Login

**_Blitz_** · 04-18-2021, 02:43 PM

04-18-2021, 01:43 PMspooked Wrote: Let me ask you a question, if the budget director misses a problem with his own contract and his own teams budget, is it common sense to ignore the team going over the cap just cause we did not get told by that user when it happened? To me that is a very tricky question, but I am interested to know your take on it from that perspective.

Quote:It was paid out according to misunderstanding of the rule that cleared four people directly involved, plus the rest of us in the room that pay attention to contracts, plus anybody else that's supposed to check over contracts.

We honestly thought in reading the rule and contracts as they were written that we had proper understanding and application.

I'll admit it looks bad. Dex knows he screwed up, we all know we screwed up at this point. It was a misinterpretation of a shoddily-written rule that passed through multiple layers for almost a year. There's no "probably", this was a mistake.

You want to talk about how the situation looks? Toronto came within 30 seconds of the Finals for the first time since S37 with several seasons at the bottom of the barrel in between, and then y'all waited until after the contracts were finalized for this season to drop this on us. Break out the Isopropyl for those optics too, 'cause that seems just as dirty.

What more can I say? Do you seriously think you're the only one who's tired of this argument? Don't condescend with "we didn't wanna". If that's the case, you'd have investigated. You'd have asked. This argument wouldn't be a thing, or it would have resolved quickly.

Also, "self-created a cap problem" is a fucked up way of saying "tight against cap due to TPE".

*leviadan* · 04-18-2021, 03:00 PM

04-18-2021, 02:43 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: You want to talk about how the situation looks? Toronto came within 30 seconds of the Finals for the first time since S37 with several seasons at the bottom of the barrel in between, and then y'all waited until after the contracts were finalized for this season to drop this on us. Break out the Isopropyl for those optics too, 'cause that seems just as dirty.

You have a very bizarre argument that I'm not fully understanding. You admit there's wrongdoing but want it waived for lack of intent? If you could only punish based on intent everyone would say they didn't mean to do it and nobody could ever be punished.

I also feel like if BUF or HAM had made a 2M cap violation and HO hand waved it because they "didn't intend to" people would lose their mind.

I understand that it sucks it happened to your team, but I don't see anything actionable you want any more-- you're just mad it's Toronto.

**_Blitz_** · 04-18-2021, 03:59 PM

04-18-2021, 03:00 PMleviadan Wrote:
04-18-2021, 02:43 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: You want to talk about how the situation looks? Toronto came within 30 seconds of the Finals for the first time since S37 with several seasons at the bottom of the barrel in between, and then y'all waited until after the contracts were finalized for this season to drop this on us. Break out the Isopropyl for those optics too, 'cause that seems just as dirty.

You have a very bizarre argument that I'm not fully understanding. You admit there's wrongdoing but want it waived for lack of intent? If you could only punish based on intent everyone would say they didn't mean to do it and nobody could ever be punished.

I also feel like if BUF or HAM had made a 2M cap violation and HO hand waved it because they "didn't intend to" people would lose their mind.

I understand that it sucks it happened to your team, but I don't see anything actionable you want any more-- you're just mad it's Toronto.

I'm not just mad that it's my team; it's not right regardless.

The reason I'd see it waived is that there's already precedent for a rule misunderstanding that merits a clarification to this level. Digging up a mistake to punish from three seasons ago would be fucked if it was HAM or BUF or TEX or any team in the league, especially when HO had to re-write a rule because of it.

I get what you're saying. I've slogged through the mud pretty hard for the last week and it's not a good look. Part of making my concessions is that I'm trying to be reasonable and honest. I'm digging my heels in because I feel like my point is being ignored in response.

Nhamlet · 04-18-2021, 04:32 PM

04-18-2021, 02:43 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: You want to talk about how the situation looks? Toronto came within 30 seconds of the Finals for the first time since S37 with several seasons at the bottom of the barrel in between, and then y'all waited until after the contracts were finalized for this season to drop this on us. Break out the Isopropyl for those optics too, 'cause that seems just as dirty.

Not it matters or changes anything at all, but the timeline in terms of how this came to be was when I confirmed the S59 budget for Toronto after all the offseason transactions/renewals etc., I had only noticed the S58 bonus clause for squall and looked to see if it would be a concern for S59, which it would have been.

If that was missed, the next thing that made sense was to go back in time and check on the other seasons with bonuses and ensure nothing else was missed just in case. That led to finding the contradictory language between the bonus clause in Dex's contract compared the rules in the rulebook.

It might be easier to attribute malice and intent to the decision and the timing of the discovery but it's just simply a coincidence of finding one impending mistake and doublechecking what others passed over.

JNH · 04-18-2021, 04:47 PM

04-18-2021, 02:43 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: You want to talk about how the situation looks? Toronto came within 30 seconds of the Finals for the first time since S37 with several seasons at the bottom of the barrel in between, and then y'all waited until after the contracts were finalized for this season to drop this on us. Break out the Isopropyl for those optics too, 'cause that seems just as dirty.

No shot you're trying to actually suggest that this was done maliciously because you guys finally made the playoffs. The credibility of any argument you make about whether or not Toronto should be punished for a misunderstanding is undermined by such a wildly baseless accusation.

That's pathetic behaviour from an SMJHL GM and this stands for all the other members that believe this as well. Great example setting for the new members acting as if there's some integrity issue in HO & conspiracy against you making the playoffs. I've joked about it in threads because of how ridiculous that accusation is, but to see that you're on it this seriously is insane.

***WannabeFinn*** · 04-18-2021, 05:03 PM

imagine avoiding this whole thing by just not using bonuses lol

RedCapeDiver · 04-18-2021, 05:08 PM

04-18-2021, 05:03 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: imagine avoiding this whole thing by just not using bonuses lol

**_Blitz_** · 04-18-2021, 05:19 PM

04-18-2021, 04:47 PMJNH Wrote:
04-18-2021, 02:43 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: You want to talk about how the situation looks? Toronto came within 30 seconds of the Finals for the first time since S37 with several seasons at the bottom of the barrel in between, and then y'all waited until after the contracts were finalized for this season to drop this on us. Break out the Isopropyl for those optics too, 'cause that seems just as dirty.

No shot you're trying to actually suggest that this was done maliciously because you guys finally made the playoffs. The credibility of any argument you make about whether or not Toronto should be punished for a misunderstanding is undermined by such a wildly baseless accusation.

That's pathetic behaviour from an SMJHL GM and this stands for all the other members that believe this as well. Great example setting for the new members acting as if there's some integrity issue in HO & conspiracy against you making the playoffs. I've joked about it in threads because of how ridiculous that accusation is, but to see that you're on it this seriously is insane.

It was a response to the suggestion that Spooked made. I apologize for playing to the joke I know has been made in the same post with the serious side of my argument. I thought giving it some division made it more clear that it was played for ridiculous. That was an error on my part. You're right.

I know it's ridiculous, I don't actually believe that. I was responding to theory with theory as an example, and I made the same mistake that I called Teddy out for earlier. I apologize, @spooked.

**_Blitz_** · 04-18-2021, 05:30 PM

04-18-2021, 04:32 PMNhamlet Wrote:
04-18-2021, 02:43 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: You want to talk about how the situation looks? Toronto came within 30 seconds of the Finals for the first time since S37 with several seasons at the bottom of the barrel in between, and then y'all waited until after the contracts were finalized for this season to drop this on us. Break out the Isopropyl for those optics too, 'cause that seems just as dirty.

Not it matters or changes anything at all, but the timeline in terms of how this came to be was when I confirmed the S59 budget for Toronto after all the offseason transactions/renewals etc., I had only noticed the S58 bonus clause for squall and looked to see if it would be a concern for S59, which it would have been.

If that was missed, the next thing that made sense was to go back in time and check on the other seasons with bonuses and ensure nothing else was missed just in case. That led to finding the contradictory language between the bonus clause in Dex's contract compared the rules in the rulebook.

It might be easier to attribute malice and intent to the decision and the timing of the discovery but it's just simply a coincidence of finding one impending mistake and doublechecking what others passed over.

Ultimately I know that, and I get it. As I clarified, that was a poor attempt at poking the ridiculousness of the suggestion that Dex broke the rules on purpose. I don't hold the timing of discovery or anybody involved in contempt, though the cost of the timing really chaps.

My argument has been based around the punishment instead of the timing for good reason. I know that conspiracy is a joke.

JNH · 04-18-2021, 05:41 PM

04-18-2021, 05:19 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote:
04-18-2021, 04:47 PMJNH Wrote: No shot you're trying to actually suggest that this was done maliciously because you guys finally made the playoffs. The credibility of any argument you make about whether or not Toronto should be punished for a misunderstanding is undermined by such a wildly baseless accusation.

That's pathetic behaviour from an SMJHL GM and this stands for all the other members that believe this as well. Great example setting for the new members acting as if there's some integrity issue in HO & conspiracy against you making the playoffs. I've joked about it in threads because of how ridiculous that accusation is, but to see that you're on it this seriously is insane.
It was a response to the suggestion that Spooked made. I apologize for playing to the joke I know has been made in the same post with the serious side of my argument. I thought giving it some division made it more clear that it was played for ridiculous. That was an error on my part. You're right.

I know it's ridiculous, I don't actually believe that. I was responding to theory with theory as an example, and I made the same mistake that I called Teddy out for earlier. I apologize, @spooked.

That's fair, I'm just tired of the people who legitimately do feel that way and members like Nhamlet's credibility being attacked for doing what is literally his job.

Samsung virtual assistant · 04-18-2021, 05:46 PM

04-18-2021, 05:41 PMJNH Wrote:
04-18-2021, 05:19 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: It was a response to the suggestion that Spooked made. I apologize for playing to the joke I know has been made in the same post with the serious side of my argument. I thought giving it some division made it more clear that it was played for ridiculous. That was an error on my part. You're right.

I know it's ridiculous, I don't actually believe that. I was responding to theory with theory as an example, and I made the same mistake that I called Teddy out for earlier. I apologize, @spooked.

That's fair, I'm just tired of the people who legitimately do feel that way and members like Nhamlet's credibility being attacked for doing what is literally his job.

well said UGLY

**_Blitz_** · 04-18-2021, 05:59 PM

04-18-2021, 05:41 PMJNH Wrote:
04-18-2021, 05:19 PMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote: It was a response to the suggestion that Spooked made. I apologize for playing to the joke I know has been made in the same post with the serious side of my argument. I thought giving it some division made it more clear that it was played for ridiculous. That was an error on my part. You're right.

I know it's ridiculous, I don't actually believe that. I was responding to theory with theory as an example, and I made the same mistake that I called Teddy out for earlier. I apologize, @spooked.

That's fair, I'm just tired of the people who legitimately do feel that way and members like Nhamlet's credibility being attacked for doing what is literally his job.

Nham is a beautiful soul. I don't get to just chat with Nham enough and that is my greatest complaint about him.

Memento Mori · 04-19-2021, 05:47 AM

04-18-2021, 01:43 PMspooked Wrote: Let me ask you a question, if the budget director misses a problem with his own contract and his own teams budget, is it common sense to ignore the team going over the cap just cause we did not get told by that user when it happened? To me that is a very tricky question, but I am interested to know your take on it from that perspective.

Surely you don't have the budget director review his own contract or his own team's budget? Why not just have someone else review it and avoid any possibility of that situation arising?

***Nike*** · 04-19-2021, 10:04 AM

04-16-2021, 11:37 PMJobin Wrote:
04-16-2021, 11:28 PMsuavemente Wrote: Im here for the recipe.
Spread peanut butter on two slices of bread
Cut up banana and place it on one slice of bread
Put the two piece of bread together
Peanut butter and banana sandwich

***spooked*** · 04-19-2021, 12:39 PM

04-19-2021, 05:47 AMMemento Mori Wrote:
04-18-2021, 01:43 PMspooked Wrote: Let me ask you a question, if the budget director misses a problem with his own contract and his own teams budget, is it common sense to ignore the team going over the cap just cause we did not get told by that user when it happened? To me that is a very tricky question, but I am interested to know your take on it from that perspective.
Surely you don't have the budget director review his own contract or his own team's budget? Why not just have someone else review it and avoid any possibility of that situation arising?

I cannot say exactly how it was handled a few seasons ago as I don't have much information from that time other than the department was extremely small and falling behind. But that level of department control is not really within the scope of HO directly and would be up to the director to either avoid or make sure their own stuff is 100% correct and fair. HO can step in if something is wrong to dictate some change to the department, as we can hold directors to a certain standard, but other than that we are trusting the people we pick for those type of roles to do the job in a proper manner.

This missed issue in combination with the Edmonton one, and the general feedback we have gotten from the site in the various forms we have gotten have made the budget team a HUGE focus for HO the past couple seasons, which is why this offseason saw improvements already in getting things caught up and why nour and Luke have been working hard with Dex to iron out the problems we have been seeing and getting things to the same standard as the rest of the site.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us