HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Anaheim Ducks
Notices

Will Anaheim file tampering charges against the Edmonton Oilers?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-01-2012, 02:47 PM
  #1
indigobuffalo
Portage and Main
 
indigobuffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,864
vCash: 500
Will Anaheim file tampering charges against the Edmonton Oilers?

I don't want to come off as one of the bitter fans of the 29 teams that got snubbed by Justin Schultz, but have there been any continued talks from Anaheim regarding the potential option of filing tampering charges?

Sorry, I couldn't find a better sourced article for quotes:

Quote:
However on Friday [May 25th, 2012], Michael Russo who covers the Minnesota Wild for the Star Tribune mentioned on the radio that he thinks a team may have already gotten to Schultz, and that Anaheim may go after them with a tampering charge.
Especially since in the way everything has been presented, it sounds as though Schultz' mind was set on Edmonton from the get-go, and that the "list" and "The Decision" were largely for show...

indigobuffalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 02:49 PM
  #2
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 24,444
vCash: 50
That's probably something we'll hear about a little later. If they are going to file tampering charges, they are going to want to start off on the right foot with a good cause for investigation. Murray is probably focused on free agency. He'll either wait until it cools down, or pass it off to someone else in the organization to get things started.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 02:51 PM
  #3
indigobuffalo
Portage and Main
 
indigobuffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
That's probably something we'll hear about a little later. If they are going to file tampering charges, they are going to want to start off on the right foot with a good cause for investigation. Murray is probably focused on free agency. He'll either wait until it cools down, or pass it off to someone else in the organization to get things started.
I'm assuming the Ducks have a legal team that should be working on it.

Is there a deadline by which time they have to make a decision?

indigobuffalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 02:55 PM
  #4
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 24,444
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by indigobuffalo View Post
I'm assuming the Ducks have a legal team that should be working on it.

Is there a deadline by which time they have to make a decision?
That's a good question. I really haven't read up on the rules. Anaheim would, understandably, keep most of the information quiet until the charge is officially filed. It may even be months before we hear anything.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 05:23 PM
  #5
Eddie Shack
RIP KevFist
 
Eddie Shack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by indigobuffalo View Post
I'm assuming the Ducks have a legal team that should be working on it.

Is there a deadline by which time they have to make a decision?
Yes. It must be done before all evidence has been destroyed.

Eddie Shack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 05:56 PM
  #6
Koffein
Registered User
 
Koffein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oslo
Country: Sweden
Posts: 335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by indigobuffalo View Post
I'm assuming the Ducks have a legal team that should be working on it.

Is there a deadline by which time they have to make a decision?
Nope. Technically I'm pretty sure we could file tampering charges now, fail and if evidence is found in five years, file again. Remember Lowe accused Burke of tampering with the Niedermayer signing a few years after it happened, NHL looked into it and of course there was nothing more than an empty accusation in the heat of the moment along with the questionable pick comment.

Koffein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 06:16 PM
  #7
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
AFAIK, the current CBA doesn't have any stipulations regarding tampering charges.

But *IF* Ducks file something official, it's pretty serious.They won't go that route without solid evidence.

Personally, I dont expect any further to come out of this.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 06:33 PM
  #8
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
AFAIK, the current CBA doesn't have any stipulations regarding tampering charges.

But *IF* Ducks file something official, it's pretty serious.They won't go that route without solid evidence.

Personally, I dont expect any further to come out of this.
Well, maybe. When the Devils called for an investigation, they did it on literally a hunch. It was pretty well known that Stevens wanted to go back to St.Louis(or never wanted to leave), and they loved their offer sheets at the time, so I think them offer sheeting him just seemed obvious. They also didn't sign it for a week or so after free agency opened. On the surface, one definitely wouldn't suspect tampering, and I still couldn't give a solid reason why the Blues tampered with Stevens in the first place, it was stupid. But, in short, if that scenario can lead to a 4+ year tampering investigation, I'm pretty sure anything can. Whether they go that route is the question. Considering how pissed they apparently are, I definitely see it happening.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 06:42 PM
  #9
Koffein
Registered User
 
Koffein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oslo
Country: Sweden
Posts: 335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
AFAIK, the current CBA doesn't have any stipulations regarding tampering charges.

But *IF* Ducks file something official, it's pretty serious.They won't go that route without solid evidence.

Personally, I dont expect any further to come out of this.
I think tampering might fall under circumvention as Ducks DVM posted the other day:

Quote:
(b) The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on direct or circumstantial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26. The investigation and findings of the Investigator pursuant to Section 26.10 shall be fully admissible in any proceeding before the System Arbitrator under this Section 26.13.
(c) In the event that the System Arbitrator finds that a Circumvention has been committed by a Player or Player Actor, the System Arbitrator may impose any or all of the following penalties and/or remedies set forth below. In the event that the System Arbitrator finds that a Circumvention has been committed by a Club or a Club Actor, the Commissioner may impose any or all of the following penalties and/or remedies set forth below:
(i) Impose a fine of up to $5 million in the case of a Circumvention by a Club or Club Actor, but in no circumstances shall such fine be less than $1 million against any Club or Club Actor if such party is found to have violated Article 50 of this Agreement. If such a fine is assessed against a Club (except in the case of a financial reporting violation), that Club's Payroll Room shall also be reduced by such amount for the following League Year, and if such reduction of the Club's Payroll Room renders the Club out of compliance with the Payroll Range (i.e., the Club does not have sufficient Payroll Room to accommodate its Player commitments comprising Club Salary) for such following League Year, then the Club must take such steps as are necessary (e.g. Assignment, Buy- Out, Waivers, etc.) and as are permitted by this Agreement to ensure that the Club will be in compliance with Article 50 of this Agreement upon commencement of the following League Year;
(ii) Impose a fine against a Player of up to the lesser of $1 million or twenty-five (25%) percent of a Player's Paragraph 1 Salary in the case of a Circumvention by a Player or Player Actor, but in no circumstances shall such fine be below the lesser of $250,000 or twenty-five (25%) percent of the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary. Notwithstanding the $1 million limitation set forth above, any additional amounts by which the Player has been unjustly enriched due to the Circumvention shall be ordered to be disgorged;
(iii) Direct a Club to forfeit draft picks (the number, placement, and League Year of which shall be determined in the Commissioner's sole discretion);
(iv) Declare a forfeiture of any NHL Game(s) determined to have been affected by a Circumvention;
(v) Direct a Club to disclose and report to the Independent Accountants all information required by this Agreement, including, without limitation, by the provisions of Article 50;
(vi) Void any SPC, or any extension of an SPC, between any Player and any Club when both the Player or Player Actor and the Club or Club Actor are found to have committed such a violation with respect to such SPC or extension; and
(vii) Suspend any Club employee, Player, or Certified Agent involved in such a violation for a period of time determined in the sole discretion of the Commissioner, the System Arbitrator, or the NHLPA, respectively.
If it didn't involve tampering, I'm not sure why they would chose to include the possibility of suspending player agents.

Koffein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 06:57 PM
  #10
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,412
vCash: 1531
Oiler fan here

Based upon all information that is floating around, there were three teams that had they signed Schultz--could have been facing charges
--Nucks, leafs and rangers. All reported contact came via playes on the team or third parties associated with the teams in question. The question is- If the Oilers did--the grade two questions

1) Who
2) what
3) Where
4)How
5) Why
6) When

based upon everything i read and saw--the three afor mention teams where the guys who may have crossed the line. Both Rangers and Leaf players who know Schultz said they had talked to him "but not about joining their team"

__________________
not sure how--but the fish just jumped in the boat and put the hook in it's mouth
52299/14814
The twenty year rebuild is on!!! Embrace the suck
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:01 PM
  #11
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogEatDog View Post
Oiler fan here

Based upon all information that is floating around, there were three teams that had they signed Schultz--could have been facing charges
--Nucks, leafs and rangers. All reported contact came via playes on the team or third parties associated with the teams in question. The question is- If the Oilers did--the grade two questions

1) Who
2) what
3) Where
4)How
5) Why
6) When

based upon everything i read and saw--the three afor mention teams where the guys who may have crossed the line. Both Rangers and Leaf players who know Schultz said they had talked to him "but not about joining their team"
Interesting. The rules allow for teams and players to be sanctioned strictly on circumstantial evidence of tampering. And that team doesn't have to be the one that signed him to still get hit with tampering charges. All it requires is offering, it doesn't require an actual contract be signed.

Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:11 PM
  #12
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,412
vCash: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducks DVM View Post
Interesting. The rules allow for teams and players to be sanctioned strictly on circumstantial evidence of tampering. And that team doesn't have to be the one that signed him to still get hit with tampering charges. All it requires is offering, it doesn't require an actual contract be signed.
Who did the contact
When was the contact made
Why was the contract made
How was the contact made
What kind of contact was it
Where was the contact made
was there tampering made

Where know the above answers when it comes to leaf and ranger players and suspect when contact may have been made by vancouver--but you do need a silly thing called evidence to charge a team or person with tampering. I do think three teams may have crossed the line, but I do not think edmonton did--if so--give the evidence

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:14 PM
  #13
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,412
vCash: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
AFAIK, the current CBA doesn't have any stipulations regarding tampering charges.

But *IF* Ducks file something official, it's pretty serious.They won't go that route without solid evidence.

Personally, I dont expect any further to come out of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducks DVM View Post
Interesting. The rules allow for teams and players to be sanctioned strictly on circumstantial evidence of tampering. And that team doesn't have to be the one that signed him to still get hit with tampering charges. All it requires is offering, it doesn't require an actual contract be signed.
circustancial evidence?
Like using this site ?
Tampering is a very serious charge and you will need evidence that is not circumstancial to make the case

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:18 PM
  #14
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogEatDog View Post
circustancial evidence?
Like using this site ?
Tampering is a very serious charge and you will need evidence that is not circumstancial to make the case
To finish up the case, most likely. To get an investigation started? Probably not. Based on past precedent, tampering being a possibility is enough to get an investigation started.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:18 PM
  #15
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 24,444
vCash: 50
I don't think using this site would qualify as circumstantial. Not unless Schultz has an account, and he had a conversation with a member of a different organization privately, but that is more than circumstantial. That would be easily traceable, however.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:20 PM
  #16
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
I don't think using this site would qualify as circumstantial. Not unless Schultz has an account, and he had a conversation with a member of a different organization privately, but that is more than circumstantial. That would be easily traceable, however.
Wouldn't that be hilarious? Especially if King Justin was one of the guys flaming us for being mad and bringing up the Pronger trade?

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:22 PM
  #17
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koffein View Post
I think tampering might fall under circumvention as Ducks DVM posted the other day:


If it didn't involve tampering, I'm not sure why they would chose to include the possibility of suspending player agents.

I don't see any of those CBA rules having anything to do with Schultz's signing. Tampering is something different.

We'll see what happens, I don't expect anything.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:29 PM
  #18
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogEatDog View Post
circustancial evidence?
Like using this site ?
Tampering is a very serious charge and you will need evidence that is not circumstancial to make the case
We are assuming the circumvention rules are the ones to be used. If we are correct.....

Quote:
(b) The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on direct or circumstantial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26. The investigation and findings of the Investigator pursuant to Section 26.10 shall be fully admissible in any proceeding before the System Arbitrator under this Section 26.13.

Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:32 PM
  #19
Paul4587
Registered User
 
Paul4587's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,886
vCash: 500
I'm not expecting anything to come of this to be honest. I hope he was tampered with but I doubt the Ducks much proof if he was.

Paul4587 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:32 PM
  #20
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
I don't see any of those CBA rules having anything to do with Schultz's signing. Tampering is something different.

We'll see what happens, I don't expect anything.
The rationale was that the circumvention rules apply to teams making illicit promises regarding contracts. Offering a player employment who is on another team's reserve list would qualify as an illicit promise.

Mainly none of us could find anything in the CBA that actually addresses tampering. Do you know which section is supposed to apply?

Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:46 PM
  #21
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,412
vCash: 1531
since we are talking about the oilers

When did the meeting take place
Where dfid the meeting take place
Who was at this meeting
Why was there a meeting in the first place
What was discussed at this meeting

circumstancial or not--you need to put the oilers in the room or on the phone with Schultz prior to him becoming a UFA--when did this take place--you can not file charges because you think it may have happened

I think you guy have a case against 3 other teams, but with the oilers I need to hear or see the evidence

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:53 PM
  #22
Spicy Porkins
Porkins the White
 
Spicy Porkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: He is risen!
Posts: 8,291
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogEatDog View Post
since we are talking about the oilers

When did the meeting take place
Where dfid the meeting take place
Who was at this meeting
Why was there a meeting in the first place
What was discussed at this meeting

circumstancial or not--you need to put the oilers in the room or on the phone with Schultz prior to him becoming a UFA--when did this take place--you can not file charges because you think it may have happened

I think you guy have a case against 3 other teams, but with the oilers I need to hear or see the evidence
You don't need to see or hear anything. Even if you did, you would rationalize it away, or dismiss it as not credible.

Spicy Porkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:53 PM
  #23
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogEatDog View Post
since we are talking about the oilers

When did the meeting take place
Where dfid the meeting take place
Who was at this meeting
Why was there a meeting in the first place
What was discussed at this meeting

circumstancial or not--you need to put the oilers in the room or on the phone with Schultz prior to him becoming a UFA--when did this take place--you can not file charges because you think it may have happened

I think you guy have a case against 3 other teams, but with the oilers I need to hear or see the evidence
I'm just treating this as an intellectual exercise, I'm not insisting anything. I don't even know if we are using the right part of the CBA, but nobody else seems to know what section is required either.

Agreed they need SOME evidence, but it's unlikely that will be released until (if) tampering charges are leveled. If it exists. Obviously nobody on these boards will know.

Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 07:57 PM
  #24
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 24,444
vCash: 50
Yeah, seeing as how serious a charge tampering is in the NHL, likely the most we would be told is that a charge is being filed, and the teams involved. Any other information would likely be held until after the conclusion. Until then, if it happens at all, it's all a game.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2012, 08:04 PM
  #25
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,412
vCash: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducks DVM View Post
I'm just treating this as an intellectual exercise, I'm not insisting anything. I don't even know if we are using the right part of the CBA, but nobody else seems to know what section is required either.

Agreed they need SOME evidence, but it's unlikely that will be released until (if) tampering charges are leveled. If it exists. Obviously nobody on these boards will know.
we do know we can put Gardiner, the guy from the rangers and one Canuck employee in the same room with Shultz this off season in different ways

I think a case could be made for the ducks against some teams--

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.