I just re-read By Law 15 and your arguement in the last response you made to me and your point is clearer now. I still disagree but I get where you are coming from.
One thing we have to get clear though is just what sin we are arguing over. I was talking about the Tampa/Van trade comments Burke made until you brought up the Burke hiring and then in your last post you brought the Sedin's back into it. Here's a summary of my view:
1) Burke hiring: Burke had stepped down as GM in Anaheim and had permission to seek other employment before the job offer was made as far as I can tell. While we can all have our suspicions about the flow of information before that, suspicion alone is insufficient. If there is concrete evidence of prior contact the Ducks should bring it forward, otherwise no harm on the fowl (sorry, couldn't resist).
2) Wilson comments on Sedin's: The league has already ruled this was a Rule 15 violation and I agree. The harm done was minimal IMO, thus the relatively small penalty. To think the Sedin's would have needed Wilson's comments to know there was interest from the Leafs (and others) is more than a stretch. They still chose to sign with Vancouver and did so at what I'd consider a discount. To argue that Gillis could have squeezed them for a few hundred thouand less had Wilson not made the comments is pushing the bounds of credibility as far as I'm concerned.
3) Tampa/Van trade rumour: This is the heart of our dispute I think. What it comes down to is the interpretation of the word tampering and the fact that it involves interpretation in the first place.
No where in the Constitution or By Laws (that I can find at least) does it specifically define what tampering means. You have defined it as: "tampering, refers to any interference by a member club with the employer-employee relationship of another club", specifically indicating that has been differentiated from negotiating. You've broadened the definition to a dictionary one for no other reason that I can see other than that it suits your arguement. Context and intent matter more than literal definitions, at least in my (admittedly limited) experience with contract negotiation and interpretation.
The term tampering has been grouped with other terms as follows: "tamper, negotiate with, make an offer to or discuss employment with any player". In that context it can be argued that the implied intent of the clause is to preserve the integrity of the claim to the playing rights of a player by the team that holds them, not anything as vague and amorphous as the 'employer-employee relationship'.
This interpretation is reinforced by 15.1 C including the specific circumstance of a Member Team "making or causing to be made, through any medium, public or private, any statement indicating any intention or desire of or interest in acquiring the services of any person referred to in (a) or (b)". If your broad interpretation of tampering was what was intended then article C would have been uneccessary. Instead the League not only included C to broaden the term in a specific way but even limited that by stating that a violation under C was subject to the Commissioner's discretion.
Unless you can point out some element in the By Laws that shows a concern with the overall 'relationship' between team and player, then I don't see any basis to extend the tampering definition beyond the scope that the context indicates.
Finally, I'll play my trump card. At the most basic level the league By Laws mean what the League says they mean. The By Laws are established by the Member Clubs and the Commissioner is empowered under the Constitution to interpret them. If Buttman & Co. ruled there was no violation, then there was no violation. Given his interpretation agrees with mine, I say that makes me right. Having us arguing over that interpretation reminds me of people reading a book and arguing that the author meant one thing while he says it meant another.
I'd wish you a happy turkey day but you guys have to wait until November for that. I'm getting mine a day early too! I'm off to stuff myself unmercifully.
Posted on 10/11 12:42 PM | IP: 174.116.67.250
Yeah we're good, Janus.
1. Burke to Leafs. We disagree on the chronology. Neither of us has proof positive. You take on faith that there was no contact, directly or indirectly, between the Leafs and Brian Burke prior to Burke's dismissal by the Ducks. To accept that Janus, I have to accept that each and every media report citing "persons close to the situation" and/or "unnamed sources within the Leafs organization" is a lie. No sale Bud.
2. On Sedin's tampering you fail to address the fact that the NHL's "thorough investigation" did not include contacting the Sedin's or their agent. What is it the NHL prefers not to know? The less than thorough investigation benefited the Leafs. Favoritism is established. Yer welcome to believe on "faith" something different. Faith doesn't change the facts.
3. Again, you refuse to acknowledge the facts. Section 15 subhead states, "Tampering OR negotiating" is exclusive. I didn't find a definition of tampering in the NHL Constitution or By Laws either, so I relied upon the NFL definition. I guess I should have a Black's handy but I don't.
The problem is, as I stated previously, "tampering" is a criminal, not a civil, term.
4. As to your "trump card" that Bettman and/or the NHL is the final word, if that were so, lawfully authorized courts of law, in both Canada and the United States would not have the authority to bring forward criminal complaints against players. IIRC, lawyers have used that argument and were denied.
While this may come as a revelation, our courts are lawfully authorized to hear all matters properly brought forward. If that (trump card) were so, the Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy would have been dismissed back in May when the NHL moved to dismiss it.
Posted on 10/11 3:57 PM | IP: 24.205.180.38
The Vancouver media won't let this go away...
Now we learn how much the Leafs were prepared to pay for the twins...
Thanks rikster. Botchford supports my point about the less than thorough investigation.
Posted on 10/13 11:00 AM | IP: 24.205.180.38
Well, we're getting closer anyway.
1. Actually it isn't my personality to take anything on faith. In fact my bias is that if there is a suit/lawyer involved, odds are high that something improper is either being done, contemplated or covered up. ;-) I don't deny that there could have been contact or even that it looks likely that there was some effort to signal interest via media leaks. What I am saying is that appearances, suspicions and even a pile of media stories isn't enough to rule an infraction occurred. Given that law courts are the standard most seem to want to apply to this issue, I'd be shocked to see that level of heresay and circumstantial evidence be enough to make a charge stick. Let's not forget that the majority of the stories flowed from the TO sports media (hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity) an could in theory all have stemmed from one low ranking wingnut in the organization. (As opposed to the high level wingnuts running the place) You say it is too much to believe that all those media reports are a lie but that is too tenuous a thread to hang a charge on. If there really is some meat on this bone, let's see it. That flows into...
2. It was actually only yesterday that I read about the accusations of direct contact with the Sedins by the Leafs before they were officially UFA's. That is a serious accusation and should be investigated. Not contacting the players/agents in question does sound like a poor effort to investigate and it is something the league should have done. We agree there was a failure there. That said, reading the stuff written by Botchford on the 9th and 11th leaves me with one question screaming in my mind. If Botchford is so hell bent on getting this accusation to stick, why didn't he ask the players/agents if there was contact and publish the answer? I'm not trying to let the league off the hook but again we have a lot of hand waving and "looks like - may have been - allegedy"'s but very little in the way of factual evidence.
From his articles:
"The issue revolves, in part, around details the Leafs allegedly knew about the Canucks contract negotiations with the Sedins. Some of the details were leaked to the press, including the fact the twins were at one point seeking identical 12-year contracts worth $63 million US."
Suddenly a leak of negotiation details is attached to the Leafs with no discussion of how they could have gotten that info. Since we love to theorize around here, it should supposedly only be the Canucks and the players/agents who would be privy to that info. Since I doubt the Canucks would be sharing (unless the Leafs have a mole in the organization!) now the players or agents are conspiring with the Leafs. Mind you it is only the Evil Empire that they would engage in that kind of activity with. An agent would NEVER pass that kind of information on to another club.
and
"Who told the public? Maybe it was a collective consciousness we all tapped into. Maybe it was an obvious assumption based on the salary cap and Leafs GM Brian Burke's ties to the twins. Then again, it's possible there's more to it. You think that's worth looking into? ...(jump)... Barry revealed Saturday how much money he thinks the Sedins left on the table. He said he told the twins during their negotiation with the Canucks that he thought they could get about $7.5 million a year on the open market. It's possible that was his educated guess. It's not, however, the only possibility."
And now we resort to a classic of propaganda, "Ask leading questions let the public fill in the dastardly details and run with it". Sure it is possible that the Leafs were telegraphing their interest and sure it is possible that it was the Leafs who indicated they'd go to $7.5M. It is also possible it was one of the other clubs in the league (there are more remember) since we are throwing around "possibilities".
At no point does Botchford offer anything more than speculation save his information that the players/agents were not contacted by the league, and he does nothing with that key point but hang his tapestry of maybe's on it.
God help me but Damien Cox's article (see below) sounds like a far more plausible scenario that the puppet-master theories that are being thrown around about the Leafs. This is an organization that can't even run itself and now they are manipulating the league?!?
3. I'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. Making the distinction that tampering is a level of contact above the act of negotiating does not extend it into the sphere that you gave it and having it grouped together in a common article establishes context. A definition from another league is irrelevant, the same as if I tried to use a definition from another CBA to argue a case for someone in my union. I'd get weird looks if I claimed I could use one from a different bargaining unit, much less a different union.
Finally (this is too long already)...
4. I was unclear in my original post. As long as the content of the bylaws do not attempt to contravene or supersede the law of the land, then the league is the ultimate authority. As you say, the courts are free to HEAR all matters properly brought forward. In the Phoenix case the lack of a dismissal doesn't undermine my arguement since the judge had to hear the case to determine if the bylaws were circumventing the law. As well the judge upheld the right under the bylaws of the league to determine who owns a member franchise presumably since he felt that control did not violate the law of the land. Unless there is a general law that prohibits "tampering" or something like it that I have never heard of then there would be no question of the tampering bylaw conflicting with federal or state law, leaving the league as the ultimate authority.
If I can't get you to agree I'll talk you to death...
Nowhere near close Janus. Not even on the same planet.
You spend how many paragraphs, talking around the fact the NHL performed an incomplete investigation and blame the reporter for not asking the question? I am not even going to characterize such nonsense as gamesmanship because it rises like leaven bread.
At the end of your post, you seem to rely that the definition of the act of tampering is whatever the NHL determines.
Janus, you exhibit no understanding of the phrase "circumstantial evidence" and shouldn't use it.
Your paragraph 4 is such a flight of fancy I won't respond.
This post was edited on 10/13 2:25 PM by Thrasher
Posted on 10/13 2:24 PM | IP: 75.128.51.39
Thrasher -
In my line of work, when things go wrong I get called in to come in and run the investigation. They did not even complete the first two things you do when running an investigation like this .........collect all the data and interview the principles. (The twins and their agent.)
What the NHL did was a joke at best and an insult to all true hockey fans at worst. At first glance, it would seem that some franchises are treated differently than others......
Posted on 10/13 4:37 PM | IP: 192.146.217.50
Hey back@ya, Shark Attack.
Janus is usually brilliant. It's kinda sad that he's defending the indefensible.
I really am beginning to lose respect for Leafs Nation. If just one of themm would stand up and post something like, "yeah, as one of the league's two richest franchises Leafs do get favored. On the Nucks tampering complaint Leafs probably skated, it's not fair but we'll take it."
I could respect that. But noooooooo they wrap themselves in this holier than thou denial crap like they never tripped a guy on a breakaway. I guess maybe the Leafs posters here never played, eh.
Latest Team Rankings
Mobile
Having us arguing over that interpretation reminds me of people reading a book and arguing that the author meant one thing while he says it meant another.