usually a better idea not to focus the tax authorities' collective gaze on you at that moment.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

We shouldn’t be

So… we're meant to believe that NHL franchises regularly hire idiots to staff their legal departments?

[Press Level]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So… we're meant to believe that NHL franchises regularly hire idiots to staff their legal departments?

They did five years ago, apparently.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Press Level

They did five years ago, apparently.

Next step: The very same idiots, plus their counterparts in the NHLPA, drew up the CBA in the first place.

We're still supposed to buy all this?

Remember, the null hypothesis is that the language was ambiguous, and common sense dictated that the NHL did not actually mean teams to sign RFAs, give up huge assets in compensation, and walk away with absolutely nothing.

Still betting against the null hypothesis, and in favour of universal incompetence?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So… we're meant to believe that NHL franchises regularly hire idiots to staff their legal departments?

I actually think the NHL franchises don't have dedicated in house counsel, aside from guys that happen to have law degrees (like Feaster, Edwards, etc.). NHL teams seem to have thin management ranks - they actually aren't huge as far as staff goes, considering the revenues, etc.

The Flames don't seem to have a chief legal officer at present (it's usually a VP level, but at least as high as a personnel director, who is listed):

https://www.nhl.com/flames/team/executive

[Jay Random]

Most businesses don't have dedicated in-house counsel. That doesn't mean they don't have solicitors on retainer.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Most businesses don't have dedicated in-house counsel. That doesn't mean they don't have solicitors on retainer.

Well of course. My old firm was the Flames outside counsel and still may be for all I know - we had both a Hotchkiss and an Edwards connection. But frankly, they never asked about CBA issues. The issues they use outside lawyers for are actual lawsuits, severance deals for management (not player issues), and contractual stuff (comments on suite lease provisions etc.).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The inexcusable failure was the Flames not seeking a clear ruling on what would happen BEFORE making the offer sheet.

See, I think that was a feature, not a bug. The Flames (and this other team, evidently) thought they could pull a fast one. The lack of a clear ruling is what they were counting on to try and sneak him through without waivers.

Fortunately, we don't actually know how this would have turned out with the inevitable conflicts and arbitration. Though I suspect the Flames would have lost both O'Reilly and the pick (Monahan) in the end, so Feaster most certainly deserves criticism for that entire scenario.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Though I suspect the Flames would have lost both O'Reilly and the pick (Monahan) in the end,

That's not only the worst-case scenario, that's the idiot case scenario. I defy you to find a judge or arbitrator who thinks that the first party to a contract should pay for the asset but not receive it, the second party should receive the payment, and the asset itself should be shipped off to a third party not even involved in the deal.

The intent of the rule in question was to keep teams from burying free agents in European leagues and then calling them back just in time for the playoffs. It dates back to the old ‘Ruotsalainen rule’, named after Reijo Ruotsalainen, the flashy Finnish defenceman who played only 26 regular-season games with the Edmonton Oilers but won two Stanley Cups there. It was never intended to prevent teams from signing RFAs to offer sheets, nor to punish those teams by making them pay the going compensation without even getting the player. Nor was it intended to punish RFAs for signing offer sheets by making them ineligible to play for the rest of the season.

[Resolute 14]

Agreed Jay, but as we saw from the Wideman arbitration case, how it is actually written matters more than the intent of the CBA. And in this case, Feaster was trying to do an end-run around a CBA that was only really half formulated on the back of a napkin. Anything that was not spelled out in the Memorandum of Understanding would almost certainly have defaulted back to the previous CBA. So paying a lot to receive literally nothing would have been the most likely outcome in my view.

I'd guess that there will be a specific exemption contemplated for a similar scenario in the next lockout.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Agreed Jay, but as we saw from the Wideman arbitration case, how it is actually written matters more than the intent of the CBA. And in this case, Feaster was trying to do an end-run around a CBA that was only really half formulated on the back of a napkin. Anything that was not spelled out in the Memorandum of Understanding would almost certainly have defaulted back to the previous CBA.

Actually, the previous CBA did not contain the exception for players already on a club's reserve list. And that CBA was no longer in force in any case. The entire dispute was about the interpretation of a clause that had been added specifically in the new CBA.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Actually, the previous CBA did not contain the exception for players already on a club's reserve list. And that CBA was no longer in force in any case. The entire dispute was about the interpretation of a clause that had been added specifically in the new CBA.

While its true that the old rule didn't provide exceptions, the exceptions in the new CBA didn't apply to ROR anyway - he wasn't on Calgary's Reserve or RFA lists. The "ambiguous" provision was in the transition provisions in the MOU.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

While its true that the old rule didn't provide exceptions, the exceptions in the new CBA didn't apply to ROR anyway - he wasn't on Calgary's Reserve or RFA lists. The "ambiguous" provision was in the transition provisions in the MOU.

Yes, and I think I can tell you where the ambiguity was:

This section shall not apply to a Player on the Reserve List or Restricted Free Agent List of an NHL Club

Note, an NHL club. It didn't need to be the club that actually held his rights, just any NHL club. Since he was on Colorado's reserve list, on this construction of the matter, any other team was eligible to sign the player without putting him through waivers, provided they paid the normal compensation.

I believe you will find that these words, immediately following the above, were added (or edited) to remove the ambiguity from the final document:

with whom the Player is signing an NHL SPC

For the avoidance of doubt, the language of the first quote should probably have been altered to ‘the NHL Club’, emphasizing that one and only one particular club had the right to claim this exception with respect to any given player.

Remember, the original purpose of the rule was to prevent teams from ‘parking’ UFAs in Europe and suddenly signing them to contracts in time for the playoffs. The exception was left out of the 2005 CBA altogether, but when it was put back into the current CBA, it was phrased in terms that might reasonably lead experienced NHL team executives to believe that the clause was thereby restricted to its original function. Not just one, but several teams made efforts to sign O'Reilly on this basis.

When that many experienced and professional people misconstrue a clause in a contract, the fault generally lies with the language of the contract itself.

Now remember that the MOU was the only document available at the time that the Flames (and other teams) were negotiating with O'Reilly, and you have an easy recipe for the goat rope that occurred. It is not necessary to impute gross incompetence to any of the parties.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, and I think I can tell you where the ambiguity was:



Note, an NHL club. It didn't need to be the club that actually held his rights, just any NHL club. Since he was on Colorado's reserve list, on this construction of the matter, any other team was eligible to sign the player without putting him through waivers, provided they paid the normal compensation.

I believe you will find that these words, immediately following the above, were added (or edited) to remove the ambiguity from the final document:



For the avoidance of doubt, the language of the first quote should probably have been altered to ‘the NHL Club’, emphasizing that one and only one particular club had the right to claim this exception with respect to any given player.

Remember, the original purpose of the rule was to prevent teams from ‘parking’ UFAs in Europe and suddenly signing them to contracts in time for the playoffs. The exception was left out of the 2005 CBA altogether, but when it was put back into the current CBA, it was phrased in terms that might reasonably lead experienced NHL team executives to believe that the clause was thereby restricted to its original function. Not just one, but several teams made efforts to sign O'Reilly on this basis.

When that many experienced and professional people misconstrue a clause in a contract, the fault generally lies with the language of the contract itself.

Now remember that the MOU was the only document available at the time that the Flames (and other teams) were negotiating with O'Reilly, and you have an easy recipe for the goat rope that occurred. It is not necessary to impute gross incompetence to any of the parties.

You have to read a provision in whole, not just one word (ie "an"). In the context of the entire provision, a judge would likely interpret the exemption for waivers as belonging to the NHL Club that had the existing rights. Not any old NHL Club, otherwise it doesn't make much sense to have the exemption.

At the end of the day, how easy is it to make sure what the NHL thinks before signing?

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's not only the worst-case scenario, that's the idiot case scenario. I defy you to find a judge or arbitrator who thinks that the first party to a contract should pay for the asset but not receive it, the second party should receive the payment, and the asset itself should be shipped off to a third party not even involved in the deal.

The intent of the rule in question was to keep teams from burying free agents in European leagues and then calling them back just in time for the playoffs. It dates back to the old ‘Ruotsalainen rule’, named after Reijo Ruotsalainen, the flashy Finnish defenceman who played only 26 regular-season games with the Edmonton Oilers but won two Stanley Cups there. It was never intended to prevent teams from signing RFAs to offer sheets, nor to punish those teams by making them pay the going compensation without even getting the player. Nor was it intended to punish RFAs for signing offer sheets by making them ineligible to play for the rest of the season.

Right here. This is it. Other than arguing like we are in court or whatever. It’s an entertainment industry and rules are made so people do not abuse or take advantage of it. This is the absolute best answer and should be used whenever this comes up again.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You have to read a provision in whole, not just one word (ie "an"). In the context of the entire provision, a judge would likely interpret the exemption for waivers as belonging to the NHL Club that had the existing rights. Not any old NHL Club, otherwise it doesn't make much sense to have the exemption.

Any old NHL club can sign an eligible RFA to an offer sheet, at which point he is no longer on the protected list of his former club. That is the only circumstance in which this problem arises, and the player's former club is already entitled to compensation. You are arguing, once again, that a team should be liable to pay compensation and yet not receive the player that they signed. I doubt whether any judge is going to agree with such an interpretation absent strong confirmatory language in the terms of the agreement.