+- International Simulation Football League (https://forums.sim-football.com)
+-- Forum: League Office (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Team Transactions (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+---- Forum: ISFL Transactions (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=159)
+----- Forum: Processed Transactions (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=223)
+----- Thread: DD is back BB (/showthread.php?tid=16476)
DD is back BB - Dylandeluxe - 11-16-2019
(11-16-2019, 09:13 PM)SwagSloth Wrote:Doesn't this accomplish exactly the same thing?
I'm generally asking because I'm curious as to HO's take on it.
I mean you have to take the wording of the rule at face value. I did not sign a 1 year rookie contract. I signed a 3 year contract with MO's which I chose to exercise. To boot I am not even on my original team. But I chose to resign with Philly after opting out. I fail to see how it is a violation of the rule.
Should Bex only be able to sign a two year contract then?
DD is back BB - SwagSloth - 11-16-2019
(11-16-2019, 09:17 PM)Dylandeluxe Wrote:I mean you have to take the wording of the rule at face value. I did not sign a 1 year rookie contract. I signed a 3 year contract with MO's which I chose to exercise. To boot I am not even on my original team. But I chose to resign with Philly after opting out. I fail to see how it is a violation of the rule.
Should Bex only be able to sign a two year contract then?
My impression was yes. Now, maybe this is okay, in which I just want to make sure because I plan to use it myself if it's allowed.
DD is back BB - Modern_Duke - 11-16-2019
I see DD’s point but what is the purpose of that rule if not to avoid this exact thing?
DD is back BB - Dylandeluxe - 11-16-2019
(11-16-2019, 09:21 PM)Modern_Duke Wrote:I see DD’s point but what is the purpose of that rule if not to avoid this exact thing?
Then they should have wrote the rule that way?
DD is back BB - SwagSloth - 11-16-2019
(11-16-2019, 09:26 PM)Dylandeluxe Wrote:Then they should have wrote the rule that way?I don't think anybody's noticed the loophole before. Hence why I'm drawing attention to it now.
DD is back BB - Dylandeluxe - 11-16-2019
(11-16-2019, 09:31 PM)SwagSloth Wrote:I don't think anybody's noticed the loophole before. Hence why I'm drawing attention to it now.
I guess I just didn't think of it as a loop hole since it wasn't an extension in the last year of my contract but me signing a completely new contract.
DD is back BB - shadyshoelace - 11-16-2019
(11-16-2019, 10:10 PM)Dylandeluxe Wrote:I guess I just didn't think of it as a loop hole since it wasn't an extension in the last year of my contract but me signing a completely new contract.
That's exactly what makes it a loophole lol. It accomplishes exactly the same thing, but by finding a slightly different mechanism that skirts the exact wording of the rules.
Edit: don't really have a strong opinion on whether this particular signing is legal or not. I do think this mechanism is clearly against the spirit of the rule and is a loophole that should be closed for the future.
DD is back BB - ValorX77 - 11-16-2019
Congratulations, this contract is invalid.
DD is back BB - White Cornerback - 11-16-2019
smh crooked corrupt scumbag @iamslm22 cheating the league again! when will his reign of terror end
DD is back BB - SwagSloth - 11-16-2019
To be fair, I'm not necessarily against it either. I actually wouldn't have a problem with the old rule itself being removed. But it should be either be both are okay or neither IMO.