|
Post by Luca Toni on Mar 5, 2007 18:18:25 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. Don't follow your logic though Nemesis. You are assuming this will happen again and that all foreign owners are like this guy. Note: ASSUMING. In fact it took a certain set of circumstances for this to happen which aren't forced to be repeated. I also don't follow the logic we are all in this together. If its so common or so likely why did it only happen to one team? Because this owner is a bad apple? In that case it isn't a general problem. Now our league rules are something else (in more ways than one)! All the time they change, get bent, modified, ignored, whatever. I don't have the power but if I did I would say "NO MORE!!" It just makes us a laughing stock when we can't even stick to our own rules. So stick to them. It might not be your fault but that's life. Rules are rules. So I'm not taken in by the scare tactics that it could happen to us all and we will have to pay more. That's rubbish. Just don't pay the bungs and have a deadline as Tambo says. Simple really
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Mar 5, 2007 18:34:27 GMT
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. Don't follow your logic though Nemesis. You are assuming this will happen again and that all foreign owners are like this guy. Note: ASSUMING. In fact it took a certain set of circumstances for this to happen which aren't forced to be repeated. I also don't follow the logic we are all in this together. If its so common or so likely why did it only happen to one team? Because this owner is a bad apple? In that case it isn't a general problem. Now our league rules are something else (in more ways than one)! All the time they change, get bent, modified, ignored, whatever. I don't have the power but if I did I would say "NO MORE!!" It just makes us a laughing stock when we can't even stick to our own rules. So stick to them. It might not be your fault but that's life. Rules are rules. So I'm not taken in by the scare tactics that it could happen to us all and we will have to pay more. That's rubbish. Just don't pay the bungs and have a deadline as Tambo says. Simple really But everything has to start somewhere sometime mate. Be under no illusion, other will be watching this very carefully and come this time next year it will become more prevalent. We need to stop this now by sending a message that it will not be tolerated and that this league will work together to negate the threat of these fees in relation to a deadline. If these 2 don't play you can bet your botom dollar that this will happen again, next time though knowing that the teams will not stand behind them the team involved may just pay up having no other choice; and then the flood gates will open.
|
|
|
Post by Luca Toni on Mar 5, 2007 18:42:18 GMT
Don't follow your logic though Nemesis. You are assuming this will happen again and that all foreign owners are like this guy. Note: ASSUMING. In fact it took a certain set of circumstances for this to happen which aren't forced to be repeated. I also don't follow the logic we are all in this together. If its so common or so likely why did it only happen to one team? Because this owner is a bad apple? In that case it isn't a general problem. Now our league rules are something else (in more ways than one)! All the time they change, get bent, modified, ignored, whatever. I don't have the power but if I did I would say "NO MORE!!" It just makes us a laughing stock when we can't even stick to our own rules. So stick to them. It might not be your fault but that's life. Rules are rules. So I'm not taken in by the scare tactics that it could happen to us all and we will have to pay more. That's rubbish. Just don't pay the bungs and have a deadline as Tambo says. Simple really But everything has to start somewhere sometime mate. Be under no illusion, other will be watching this very carefully and come this time next year it will become more prevalent. We need to stop this now by sending a message that it will not be tolerated and that this league will work together to negate the threat of these fees in relation to a deadline. If these 2 don't play you can bet your botom dollar that this will happen again, next time though knowing that the teams will not stand behind them the team involved may just pay up having no other choice; and then the flood gates will open. Sorry nemesis, that's just more "he's behind you" stuff. You don't know for a fact this will happen again. It's just the spectre of something bad happening. And whether your guys get to play or not is really nothing to do with it. In fact we could change our own rules to solve that anyway independent of any foreign owners so that they can't hold us to ransom. Besides that the IIHF could also address matters. That you are suggesting that the ONLY way we can stop this is by letting your two guys play is both narrow-minded (in the sense that it looks no further than one solution) and, frankly, self-interested in that the direct benefit goes to your team. No wonder you are saying "it could be any of us". The fact is, so far, it isn't any of us, just you. I say again, they shouldn't be alllowed to play - and that would apply if it was Panthers as well.
|
|
|
Post by Lord of the Rinks on Mar 5, 2007 18:45:02 GMT
To prevent this happening again in the future, the transfer deadline ought to be brought back.
Any player not signed before the deadline, does not play in the play offs. At the minute any team could benefit from this open date. If seasons finish in Europe at around the same time, what's preventing a team say at the bottom end of the league, who have not spent a lot of money through the season, and have not used up all their ITC options from signing a few decent players and winning the play off week end.
If, like you say, they were signed before the Panthers game and it was the owner who was holding things up, then you have my sympathy. But the rules say you MUST play in 6 games, if that is not adhered to, then whats the point in having the rules in the first place.
But with all the goings on in the Italian football league with teams last season getting relegated and points taken in the match fixing saga, do you expect anything different.
It seems it's a popular thing in sport, people wanting money.
|
|
|
Post by mattscold on Mar 5, 2007 18:45:22 GMT
I agree its a bad position to be in, but i do follow evgenimalkins point that if the rules are "bent" this time that then sets a precedent that the eihl rules are there to be twisted and manipulated at will, yes i feel for the steelers on this I really do, but there has been enough rule bending and loop hole exploiting this year for me, the EIHL has to be professional and prove to anyone who is listening we are not a "Beer League" bending rules at will wont help that!
|
|
|
Post by ginger on Mar 5, 2007 18:52:04 GMT
Even if the transfer deadline came back wouldnt teams still be able to do exactly what the italian club has tried to do to us?
|
|
|
Post by mattscold on Mar 5, 2007 18:54:54 GMT
unfortunately though, thats life! There are muppets everywhere and it isn't going to change, however thats not to say it will happen again, there is no way to stop it happening, except flaunting the rules everytime it does IMO
|
|
|
Post by ginger on Mar 5, 2007 18:59:37 GMT
But if the precedent is set now that EIHL clubs cannot be held to ransom then teams in the future will not try the same stunt as players could well get into the realms of loss of earnings and Im sure no team would like that to come about. Talk to players and they say hockey is a small world. Think how quickly word would get around if teams were holding out for fees and effectively stopping players earning a living. How many players would jump at a chance to play for a club who may in the future try to stop them earning money?
|
|
|
Post by Luca Toni on Mar 5, 2007 19:02:24 GMT
How does changing our rules to let two guys play stop other people holding us to ransom? It doesn't - but it let's two guys play for one team TO THEIR BENEFIT ALONE. Solving this problem, if its a general one that needs solving generally (proof please!), is not done by letting two guys play for one club. It is solved on another level entirely. The question of our rules (re: 6 games to play in the playoffs) is a separate question to the one of what happened to Sheffield in relation to these signings.
|
|
|
Post by heja on Mar 5, 2007 19:03:14 GMT
if hes contracted to the team hes coming from i see nothing wrong with what the itailain owners doing and he must be to even have any power to do something like that
i'm not fussed about them coming in a game late and it really does make no difference at all with it being only 6 games whats that a month if that
|
|
|
Post by heja on Mar 5, 2007 19:05:48 GMT
but IMO this now means they have to scrap the 6 game rule and make it at least 5 games or how ever long it takes the steelers to get there players in to make it fair to every elite league club
|
|
|
Post by loveday on Mar 5, 2007 19:17:26 GMT
We will not get anywhere with this discussion. Everyone will want what is best for their Club. Thats human nature. As has already been said it will be down to the Elite management and the Owners of the Clubs to decide on the qualifications required to play in the Play-Off's and to decide to change the rules or not to change. How the Elite hope to resolve the matter about payment is what is really interesting me. Are they taking the matter up with International Ice Hockey powers that be, for them to make a ruling as to see if the Owner has a right to expect/extort payment for his signature. Now I know you will all correct me if I am wrong, but this is what it sounds like to me. It has been said on this thread, that if Sheffield had paid the money, (No one being the wiser) the amount of money then paid to the Elite League from that club could be reduced because of this £6K. Surely money coming from Clubs to the Elite should have been sorted out at the start of the Season. Why should other Clubs have to make up any short fall from a Club that had to pay out in circumstances like this. That makes it look like all the other Clubs are having to pay out more to cover Sheffield's (or any of club that might have done this) Elite League Club contribution. So, in other words, we all end up paying for their 2 extra players (Or any other Club that might have or want to do the same) If this is the case then I am all for NOT paying anyone £6K, or whatever value he puts on it, for his signature. Does anyone know if there are any rules about bringing in new Players for playing in the Challenge Cup Final. Do all players have had to have played in the earlier rounds. i.e. Are these 2 new Players 'Cup Tied' Perhaps Coventry might have a vested interest there!
|
|
|
Post by ginger on Mar 5, 2007 19:18:13 GMT
In this instance, alledgedly, both players contracts were up as the season had ended. Therefore they had no contractual obligations and the Italians could claim no ownership. What would stop teams releasing a player from his contract, then when the form for the ITC comes in, they demand a payment. The player is still technically released but to sign them clubs could still try this kind of stunt.
Lets get this right, EIHL rules get broken, bent or ignored all of the time, and yes it is stupid. It shouldnt happen, but it does. However does anybody want to go back to the ISL days of overpaying players (or as it would be, other owners) and teams going bust?
Ok, we have much more sensible (at times) management of clubs, which is why common sense is needed here.
This is not just about the Steelers, the EIHL or the IIHF. Its about players as well and their rights more than any need to be protected. Without them there is no game. Simple.
As to the matter of the playoffs, surely it benefits all of us and the game in the UK if the owners show sensible reasoning in this matter. Players get to play, fans happy in the long run (situation may happen again, could be to any team), and more importantly our league looks like a better place to come for more players.
|
|
|
Post by mattscold on Mar 5, 2007 19:18:24 GMT
But if the precedent is set now that EIHL clubs cannot be held to ransom then teams in the future will not try the same stunt as players could well get into the realms of loss of earnings and Im sure no team would like that to come about. Talk to players and they say hockey is a small world. Think how quickly word would get around if teams were holding out for fees and effectively stopping players earning a living. How many players would jump at a chance to play for a club who may in the future try to stop them earning money? No it doesn't it shows other managers that in our league rules are made to be broken, very different impression sent out, it is unfortunate what has happened and can understand the frustration but un=fortunately rules are rules, and we would look even more of a joke than we already are!
|
|
|
Post by heja on Mar 5, 2007 19:19:49 GMT
it use to be like that but now i doubt it very much
|
|
Smudge
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 120
|
Post by Smudge on Mar 5, 2007 19:27:14 GMT
This really ought to be something for the league to deal with, without the clubs becoming involved.
If the league do allow these two player to play (and, if Sheffield have indeed played it by the book, then I think they should) then the league should also make a committment to all clubs in the league to pursue this matter with the IIHF and have this Italian club, and particularly its owner, punished for the actions it has taken. This would send a greater message out regarding the status (perceived if not actual) of our league and should also make it easier for the other clubs in our league to accept a decision to allow the players to play.
Even if no punishment for the Italian club is forthcoming, then hopefully the publicity arising from this issue alone will make the Italian league a less attractive place to play insofar as players would not go there if they were worried about whether they could move easily to other clubs if their season finished early.
This in turn would hopefully reduce the need for clubs in our league to have to do similar business with them in the future because there would be no-one worth signing.
I wonder what the score would have been on Friday if they had played.
|
|
|
Post by Luca Toni on Mar 5, 2007 19:28:59 GMT
In this instance, alledgedly, both players contracts were up as the season had ended. Therefore they had no contractual obligations and the Italians could claim no ownership. What would stop teams releasing a player from his contract, then when the form for the ITC comes in, they demand a payment. The player is still technically released but to sign them clubs could still try this kind of stunt. Lets get this right, EIHL rules get broken, bent or ignored all of the time, and yes it is stupid. It shouldnt happen, but it does. However does anybody want to go back to the ISL days of overpaying players (or as it would be, other owners) and teams going bust? Ok, we have much more sensible (at times) management of clubs, which is why common sense is needed here. This is not just about the Steelers, the EIHL or the IIHF. Its about players as well and their rights more than any need to be protected. Without them there is no game. Simple. As to the matter of the playoffs, surely it benefits all of us and the game in the UK if the owners show sensible reasoning in this matter. Players get to play, fans happy in the long run (situation may happen again, could be to any team), and more importantly our league looks like a better place to come for more players. Why do our rules always come last? If they do again it is a joke. Sorting out muppets who demand money for signatures is one thing. Strictly speaking it has nothing to do with the separate issue of if these two players can play in the playoffs or not. I have no doubts really they will be allowed to play - and once more our league will be shown to be not so much about rules as behind closed doors agreements by a bunch of self-interested owners.
|
|
|
Post by LooseChippings on Mar 5, 2007 19:29:46 GMT
Just keep your fingers crossed that TG doesn't miss a game through injury or suspension!
|
|
|
Post by mattscold on Mar 5, 2007 19:31:04 GMT
I wonder what the score would have been on Friday if they had played. ;D Probably a lot worse but at least we would have seen an entertaining game from 1 team
|
|
|
Post by mattscold on Mar 5, 2007 19:32:30 GMT
Just keep your fingers crossed that TG doesn't miss a game through injury or suspension! If he does we'll use the Squeeler Loop Hole hehe before i get flamed i'm joking
|
|
|
Post by Luca Toni on Mar 5, 2007 19:39:51 GMT
Considering the 6 game rule (or 5 or 4 or whatever it turns out retrospectively to be) Panthers took a chance there as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2007 19:46:26 GMT
Sorry but my stance on this is rules are rules. The rules state players have to play 6 league games in order to qualify for the play-offs, if they don't play 6 games, they don't play. Doesn't matter which team it is, the rules have (for once) been communicated on this issue, why should they be bent for anyone (regardless of the nature of why the players have been held up). We could be in a similar stuation with Trevor Gallant should he get an injury or get himself a suspension. If he does, tough, we'll have to live with it!
|
|
|
Post by Lord of the Rinks on Mar 5, 2007 19:56:21 GMT
Even if the transfer deadline came back wouldnt teams still be able to do exactly what the italian club has tried to do to us? No, because players would not be able to come over when their season had ended and join a team over here. If they have not signed by say the end of January, then they would not be able to play. Earlier in the thread someone mentioned about Trevor Gallant and what would we be doing if his clubs owner had done the same thing. Well in his case I believe he stayed until the season had finished, unlike Vez and his mate, who stayed because they got to the next level of the play offs. Only when they got knocked out, did they come over here. Is the season finished and the players contract canceled, when the play off final has taken place.
|
|
Helen B
Terry Kurtenbach
you know how much I love you guys
Posts: 2,841
|
Post by Helen B on Mar 5, 2007 20:00:30 GMT
Why do our rules always come last? If they do again it is a joke. Sorting out muppets who demand money for signatures is one thing. Strictly speaking it has nothing to do with the separate issue of if these two players can play in the playoffs or not. I have no doubts really they will be allowed to play - and once more our league will be shown to be not so much about rules as behind closed doors agreements by a bunch of self-interested owners. Oh but the muppet who demanded the money for his signature, means it no longer a seperate issue of whether they play or not. If the players release and registration hadn't been done in time then fair enough, but the release had been confirmed, the registration had been confirmed, for all intents and purposes they are Sheffield Steelers players, but the muppet in Italy decided that he would only sign the ITC form after a payment of £6k, even though the club had released the players, their season had ended and they were out of contract. So it is not a seperate issue because if the Italian owner had just signed the damned form like he was supposed to then they would have played on Friday and we wouldn't be having this debate now. From what I've read, and from what Neil has put earlier in this thread, the actions of the Italian owner are being investigated by the IIHF, and also from what I've heard on the grapevine, all the clubs have unanimously agreed to let the guys play, the EIHL have agreed it and the IIHF are also backing the league and club on this one.
|
|
|
Post by debnbaz on Mar 5, 2007 20:07:45 GMT
Panthers had done nothing wrong when registering Ellis and had all the documents etc... in place. Yet were punished regardless by the "oneupmanship" of DS & Sheffield. But then again that problem came about because the league bent the rules to benefit the elite league as a whole.
Standing up to the italians will benefit the league again (and sheffield especially) - but it's going to end up as another bending of the rules. I see no reason why Panthers couldn't complain about this to prevent them playing against Panthers just like DS did with ME. It's petty and childish though - and I'd rather not see another mud slinging match.
Sheffield didn't have to sign them, they could have gone elsewhere, although the probably didn't have the time. They could have turned around to the club and told their owner to go shove it where the sun doesn't shine - that would have sent a real message. It would punish the steelers and the two players but by god it would get the point across about the italian club. But this doesn't lie within steelers best interests.
This whole thing is a giant can of worms. No matter what decision is made, the only way this whole thing can work out without anyone complaining is for both players to play in the play offs, but Sheffield knocked out in the first game or Sheffield win the play offs without both men. If Sheffield beat anyone with them, the loser has decent grounds to complain about rule breaking, where as if Sheffield lose without them, then Sheffield lost out unfairly for standing up for themselves.
|
|