|
Post by Nemesis on Mar 5, 2007 16:36:32 GMT
As I'm sure you are aware we should have had 2 players in for the wekend games last week. This was not posible as the Italian club, knowing we had to ice the players to make the 6 game playoff rule decided they needed a £6k payoff. We refused and the league got involved and backed our stand against paying this 'fee' as it would set a precedent for ALL our teams in the future.
It looks as though this will be sorted this week and they should play at the weekend. This though will mean they will only play 5 games and therfore should miss the playoffs. The league have indicated that subject to agreement with the other teams this rule could be waived in this case, as the Italians were effectively attempting to extort money from our team/league.
It has been confirmed by ALL parties that we (Steelers) did this absoloutely by the book and all paperwork was correct and in plenty of time. The sole reason for the holdup was the Italian clubs owner seeking a backhander.
My question is, given the circumstances and possible ramifications for us all in the future; would you support the idea of allowing these 2 to play in the playoffs so-as to send a message to other leagues that we will not be held to ransom?
Or, would you prefer to score some points and block them playing to then possibly find yourselves in the same situation next year?
Thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by charlish2099 on Mar 5, 2007 16:40:55 GMT
I hope no one blocks it as it would be petty, but i would not be surprosed to see Gary Moran try, after all the kick up over Ellis it will be interesting to see how the shoe goes on the other foot.
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Mar 5, 2007 16:45:02 GMT
IF as you say ALL (and by that I mean every League Club plus the EIHL) agree that you had done everything required, and were scuppered only by the greedy Italian owners, then yes, I think they should play, although this like paying the club off, also sets a precedent.
I'd like to see this thread not descend into a 'them and us' affair, but let's see.
|
|
|
Post by charlish2099 on Mar 5, 2007 16:48:38 GMT
I didnt mean my comments in any way to start a them and us, i just meant that it would be interesting to see if the panthers management pounce on the steelers and cause disruption.
sorry if i looked to be provoking arguement.
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Mar 5, 2007 16:53:31 GMT
Wasn't in any way aimed at you nath.
|
|
|
Post by charlish2099 on Mar 5, 2007 16:57:58 GMT
no worries
|
|
|
Post by Alf Garnett on Mar 5, 2007 16:58:10 GMT
I'd like to see this thread not descend into a 'them and us' affair, but let's see. If it does then the padlock will appear. Simple as.
|
|
|
Post by charlish2099 on Mar 5, 2007 17:02:44 GMT
have steelers had any word how other clubs do feel? i really cant see anyone blocking it as any club could be put in this situation, my only concern is what i mentioned above.
|
|
|
Post by mattscold on Mar 5, 2007 17:03:03 GMT
I would be happy for them to play no probs, however it would probably be justified if some fuss was kicked up following the whole simmsy debacle, but i would say that you guys shouldn't suffer any ill due to this as, like you say, the club have done everything right!
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Mar 5, 2007 17:06:03 GMT
Had this not been a subject that potentially could affect us all I would not have posted it.
it was not meant as an invitation to argue.
IMO this is a very serious situation and , depending on the outcome could lead to problems for all teams in the future.
This bloke has basicaly asked for a bung to release a players registration even though the contract was up and their season finished. The IIHF are now involved and are investigating this guy and his dealings.
|
|
|
Post by charlish2099 on Mar 5, 2007 17:08:29 GMT
has any other club been involved yet mate?
|
|
|
Post by Lord of the Rinks on Mar 5, 2007 17:11:37 GMT
It looks like you need OUR help on this one. But have you not jumped the gun again like with Simoes, showing off Vez at our place on Friday in a Steelers shirt. This was before all the paperwork had been sorted. Oneupmanship gone wrong. On the other hand, we could be playing Sheffield either in the Q/final or maybe at some stage in the PO weekend, to let you play two players who could jeopardize our chances would seem a bit like shooting yourself in the foot, especially if they had a hand in preventing us going through. I'm not saying it's right, but this is a sporting business and you have to do what's right for your own club, especially if it's against your biggest rivals.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Mar 5, 2007 17:24:46 GMT
It looks as though this will be sorted this week and they should play at the weekend. I'm curious... is there any indication as to exactly how this has been sorted? Given that this rather greedy Italian club pretty much holds all the cards? As for what should be done - definitely no backhander... you're right, that would set an unacceptable precedent. The only two other options are - allow the two players to come across anyway, seeing as (assuming the information given is correct) the Steelers do appear to have done nothing wrong... or stick to the letter of the rules. Partisan club politics aside, I can see plusses to both options. The former would stick two fingers up to this Italian leech, and bring in a plain 'common-sense' approach to EIHL decision-making (now that would be a first!). The latter would also give greed the finger, but might also provoke some kind of backlash amongst players over in Italy which could help to discourage anyone from even trying this in the future. All other things being equal, I can actually see the Steelers as the innocent party in all of this. But even with that in mind... given their own previous attitudes and actions towards 'common-sense' rulings regarding other clubs (ie: us) - I can't find any sympathy for them at all. If they do end up losing out... well, tough. I'd say that it might teach them a lesson, but I don't think that's even possible. The phrase "hoist by their own petard" does spring to mind... Let the chips fall where they may... no preference either way from me.
|
|
|
Post by lps on Mar 5, 2007 17:25:24 GMT
In normal circumstances, I'm sure no team would have any problem with supporting Steelers on this matter.
There is a big However coming up here.
Had Steelers mangement not blocked Mr Ellis playing a couple of weeks ago, citing a breach of rules, and the Steelers GM (whether in an official capacity or not) continuing to claim that Panthers breached the rules on 10 imports following the CC saga, then I feel that Panthers would be well in their rights to block this from happening claiming rules are rules.
I also feel that by getting the fans opinion counts for nowt on this matter. This is an issue purely and squarely down to the 10 teams management to fully agree on.
|
|
|
Post by KimThePanther on Mar 5, 2007 17:25:26 GMT
you have to do what's right for your own club In certain cases though you need to do what's right for the league. If Sheffield agreed to pay the fee and the Italian club were able to get away with it, what kind of a message does that send to foreign teams about our league? It would set an ugly precedent. If the Steelers have done everything by the book and did everything within their power to bring in these signings on time and it's the actions of another club that has prevented them from being able to play the required number of games, I don't see any reason an exception can't be made in these two (and only these two) cases. I hope the EIHL teams don't block the signings, it would be nothing more than a short term advantage which could cause a long term problem.
|
|
Tambo
Jade Galbraith
Ayr Scottish Eagles gone but not forgotten
Posts: 159
|
Post by Tambo on Mar 5, 2007 17:36:22 GMT
As fans, we won't have any influence on the matter, but as a Phoenix fan, I would hope my team would support Steelers on this one. Our game has enough problems without this rearing its ugly head every season.
One point though, why did the league get rid of the transfer deadline. If we had the same as in previous years, the situation would not have arisen.
Tambo
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Mar 5, 2007 17:46:28 GMT
ALL paperwork was signed sealde and correct and in the hands of the league last week. There was no jumping of guns mate, their (Italian club) GM has signed the release - all done and dusted.
It was the owner who, having the last signature on an EIHL document (the ITC) sent a fax back to sheffield saying 'I will sign these papers in front of me for a fee of £6k' All other paperwork, all the internationaly required stuff was done. A bung pure and simple.
Do you not think that this could break the cycle? Because lets be honest here, if you stop this, you know as well as I do that at some point in the future you WILL be made to lose out in some regard or other. Even if you support the non payment, by then blocking the rule 'tweaking' you invite teams to try the tactic again. we could have paid this, they both ice this weekend and no-one would be any the wiser, no 'rules' broken. We have chosen to take a stand, surely the only message that can be sent is 'if you try this in the future, we will not pay and will stand together to re-work the rules so-as to negate your threats' ?
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Mar 5, 2007 17:48:41 GMT
I think it's worth pointing out that the Steelers could have paid the £6,000, that being the case: -
1. The players would been allowed to compete in the play-offs and nobody in the EIHL could have had any complaints.
2. £6,000 would have gone out of British ice hockey with no real return in exchange. Don't forget, the so called bigger teams are supposed to contribute more into the EIHL pot. The less money we have to contribute, the more someone else would have to find.
3. It sets a dangerous precedent. I don't know whether all your paperwork is sorted, but if we had paid the £6,000 to get Sacratini here in time for the play-offs, who's to say the German team holding Trevor Gallant's registration wouldn't have tried the same thing on with you?
To me this is not about the Steelers being held to ransom, but an EIHL club being held to ransom....It affects us all.
If the circumstances are exactly as those stated in the newspaper, then I'd be very surprised if any fellow EIHL club does kick up a fuss about this.
Regards
Doom
|
|
|
Post by charlish2099 on Mar 5, 2007 17:50:24 GMT
we see what your saying nem, but it will be NB and GM who decide how to play it.
|
|
Tambo
Jade Galbraith
Ayr Scottish Eagles gone but not forgotten
Posts: 159
|
Post by Tambo on Mar 5, 2007 17:50:53 GMT
Brave decision by the Steelers not to pay the six grand, but they should be applauded for not paying. Respect to them on this occasion
Tambo
|
|
Tambo
Jade Galbraith
Ayr Scottish Eagles gone but not forgotten
Posts: 159
|
Post by Tambo on Mar 5, 2007 17:53:21 GMT
ALL paperwork was signed sealde and correct and in the hands of the league last week. There was no jumping of guns mate, their (Italian club) GM has signed the release - all done and dusted. It was the owner who, having the last signature on an EIHL document (the ITC) sent a fax back to sheffield saying 'I will sign these papers in front of me for a fee of £6k' All other paperwork, all the internationaly required stuff was done. A bung pure and simple. Do you not think that this could break the cycle? Because lets be honest here, if you stop this, you know as well as I do that at some point in the future you WILL be made to lose out in some regard or other. Even if you support the non payment, by then blocking the rule 'tweaking' you invite teams to try the tactic again. we could have paid this, they both ice this weekend and no-one would be any the wiser, no 'rules' broken. We have chosen to take a stand, surely the only message that can be sent is 'if you try this in the future, we will not pay and will stand together to re-work the rules so-as to negate your threats' ? I was not suggesting anything underhand at all. My point was that if we had the deadline date we used to have, then there would have been no players available as their seasons would still be running and greedy sods like the guy you mention would have no chance of any bung money. Tambo
|
|
|
Post by Luca Toni on Mar 5, 2007 17:53:34 GMT
My opinion is they should NOT be allowed to play in the playoffs - whichever team they had signed for. We have a 6 game rule and these players will not get 6 games in. Simple. To me it is a far worse precedent, already set by the way, that the EIHL changes the rules whenever it feels like it. This seems to happen all the time. A "rules are rules" attitude wouldn't go amiss for a change. The whole business about "backhanders" is a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Mar 5, 2007 17:56:12 GMT
ALL paperwork was signed sealde and correct and in the hands of the league last week. There was no jumping of guns mate, their (Italian club) GM has signed the release - all done and dusted. It was the owner who, having the last signature on an EIHL document (the ITC) sent a fax back to sheffield saying 'I will sign these papers in front of me for a fee of £6k' All other paperwork, all the internationaly required stuff was done. A bung pure and simple. Do you not think that this could break the cycle? Because lets be honest here, if you stop this, you know as well as I do that at some point in the future you WILL be made to lose out in some regard or other. Even if you support the non payment, by then blocking the rule 'tweaking' you invite teams to try the tactic again. we could have paid this, they both ice this weekend and no-one would be any the wiser, no 'rules' broken. We have chosen to take a stand, surely the only message that can be sent is 'if you try this in the future, we will not pay and will stand together to re-work the rules so-as to negate your threats' ? I was not suggesting anything underhand at all. My point was that if we had the deadline date we used to have, then there would have been no players available as their seasons would still be running and greedy sods like the guy you mention would have no chance of any bung money. Tambo Wasn't directed at your post mate. And wasn't in fact having a go at anyone, just making a point that the paperwork was complete.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Mar 5, 2007 18:01:18 GMT
My opinion is they should NOT be allowed to play in the playoffs - whichever team they had signed for. We have a 6 game rule and these players will not get 6 games in. Simple. To me it is a far worse precedent, already set by the way, that the EIHL changes the rules whenever it feels like it. This seems to happen all the time. A "rules are rules" attitude wouldn't go amiss for a change. The whole business about "backhanders" is a separate issue. That stance would merely serve to invite this to be tried every year by some clubs, AND knowing that the rules will not be 'tweaked' clubs will have to pay these bungs leading to increased admission prices for all, and ever increasing demands for foriegn clubs knowing we have no choice. By NOT paying and then ALL teams working together and allowing these players to play a far stronger message is sent IMO.
|
|
|
Post by KimThePanther on Mar 5, 2007 18:09:13 GMT
In normal circumstances, I'm sure no team would have any problem with supporting Steelers on this matter. There is a big However coming up here. Had Steelers mangement not blocked Mr Ellis playing a couple of weeks ago, citing a breach of rules, and the Steelers GM (whether in an official capacity or not) continuing to claim that Panthers breached the rules on 10 imports following the CC saga, then I feel that Panthers would be well in their rights to block this from happening claiming rules are rules. I also feel that by getting the fans opinion counts for nowt on this matter. This is an issue purely and squarely down to the 10 teams management to fully agree on. Using this situation as a means of revenge for Simoesgate would be incredibly naive of the Panthers, I think. They would be trying to get a short term advantage over something which could cause a long term problem for our league and possibly the Panthers in future seasons.
|
|