ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise NHL: Transactions => Franchise NHL => NHL Leagues => Franchise NHL: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: PigsRule on September 13, 2015, 10:54:14 AM
-
SlackJack, Like any league you break rules or absuse them you will be subject to penalties.
Since you insist on the commissioners dealing with the multiple buyout and buyback issue your team is creating I will render a decision.
:COL-NHL: Colorado Avalanche Violations
Cap Circumvention and fundamental contract breach related to Alex Semin & Slava Voynov.
For the franchise attempting to openly circumvent the cap and avoid financial responibility for multiple contracts signed with the same players in question, Franchise NHL Commissiiners Office imposes a penalty of
a) +20% Cap Penalty for 2015-16 (until contract roll over complete in late July 2016) equal to $14.28m rounded to $14.3m ($71.4m x 20%)
b) For a period of two (2) years cannot sign any player that has been a member of the Colorado franchise and bought out, released and/or traded regardless of whether that player has been signed or traded to another team and released (bought out, contract expired, rtc.) or the duration of the current ownership, whichever is shorter.
-
SlackJack, Like any league you break rules or absuse them you will be subject to penalties.
Since you insist on the commissioners dealing with the multiple buyout and buyback issue your team is creating I will render a decision.
:COL-NHL: Colorado Avalanche Violations
Cap Circumvention and fundamental contract breach related to Alex Semin & Slava Voynov.
For the franchise attempting to openly circumvent the cap and avoid financial responibility for multiple contracts signed with the same players in question, Franchise NHL Commissiiners Office imposes a penalty of
a) +20% Cap Penalty for 2015-16 (until contract roll over complete in late July 2016) equal to $14.28m rounded to $14.3m ($71.4m x 20%)
b) For a period of two (2) years cannot sign any player that has been a member of the Colorado franchise and bought out, released and/or traded regardless of whether that player has been signed or traded to another team and released (bought out, contract expired, rtc.) or the duration of the current ownership, whichever is shorter.
I don't like this. These are major penalties.
Slack hasn't broken any rules and is only using the loopholes that are readily available.
What is the threshold for incurring this type of penalty? There hasn't been an official warning to the league by the commissioners or a lay out of what type of future conduct will incur these harsh penalties.
Are we finally closing the buyout/buyback loophole? If not, I don't think its right that these penalties are applied. All teams need to be subject to the same rules.
-
I don't like this. These are major penalties.
Slack hasn't broken any rules and is only using the loopholes that are readily available.
What is the threshold for incurring this type of penalty? There hasn't been an official warning to the league by the commissioners or a lay out of what type of future conduct will incur these harsh penalties.
Are we finally closing the buyout/buyback loophole? If not, I don't think its right that these penalties are applied. All teams need to be subject to the same rules.
Considering that I planned on doing the same thing with Justin Peters (with the intention of getting rid of his whole contract commitment by the end of last season), I agree with Izaman3. These "loopholes" are available to everyone, so we cannot reasonably punish SlackJack for using them. Either we close them or things will keep going like this.
-
The threshold is the measuring stick of the average owner. I can buyout and resign a guy unlimted times. But to antagonize the commissioners, say via PM you have paid for service and expect the workers in the league to do their job while you stand on a soapbox waving a flag to make a point which is heard but we are not in agreement with then continue to pull the say nonsense.
There is a line and Colorado crossed it a few times and bragged about it. Want a league where you can negotiate deadlines and rules, it isn't Franchise NHL. Want a league where you had a bad day and want to showup the ppl putting in a ton of time to organize for the benefit of all... also not here. Want to poke the bear and expect the bear to not get POed. You get the point.
-
Considering that I planned on doing the same thing with Justin Peters (with the intention of getting rid of his whole contract commitment by the end of last season), I agree with Izaman3. These "loopholes" are available to everyone, so we cannot reasonably punish SlackJack for using them. Either we close them or things will keep going like this.
And we would've kept an eye on that BO and resigning activity.
In the case of Peters another team picked him up after only 1 BO.
-
Slack hasn't broken any rules and is only using the loopholes that are readily available.
Slackjack's abusing the rules and openly challenging a decision the primary commish has laid down.
Didn't stop there.
Then Slack decided to test how far he could bend the rules and bam, hammer dropped on his head.
I am in full agreement with the penalty.
Lesson learned for the Avs.
If you want to run the league, start one of your own.
I know a bunch of gents who could've pulled the same BO and resign hampster wheel act but held back.
Also it was the way Colorado dropped players and didn't wait for them to be released on Fantrax before bidding on them again seconds later. At least give us a chance to drop the player into the FA pool so ALL the gents around here know the player's even a FA. Being sneaky and forcing a point isn't appreciated man.
-
So you guys insult my wife and then penalize me because I won't be quiet about it. Way to set the bar.
-
Slack playing innocent. HAHA
Funny stuff.
-
So you guys insult my wife and then penalize me because I won't be quiet about it. Way to set the bar.
:rofl:
I am ready for the season to start, personally.
-
Where is Roger Goddell when you need him? He is an expert at levying punishment when it comes to players wives and conduct. He also is very strict to ensure all punishments are within the same parameters as other historical punishments. Definitely nothing knee jerk.
-
Doesn't get dragged out Roger-style around here. LOL
-
Doesn't get dragged out Roger-style around here. LOL
Just wait until Slackjack appeals the decision in court...If I were you guys I would file ahead of time in the jurisdiction of your choice
-
Just wait until Slackjack appeals the decision in court...If I were you guys I would file ahead of time in the jurisdiction of your choice
Court?
Kangaroo or Center?
-
Okay, there's been some resolution regarding PR's conduct, but this penalty is still outstanding. The truth of it is that I pissed PR off and he over-reacted. I get it. He just wants a quiet league where everybody intuitively knows what they are supposed to do. I guess I'm a little more competitive then that, and so I'll use any rule I can to my advantage.
I'm still leaving the league. I know when I'm not wanted. But for all the energy put into writing up bogus penalties, a small tweak to the rules would have been easier. I tried to close the loophole, and you fought me on that. Then I tried to use the loophole, and again you fight. A small clarification written into the rule will help everyone. League administrators most of all.
-
I don't like this. These are major penalties.
Slack hasn't broken any rules and is only using the loopholes that are readily available.
What is the threshold for incurring this type of penalty? There hasn't been an official warning to the league by the commissioners or a lay out of what type of future conduct will incur these harsh penalties.
Are we finally closing the buyout/buyback loophole? If not, I don't think its right that these penalties are applied. All teams need to be subject to the same rules.
:iatp:
-
Okay, there's been some resolution regarding PR's conduct, but this penalty is still outstanding. The truth of it is that I pissed PR off and he over-reacted. I get it. He just wants a quiet league where everybody intuitively knows what they are supposed to do. I guess I'm a little more competitive then that, and so I'll use any rule I can to my advantage.
I'm still leaving the league. I know when I'm not wanted. But for all the energy put into writing up bogus penalties, a small tweak to the rules would have been easier. I tried to close the loophole, and you fought me on that. Then I tried to use the loophole, and again you fight. A small clarification written into the rule will help everyone. League administrators most of all.
I have to say I feel the same on the unwritten rule on editing your F/A bid post. I believe this should be in the rules. I lost.two players on this "comon sense" rule thats no where in our rules. I know I kniw different show. How ever I'm new here and also competitive, I don't think we should lose competitive owners. Lets step back and make the rules clear. At least on the buyout rule. You can buy out and rebid a player only once. I will work on my comon sense. Thats my 2¢
-
I have to say I feel the same on the unwritten rule on editing your F/A bid post. I believe this should be in the rules. I lost.two players on this "comon sense" rule thats no where in our rules. I know I kniw different show. How ever I'm new here and also competitive, I don't think we should lose competitive owners. Lets step back and make the rules clear. At least on the buyout rule. You can buy out and rebid a player only once. I will work on my comon sense. Thats my 2¢
i cant help you on the editing side. Every league I have been in doesnt allow editing of bid posts, Without it people could tamper with their bids. but ya, it could be thrown into the rules section to have it written out.