Thudd Kassel Contract Issue

[37thchamber]

there is also the interpretation of the spirit of the rule, and maybe that's where my confusion is stemming from.

that does appear to be the source of your confusion, yes.

i can make a solid argument that this is not actually in the spirit of the rule (especially given that it was explicitly stated that had he signed with another team, it would have been allowed) since the spirit of the rule is not really clear here -- and this is why the golden rule should not be used in interpretation of this rule, fwiw -- but i think the decision was indeed made with consideration made over the potential for cap circumvention due to lower TPE values... and that makes sense.

but like i said before, the issue of whether or not this helps with the cap is irrelevant when you consider the fallout of this decision.

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.

not exactly.

the potential illegality of the contract was brought up at the time. but it was not (openly) addressed. if there was a problem, or it was unclear whether it should be allowed, they could have veto'd it *then* and we'd have no problem.

the decision was something to be made at the time of the contract being posted. at which time it was "allow this because it's not against the rules", "veto this because it's against the rules" (that would have been a hard sell, tbf) or "veto this because it exists in a grey area we need to clarify, and the potential implications of allowing this transaction could be problematic for the league as a whole" (because other GMs would have exploited the same loophole; one stated as much in the same thread)

however, once the transaction was processed, that window was shut, because the transaction had been implicitly permitted. if the rule was clarified after the fact, it should apply to all future transactions, and not any that were approved before it.

i understand HO's decision, and i agree that this judgment is probably in line with the intent of the rule... that doesn't mean you can retroactively apply an amended rule to past transactions though.

(as an aside, if there is no HO approval or review of transactions, then that's a whole other problem to consider, as it leaves the league open to all kinds of shady shit)