Thudd Kassel Contract Issue

[37thchamber]

I think part of the problem was the response was entirely an overreaction on DD's part. I don't think the potential for him to quit everything was considered as a genuine possibility, and it shouldn't have been.

That's not the fallout I mean. I'm talking about this discussion and the implications the decision has for what HO can and can't do.

If I somehow managed to slip in under the rules an advantage that was not caught in review, I would fully expect it to be changed retroactively since it was against the rules at the time.

Except we literally just established that it wasn't against the rules at the time. So... Why should it be changed retroactively?

Look at it like this. If you create a player today and we don't have recreate tpe but we then institute recreate tpe 3 weeks later should you get recreate tpe added retrospectively to your build? You can only apply the rules as they are at that time.

Of course, this is assuming HO reviews these transactions, meaning they had already accepted it. And as I already said, if HO doesn't review these transactions, that's a much bigger issue (though I concede that the reverting makes sense, just wish it had been done sooner and more transparently)

None of this addresses the fact that HO unilaterally made a decision to overturn a valid, accepted transaction either... Which is another problem entirely.

[TomHanks]

(especially given that it was explicitly stated that had he signed with another team, it would have been allowed)

I know this isn't the main issue and I know a lot of it was to do with the way this was all communicated, but when that was said that was incorrect. On 11/17 immediately following the vote Bex told us in NOLA that she could only sign a 2 year deal with us as a result of this ruling, so we were aware of the result as soon as it happened. Also means that had DD left, he would've been held to a 2 year deal as well.

[br0_0ker]

Except we literally just established that it wasn't against the rules at the time. So... Why should it be changed retroactively?

Established how? Again, I'm waiting on a clarification on the purpose of rule D. 14. which was both said to prevent players from being over 399 TPE to have a $1M cap hit in year 4, and not, that it is only to prevent rookie from signing 4 year contracts. I maintain that there is a spirit of the rules in play here, and using the interpretation that it should only be the written letter of the law (when it was pretty clear the people involved were aware of exactly what they were doing, based on the discussion in the contract thread) to justify skirting this rule for whatever its purpose has the same effect as allowing the potential intent of this rule to be broken. But, I await clarification on the rule.

Look at it like this. If you create a player today and we don't have recreate tpe but we then institute recreate tpe 3 weeks later should you get recreate tpe added retrospectively to your build? You can only apply the rules as they are at that time.

If there is a separate rule that doesn't explicitly state what the rule changes, but for all intents and purposes has the same effect, should we not be making concessions to allow that to be added retrospectively, since there was some function already in place to handle that, and it is only the semantics of the rule that prevented it being applied in the first place? The issue here is not that there was something completely new instituted, it's that there was a rule that was potentially in place to disallow a certain circumstance, and because another condition was not explicitly stated then that condition was used to circumvent the disallowed circumstance.

None of this addresses the fact that HO unilaterally made a decision to overturn a valid, accepted transaction either... Which is another problem entirely.

I think we disagree on the validity of the transaction. The transaction took place 11/16 and it has been outlined in this thread that HO had a discussion on this some time 11/16 or 11/17, just missed making a public announcement. The parties involved (namely Philly GMs) seem to have not informed DD once they were aware of the situation (in this thread multiple other GMs have stated it was in their chat), so it is both on HO and Philly GMs for the general lack of communication and what transpired after.

[37thchamber]

I think we disagree on the validity of the transaction.

do we?



in the absence of a veto, it would appear that we agree the transaction was therefore allowed, as it was not judged to have violated a rule. this is tacit approval at the very least. as i already stated, if a problem was identified, all that was necessary was for HO to say "hold up... we gotta discuss this"

and this is literally the crux of my argument.

a transaction that, as far as I can see, was accepted (tacitly, through a lack of opposition) -- and therefore implicitly validated, and so cannot be considered illegal -- was later altered unilaterally by HO. this should not happen.

unless there is a clear error in the approval of the transaction (for example, when carmel gibson was approved with incorrect TPE totals) -- which does not exist in this case, given the debatable interpretation of the rule as written -- the transaction should not be altered. fix the rule and apply it moving forward.

that the ruling was made within a couple of days is irrelevant, as in the absence of an announcement to the contrary, the transaction was accepted, and therefore the rule should only be applied as written.

at the very least, the lack of transparency here is concerning.

at worst, we are accepting that HO may, at their discretion, alter the rulebook on the fly and retroactively apply the changes.

[Eco]

I apologize for the fact that we were super late with making a public announcement. I think the reason behind that is that I totally forgot that this was an ongoing issue and that is because I notified both teams as soon as the decision was made. (and NOLA followed with signing a 2 year contract with bex) We can keep discussing if the decision was good/bad/right/wrong but please stop saying that teams/GM's were not notified at the time and HO accepted this contract as valid.

[shadyshoelace]

in the absence of a veto, it would appear that we agree the transaction was therefore allowed, as it was not judged to have violated a rule. this is tacit approval at the very least. as i already stated, if a problem was identified, all that was necessary was for HO to say "hold up... we gotta discuss this"

and this is literally the crux of my argument.

a transaction that, as far as I can see, was accepted (tacitly, through a lack of opposition) -- and therefore implicitly validated, and so cannot be considered illegal -- was later altered unilaterally by HO. this should not happen.

I'm not exactly sure what constitutes a veto in your eyes. The contract was posted late on 11/16, and about an hour and a half later Swag commented asking if it was legal. That led to an immediate conversation between HO and GMs in GM chat discord (i.e. HO saying "hold up... we gotta discuss this"). Then, HO voted on the rule on 11/17 and notified the teams (PHI/BAL/NOLA) that the transactions were invalid and the contracts needed to be changed. To me, that doesn't sound like the transaction was allowed at all.

unless there is a clear error in the approval of the transaction (for example, when carmel gibson was approved with incorrect TPE totals) -- which does not exist in this case, given the debatable interpretation of the rule as written -- the transaction should not be altered. fix the rule and apply it moving forward.

That is a fair opinion to hold. But this was very clearly an attempt to use a loophole in precise wording to get around the obvious spirit of a rule - to not allow players in their 4th season, who can have, what, 800 TPE? - to be on minimum rookie contracts. The fact that DD originally opted into the previous contract, then retracted it and signed the totally-not-an-extension contract 10 minutes later, shows that this was in no way a free agency decision, it was an attempt to add a year of $1m control to his existing contract.

This is a league run by a bunch of nerds for fun. It seems strange to be intensely focused on literal verbatim interpretation of rules when it's obvious what the spirit of the law is. It also seems strange to me to expect every rule written to proactively encompass every possible unforseen workaround, such as using options on contracts. We all know what the rule was meant to be.

at the very least, the lack of transparency here is concerning.

HO has already owned up to the fact that they screwed up by not making the public post earlier. But the fact remains that the team was notified in a timely manner and opted not to act on the decision.

at worst, we are accepting that HO may, at their discretion, alter the rulebook on the fly and retroactively apply the changes.

I mean, yeah. I personally think that not allowing clear loophole exploitations to go through is fine as you fix the rule to clarify the language. Doesn't seem like a flaming hot take to me.

[37thchamber]

I'm gonna say this one more time since I don't think you're getting it

Not all parties were notified of the problem. Nor was any public comment made. If I were in DD's position I'd be mad too. Why wasn't I told at the time that there was a problem?

The validity of the decision is irrelevant (as I've already said, I understand and possibly agree with the logic), however if we accept this action can be taken now, it can be taken again in other not necessarily equivalent situations.

This is the last I'm going to say on the matter. Literally nothing that has come up here has countered either of those points, and it looks like there is nothing that will.

Don't tag me again or quote me unless you have counter arguments to either of these points.

[White Cornerback]

I'm gonna say this one more time since I don't think you're getting it

Not all parties were notified of the problem. Nor was any public comment made. If I were in DD's position I'd be mad too. Why wasn't I told at the time that there was a problem?

The validity of the decision is irrelevant (as I've already said, I understand and possibly agree with the logic), however if we accept this action can be taken now, it can be taken again in other not necessarily equivalent situations.

This is the last I'm going to say on the matter. Literally nothing that has come up here has countered either of those points, and it looks like there is nothing that will.

Don't tag me again or quote me unless you have counter arguments to either of these points.

yes your honor, here is my counter-argument

[run_CMC]

i'm just here so i don't get fined

[Raven]

yes your honor, here is my counter-argument

Objection your honor, the defendant is clearly projecting