Login

Bfine · 04-28-2023, 08:54 PM

04-28-2023, 08:39 PMsve7en Wrote: So, to be clear about where the issue is, the process to follow needs to be:

Outside interest notes interest to hiring GM or to their GM
Hiring GM says "noted" (or nothing at all), then reaches out to retaining GM
or
Retaining GM reaches out
Once further conversation is okayed, can talk more about job.

To do otherwise (talk to the player before clearing it GM to GM) is gonna be tampering because either the hiring GM has asked the player to start this process with their GM and it looks like influencing the player to leave their team.

e// or just like don't talk to contracted players about joining your org without talking to their gm

HO will define the process but this is what we suggested. Ideally both GM's (we didn't clarify Head vs either Head or Co we're leaving that in the hands of HO) will have talked with each other before the hiring GM begins interviewing the prospective candidate.

**.bojo** · 04-28-2023, 09:19 PM

Quote: HO also nullified a trade that was agreed to between Toronto and Edmonton for the acquisition of said player because one of the draft picks to be forfeit was included in this trade (S75 EDM 1st). Since the trade was agreed upon by both parties 3 days before HO levied a tampering punishment, the appeals team committee decided that the trade should stand and the forfeit 1st round pick should slide to the next Edmonton 1st round pick (S76 EDM 1st).

But the OP made it seem like they were strong armed into making that trade. And if I’m reading this right, they have to make that trade now, and with a future first instead of the current one?

***RAmenAmen*** · 04-28-2023, 09:22 PM

04-28-2023, 09:19 PM.bojo Wrote: But the OP made it seem like they were strong armed into making that trade. And if I’m reading this right, they have to make that trade now, and with a future first instead of the current one?

Sliding the impacted picks allows the trade to go through with current picks (a total of 3 1st rounders for the player), rather than revoke current picks and make a future trade need later picks.

***Gwdjohnson*** · 04-28-2023, 09:31 PM

[Image: plink-wide-cat-plink-cat-meow-gif-27396868.gif]

Briedaqueduc · 04-28-2023, 09:32 PM

04-28-2023, 09:31 PMGwdjohnson Wrote:

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

**bbjygm** · 04-28-2023, 09:56 PM

Loss of PT Pass one of the stronger punishments there

***luke*** · 04-28-2023, 09:56 PM

04-28-2023, 08:25 PMBfine Wrote: Good evening,

The appeals team has received, deliberated and reached a decision on the appeal of the following Punishment: https://simulationhockey.com/showthread.php?tid=130482

The basis for this appeal is that Edmonton attempted to follow a customary process to be exempt from the tampering rule by getting permission from the Toronto GMs to speak with one of their users regarding an open co-GM position. This process is not described in the rulebook.

The following is an excerpt from the rulebook on tampering:
Tampering is defined as ANY attempt to persuade a player under contract with another team to sign with/join your team.
Attempts at tampering include, but are not limited to:
-Speaking about contract specifics, be it dollar value or term length.
-Speaking to a contracted player about roster openings, or where the tampered player would fit into your team's roster should they sign.
-Upselling your team's members, telling the tampered player how well they would fit in with the personalities on your team.
-Encouraging a player to ask for a trade request from their team to yours.

HO has typically allowed General Managers to gain permission from other team’s GMs to speak to one of their contracted players. In this particular case, HFFO asked the user to speak with his GMs. The user did send a message in the Toronto discord stating “Hey gang, I don’t know how to say or sugar coat this… I’m interested in that EDM co-gm position….” and received a reply from co-GM mcgriddleluver about 1 and a half hours later stating: “I wish you the best and I hope they hire someone else because it would suck to lose you”.

While we acknowledge that mcgriddle’s message could be interpreted as permission, the fact that the user in question did not formally apply for the position until after HFFO initiated trade discussions for said user with Toronto was significant in our determination that this met the threshold of tampering

HO also nullified a trade that was agreed to between Toronto and Edmonton for the acquisition of said player because one of the draft picks to be forfeit was included in this trade (S75 EDM 1st). Since the trade was agreed upon by both parties 3 days before HO levied a tampering punishment, the appeals team committee decided that the trade should stand and the forfeit 1st round pick should slide to the next Edmonton 1st round pick (S76 EDM 1st).

The appeals committee has requested that head office immediately work towards adding the appropriate process for hiring external co-gm candidates to the rulebook. We also suggest that the external co-gm exception to the tampering rule be codified in the rulebook to avoid future confusion.

To summarize:
All aspects of the punishment stand with the forfeited first round pick moving from S75 to S76.

If there are any questions please ask a member of the Appeals Committee. Thank you.

Question here: if the committee agrees that it is tampering, why is the trade still be letting go? Onto that fact, what power shows the appeals committee is allowed to overturn a rejection of a trade due to tampering?

Wouldn’t this lead to future tampering charges that have a trade before the punishment still lead to the trade being let go through which directly contradicts the whole tampering case?

FuzzSHL · 04-28-2023, 10:42 PM

04-28-2023, 09:56 PMluke Wrote: Question here: if the committee agrees that it is tampering, why is the trade still be letting go? Onto that fact, what power shows the appeals committee is allowed to overturn a rejection of a trade due to tampering?

Wouldn’t this lead to future tampering charges that have a trade before the punishment still lead to the trade being let go through which directly contradicts the whole tampering case?

Hell’s frozen over, I agree with Luke on something

Aleksi Kettu

***aleks*** · 04-28-2023, 10:57 PM

04-28-2023, 10:42 PMFuzzSHL Wrote: Hell’s frozen over, I agree with Luke on something

More like hells frozen over, Luke has said something reasonable

*Count Chocula* · 04-28-2023, 11:49 PM

04-28-2023, 09:56 PMluke Wrote: Question here: if the committee agrees that it is tampering, why is the trade still be letting go? Onto that fact, what power shows the appeals committee is allowed to overturn a rejection of a trade due to tampering?

Wouldn’t this lead to future tampering charges that have a trade before the punishment still lead to the trade being let go through which directly contradicts the whole tampering case?

Cause deep down they know it wasn’t really tampering

***hockeyfan*** · 04-29-2023, 01:30 AM

Another first round pick for Toronto? Go @Wally go

Samsung virtual assistant · 04-29-2023, 03:08 AM

Tampering is a joke rule tbh

*Carpy48* · 04-29-2023, 03:44 AM

I'm confused. Maybe I need more coffee first.

Samsung virtual assistant · 04-29-2023, 03:47 AM

04-29-2023, 03:44 AMCarpy48 Wrote: I'm confused. Maybe I need more coffee first.

[Image: 1061555101409493102.webp?size=96&quality=lossless]

***luke*** · 04-29-2023, 07:25 AM

04-28-2023, 11:49 PMCount Chocula Wrote: Cause deep down they know it wasn’t really tampering

Then why didn’t they say it haha. I don’t care if it’s tampering or not but if it’s not tampering let the trade through. If it is don’t because it’s tampering. Appeals committee says it’s tampering but also lets the trade through?

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us