Thread: Fire Feaster?
View Single Post
03-03-2013, 12:26 AM
Johnny Hoxville
**** Cancer
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,152
vCash: 2403
Originally Posted by beakerboy14 View Post
I guess I'm a little bit late with the above post, but I wanted to remind everyone that Jay Feaster has a background in law, not hockey. He's obviously going to look at things with a lawyers eye and thus we should probably be looking at things through a legal filter.

One of the basic rules of contract law is that it is assumed that two parties (barring an imbalance of bargaining power) tend to say what they mean when they create a contract. What is written down is the most important thing.

The argument as far as I can tell is centered around these statements from the MoU.

From the second sentence, the implication is that these lists are specific to a team and only the team that has the player on a reserve list or the RFA rights can sign the player without waivers. However, the first sentence explicitly says that all players on a reserve list or a RFA list will be exempt.

The real argument is whether it should be read as applying only to the team that signed them or to any signing. Ultimately, do you read the clause as ending in "by the club that owns the players rights" or as ending in "by any club". I'd be willing to make the argument that the second option makes much more sense as it is less restricting than the first. When we're forced to read in information, then it makes much more sense to read in the less restrictive option.

To be honest, I'm kind of sad that Colorado matched, not only because i'd love to have seen ROR on the flames, but also because it'd have been a really fun legal argument to watch.

TL;DR, I like what Feaster did. A bit of a gamble that he'd win the legal argument, but I like the chances.
For everyone defending Feaster, at the end of the day it really is black and white. Whether or not Feaster's interpretation of the NHL's rule was different or not, HE SHOULD OF GOT CLARIFICATION BEFORE MAKING THE DEAL. IMO, that's what it comes down to. Betting on our teams future with a gamble is not how an NHL should be run.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote