Create Account

Toronto North Stars Punishment
#46

Will this case determine a statute of limitations for SHL going forward?

I feel the way bonuses work could be changed. They feel less practical than other leagues. Allow teams to pay out any unused cap space at the end of the season as they see fit. This allows bonuses to apply to the current season and if not achieved, the team can still use that money for something.

[Image: jrousseau.gif]
[Image: j7ebBxQ.png] [Image: FbT2Pb1.png]
Canada Knights Canada Knights Canada
Reply
#47

Wow I missed a lot today huh.

[Image: juniped_shl.gif]
Reply
#48

04-09-2021, 08:45 PMluketd Wrote:
04-09-2021, 08:27 PMSimply Incorrect Wrote: @"luketd"

My issue here is that HO actually admits that the language of the rule is “murky at best”, which means you acknowledge it would easy to misinterpret, which HO also says is the reason behind the infraction.

Which means there was no ill-intent on Toronto’s side, and they didn’t intentionally do this to subvert the rules and gain an advantage.

So with all that, it feels rather silly to be going back 3 seasons to retroactively punish them for this. A change of language and a warning going forward would of made more sense.

The part that is murky is that a bonus is in relation to a S55 action but for a S56 contract. So the question is whether would it be added to S56, because the action was completed in S55. Or is it added to the S57 cap because the contract was accepted for S56 bonus.

HO agrees that it would apply to the S57 cap, but we also agree that ML did not do it in ill-will, hence why we lowered it to a 2 mil cap hit instead.

I hope I answered your question
Honestly this is not how I would interpret the rule personally as my contract that is ending this season has had conditions every season for a bonus to be paid out on the following season's budget(IE Collin Gibbles scores 30 goals in S55, gains bonus in S56). But from my reading of HO's interpretation the season hit in the prior example would actually be a S57 hit? If that's the case, I could be just as guilty as ML for this sort of thing, granted I have only hit 2 of my conditions because FHM hates me.

[Image: spartangibbles.gif]
[Image: qGhUIfY.png]  Outlungus   Usa Monarchs  [Image: PlcJv9V.png]
Reply
#49

So lets take a look,

-Toronto did not fail to apply the bonus; they applied it in the incorrect season,
-Toronto understood that they were applying the bonus in the correct season,
-Toronto acted in good faith,
-The bonus in question is all of $500k,
-Nobody bothered to correct them at the time,
-All of this happened 4 seasons ago.

...does this penalty really need to be issued?

[Image: avakaelsig.gif]


Reply
#50

04-10-2021, 08:18 AMAvakael Wrote: So lets take a look,

-Toronto did not fail to apply the bonus; they applied it in the incorrect season,
-Toronto understood that they were applying the bonus in the correct season,
-Toronto acted in good faith,
-The bonus in question is all of $500k,
-Nobody bothered to correct them at the time,
-All of this happened 4 seasons ago.

...does this penalty really need to be issued?

Probably a few hot heads in HO who are just keen to punish any infringement with the idea, well the owners will do the right thing so why should we. Louder heads typically prevail over logic most times in rulings based off past experience.
Reply
#51

Brutal

[Image: Grapehead.gif]
TY NOKA AND VALOR FOR THESE WORKS OF ART
Player Page | Update Page




Stars Battleborn Czechia
Reply
#52
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2021, 09:26 AM by jRuutu.)

This is interesting, as pointed out earlier in this thread, this could open the door for other possible crimes and errors of the past being punished now at much later time. Who decides where the line goes timewise, is HO neutral enough to decide on punishments regarding something that happened way back, can evidence be hidden and tampered now?

It does not sound fair to punish someone for something minor that happened long time ago.
Reply
#53

Oh wow, this is some bullshit. Especially since Toronto (in early 2020) thought they were following the rules just fine.

Why not just waive the penalty? The budgeting team did more wrong here than Toronto did. If you want to punish Toronto, have them proofread the verbiage of this rule.
Reply
#54

04-10-2021, 02:24 AMCapt_Blitzkrieg Wrote:
04-09-2021, 07:46 PMluketd Wrote: So the main argument is through
Code:
If a player meets the requirements for a bonus in their contract, the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season’s cap (ex. Player achieves a bonus in S50, bonus is paid out in S51 and counts towards the S51 Salary Cap).

For us, since the bonus was for the S56 season, if  they complete the bonus, it would go to S57. I do see where ML is coming from, I do understand, but per this rulebook rule, HO decided that the bonus would have to be in S57. Again, with the appeal we will see what the owners say, and decide and we will go from there, and adjust.

I think my problem here is that the way I read the rule, it says that as long as the bonus specifies its dependence on the criteria having been met the season before the bonus is paid out, it's compliant. That's it. 

The rule doesn't say that it has to be labelled S56 Bonus and apply to S57. The rule also does not say that adding a condition for bonus based on a season that is already under contract is not allowed. The way ml worded the contract posting specified that the bonus would be paid out in S56 for criteria met in S55. The season chosen for these bonuses was not breaking either rule mentioned since it's not modifying anything about the players' S55 contracts the way the contract thread was written. It wasn't modifying a pre-existing contract in S56 since they didn't have signings for S56.

You're telling me that it makes logical sense for a contract to say "Bonus for S56" and mean "Paid out in S57, based on S56" without some extra labelling? Even then, ml's contract thread had extra labelling. This really feels like a few seasons ago when there was a big to-do about how trades of future picks are labelled, and we ultimately decided that you label it with possible seasons and the indication of Reddit Pick or Protected. So clarify the rule to add labelling for which season the performance is based on and which season the payout and cap hit come in, drop the punishment, and be done with this. The interpretations we're arguing are Fucking semantics.

The rule clearly states
Code:
If a player meets the requirements for a bonus in their contract, the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season’s cap

The contracts with the bonuses we signed to start in S56. The stipulation of the contract starts in S56, not S55. Even though the completion for the bonus was done in S55, the stipulation goes into effect in S56, so that means by the rulebook that the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season's cap, which is S57.

The first contract was for 2 seasons
S54 and S55, both with no bonus.

During the 2nd day of regular season in S55 they were extended with bonus stipulations
S56 and S57.

The bonus stipulation goes active in the S56 season, so by the rulebook, the bonus is paid out, and that 2 mil counts towards then next season's cap, which is S57.



In that same thread about extensions there was this bonus
Code:
Alexei Petrikov!
S56: $3,000,000
S57: $3,000,000 *
*= 1mil bonus for reaching 750 TPE by the end of S57 (comes out of S58 budget)

which is correct. if they reach 750 TPE by the end of S57 the bonus goes into effect for the next season, which is S58.

The part where the contention is from the example which is
Code:
(ex. Player achieves a bonus in S50, bonus is paid out in S51 and counts towards the S51 Salary Cap)


Where I can see the argument of if a person completes a task in S55, then the bonus would be applied in S56. But since the bonus stipulation starts in S56, it has to go to S57.

[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]
Czechoslovakia PROFILE || UPDATE || RAGE. Rage 
[Image: luketd.gif]




Reply
#55

the secret to success is finally revealed

[Image: premierbromanov.gif]




Fuck the penaltys
ARGARGARHARG
[Image: EePsAwN.png][Image: sXDU6JX.png][Image: eaex9S1.png]
Reply
#56

04-09-2021, 08:51 PMSimply Incorrect Wrote:
04-09-2021, 08:45 PMluketd Wrote: The part that is murky is that a bonus is in relation to a S55 action but for a S56 contract. So the question is whether would it be added to S56, because the action was completed in S55. Or is it added to the S57 cap because the contract was accepted for S56 bonus.

HO agrees that it would apply to the S57 cap, but we also agree that ML did not do it in ill-will, hence why we lowered it to a 2 mil cap hit instead.

I hope I answered your question

Whether it’s 4 or 2 mil, doesn’t make a difference here. If HO openly admits the rule is hard to understand and subject to misinterpretation to the point where you have to re-word it, I fail to see how Toronto can be held at fault here.

And it’s not as if they didn’t pay the bonus, they did, so they didn’t scan their way out of having it impact their cap.

What is hard to understand is the specific example in the rule, which we will now have to reword and fix so that it doesnt happen again. The original bonus being counted towards S56 should have been caught, but it was not. There will be a punishment to the budget team coming, but like I said earlier we wanted to get this out in order to give ML enough time to submit an appeal. Now it is in the owners hands on how they want to handle it.

HO decided that it was a cap hit as a punishment. The final line is that it should have been caught but it wasnt, so we cant let it slide under the rug. We can debate whether the punishment is fair or not, but a decision had to be made, and this is what HO thought was fair given the situation.

[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]
Czechoslovakia PROFILE || UPDATE || RAGE. Rage 
[Image: luketd.gif]




Reply
#57

04-10-2021, 12:28 PMluketd Wrote:
04-09-2021, 08:51 PMSimply Incorrect Wrote: Whether it’s 4 or 2 mil, doesn’t make a difference here. If HO openly admits the rule is hard to understand and subject to misinterpretation to the point where you have to re-word it, I fail to see how Toronto can be held at fault here.

And it’s not as if they didn’t pay the bonus, they did, so they didn’t scan their way out of having it impact their cap.

What is hard to understand is the specific example in the rule, which we will now have to reword and fix so that it doesnt happen again. The original bonus being counted towards S56 should have been caught, but it was not. There will be a punishment to the budget team coming, but like I said earlier we wanted to get this out in order to give ML enough time to submit an appeal. Now it is in the owners hands on how they want to handle it.

HO decided that it was a cap hit as a punishment. The final line is that it should have been caught but it wasnt, so we cant let it slide under the rug. We can debate whether the punishment is fair or not, but a decision had to be made, and this is what HO thought was fair given the situation.

I don't think the argument should be whether or not this broke the rule. I agree that the proper interpretation of the rule is the one you and HO are presenting.

My issue is, this is something that was approved by the budget team. When we post a contract we're submitting it to HO and the budget team. Much like our trade processes now work. If it's approved by an authority, I don't think it's fair to go back and say we got it wrong, we will now be punishing a team for the rule they broke.

If a police officer gave me permission to do something and then arrested me because on further consideration, what I did was against the law, I think that would be considered an unfair set of circumstances.

In sports, we regularly see umpires and officials after games say "I screwed up, i got the call wrong" but those leagues continue forward with the original decision because it was the decision that was made.

Now, Toronto is being punished to a greater extent than they would have been if the issue was caught on time. The punishment is being applied to the time period in which is was found rather than when it occurred. Budgets for this season had already been approved before this was found. I think it's only fair to carry the punishment to the next unapproved budget. You can do this as you've decided not to punish them for a S58 cap overage.

[Image: TommySalami.gif]


Blizzard Raptors Blizzard Raptors Blizzard Raptors Blizzard Raptors Blizzard

EDM All-Time Leader in Goals, Assists and Points
Reply
#58
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2021, 05:48 PM by luke.)

04-10-2021, 12:15 PMluketd Wrote: The rule clearly states
Code:
If a player meets the requirements for a bonus in their contract, the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season’s cap

The contracts with the bonuses we signed to start in S56. The stipulation of the contract starts in S56, not S55. Even though the completion for the bonus was done in S55, the stipulation goes into effect in S56, so that means by the rulebook that the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season's cap, which is S57.

The first contract was for 2 seasons
S54 and S55, both with no bonus.

During the 2nd day of regular season in S55 they were extended with bonus stipulations
S56 and S57.

The bonus stipulation goes active in the S56 season, so by the rulebook, the bonus is paid out, and that 2 mil counts towards then next season's cap, which is S57.



In that same thread about extensions there was this bonus
Code:
Alexei Petrikov!
S56: $3,000,000
S57: $3,000,000 *
*= 1mil bonus for reaching 750 TPE by the end of S57 (comes out of S58 budget)

which is correct. if they reach 750 TPE by the end of S57 the bonus goes into effect for the next season, which is S58.

The part where the contention is from the example which is
Code:
(ex. Player achieves a bonus in S50, bonus is paid out in S51 and counts towards the S51 Salary Cap)


Where I can see the argument of if a person completes a task in S55, then the bonus would be applied in S56. But since the bonus stipulation starts in S56, it has to go to S57.

That doesn't change that the rule doesn't state how the bonus has to be labelled. The rule says nothing about starting while the season that the bonus is based on is in progress either. It was labelled inconsistently, I'll concede, but there was extra information that explained the intent. If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that this was labelled Bonus Applicable to S56, Paid Out in S57, Based on S55. The rule and contract are written as Bonus Applicable to S56, Paid Out in S56, Based on S55.

It seems cut and dried to me that ml wrote the contracts in compliance with the rule. The interpretation that's gotten us here is adding words to the rule that aren't there. The words aren't in any version of the rulebook that I've ever read.

Code:
C - Budget

The SHL Salary Cap is $75,000,000.
Send-Down Players (defined in Section 2, Subsection H) will have the first $2,000,000 of their salary paid out by the SMJHL team who owns their rights, applying to their salary cap. Any additional salary over the first $2,000,000 will count towards the Send-Down Player’s SHL Team’s salary cap.
SHL Teams are forbidden from using Salary Cap Space as an asset in trades.
Retaining Salary:
SHL teams may retain salary on a maximum of 2 contracts.
SHL teams can acquire a maximum of 2 contracts with retained salary.
SHL teams may only retain on the first 3 seasons of a player’s contract that they trade away.
The maximum amount that can be retained on an SHL contract is 50%.
Contracts that are 2 or more seasons long can only be traded with retained salary after the first season of said contract has elapsed.
Contracts that are 1 season long can only be traded with retained salary after the 25 game mark of the regular season.
A contract cannot have retained salary via multiple teams.
If a player meets the requirements for a bonus in their contract, the bonus is paid out and counts towards the following season’s cap (ex. Player achieves a bonus in S50, bonus is paid out in S51 and counts towards the S51 Salary Cap).
If a team spends more than their Salary Cap allows, they will be issued a cap fine equal to twice the amount of the surplus towards the following season’s cap.
General Managers that exceed the Salary Cap for two seasons in a row will be fired.
General Managers must post their team’s budget (Part of the offseason work listed in Section 1, Subsection B, Rule 3) by the deadline or they will face the punishments listed in Section 1, Subsection B, Rule 3.b. General Managers must navigate to their SHL Team’s Site Profile, Navigate to the Budget subforum, and create a thread to post their completed/updated budget for the next season. Team budgets must be posted as a spreadsheet in the following format:
Example Spreadsheet
General Managers and Co General Managers must be signed to a contract when they get drafted to the SHL. The only time that a GM or Co-GM would not be under contract is their first SMJHL season

Code:
E - Contract Changes, Extensions and Releasing Players

General Managers may restructure their own contract if they have been the General Manager of that team for a full season (offseason to offseason).
Once signed, any contract that is not a General Manager’s contract can not be modified.
Players may only extend with their team following the start of the final season of their contract’s term.
If a player crosses into a higher minimum contract tier, based on their TPE, prior to the start of the offseason (denoted by the offseason post following the playoffs) in which their new contract is set to begin, all seasons of the new contract will be adjusted up to the new minimum tier amount they reached (for information on TPE/Contract tiers, see Section 2, Subsection E, rules 1 and 2).
Team and Player Options allowing for the ability to opt out of a contract can only be added to the final season of the player’s contract.
Team and Player Options must be used prior to the opening of Free Agency in the season where the option is available. Both the team and player are locked into the contract if the Contract Option is not used before Free Agency opens.
To use a team/player option, navigate to the “Contract Changes Thread” in the “SHL Roster Transactions” subforum.
Contract clauses that automatically void a contract if a certain condition is met (ex. “If X is no longer the GM”) are forbidden.
Active players may be released from their contract, with the SHL team releasing the player will take on a cap hit equal to half of the player’s salary for that season, for the duration of the contract.
Inactive players may be released from their contract with no penalty to the releasing SHL team.
“Active” and “Inactive” contracts are defined at the time of the contract’s signing, not by the player’s status at the time of their release.
Released players, Active or Inactive, may not return to the team that released them for a full season (offseason to offseason).
Absolutely no other form of currency or merchandise may be offered when talking to Free Agents or RFA's.
The punishment for violating this rule is
Can't sign said player for 2 seasons
Half GM pay
The Teams Closest 2nd
Head Office reserves the right to levy a harsher punishment on a case by case basis

Code:
E - Contracts

The minimum amount a player can be signed for is determined by their TPE total EARNED at the time of their contract signing (save for the clause listed in Section 1, Subsection E, Rule 3a) as follows:
Tier 1 (<300 TPE) - $500,000
Tier 2 (300+ TPE) - $1,000,000
Tier 3 (500+ TPE) - $2,000,000
Tier 4 (700+ TPE) - $3,000,000
Tier 5 (1000+ TPE) - $4,000,000
Tier 6 (1300+ TPE) - $5,000,000
Tier 7 (1600+ TPE) - $6,000,000
The maximum amount of seasons a player can be signed for is determined by which TPE tier they fall into, listed in Section 2, Subsection E, Rule 1, as follows:
Tiers 1-6: 3 season maximum contract length.
Tier 7: 5 season maximum contract length.
Hometown Discounts:
Hometown Discounts are discounted contracts that players can opt into, allowing them to sign at 1 TPE tier lower than normal, or 2 TPE tiers lower if they’re a tier 7 player (1600+ TPE).
Each SHL team may have no more than 2 Hometown Discounts on their budget.
Hometown Discount contracts can be no longer than 3 seasons.
Players are ineligible for a Hometown Discount with an SHL team unless they have played there for 6 seasons or more.
Once a player becomes eligible for a Hometown Discount with a team, they will always retain that eligibility, even if they leave that team and come back in the future.
If a player with a Hometown Discount contract is traded, that player will count towards the new teams 2-player Hometown Discount maximum.
If the new team already possesses 2 Hometown Discount contracts on their budget, the traded player will have their contract adjusted up to match the proper TPE tier, and they will be on a normal contract.
Expansion teams will be able to use Home Town Discounts on a player that meets the following criteria
The player in question was selected by the expansion team in the expansion draft
The player has accrued 6 consecutive seasons with 1 team. Accrued seasons carry over to the expansion team if selected in the expansion draft
The player has not changed teams via FA or a trade in the past 6 seasons

When a player contract expires, and another contract has not yet been signed, barring special cases listed in Section 2, Subsection I, that player will become an Unrestricted Free Agent. Unrestricted Free Agents have the freedom to negotiate a new contract with any SHL team once Free Agency has opened.
Free Agency is a period where SHL Teams and Unrestricted Free Agents can engage in contract discussion. Once the SHL Draft has concluded, SHL teams are given permission to talk to Free Agents and discuss contracts with them, and Unrestricted Free Agents may officially sign with a new team at 12:00PM EST, the day after the SHL Entry Draft.
The first SHL Contract a player signs following their SHL Draft is an Entry Level Contract.
Absolutely no other form of currency, merchandise, or incentive may be offered when talking to Free Agents or RFA's.

Please, by all means, point me to where the added words that stipulate that a contract bonus has to be labelled the way you're indicating and cannot be based on a season in progress are coming from. 'Cause we're at the point where I'm going to cite the Deep Magic back to you. It's a simple rule that's being over-complicated and having clauses retroactively and baselessly added through interpretation, and my team is suffering for it.

[Image: olivercastillon.gif]



Thanks @enigmatic, @Carpy48, @Bayley, @Ragnar, @sulovilen, & @dasboot for the signatures!



Reply
#59
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2021, 05:39 PM by PremierBromanov.)

04-10-2021, 12:57 PMTommySalami Wrote: If a police officer gave me permission to do something and then arrested me because on further consideration, what I did was against the law, I think that would be considered an unfair set of circumstances.

yeah that would be WILD

[Image: premierbromanov.gif]




Fuck the penaltys
ARGARGARHARG
[Image: EePsAwN.png][Image: sXDU6JX.png][Image: eaex9S1.png]
Reply
#60

Not even gone a year, and I see things still are controversy and drama. Maybe I need to take another year off, maybe it will die down by then.


[Image: BUzKbLn.png]

[Image: 5p7vOwY.png]  |  [Image: NA3IV5m.png]





Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)




Navigation

 

Extra Menu

 

About us

The Simulation Hockey League is a free online forums based sim league where you create your own fantasy hockey player. Join today and create your player, become a GM, get drafted, sign contracts, make trades and compete against hundreds of players from around the world.