Brock Landers S16/17 TPE Claim

[gucci]

Hello HO,

Because I'm not sure where to do this, I'd like to summon you to the NSFL Thunderdome where I shall plead my case before you or die in glorious combat trying.

In accordance with NFSL code III.A.7-8 (Included below for your reference), Brock Landers shall be allowed to claim his 29 unclaimed TPE from seasono 16 and 17. As he is NOT in regression, this rule does not apply to him, as the rule is clearly stated to only apply for regression purposes, and Landers will not enter regression this season and has not previously entered regression.

III.A.7 - For regression purposes, all TPE made available, via claim posts or otherwise, by the date regression percentages are posted, must be factored into the regression calculations. No hoarding TPE until after regression is allowed. Punishments may include monetary losses, suspension, and/or TPE losses.

III.A.8 - To be particularly clear about regression: All TPE earned must be put in your update thread before regression and signing new contracts or extensions. This TPE will count towards regression and your contract tier. Any TPE not put in your update thread at those times will be considered void

As you can see, to apply this rule to Landers would be an affront to justice and a clear abuse of the power granted to HO to enforce the rules of the league to the letter of the law.

Furthermore, an argument exists that had the TPE been claimed then Landers would have entered a new contract class. This is a manipulation of Rule III.A.8 which states that "All TPE earned must be put in your update thread before regression and signing new contracts or extensions.". Brock Landers is attempting to claim this TPE BEFORE he enters regression, which is in accordance to the rule as it is written. The inclusion of the word "and" stipulates that both conditions established must be met, in the case of Landers, only one of the two qualifying factors is met, so the rule does not apply. Again, any stipulations provided on his ability to claim said TPE would also be an affront to justice and a clear abuse of the power granted to HO to enforce the rules of the league to the letter of the law.

I rest my case and leave this decision in the hands of the HO who swore an oath to uphold the rules of our league.

Respectfully,

gucci



@Bigred1580 @ddrector @Eco @Mavfatha @terriblehippo @TeyonSchavari @bex

[Duilio05]

This is a losing battle. However I will fight with you as you are my player. Landers is on a $2M IA contract. He should be able to claim any and all previous tpe up until he hits 599 tpe. At that point all previously unclaimed tpe is forfeited. Since Landers is currently at 572 toe, he can claim up to 27 previously unclaimed tpe.

[gucci]

Appreciate the support, but I don't believe that rule applies to Brock Landers as it is written in the rule book.

[br0_0ker]

III.A.8 seems to apply to new contracts. It reads as though a new contract voids any TPE not applied at signing. Since you were signed to an IA contract, you should forfeit the TPE that was not applied when your player signed the contract.

[shadyshoelace]

III.A.8 seems to apply to new contracts. It reads as though a new contract voids any TPE not applied at signing. Since you were signed to an IA contract, you should forfeit the TPE that was not applied when your player signed the contract.

[gucci]

It's also a rule concerning regression, potentially being applied to a player who is not yet in regression...

The rule wasn't made to punish players by preventing them from claiming TPE that they earned because they went inactive for a few months, it was put into place to prevent players from sheltering TPE from counting towards regression and purposefully manipulating the salary cap.

It's abundantly clear that I'm not attempting to do either of those two things here.

[bex]

Hello @gucci

Thank you for bringing this question to us! We've discussed in Head Office, and upon review of the situation and the rule at hand, we find that you would not be able to claim that TPE, as you were signed to a new contract.

As you brought up, III.A.8 - To be particularly clear about regression: All TPE earned must be put in your update thread before regression and signing new contracts or extensions. This TPE will count towards regression and your contract tier. Any TPE not put in your update thread at those times will be considered void

As to the question of whether or not you could claim up to that contract tier amount, we must turn to similar past cases. Er attempted to claim old TPE, and the original ruling did allow him to claim up to the contract tier amount. However, this ruling was overturned on appeals, and the entirety of the TPE from that time was forfeit.

As such, you would not be able to claim the s16/s17 TPE in question. You were signed to a new contract without the TPE in question on your update thread, making them now void.

As to your argument about the "and" use in III.A.8, "and" here is used to clarify that both situations require all TPE to be accounted for before proceeding. This is confirmed when later the rule states that "Any TPE not put in your update thread at those times will be considered void". "Those times", as these are the two cases in which you must have all TPE factored in, both when calculating regression and when signing contracts or extensions.

Thank you again for coming to us with the question and providing your argument. Welcome back to the league! Feel free to reach out to me or any other member of Head Office with further questions.

Best,



Bex
Commissioner of the NSFL

[run_CMC]

Best,



Bex
Commissioner of the NSFL

This is so extra, but in a good way

[bex]

This is so extra, but in a good way

My full name is actually Bextra McFancy

[Raven]

My full name is actually Bextra McFancy

I appreciate this