Thudd Kassel Contract Issue

[timeconsumer]

smh I would never quit simmer after a heated argument with a HO

[infinitempg]

smh I would never quit simmer after a heated argument with a HO

[manicmav36]

Side note



FUCK HO

Not appropriate or necessary.

[br0_0ker]

So like, what was the point of rejecting the option if he was going to re-sign with NOLA? Did he misjudge his market and NOLA was the best offer that was available afterwards?
I saw someone say he didn't even sign with NOLA at first, are there more details on this?
Also, what would prevent NOLA from signing him to another extension follwing the expiration of his 2nd (2 year) contract? Could he not have just signed a 1 year deal following the 2 year "extension"? Is there a fixed limit to how many years a rookie can play for the team that drafts him?

[BWIII]

So like, what was the point of rejecting the option if he was going to re-sign with NOLA? Did he misjudge his market and NOLA was the best offer that was available afterwards?
I saw someone say he didn't even sign with NOLA at first, are there more details on this?
Also, what would prevent NOLA from signing him to another extension follwing the expiration of his 2nd (2 year) contract? Could he not have just signed a 1 year deal following the 2 year "extension"? Is there a fixed limit to how many years a rookie can play for the team that drafts him?

He got traded to Philadelphia, declined his mutual option, then signed a new contract with Philadelphia.......there now you got all the facts

[br0_0ker]

He got traded to Philadelphia, declined his mutual option, then signed a new contract with Philadelphia.......there now you got all the facts

Ok, so swith NOLA with Philly everywhere in that last post, my questions remain. Seems odd to decline an option only to sign with the same team immediately after? Was it only so that player could get more $$$ than the $2M left on the 3 year deal he declined to continue?
And what would prevent a 3rd contract between that player and the team, equalling the difference between the 2 year "extension" and 3 year "extension"?

[37thchamber]

Ok, so swith NOLA with Philly everywhere in that last post, my questions remain. Seems odd to decline an option only to sign with the same team immediately after? Was it only so that player could get more $$$ than the $2M left on the 3 year deal he declined to continue?
And what would prevent a 3rd contract between that player and the team, equalling the difference between the 2 year "extension" and 3 year "extension"?

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.

[SweetJamesJones]

This is some bull shit if Sweet has ever some bull shit. "Yea, we had a flaw in our rule books, which was exposed and we said it was going to be honored and fixed going forward, buuuuut yea we changed our minds." What kind of wack ass shit is this??? Y'all bringing up some shit that is at least a month old and bringing it to light and tyrna make an example of DD finding a loophole (which there should be no issue with) and doing the whole nose up bull shit. Sweet is shaking is fucking head right now. HO really dropped the ball here.

[SweetJamesJones]

You claim you made a decision the day after the contract was made but you waited 3 weeks before saying anything while a member of HO told us the contract was good because it didnt break the rule.

Good thing we didnt go out and sign a bunch of guys that will put us over the cap in seasons because HO didn't care to make a decision until week 4 of the season.

I guess it will be easier for us to read your mind from now on because you might have some hidden rules that weren't written down but totally should've been just like everything else in this league.

But even if they were written down you'd just tweak it to make it fit your narrative whenever you feel like it. That's great. Real great. If it broke a rule (which it didnt on your OFFICIAL NSFL RULEBOOK) then atleast tell us when you make a decision and not 3 weeks later.

real shit

[ScorpXCracker]

I like how that is both low and high quality at the same time