|
|
Post by texpef on Mar 6, 2007 0:21:21 GMT
havent read all this thread but given how we got treated only a few weeks back IF i was in charge and the rules are being manipulated to benefit steelers and enhance their chances in the playoffs (or to be honest any other team) and it was AGAINST the rules as they stood then i would fight tooth and nail to stop any infringement. Rules are rules so we were told when it came to the farce that was shmyr and i would take a similar approach to this....
otherwise why have rules (as again was stated at the time) and why would we intentionally harm our chances of success by enhancing another teams chances, especially one that we havent beaten yet this year...
|
|
Baz
Simon Hunt
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by Baz on Mar 6, 2007 0:22:27 GMT
Wasn't the sum of £5000 mentioned during the Tessier affair, or am I mistaken?
|
|
|
|
Post by loveday on Mar 6, 2007 0:35:12 GMT
Wasn't the sum of £5000 mentioned during the Tessier affair, or am I mistaken? Different situation, whatever value the money was. Tessier was only 2 months into his contract. They were paying for the release of his contract so that he could play for them for the rest of the Season. The money covered all out of pocket expenses. These 2 players have finished their Contract and are reportedly free agents. |
|
|
|
Post by loveday on Mar 6, 2007 0:49:18 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. Are you sure you are not Simmsy in disguise? You want us to support Steelers in their quest to allow these Players to break the rule and qualify to play in the Play Off's after only 5 games instead of 6, but are not willing to except the Jury's ruling on Ellis. You have double standards and do not deserve the support of anyone. If you cannot accept the rule for Ellis , then why should we accept the change of the rules for these 2 Players. Steelers, you are on your own. You deserve DS. He has brain washed you all. |
|
|
|
Post by heja on Mar 6, 2007 1:43:15 GMT
Wasn't the sum of £5000 mentioned during the Tessier affair, or am I mistaken? thats a situation that a team should play, they tapped up or player, which is illegal, panthers could of said beep off hes contracted to us for the season |
|
|
|
Post by Luca Toni on Mar 6, 2007 7:04:16 GMT
Nemesis I am a detractor, as you put it above, and I have not mentioned Mike Ellis even once in my comments so far. I don't see how that has anything to do with it. I also don't see how an Italian wanting dough for the ITC means we have to let your guys play. What we have to do is sort out any corruption in the game - something which in no way impinges upon the question of whether your guys should play. The rules state they shouldn't play in the playoffs unless they play 6 games first. That seems clear and unambiguous. More's the pity those from Sheffield now seem content to muddy the waters and try to pull the wool over our eyes with scare stories (it could be you!! really?) and confustication of issues to the effect that it really would be the best thing we could do to let Casale and Sacratini play. Well, sorry, the rules say they can't. I'm sure that you and all those in Sheffield believe in following the rules don't you? Or is that only when it applies to other clubs? My opinion is these players should not play and that no matter who they had signed for.
|
|
|
|
Post by spik on Mar 6, 2007 7:28:20 GMT
Is this not a signing that has just been unfortunate for Steelers, just too late in the season? That has not rectified itself in time? That the Steelers are in fact short benched due to injuries? That any team can find themselves in? Yes.
So really the ill actions of the Italian side have to be dealt with as the PO's continue.Sorry.
Perhaps if the Elite said 'No' (to Nottm) 'you can't play in the Continental Cup and STILL have two options to register in the league schedule'. Panthers may have NOT gone abroad at all.
Were other teams advised of the Panthers being given this descreation? If not why not? That was the time to complain.
True ,Ellis could not play in Sheffield when we stopped the Simoes signing.
The fact that Panthers played (with agreement) two players that would not be effecting their TWO possible legaue registrations was also sought/applied before the tournament.
The dealine 6 game period has passed by , other teams are not at fault for that.
|
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 6, 2007 7:39:32 GMT
Wasn't the sum of £5000 mentioned during the Tessier affair, or am I mistaken? Different situation, whatever value the money was. Tessier was only 2 months into his contract. True - the circumstances and ethics are different but does that have any bearing on this instance? Do the rules permit (or don't prohibit) the levying of a charge for an ITC transfer? If so, then unsavoury though the Italian action may be, in business terms there may be nothing wrong with it. |
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Mar 6, 2007 8:05:06 GMT
Different situation, whatever value the money was. Tessier was only 2 months into his contract. True - the circumstances and ethics are different but does that have any bearing on this instance? Do the rules permit (or don't prohibit) the levying of a charge for an ITC transfer? If so, then unsavoury though the Italian action may be, in business terms there may be nothing wrong with it. The following bit is taken from yesterday's Star: I think the problem here is that the Italians weren't up front with the Steelers from the off. Had they said they would require a fee for signing the papers then I'm sure we would have looked elsewhere for players, but they waited until the last minute knowing we would have no choice. Apparently the GM said it would be alright, but it was the owner who stepped in at the last minute to try and make a few extra quid.  As I keep stating, the Elite League got involved in this very early, so perhaps their advice was not to pay the fee and that we'd be ok with regard these players for the play-offs. Had we not received this advice we may well have paid the fee and nobody would be none the wiser, but it would certainly have encouraged unscrupulous owners in the future. Who knows?  Regards Doom |
|
|
|
Post by smart6 on Mar 6, 2007 8:25:46 GMT
Are you sure you are not Simmsy in disguise? You have double standards and do not deserve the support of anyone. Steelers - double standards? never their standard is to bend break the rules when it suits them IMHO this ransom business is a smokescreen and as regards the Mike Ellis situation it seems to me Panthers requested permission ( or special dispensation) before the event and not after. One question will the new and now highly moral Sheffield Steelers be donating the £6000 to a charity should the rule be wavered for them? |
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 6, 2007 8:26:21 GMT
As I keep stating, the Elite League got involved in this very early, so perhaps their advice was not to pay the fee and that we'd be ok with regard these players for the play-offs. Had we not received this advice we may well have paid the fee and nobody would be none the wiser, but it would certainly have encouraged unscrupulous owners in the future. I get worried these days whenever the EIHL gets involved in things - the left hand never seems to know what the right hand is doing. This is sounding like a case of poor business practices combined with poor drafting of the rule book. The EIHL needs to take a hard look at it's rule book this summer and anticipate the anomalies that are likely to occur rather making up or modifying the rules on the fly as we've seen this season. |
|
|
|
Post by maxfax on Mar 6, 2007 8:29:52 GMT
Would the Steelers have jumped to our defence/rescue, if the boot was on the other foot? On recent showings, you'd be a silly man to bet that they would!
Yes, you can argue that the Steelers are making a stand for the general good of the game, but this is their mess & their problem. Rules are rules, & should not be bent, or flexed just coz it incoveniences the precious Steelers.
I DO think the situation they are 'apparently' in wrong....but it's THEIR problem..not anyone elses. All teams MUST come up against obstacles like this from time to time, we just have to deal with them privately. This is a Steelers issue, not one for the league OR any other team. End Of.
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Mar 6, 2007 8:34:39 GMT
The EIHL needs to take a hard look at it's rule book this summer and anticipate the anomalies that are likely to occur rather making up or modifying the rules on the fly as we've seen this season. To be honest I think there are a lot of things that need sorting before next season starts. I'd certainly like to know what cup competitions we're going to have and the exact format of them. Maybe this season has been thrown into chaos by the late admission of Hull, but the way the competitions have been made up as they go along have made the league/sport look very amateurish. Bring back an early season cup competition like the B & H with a one off final at one of the big arenas.  Regards Doom |
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 6, 2007 8:52:15 GMT
Maybe this season has been thrown into chaos by the late admission of Hull, but the way the competitions have been made up as they go along have made the league/sport look very amateurish. Yes - it's hard to believe the way they've gone about the cup competitions - blatant padding of the fixture list, but with no consensus. Some clubs wanted extra fixtures and others didn't - The Pick and Mix Cup might have been a suitable title.... farcical.  Amen to that Doom!  There seems to be plenty of support for the idea among the fans around the country but a surprising reluctance among the clubs. Are the logistical (ice time) problems so insurmountable? |
|
|
|
Post by Rumpole on Mar 6, 2007 9:01:06 GMT
Wasn't the sum of £5000 mentioned during the Tessier affair, or am I mistaken? thats a situation that a team should play, they tapped up or player, which is illegal, panthers could of said beep off hes contracted to us for the season But he wasn't - his contract specified 2 weeks notice either way, and there were issues with the manner of Lausanne's approach to him. The Italians were out of contract (their season having finished) and their club's demand amounts to little more than blackmail. If there is this "6 game" rule, I would expect the EIHL Committee to waive it in these circumstances |
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Mar 6, 2007 9:05:11 GMT
The Mike Ellis thing is a bit of a red herring here, if the league had any spherical rotundancies at all, the appeal by Sheff would NOT have resulted in ME missing a game. He missed a game, and was allowed to play from then on. If they had made a better, quicker decison, that would have gone away.
I don't have any issue with these 2 guys signing and playing. Bottom line, the 6 game rule is a poor one. Either bring back the deadline or do away with it altogether. This ridiculous half way house is more trouble than it's worth. Same for Gallant. There's no deadline, we haven't used the 15 registrations, I'm not sure what an arbitrary 6 games has to do with anything.
It's a poor situation and does the sport, and its governing body, no favours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lucy on Mar 6, 2007 9:09:23 GMT
As I posted earlier, if the Elite League do waive the six game rule for Sheffield, I'd still like to know what happens if for some reason Gallant has to sit out one of our next six games.
If it's five games for Sheffield, then it's five games for Gallant too.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortimershoals on Mar 6, 2007 9:20:02 GMT
As I posted earlier, if the Elite League do waive the six game rule for Sheffield, I'd still like to know what happens if for some reason Gallant has to sit out one of our next six games. If it's five games for Sheffield, then it's five games for Gallant too. Shouldn't that be if it's five games for Sheffield, then it SHOULD be five games for Gallant. This is British ice hockey & in the words of Commander Zero "anything can happen in the next half hour". What the Italian team is doing is wrong but I get the feeling that there are two cases of blackmail going on here & only one is an Italian Job. |
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 6, 2007 9:27:06 GMT
If it's five games for Sheffield, then it's five games for Gallant too. You'd imagine (expect) that would be the case but...... Lets hope the question has been asked and a definitive answer obtained from the EIHL prior to any decision regarding the Steelers predicament. Otherwise there could be more unsavoury wrangling lying in wait and we can all do without that. |
|
|
|
Post by Rumpole on Mar 6, 2007 9:43:27 GMT
Sorry to go back to basics, but nobody that I've spoken to knows anything about this "6 game rule".
Can you tell me where I can find it?
|
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 6, 2007 10:16:33 GMT
Sorry to go back to basics, but nobody that I've spoken to knows anything about this "6 game rule". Can you tell me where I can find it? First mention of it seems to have come from Sheffield when their Italian signings ran into trouble last weekend. I've seen nothing official, but then, that's not surprising, finding EIHL rules in writing..... Perhaps Nemesis can shed some light on the matter - he was aware of the ruling when the story first broke I think. |
|
Baz
Simon Hunt
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by Baz on Mar 6, 2007 10:29:02 GMT
[First mention of it seems to have come from Sheffield when their Italian signings ran into trouble last weekend. I've seen nothing official, but then, that's not surprising, finding EIHL rules in writing..... Perhaps Nemesis can shed some light on the matter - he was aware of the ruling when the story first broke I think. Wasn't it mentioned when we signed Trevor Gallant? |
|
MP
Paul Adey
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on Mar 6, 2007 10:58:37 GMT
Wasn't it mentioned when we signed Trevor Gallant? Hmmmm - not sure but I don't think so though my memory ain't what it used to be! There may have been some mention of it some time after TG had signed, but that was in response to an inquiry from Sheffield I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Luca Toni on Mar 6, 2007 11:11:38 GMT
I think if Gallant were to be injured or suspended it would just show the rule (assuming it exists) to be plain stupid - regardless of which way any decision went. I suspect it was there so that teams could pick up cast offs from other leagues as they finished but before ours did.
|
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467 
|
Post by Warren on Mar 6, 2007 11:27:59 GMT
The 6 game ruling has not officially been announced by the EIHL, but most clubs have mentioned the removal of the signing deadline. - Here lies the problem.
As for where the ruling is officially written down, well it will be contained in the "House Rules" - Don't get me started.
What my opinion is, matters diddley. The EIHL will make a decision, They are doing the right thing by consulting the clubs but on this seasons current debacle of following rules / not following them / making them up as they go along, I can see this going on, many a season down the line.
As for Clubs demanding money for an ITC card release, well wasn't Mr Jinman set to sign (Instead of Joe) but his club wanted too much for his ITC card? As I understand it, All paperwork was set, (Not submitted admittedly) ALL Party's had agreed (Panthers, His current club, and Lee) but Someone from within wanted £x to release the card. The trouble is Panthers Couldn't / wouldn't pay it. So Lee went to a different club who would / could pay it.
|
|
