01-23-2020, 06:58 PMTomasnz Wrote: I am on record for hating our tampering rules. But given all this I am mostly annoyed that you could have approached Stl for a trade.

Maybe you did and they played hard ball over a player they were going to cut anyway.. 

Agree the appeals process doesn’t seem ideal. But by the sounds of it you are the one that presented evidence of contact with another team’s player without their GMs permission (unless you had that?.... maybe the st.louis GM can do us all a solid here and say that they gave said permission?)

My big issue with all this is where is the victim? Is it st.louis.. not really? But maybe? 

Sorry @BDonini I think this is a rough situation that I don’t see many easy outs of for your team or smjhl Ho..

The above is not super helpful I know but figured I would add another perspective to all this.

I think the situation as a whole is really messy and there we’re definitely missteps on Anaheim’s part, but while there is back and forth dialogue on what went wrong, the simple fact of the matter is that this isn’t tampering. He inquired the player in question about what their activity on the SHL would be and made no attempts to sway the player to his team. We can ALL agree the clear fault was the signing being illegal, as St. Louis HAD cut the player but the GM tasks weren’t finalized so ANA signed him too early. There is a precedent for that and this punishment simply isn’t it. This isn’t tampering, and it really comes across as SMJHL levying a gigantic, crippling punishment just because they can. The correct, precedent-driven punishment should be:

- ANA can’t sign free agents
- Signing is revoked, player can sign anywhere but ANA
- POTENTIALLY forfeiture of S52 GM pay

To throw a tampering punishment where ANA loses 6mil in cap space over 2 seasons AND 2 major picks, in addition to all that, is insane. This isn’t tampering, it’s being punished that way because people in leadership roles on this site get off at swinging the largest punishment possible.