(12-10-2019, 03:02 AM)37thchamber Wrote:Could be to restructure the contract for more $ for the player, or to help team cap management.
Not sure that really matters in this case, tbh. My only problem with this ruling is that the rule, as written, was not broken. So there should be no action taken, just alter the wording and enforce it going forward, as has been the case with any other "loophole".
If a problem was identified immediately, and/or veto'd within reasonable time, there could be no complaint. As it stands, this could potentially affect cap management moving forward, due to existing rules on minimum salaries etc.
...as an aside, amended minimum salary rules (some form of enforced, graduated contract minimums over a contract length for example), might have mitigated that problem and potentially removed the need for this limited rookie contract extension rule, thinking about it.
Really, this is one of those things where something could probably just have been handled better. I don't necessarily think HO are *wrong* ... but I do feel like the fallout might not have been fully considered on this one. The Dylan specific parts are a different issue and I don't mean that... I mean the impact of the decision on parties concerned (cap management issues etc) and how the unilateral decision to amend a rule and enforce the amendment retroactively sets a questionable precedent.
It's done now so there's nothing to be done, but... there you have it. I know HO are doing what they think is best, but I'd urge a rethink here. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we'll get an appeal.
Oh, I should probably also point out I (long ago) studied law, and specialised in statutory interpretation, so ... yeah. This is kinda my thing. I (weirdly) find it interesting as a purely observational exercise.
So I understand where you're coming from on this, since the strict interpretation of the written rules seems to be the main issue. But there is also the interpretation of the spirit of the rule, and maybe that's where my confusion is stemming from.
Based on this, his rookie contract, Thud was set to make $1M in each of S19 and S20. And based on this, his new contract, Thud is set to make... $1M in each of S19 and S20 (and S21). So the actual amounts is not the issue here.
This seems to be the issue they wanted to get in front of, namely other players exercising the same loophole.
Now, maybe I'm just not invested enough in the underworkings of the NSFL contract system, but it would seem that neither cap space for Philly nor Thud's total earning are at stake here. As I read it, this goes from a 3 year / $3M contract "extension" to a 2 year / $2M contract "extension" (and maybe that's where I'm wrong about this too, since the amounts are never explicitly stated in the OP). And based on the rulebook:
Code:
D. 2. Contract Minimums are determined by a player's total TPE as follows:
<200: $500,000
200 to 399: $1,000,000
400 to 599: $2,000,000
600 to 799: $3,000,000
800 to 999: $4,000,000
>1,000: $5,000,000
HO isn't changing anything of Thud's potential future contract.
Now, I could be completely misunderstanding things, and please correct me if I am wrong about anything in the above. For my last point, what is preventing Thud from simply signing a 1 year / $1M contract in S21? Hasn't Philly already been under the assumption that cost is allocated in S21, and thus should have that space readily available?
As an aside, it seems like there may have been some handshaking done in some way prior to Thudd going to FA anyways, based on this, since I still don't understand what the purpose of opting out of the original contract was if he was going to re-sign with Philly anyways, but I'll let my conspiracy theory subside for now in favor of someone enlightening me.
As to HO's side of it, the decision seems to have been:
1) Allow the loophole to exist, and allow an immaterial transaction exist while they closed the loophole for the sake of appearances
or
2) Close the loophole and amend the contract to show that the spirit of the rules is the ultimate arbiter of the decision-making process.
It seems to me they opted for option 2, and it is only the fact the decision is being applied late (again, to an immaterial effect to both Philly's cap and Thudd's contract earnings/potential) that people have an issue with, which was addressed in the beginning of the post:
(12-09-2019, 04:42 PM)ADwyer87 Wrote:HO apologizes for the long wait. We discussed this extensively in both HO and GM chat, and had a vote on this on November 17th, but did not realize that we had not made that ruling public until recently.
I don't think decisions should be reversed simply due to lack of announcement (maybe I am wrong here about official procedure or whatever). To reiterate and end, it seems to me the decision has a negligible affect on Philly's cap, Thudd's earnings, and his future contract minimum. The only thing this is doing is saying you can't use a loophole to do something the spirit of the rules doesn't allow.
On a completely separate topic, I'm not even sure what the purpose of Rule D. 14. even is...
![[Image: 05mahaI.png]](https://i.imgur.com/05mahaI.png)