View Single Post
03-01-2013, 06:38 PM
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Originally Posted by
Live in the Now
Legally the Flames interpretation of that rule is pretty sound IMO.
The thing is, risking your picks on a ruling the governing body believes to be interpreted the opposite way is a foolish decision.
That's why it seems that the argument is that the definition is open for interpretation, which is what lawyers are great at arguing for/against.
My interpretation of the language (or the intention of it) is that a RFA re-signing with the club he is property of would be waiver exempt. However, a club signing another team's RFA does not gain this waiver exemption.
The language does leave some room for interpretation, but hopefully this isn't a case that has to be presented in front of an arbitrator or judge to define the language.
View Public Profile
Ziggy Stardust's albums
Find More Posts by Ziggy Stardust