then it wasn't a legit bet a week ago
and since it's clear that you did and said nothing until this event occurred, the continued bandying about of rules you weren't enforcing before doesn't hold weight with most people
the question of whether the bet was void under the circumstances of the salary cap issue has been public for days and your answer wasn't "the bet was never legal" then, just like it wasn't when the bet was made, the entire season in between then and now, or at any point until this ruling
"these rules were always there" doesn't mean shit as a reasoning when it's only used in hindsight based on the occurrence of a separate issue
just like it doesn't mean much to a lot of people if you quote the rule for tampering...but then instantly backpedal and dance around when it's pointed out that you clearly don't have the proof to back up the rule being broken, and in fact the event you're trying use it for was literally handled opposite to that, in public for all to see
while I'm at it...you said this
A player (KCKolbe) approached another player (RFFO) under contract with the purpose of creating a hold out/trade. Regardless if this was with a bet out in the open, it doesn't matter. It still is one person impacting the other and forcing them to hold out or trade based on the outcome of the bet.
...the player impacted is the one who created the bet by your account and it's disingenuous if not actually dishonest to put the onus on the 2nd person and claim they're impacting the person who's idea it was to begin with
now.....nothing like this has really happened....but there's a lot of pieces here and a lot of ways you can still go..you could defer punishment considering other teams have gone over the cap and gotten no punishment....creating a rule in the offseason will have just as much impact if not more than kicking a wounded animal when it's down, which is what you're currently doing to the Legion
to go back and reconsider and come back with the new ruling built on a clean slate would be good for everyone I think and it shows good faith for a team that did not do anything knowledgeably, did something others have been allowed by YOU to do, and didn't benefit
as for the bet, you made the right call.....not forcing KC to live up to it base don the circumstances is a fine decision that I doubt anyone would have a problem with....trying to justify it with rules YOU weren't following or enforcing before this was the bad move there...."whoops, sorry, won't happen again guys...we'll work on being consistent in the rules and how they apply and hey we make mistakes too" is a great way to go from here
now..you may choose not to do these things...you have the power after all..you can double down on the punishing of a team just because you can....lord knows it won't make a single iota of a greater impact.....and you can get tired of being argued with and recede into a "conversation over" mode that was already hinted at in the "case closed" response
I mean...it's what Goodell would do.
and since it's clear that you did and said nothing until this event occurred, the continued bandying about of rules you weren't enforcing before doesn't hold weight with most people
the question of whether the bet was void under the circumstances of the salary cap issue has been public for days and your answer wasn't "the bet was never legal" then, just like it wasn't when the bet was made, the entire season in between then and now, or at any point until this ruling
"these rules were always there" doesn't mean shit as a reasoning when it's only used in hindsight based on the occurrence of a separate issue
just like it doesn't mean much to a lot of people if you quote the rule for tampering...but then instantly backpedal and dance around when it's pointed out that you clearly don't have the proof to back up the rule being broken, and in fact the event you're trying use it for was literally handled opposite to that, in public for all to see
while I'm at it...you said this
A player (KCKolbe) approached another player (RFFO) under contract with the purpose of creating a hold out/trade. Regardless if this was with a bet out in the open, it doesn't matter. It still is one person impacting the other and forcing them to hold out or trade based on the outcome of the bet.
...the player impacted is the one who created the bet by your account and it's disingenuous if not actually dishonest to put the onus on the 2nd person and claim they're impacting the person who's idea it was to begin with
now.....nothing like this has really happened....but there's a lot of pieces here and a lot of ways you can still go..you could defer punishment considering other teams have gone over the cap and gotten no punishment....creating a rule in the offseason will have just as much impact if not more than kicking a wounded animal when it's down, which is what you're currently doing to the Legion
to go back and reconsider and come back with the new ruling built on a clean slate would be good for everyone I think and it shows good faith for a team that did not do anything knowledgeably, did something others have been allowed by YOU to do, and didn't benefit
as for the bet, you made the right call.....not forcing KC to live up to it base don the circumstances is a fine decision that I doubt anyone would have a problem with....trying to justify it with rules YOU weren't following or enforcing before this was the bad move there...."whoops, sorry, won't happen again guys...we'll work on being consistent in the rules and how they apply and hey we make mistakes too" is a great way to go from here
now..you may choose not to do these things...you have the power after all..you can double down on the punishing of a team just because you can....lord knows it won't make a single iota of a greater impact.....and you can get tired of being argued with and recede into a "conversation over" mode that was already hinted at in the "case closed" response
I mean...it's what Goodell would do.
![[Image: 68.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/722696337912496132/759304283312881684/68.png)
