06-03-2018, 05:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2018, 06:08 PM by ExemplaryChad.)
In recent weeks, Head Office has been considering and debating a number of budgetary issues that have arisen for Season 8. The following proposals were up for discussion. These were only under discussion, not necessarily passed in this form or any other.
Proposal 1: Baltimore should be issued a $3.5M salary cap penalty. They were $1.25M over the cap. They will be penalized twice the amount of the overage, plus a $1M penalty for an improper contract that was over budget. They also must become cap compliant immediately.
Proposal 2: Philadelphia should be issued a $1M salary cap penalty. They had an incorrect contract that made them appear over the salary cap by $0.5M. In reality, this contract had been reduced due to regression, but the change had not been reflected in the team’s budget.
Proposal 3: Baltimore should be issued three (3) separate $1M salary cap penalties. They had three contracts that were not updated upon extension, making the contracts incorrect.
After much deliberation, and upon a formal vote:
Proposal 1 passed. Baltimore will be penalized $3.5M in the coming season’s salary cap; they also must become cap compliant immediately. SEE EDIT.
Proposal 2 failed.
Proposal 3 failed.
Discussion:
Proposal 1 was passed with no objection. It was a simple case of a team being over the cap and that team being penalized accordingly. There is precedent for this ruling in a number of seasons prior.
Proposal 2 was voted down for a number of reasons. Primarily, this was not a case where harm was either intended or done to the league, nor was the team concerned given any advantage by the actions taken. It seems to be a simple mistake, and one that did not cause any damage in any way. As a secondary justification, the error was due to a change in the contract caused by regression. Since this is the first season that the league is undergoing regression, and this is the first time that a contract has been affected in such a way, it seems like some leniency should be due the team in question. This can be considered an extenuating circumstance. Given the aforementioned primary reason and this secondary reason, it was decided that Philadelphia should face no penalty for this infraction.
Proposal 3 was voted down for a number of reasons as well. Primarily, this benefitted from the same reasoning as Proposal 2. The league wasn’t harmed, and the team didn’t benefit. As a secondary justification, a contributing factor to this oversight could have been a lack of codification on the part of Head Office and/or the league as a whole. As it stands, it is difficult for the front office (the GMs) of a team to understand and keep track of every detail of budget postings and updates. While there was a rule passed in Season 5 that teams should post every year of a contract, not just the current year, it was not made clear where and when an original budget document should be updated or amended upon renewal or extension of a contract. As the rule was unclear at the time of the infraction, it was decided that Baltimore should face no penalty for this infraction.
Conclusion:
Essentially, Head Office was faced with a difficult decision that could take the league in two directions at this moment in our history. Do we stick to the letter of the law, penalize everyone, and run the risk of harshly punishing minor or inconsequential infractions in order to remain consistent? Or do we grant leniency, running the risk of appearing inconsistent, in order to judge each individual case on its own merit while we are still young and growing?
Ultimately, we chose to be lenient with an eye towards improving for the future. We are in the process of formalizing and codifying many of the policies and procedures of this league. While that is happening, however, we do not feel it appropriate to always stick to the letter of a law that may be vague or misunderstood. While we recognize that there are some who will disagree with this direction, we want our members to feel that they are treated fairly and that each case will be thoroughly considered and discussed before any action is taken. We hope that you will bear with us through the growing pains of a young league, and we appreciate your understanding.
Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns, I will make myself available to respond however I can. Thank you for your time.
EDIT: Upon re-examination, there was a miscommunication between Baltimore and HO, where the two budgets being compared did not display the same contracts. Baltimore still had listed their S7 budgets, and HO mistook these as being for S8. Due to this error, there will be no penalties levied against Baltimore, as they are indeed cap compliant. On behalf of Head Office, I apologize for any confusion caused by this miscommunication. We hope that the situation is rectified, and we are putting procedures in place to prevent this issue from recurring in future seasons.
Proposal 1: Baltimore should be issued a $3.5M salary cap penalty. They were $1.25M over the cap. They will be penalized twice the amount of the overage, plus a $1M penalty for an improper contract that was over budget. They also must become cap compliant immediately.
Proposal 2: Philadelphia should be issued a $1M salary cap penalty. They had an incorrect contract that made them appear over the salary cap by $0.5M. In reality, this contract had been reduced due to regression, but the change had not been reflected in the team’s budget.
Proposal 3: Baltimore should be issued three (3) separate $1M salary cap penalties. They had three contracts that were not updated upon extension, making the contracts incorrect.
After much deliberation, and upon a formal vote:
Proposal 1 passed. Baltimore will be penalized $3.5M in the coming season’s salary cap; they also must become cap compliant immediately. SEE EDIT.
Proposal 2 failed.
Proposal 3 failed.
Discussion:
Proposal 1 was passed with no objection. It was a simple case of a team being over the cap and that team being penalized accordingly. There is precedent for this ruling in a number of seasons prior.
Proposal 2 was voted down for a number of reasons. Primarily, this was not a case where harm was either intended or done to the league, nor was the team concerned given any advantage by the actions taken. It seems to be a simple mistake, and one that did not cause any damage in any way. As a secondary justification, the error was due to a change in the contract caused by regression. Since this is the first season that the league is undergoing regression, and this is the first time that a contract has been affected in such a way, it seems like some leniency should be due the team in question. This can be considered an extenuating circumstance. Given the aforementioned primary reason and this secondary reason, it was decided that Philadelphia should face no penalty for this infraction.
Proposal 3 was voted down for a number of reasons as well. Primarily, this benefitted from the same reasoning as Proposal 2. The league wasn’t harmed, and the team didn’t benefit. As a secondary justification, a contributing factor to this oversight could have been a lack of codification on the part of Head Office and/or the league as a whole. As it stands, it is difficult for the front office (the GMs) of a team to understand and keep track of every detail of budget postings and updates. While there was a rule passed in Season 5 that teams should post every year of a contract, not just the current year, it was not made clear where and when an original budget document should be updated or amended upon renewal or extension of a contract. As the rule was unclear at the time of the infraction, it was decided that Baltimore should face no penalty for this infraction.
Conclusion:
Essentially, Head Office was faced with a difficult decision that could take the league in two directions at this moment in our history. Do we stick to the letter of the law, penalize everyone, and run the risk of harshly punishing minor or inconsequential infractions in order to remain consistent? Or do we grant leniency, running the risk of appearing inconsistent, in order to judge each individual case on its own merit while we are still young and growing?
Ultimately, we chose to be lenient with an eye towards improving for the future. We are in the process of formalizing and codifying many of the policies and procedures of this league. While that is happening, however, we do not feel it appropriate to always stick to the letter of a law that may be vague or misunderstood. While we recognize that there are some who will disagree with this direction, we want our members to feel that they are treated fairly and that each case will be thoroughly considered and discussed before any action is taken. We hope that you will bear with us through the growing pains of a young league, and we appreciate your understanding.
Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns, I will make myself available to respond however I can. Thank you for your time.
EDIT: Upon re-examination, there was a miscommunication between Baltimore and HO, where the two budgets being compared did not display the same contracts. Baltimore still had listed their S7 budgets, and HO mistook these as being for S8. Due to this error, there will be no penalties levied against Baltimore, as they are indeed cap compliant. On behalf of Head Office, I apologize for any confusion caused by this miscommunication. We hope that the situation is rectified, and we are putting procedures in place to prevent this issue from recurring in future seasons.
![[Image: cHAD.jpg]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/319945672310784010/405609245862658059/cHAD.jpg)
![[Image: image.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/332292285788192788/401385203261636609/image.png)
![[Image: AjG7IlG.png]](https://images-ext-2.discordapp.net/external/3XePkbq5Roxja4-XKktZu8IlUj3T3zxVQoCpIhNS_Lc/https/i.imgur.com/AjG7IlG.png)
![[Image: TBFYuND.png]](https://i.imgur.com/TBFYuND.png)
![[Image: RhrM963.png]](https://i.imgur.com/RhrM963.png)
![[Image: bxKqp91.png]](https://i.imgur.com/bxKqp91.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/xWwLCZmhVgTG8/giphy.gif)
