|
Post by Lord of the Rinks on Mar 5, 2007 20:10:59 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? If they try it, then all we have to do is what Sheffield have done and refuse to pay. That will send a message out, don't try and get money off of EIHL teams, because they won't pay. If Sheffield wanted them that badly, they would have paid up and we would not be having this debate on the subject. Or is it just a financial thing, they could not afford it and want to use the back door to get them for nothing. If they have made a stance against it and are refusing to pay, then they must be applauded for their actions, but they probably knew what would happen when they did. To get the rules changed for them is wrong, unless ALL the clubs in the league benefit from it and are allowed to bring new players in.
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Mar 5, 2007 20:16:02 GMT
We will not get anywhere with this discussion. Everyone will want what is best for their Club. Thats human nature. Completely agree. There will be Nottingham fans who're posting on this thread stating 'rules are rules' who would undoubtedly have taken the complete opposite stance if it had been their club held to ransom. Conversely there will be Sheffield supporters who're stating that on this occassion the league should relax the rules, but had it been Nottingham would have been taking the 'rules are rules' stance. I'm afraid that's the nature of the beast not just with hockey supporters, but supporters of all sports. 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. ! It was me who posted the comment about the £6k going out of our game. I don't know the situation now, but certainly a year or two ago it was mentioned that teams used to contribute into the EIHL pot based on their ability to pay. Some of the poorer teams would take money out, whilst those making the most would put money in (sounds like the European Union . My point was, the more outgoings a club has (ie. £6k to some Italian), the bigger loss/smaller profit they will make and therefore the less they will have to contribute the following season. Regarding the rules for next season, my own take would be this: 1. Have a transfer deadline at the end of January to stop teams from upgrading just for the play-offs/challenge cup etc, but 2. Allow for injury replacements right up until the play-offs. To prevent the possibility of teams using injury as an excuse to replace a player, it would have to be verified by an independant Doctor. I would also say that it has to be a like for like replacement financially. In other words, if the injured player is earning £500/week, the replacement can be on no more than this. The reason I want to see injury cover is because none of us want to watch games with 6 imports versus 7 imports. In the ISL injuries weren't a big issue due to the size of the squads, but that's no longer the case. If we want to prevent supporters being short changed having to watch short benched teams then either: 1. The wage-cap needs to be substantially increased....That isn't going to happen or 2. Injury replacements need to be allowed. Regards Doom
|
|
|
Post by Lord of the Rinks on Mar 5, 2007 20:17:40 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. 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. Grapevine, is that not another name for RUMOR
|
|
|
Post by Luca Toni on Mar 5, 2007 20:17:43 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. One leads to the other Helen but that is not the same as saying they are the same thing. The question is, for me, are rules rules or not? Usually in the EIHL its "not". Well they should be. It is for the IIHF, the EIHL and whoever else to sort out the issue of dodgy personnel in the game and that has NOTHING to do with whether Casale and Sacratini should play or not. Indeed, I find it strange when "interested parties" suggest that the way to stop people trying to get backhanders is to let players play.
|
|
|
Post by Lord of the Rinks on Mar 5, 2007 20:27:03 GMT
Is this not the same as we did to Tessier, when he left us and had to work two weeks notice. Does the same not apply in Italy, if so then the owner has the say whether the players go or not.
If the two weeks notice is common to all clubs and they have not completed them, the £6K could have bought them out of the contract. If you don't pay, they don't play.
Have we heard ALL the evidence, or just bits of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2007 20:30:58 GMT
The question is, for me, are rules rules or not? And this for me is the crux of the matter. Regardless of which team it is, the rules quite clearly state that 6 league games have to be played in order to qualify for the play-offs. That's it, there shouldn't even be a discussion about it. I do agree with Doom's point however that replacements for injuries should be considered. However, there you open up a whole new can of worms on weather or not the player is genuinely injured!
|
|
|
Post by Luca Toni on Mar 5, 2007 20:32:24 GMT
Which is why the rules must be blind and across the board.
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Mar 5, 2007 20:35:22 GMT
I do agree with Doom's point however that replacements for injuries should be considered. However, there you open up a whole new can of worms on weather or not the player is genuinely injured! Hence why I think you'd need an independent Doctor to decide if an injury is genuine. Regards Doom
|
|
|
Post by hollies on Mar 5, 2007 20:42:49 GMT
No particular axe to grind with the team involved here however I would throw the following into the debate.
Rules are rules and for the sake of fairness and consistency, they should be maintained - by all parties and at all times. That would be to the benefit of all teams and not to the detriment of any particular one.
If this was ALWAYS the case then clubs would know where they stood and just what they could and could not do. That would stop the need for continual sniping at each other and trying to win the upper hand off the ice rather than on it.....the place where battles should be won and lost, not by underhand deals, telephone calls or in board rooms.
There has been a lot of unrest off the ice of late about breaking/changing/amending/using rules. Call it what you will. It is not professional, is unnecessary and unwanted by the majority of fans.
Contrary to the argument stated by Nemesis, I believe a stronger message could be sent out across the IH world.
There is no way that any fee should be paid to anyone in this sort of deal. But, by changing the rules to allow these two players to qualify for the play offs does indeed set a dangerous precedence that is far from sending the message that this league is strong in "management". To me it shows weakness.
By saying no to the payout and NOT letting the players play is by far the strongest signal possible that this league or any of its clubs can not be bought for a price. This to me is the only solution and will once and for all time send out the right message to everyone.
Next year, it might get down to four games and the year after just three.
If the league sticks to the rules this year, it will be easier to do so in the following years.
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Mar 5, 2007 20:56:52 GMT
What we don't know is if the Steelers were given any assurances by the league before making their decision.
It certainly benefits the league as a whole not to have any clubs being held to ransom financially.
I know it's been mentioned in news articles that Eamon Convery has been heavily involved in the negotiations. Maybe he gave The Steelers assurances that if they didn't pay the £6,000, the 6 game rule would be relaxed on this occassion.
If that is the case, I really don't see what the problem would be, because the club would have taken a decision based on what the league had advised them would happen.
The ins and outs of this really are all guesswork on our part, but based on the following quote on our website on Saturday, the club seen confident the rules will be relaxed:
We wait and see.
Regards
Doom
|
|
|
Post by spik on Mar 5, 2007 21:24:27 GMT
Eamon Convery...Is this the same guy who overturns previous Elite agreements? ie) I understood Andy French gives word to Nottm of the right to play in the Continental Cup with no interference to/with Elite league Rules then Mr.Convery says different. Was this the case?
I keep changing my mind regards this debate.Seeing Sheffields side and then the other. But what bitters me so is that DS drove home the reasons why he was so right in his stance v Panthers claims with the league and his ruling on that but now I fear he'd winge entirely if Nottingham rightly have intention to opose these players being included in the play-offs now.When he'd want some support in this one. Just maybe this one will come and bite him back....and maybe if we had not had the previous 'crossing of swords' Panthers management may have felt differently. Sorry, Rules for the league first then get this Italian man dealt with. If I was accused of something I was innocent of at work.I'd still be suspended from work UNTIL the episode was finally dealt with.
|
|
|
Post by Lord of the Rinks on Mar 5, 2007 21:31:47 GMT
What we don't know is if the Steelers were given any assurances by the league before making their decision. If that is the case, I really don't see what the problem would be, because the club would have taken a decision based on what the league had advised them would happen.Doom Unless some team makes a complaint. MIKE ELLIS, CONTINENTAL CUP.
|
|
Mark
Randall Weber
Experience has taught me that when it really matters the only person you can rely on is yourself.
Posts: 4,616
|
Post by Mark on Mar 5, 2007 21:42:43 GMT
I can understand why both players should be allowed to play but if the boot were on the other foot, and considering the recent stance by Dave Simms would he be happy to allow it if the players in question were moving to the Panthers?
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Mar 5, 2007 21:49:02 GMT
Eamon Convery...Is this the same guy who overturns previous Elite agreements? Eamon Convery is the Chairman of the Elite League. Taken from the Elite League website: Obviously typed by a certain Mr Simms Regards Doom
|
|
Mark
Randall Weber
Experience has taught me that when it really matters the only person you can rely on is yourself.
Posts: 4,616
|
Post by Mark on Mar 5, 2007 21:53:36 GMT
Also, the registering of Mike Ellis for the Continental Cup was originally seen to be of benefit for British hockey, and as such Panthers were assured by the league that it wouldn't count towards the maximum number of allowed registrations.
It has however been used constantly as a stick by Simms and his acolytes to beat the Panthers with. Now for the good of everybody we should support the Steelers in their hour of need.
How things come back and bite you on the backside.
Evgenimalkin makes some good points, maybe Sheffield are painting as black a picture as possible to drum up support.
Anyone remember the furore when we signed Ladislav Kdurna? No solidarity then.
|
|
|
Post by spik on Mar 5, 2007 21:53:52 GMT
I fully support Sheffields claim against the Italian mobster. The request for money should have come at the start of preceedings AND the players are surely deemed 'out of contract' as soon as fixtures are complete OTHER than anything in contract.
|
|
Mark
Randall Weber
Experience has taught me that when it really matters the only person you can rely on is yourself.
Posts: 4,616
|
Post by Mark on Mar 5, 2007 21:59:24 GMT
What happens if both are allowed to play, Trevor Gallant gets a one game suspension and consequently misses the playoffs?
How many on here can honestly say they won't feel cheated?
It's unfortunate, the stance taken by the Italian team but this shouldn't be allowed to blind the EIHL in adhering to it's own rules.
Fate is a cruel mistress. Perhaps The Gob Simms would do well to remember that.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Mar 5, 2007 22:46:03 GMT
Some good points made all around. Just to respond to a couple.
I'm sure it would appear that I am 'short sighted' I'm also sure we would all be in the same situation. I also think that it is equaly short sighted and inflexible to take a stand of 'It's not us so NO!' It is us today, tomorrow......
Just because this is the forst time this has been tried, does not mean it will be the last. Far from it if these 2 don't play; we will simply be allowing ourselves to become open to any manner of 'fee' a club sees fit to levy, knowing that if we want the player we have no choice so in the end, either in the open or behind a closed door, we will pay.
In response to making a stronger statement by not paying or leting them play. Sorry mate, totaly unrealistic view IMO. All that happens there is it goes 'underground' teams pay the 'fees' and put prices up to cover it - we all lose.
Basicaly all the detrators quote the Mike Ellis situation, lets look at that again (And I hope most of you would remember at this point I was 100% behind your stance)
Mike registers after geting assurance from the league that this would not count toward a season total, even though the rules are clear in regard to the amount of times a player can be registered. He misses one game as this was the 'tool' you used to stop Steve playing for us, perfectly legitimately. Had Mike played in that game you would have broken a diferent rule. (The 10 import rule) and so couldn't have played regardless.
The rule regarding Mikes registrations is then relaxed to allow him to play the remainder of the year as you were 'duped' at the start. No problem from me, however the point is a rule was relaxed to YOUR benefit The rule is 2 registrations per year, Mike is now on his third.
Sheffield are signing 2 players and all is in hand and complete bar the ITC. A club then tries to extort money for releasing the ITC, there are NO contractual/notice period problems here, both players contracts are canned the minute the team lost their last game.
Sheffield approach the league who give assurances that if they do not pay the situation will be sorted as regards the 6 game rule. The rule can be relaxed to our benefit.
In both instances something has been done or happened beyond our control, we both have asurance from the league, we both stand to gain from a rule relaxation, we both can legitimately claim to be inocent in both cases.
Some of you are using this as a reason why to stop these 2 playing. I'm afraid I am strugling to see the difference, a rule relaxed is a rule relaxed surely?
Regardless of the situations surrounding both cases, these are the facts. Mike Ellis has been registered 3 times this year, the rule is 2 maximum. These 2 will only play 5 games before the playoffs, the rule is 6 minimum.
I tried to remove the 'blinkers' in regard to Mike Ellis and found myself being supportive of your cause. Even though Mike playing for you did not affect me or my team in the long run. And in response to feeling cheated if one of our 2 should score the winner in the playoff final; how is that different to Mike scoring it? Both, by the letter of the law are ineligable to play.
Just because this time it is not you, please try and see the wider implications of this situation.
|
|
|
Post by loveday on Mar 5, 2007 23:13:27 GMT
Some good points made all around. Just to respond to a couple. I'm sure it would appear that I am 'short sighted' I'm also sure we would all be in the same situation. I also think that it is equally short sighted and inflexible to take a stand of 'It's not us so NO!' It is us today, tomorrow...... Just because this is the first time this has been tried, does not mean it will be the last. Far from it if these 2 don't play; we will simply be allowing ourselves to become open to any manner of 'fee' a club sees fit to levy, knowing that if we want the player we have no choice so in the end, either in the open or behind a closed door, we will pay. In response to making a stronger statement by not paying or letting them play. Sorry mate, totally unrealistic view IMO. All that happens there is it goes 'underground' teams pay the 'fees' and put prices up to cover it - we all lose. Basically all the detrators quote the Mike Ellis situation, lets look at that again (And I hope most of you would remember at this point I was 100% behind your stance) Mike registers after getting assurance from the league that this would not count toward a season total, even though the rules are clear in regard to the amount of times a player can be registered. He misses one game as this was the 'tool' you used to stop Steve playing for us, perfectly legitimately. Had Mike played in that game you would have broken a different rule. (The 10 import rule) and so couldn't have played regardless. The rule regarding Mikes registrations is then relaxed to allow him to play the remainder of the year as you were 'duped' at the start. No problem from me, however the point is a rule was relaxed to YOUR benefit The rule is 2 registrations per year, Mike is now on his third. Sheffield are signing 2 players and all is in hand and complete bar the ITC. A club then tries to extort money for releasing the ITC, there are NO contractual/notice period problems here, both players contracts are canned the minute the team lost their last game. Sheffield approach the league who give assurances that if they do not pay the situation will be sorted as regards the 6 game rule. The rule can be relaxed to our benefit. In both instances something has been done or happened beyond our control, we both have assurance from the league, we both stand to gain from a rule relaxation, we both can legitimately claim to be Innocent in both cases. Some of you are using this as a reason why to stop these 2 playing. I'm afraid I am struggling to see the difference, a rule relaxed is a rule relaxed surely? Regardless of the situations surrounding both cases, these are the facts. Mike Ellis has been registered 3 times this year, the rule is 2 maximum. These 2 will only play 5 games before the playoffs, the rule is 6 minimum. I tried to remove the 'blinkers' in regard to Mike Ellis and found myself being supportive of your cause. Even though Mike playing for you did not affect me or my team in the long run. And in response to feeling cheated if one of our 2 should score the winner in the playoff final; how is that different to Mike scoring it? Both, by the letter of the law are ineligible to play. Just because this time it is not you, please try and see the wider implications of this situation. Two totally different situations. We will not agree if we were here till Doomsday. Thankfully it will not be up to us but the Elite League Jury. Mike was only registered for the Elite League twice. The first one was for him to play in CC in Europe, nothing to do with the Elite League at all. Different Country.. Which ever team went to Europe would have had the same rule..otherwise the Team representing GB would have been penalized unfairly to other Elite Teams. The Elite League restored the Status Quo after Simoes left. What annoyed us most was DS's attitude and comments after the jury had been out, delivered their verdict.. he continued with his vermin comments. (And still will not accept the ruling) When the Jury is out on this issue, then we will accept whatever decision they make..whether we like it or not.. and we will not go onto a supposedly independent TV video program and complain about it. It will not surprise me one iota if they play for the rest of the season as I feel sure that the Elite League will want to 'save face' having posted their backing Statement on the Elite League Web Page.
|
|
|
Post by Lucy on Mar 5, 2007 23:19:30 GMT
Just keep your fingers crossed that TG doesn't miss a game through injury or suspension! Surely if the League do allow the two Sheffield guys to play only 5 games and yet still qualify for the play-offs, then it will be OK for Trevor to miss a game Or maybe not!
|
|
oldman
Simon Hunt
The World is full of experts
Posts: 1,111
|
Post by oldman on Mar 5, 2007 23:21:07 GMT
having just trawled through this thread i have two ways of looking at this, first yes we should not allow anybody to hold any elite club to ransom but and this is a big but:
would sheffield have gone for these players if they did not suddenly get all these injuries i doubt it, also if they wish to cry foul on all things involving panther decisions I.E. ME a decision that could be regarded as maybe trying to prejudice the result of a game,
so shall we also look at the fact that the steelers or DS oneupmanship may come back and bite them on the bum, you cannot cry foul siting the rules one minute and then say hey guys give us a break and bend the rules for us.
Double standards hey Simmsy,
hoisted by your own petard springs to mind if i was GM i would complain otherwise could be seen as shooting himself in the foot.
|
|
Mark
Randall Weber
Experience has taught me that when it really matters the only person you can rely on is yourself.
Posts: 4,616
|
Post by Mark on Mar 5, 2007 23:25:14 GMT
Therein lies the problem, while this situation may be totally out of Sheffield's hands all I can see is Dave Simms' smug peasant face being backed by his self-righteous brigade. People who I would be only too happy to see fall off a cliff.
Nemesis you make a couple of good points but spoil it all by talking about a certain team blocking the move and Steelers finding a way to get revenge. Not on here but on The Hockey Forum. Revenge obviously being for the good of British hockey.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Mar 5, 2007 23:30:29 GMT
No difference at all. The rule says a player can only be registered twice in any one season, there is no destiction as to 'in the' or 'on behalf of' It is simply a limit of twice. Mike is now on his third.
|
|
|
Post by ozrollersnake-in-exile on Mar 6, 2007 0:08:07 GMT
Ok.
I dont want to see a poorer quality of hockey for the Sheffield fans.
I dont want to see the Sheffield Steelers, or the league, lose 6K, and I'm gald they havent.
I dont want the league to suffer from having a less competetive Steelers team, and fans all over the league to miss out because of it.
But there is a little part inside me that would be very happy if Panthers objected, simply because of the way Mr. Simms has acted towards us in recent months. I hate to say it, but its true.
I hope the problem is resolved and the players are allowed to play, and I hope the Steelers organization are grateful for it, and remember it.
|
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 6, 2007 0:14:17 GMT
Is there actually anything in the rules which prohibits a charge being levied for the transfer of an ITC card?
|
|