DD is back BB

[Dylandeluxe]

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?

[SwagSloth]

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.

[Modern_Duke]

I see DD’s point but what is the purpose of that rule if not to avoid this exact thing?

[Dylandeluxe]

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?

[SwagSloth]

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.

[Dylandeluxe]

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.

[shadyshoelace]

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.

[ValorX77]

Congratulations, this contract is invalid.

[White Cornerback]

smh crooked corrupt scumbag @iamslm22 cheating the league again! when will his reign of terror end

[SwagSloth]

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.