Create Account

Winnipeg Aurora + Rangerjase Punishment
#1

Hey everyone, I hope you're doing well,

It came to the attention of SHL Head Office following the draft that this trade contained a retention that was in contradiction with the SHL Rulebook's outlines for retention. In specific, due to Commander Shepard being on a 1 season contract, this trade was in violation of Section I, Article C, Subsection 4f, which reads:

Code:
Contracts that are 1 season long can only be traded with retained salary after 50% of the regular season’s game have been played that season

From here on out, the process was pretty difficult. This was brought to our attention at a point where discussion on the topic only began after the SHL Draft, due to us focusing on running it that day, and pieces in that trade (11th and 40th), had already been used, making renegotiation a logistical nightmare, made even more difficult once the S64 Winnipeg 3rd Toronto received was flipped to Minnesota as a result of the trade for Kluster's player. Due to all these factors, Head Office took our time evaluating the situation, seeking past precedent, and bouncing ideas off one another to see if we could come up with the best solution possible that was 1. Fair to the innocent parties involved, while 2. Reprimanding parties that were at fault. After much deliberation, there are 2 punishments we'll be handing out:

Winnipeg Aurora
- Forfeiture of next, team-owned 3rd round selection, which in this case is S65

Rangerjase
- $2,000,000 deduction to his S62 Salary
- First write up received, which will remain on his record until the start of S65

Before we address what the ruling will be in this situation, let me break down our thought process on these punishments. For Rangerjase, its pretty cut and dry, as Section III, Subsection 1fi reads:

Code:
Any Head Office member who approves a trade that is found to be illegal will be fined $2,000,000, and will receive a write up.

For Winnipeg, it was a little trickier due to lack of precedent and no real defined guide in the rulebook on how to handle situations like this. We opted to go for the standard punishment that we give for double trading picks, as we found this situation to be decently comparable, seeing as Winnipeg moved an asset they didn't actually posses (a retained contract they couldn't legally retain on).

Finally with those explanations out of the way, all that's left to do is announce the ruling for the situation itself. Like I mentioned above, this whole situation was a logistical nightmare to figure out how to properly work out, and truth be told most of the solutions we came up with were not ones that we were happy with, so it really came down to a lesser of 2 evils type of situation. We toyed with the idea of finding a way to make the two teams renegotiate, but given the use/movement of so many different assets, there was no real way they could actually renegotiate this deal in a reasonable way. In addition, there exists the option to force Toronto to take Shepard without retention, which at the surface feels like the easiest call, but also presents its own issues. It unfairly punishes Toronto for something that was entirely not their fault. It's Winnipeg's responsibility to verify the legality of the assets they move, not Toronto's, which was something everyone in Head Office came to an agreement on, and forcing Toronto to take Shepard at full salary forces them to take the trade at terms they never agreed to (Kluster himself told me that the only reason he parted with a 1st rounder was for that salary retention for example), which is something we're never comfortable doing in HO.

With all this said, we've opted to allow the retained contract to go through. We're aware that this decision will likely catch us some backlash and some of you will disagree with this call, but with a situation this muddy we really feel that this is the best case going forward. Toronto doesn't deserve to get screwed for a situation like this when they did everything right, and every other solution on the table negatively impacted Toronto in some way, which didn't sit right with us. What was important to us was making sure the parties that WERE wrong faced some consequence for this, and as much as I don't feel great about this final call, I can at least say we did that much. The reality of the situation is that Jase is new to HO and was still learning the approval process on trades. This was a misstep on Winnipeg and Head Office, and as messy as this has been, we're poised to move forward and ensure we avoid little mistakes like this from happening again. Again I'm aware some of you might not be happy with this decision, I'm not crazy about it either, but in terms of fairness to the innocents in this situation, we really do feel this is the best way for us to go about this.

Thank you all for your time and patience, and on behalf of the SHL Head Office
nour

[Image: bjobin2.png]
[Image: 9tINabI.png][Image: c97iD9R.png]




**First GM in SMJHL history to win 3 Four Star Cups back-to-back-to-back**
Reply
#2

never thought i'd see a team other than HAM get a punishment this soft

(not saying that's a bad thing)

[Image: Pythonic.gif] [Image: Championship_Sig.png]


[Image: Eo2nBCt.png] [Image: QtEp67y.png] [Image: 2sRs0Cq.png]

Reply
#3

#firejase

 
Falcons Monarchs Switzerland   Switzerland Monarchs Falcons
[Image: qGhUIfY.png] [Image: dGD5tIx.png]
  


Falcons Monarchs Switzerland   Switzerland Monarchs Falcons
[Image: qGhUIfY.png] [Image: dGD5tIx.png]
  


 [Image: mutedfaith.gif]
Credit for the images goes to @Carpy48, @soulja, @fever95 and @Wasty
Reply
#4
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 02:45 AM by SDCore.)

You've never been able to retain on 1 year contracts... Shouldn't two GMs who have been GMs for a while know this? I get that it unfairly or fairly hurts teams, but the rules are pretty clear on retaining on a one year. So the next team to do it and HO approves are gonna be able to keep retention? *using my jump to conclusion mat*

[Image: sdcore.gif]






Player Page [Image: berserkers.png] [Image: syndicate2.png]Update Page

[Image: sgu3vVP.png]
[Image: 9vq7IEu.png]
Reply
#5

11-04-2021, 02:38 AMSDCore Wrote: You've never been able to retain on 1 year contracts... Shouldn't two GMs who have been GMs for a while know this? I get that it unfairly or fairly hurts teams, but the rules are pretty clear on retaining on a one year. So the next team to do it and HO approves are gonna be able to keep retention? *using my jump to conclusion mat*
Throw in an extra third for the illegal retention and you have a deal.

 
Falcons Monarchs Switzerland   Switzerland Monarchs Falcons
[Image: qGhUIfY.png] [Image: dGD5tIx.png]
  


Falcons Monarchs Switzerland   Switzerland Monarchs Falcons
[Image: qGhUIfY.png] [Image: dGD5tIx.png]
  


 [Image: mutedfaith.gif]
Credit for the images goes to @Carpy48, @soulja, @fever95 and @Wasty
Reply
#6
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 02:49 AM by SDCore.)

11-04-2021, 02:47 AMMutedfaith Wrote:
11-04-2021, 02:38 AMSDCore Wrote: You've never been able to retain on 1 year contracts... Shouldn't two GMs who have been GMs for a while know this? I get that it unfairly or fairly hurts teams, but the rules are pretty clear on retaining on a one year. So the next team to do it and HO approves are gonna be able to keep retention? *using my jump to conclusion mat*
Throw in an extra third for the illegal retention and you have a deal.

Also probation. ESP if HO is using the standard for trading a pick twice.

[Image: sdcore.gif]






Player Page [Image: berserkers.png] [Image: syndicate2.png]Update Page

[Image: sgu3vVP.png]
[Image: 9vq7IEu.png]
Reply
#7

11-04-2021, 02:38 AMSDCore Wrote: You've never been able to retain on 1 year contracts... Shouldn't two GMs who have been GMs for a while know this? I get that it unfairly or fairly hurts teams, but the rules are pretty clear on retaining on a one year. So the next team to do it and HO approves are gonna be able to keep retention? *using my jump to conclusion mat*

I'm all for a bit more leniency, but this is what gets me. Disregarding personal feelings about both of these guys, they both should know better. They've been in management long enough to know you can't do this on a 1 season contract. It would be different if they hadn't been GMs for that long, but... I don't know. This feels like a situation where everyone involved just flat out forgot a rule existed.

[Image: lap-teamsig.png]
Aleksi Kettu
[Image: 7MO9RpC.png]







Reply
#8

I just hope everyone involved has learned something from this and they won't repeat this mistake. I mean really, if you're in one of these roles triple check all the rules next time or ask people that know the rules if you're not sure.

[Image: zS2lCMp.png] 


[Image: carpy48.gif]
sigs either by @Wasty, @Nokazoa, @sulovilen, @Capt_Blitzkrieg, @sköldpaddor, @Ragnar, @enigmatic, @Lime or myself

Stars Lions Berserkers
[Image: p1gG0LD.png][Image: DKMMlC3.png][Image: sXDU6JX.png][Image: ctsxTFg.png]
my portfolio | my sig shop | gfx discord
[Image: 3GX9nYb.png]
[Image: AfpXX8l.png]
Reply
#9

11-04-2021, 02:49 AMSDCore Wrote:
11-04-2021, 02:47 AMMutedfaith Wrote: Throw in an extra third for the illegal retention and you have a deal.

Also probation. ESP if HO is using the standard for trading a pick twice.
I don't see probation in the punishment.

 
Falcons Monarchs Switzerland   Switzerland Monarchs Falcons
[Image: qGhUIfY.png] [Image: dGD5tIx.png]
  


Falcons Monarchs Switzerland   Switzerland Monarchs Falcons
[Image: qGhUIfY.png] [Image: dGD5tIx.png]
  


 [Image: mutedfaith.gif]
Credit for the images goes to @Carpy48, @soulja, @fever95 and @Wasty
Reply
#10

This isn't a big injustice or anything, but I do find it kinda strange that we punish the team giving away the player for breaking/forgetting a rule, but then when it comes to the team taking on the player the line of argumentation seems to be that they couldn't possible have known about the same rule. Seems like quite the double standard. They didn't "do everything right" as you claim, they made an illegal trade because they failed to properly check the rules just as the other team did. We don't need to screw them over by voiding the trade or the retention part of it, but they should've been subject to the same sort of small punishment on the picks/money side as the other team.

Evan Winter
Edmonton Blizzard
Player Page - Update Page


[Image: winter-500.png]
Reply
#11

11-04-2021, 05:32 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: This isn't a big injustice or anything, but I do find it kinda strange that we punish the team giving away the player for breaking/forgetting a rule, but then when it comes to the team taking on the player the line of argumentation seems to be that they couldn't possible have known about the same rule. Seems like quite the double standard. They didn't "do everything right" as you claim, they made an illegal trade because they failed to properly check the rules just as the other team did. We don't need to screw them over by voiding the trade or the retention part of it, but they should've been subject to the same sort of small punishment on the picks/money side as the other team.

Agreed.

[Image: JvI8fTp.png]

[Image: 9tINabI.png] [Image: c97iD9R.png]

[Image: uDjThoa.png]




Reply
#12

It’s still an illegal trade. There shouldn’t be any retention on Sheppard but there is. But the punishment for retaining it is a 3rd?
I get where HO is coming from but it’s an illegal trade straight from a rulebook. Make them renegotiate.

Especially since if it was caught before approval they would have had to renegotiate. So now the precedent is if they retained, it wasn’t caught, and it’s too “late” for a reversal it stands.

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




Reply
#13

11-04-2021, 06:28 AMluketd Wrote: It’s still an illegal trade. There shouldn’t be any retention on Sheppard but there is. But the punishment for retaining it is a 3rd?
I get where HO is coming from but it’s an illegal trade straight from a rulebook. Make them renegotiate.

Especially since if it was caught before approval they would have had to renegotiate. So now the precedent is if they retained, it wasn’t caught, and it’s too “late” for a reversal it stands.

If only it was noticed before it was too late Rage
Reply
#14

This issue was raised before the draft. Regardless of having to run the draft this should could have been rectified before any of the picks were used.

I expect that this sets the price of a successful illegal retention at a 3rd from now on.

[Image: 66624_s.gif]
[Image: 56096_s.gif]
Credit to Ml002, King, Wasty, Carpy, Bruins10, Rum_Ham, Turd Ferguson, Ragnar and Enigmatic for the sigs.
Forge Stampede Inferno Specters Wolfpack Platoon Armada Scarecrows Uk



Player page | Player updates
[Image: wMGKypg.png]
Reply
#15

HO can't dodge accountability with this early morning post because I rigged my phone to go off like an amber alert every time a punishment thread goes up

[Image: pin1_1.gif?ex=6706bc74&is=67056af4&hm=52...height=516]
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.