+- Simulation Hockey League (https://simulationhockey.com)
+-- Forum: League Transactions (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Forum: General Transactions (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=332)
+---- Forum: SHL Roster Transactions (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=224)
+----- Forum: Processed Signings (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=587)
+----- Thread: CGY-TEX **VOIDED** (/showthread.php?tid=21964)
- paco - 03-31-2013
welcome to paradise
- HabsFanFromOntario - 04-02-2013
Why's this voided?
- Kesler17 - 04-02-2013
Why is this voided ?
- Aaron "AAA" Allen - 04-02-2013
This is why, according to the new commish -> http://theshl.b1.jcink.com/index.php?showtopic=23439
- HabsFanFromOntario - 04-02-2013
Thanks Heiss :D
- Wadester - 04-02-2013
Totally forgot about the new rule, back to the drawing board
- O4L - 04-02-2013
Quote:Originally posted by Wadester@Apr 1 2013, 09:31 PM
Totally forgot about the new rule, back to the drawing board
- Schultzy - 04-02-2013
And once again Hamilton gets screwed. Joe discussed the possibility of a future trade back BEFORE there was a rule preventing it and got a 10 game suspension.
Texas & Calgary COMPLETE a trade back AFTER the rule was implemented and announced and get a mulligan.
The lack of consistency around here is only rivaled by the blatant favoritism.
- Wadester - 04-02-2013
Quote:Originally posted by malcontentcapsfan@Apr 2 2013, 12:06 AM
And once again Hamilton gets screwed. Joe discussed the possibility of a future trade back BEFORE there was a rule preventing it and got a 10 game suspension.
Texas &Â Calgary COMPLETE a trade back AFTER the rule was implemented and announced and get a mulligan.
The lack of consistency around here is only rivaled by the blatant favoritism.
Right trading picks that don't exist for a free rental and colluding with another GM is the same as making 2 hockey trades. The rule is being reworded and my deal is being vetoed.
And so everyone knows I was the one who brought this to the commishes as soon as I was informed by another member of the boards of the rule. But of course some people dont see the difference.
- Schultzy - 04-02-2013
Quote:Originally posted by Wadester@Apr 2 2013, 01:03 AM
Right trading picks that don't exist for a free rental and colluding with another GM is the same as making 2 hockey trades. The rule is being reworded and my deal is being vetoed.
And so everyone knows I was the one who brought this to the commishes as soon as I was informed by another member of the boards of the rule. But of course some people dont see the difference.
But the Hamilton-LA trade was voided just the same, the trade back was never attempted and any pick that was discussed was owned by the team, and the rule wasn't in place at the time. Yet Joe got suspended. Here the rule was in place and the trade back happened so they just changed the rule and gave you a chance to do it again.
Not saying that you should be suspended but Joe's certainly should be rescinded. There's a clear lack of consistency between two identical and recent trades.
- Jaymay - 04-02-2013
Because there was collusion in the Hamilton trade and not in this one.
- O4L - 04-02-2013
Quote:Originally posted by malcontentcapsfan@Apr 1 2013, 11:16 PM
But the Hamilton-LA trade was voided just the same, the trade back was never attempted and any pick that was discussed was owned by the team, and the rule wasn't in place at the time. Yet Joe got suspended. Here the rule was in place and the trade back happened so they just changed the rule and gave you a chance to do it again.
Not saying that you should be suspended but Joe's certainly should be rescinded. There's a clear lack of consistency between two identical and recent trades.
First of all the Dragons and the Gades had no plans to trade back. In the Hamilton/LA trade from what i've seen their clearly was. Secondly that trade was straight up for picks that wouldn't even be picks. In this vetoed trade Benda wasn't even the main part. Thirdly you can blame me for messing up my first trade. I didn't even know that was a rule that was put in place. Now I do and I apologize for the confusion on the original trade. It's seemingly all sorted out now though.
- Schultzy - 04-02-2013
Quote:Originally posted by O4L@Apr 2 2013, 01:32 AM
First of all the Dragons and the Gades had no plans to trade back. In the Hamilton/LA trade from what i've seen their clearly was. Secondly that trade was straight up for picks that wouldn't even be picks. In this vetoed trade Benda wasn't even the main part. Thirdly you can blame me for messing up my first trade. I didn't even know that was a rule that was put in place. Now I do and I apologize for the confusion on the original trade. It's seemingly all sorted out now though.
But the fact is your trade clearly violated the rule that was put in place. The Hamilton-LA trade didn't violate any rule, and yet Joe still got suspended for discussing what you actually did.
That's my point. Whether you and Wadey tried to circumvent the rule or not is irrelevant to me. Joe didn't violate the rule because it didn't exist at the time. You guys did and so they changed the rule. I don't care whether you guys get suspended. It doesn't bother me one bit. But if there's an exception for you guys AFTER the rule was implemented how can there be no exception for Joe BEFORE the rule was implemented?
- Tim Bisley2 - 04-02-2013
Quote:Originally posted by malcontentcapsfan@Apr 2 2013, 01:42 AM
But the fact is your trade clearly violated the rule that was put in place. The Hamilton-LA trade didn't violate any rule, and yet Joe still got suspended for discussing what you actually did.
That's my point. Whether you and Wadey tried to circumvent the rule or not is irrelevant to me. Joe didn't violate the rule because it didn't exist at the time. You guys did and so they changed the rule. I don't care whether you guys get suspended. It doesn't bother me one bit. But if there's an exception for you guys AFTER the rule was implemented how can there be no exception for Joe BEFORE the rule was implemented?
Joe got in trouble for trying to cheat. This trade was vetoed because of a rule in place and there was no intention of cheating. See the difference?
There is a difference between colluding to do a trade-back in order to circumvent rules and honestly deciding to trade and get a player you previously traded back or that the player was added to your deal by the GM of the other team. There is a definite difference there. The rule is only in place because two people tried to cheat.
- Jaymay - 04-02-2013
Schultz man, Joe didn't get suspended for trading back. He got suspended for getting a player for free for your playoff run and then potentially trading hm back for nothing again. The rule was put in place so that it doesn't happen and any trades that broke it would be vetoed, not so that every time it happens someone gets suspended. Unless of course there's some collusion involved which isn't the case here.
Case closed.