I dunno, I think 11.6 references section 26 if the league plans to say they voided the contract due to salary cap circumvention. That's the league saying under section 11.6, as laid out in section 26, we believe a salary cap circumvention exists.
I think the Devils would be better off with a prior investigation taking place. The arbitrator will ask to see all the emails and stuff anyway, having a chance to confer with the league before all power is taken out of your hands is better, IMO.
It does look like 11.6 covers this situation better but it seems to me under section 26 both sides probably already are fielding investigators into the matter, they just have nobody to go to gain authority.
The other issue is one of Daly's emails specifically references section 26, so I wonder how that jives with 11.6 since it looks like this dispute will involve both. Although I've only seen Daly reference section 26.
Lifted from TG comment section poster Romeo:
It seems to me the league may have been investigating this and feel they have more beyond just the contract itself. That's just an assumption obviously.
i meant to address this yesterday - but having re-read all the relevant sections, it's just so strange that absolutely none of the procedures being undertaken in section 11 mention section 26 at all. maybe section 26 is a sub-section of section 11? after all, section 11 probably existed in the old collective bargaining agreement, it just had nothing to do with salary caps or anything like that. and there is no specific mentioning of what happens when a circumvention occurs in section 11. what a bizarre document.
fwiw, i was skeptical that those emails came from bill daly, but who would dig through the CBA to fabricate an email like that? also, maybe we should move this to a non-retarded thread?
Edited by Triumph, 23 July 2010 - 10:47 AM.