Ok guys, check this out and feel free to post your thoughts on the matter. Not going to use any names.....
A few days ago, I was contacted by a GM who spotted another GM using a player as their FP who as it turns out is ineligible based on the FP rule restrictions. They nominated a player as their FP who did not play their entire career for their franchise.
The GM with the illegal FP is somewhat new to the MLD so I am leaning towards giving them the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately, you guys collectively will decide how we will handle this. As it turns out, they elected their "illegal FP player" back in the offseason of Yr20-Yr21.... over 1 season ago, but this wasn't spotted until a few days ago. Going into the upcoming season, Yr22, the said player is entering his 2nd season as FP.
I'm confident the said GM did not intentionally select this player to be their FP with a disregard for the rules, they simply were unaware such a rule existed.
As we are about to begin Yr22, and as you know, every team has already made their retirements. If this GM is forced to release this particular player immediately, it will be a major blow to their upcoming season as they will lose this highly skilled player and they'll be basically FPless due to the fact they already made their roster cuts/decision about a week ago while we were in the offseason.
So here is where your opinion matters. How do we handle this situation. 21 seasons gone by and this is our 1st real case of the FP rule violation.
Do we...
A) Allow the GM to keep the player for this season ONLY. Next offseason, they will be forced to retire this illegal FP immediately......at which time the player in question will only have played 2 of their 3 FP seasons. The GM will then elect a new FP with a better understanding of the FP rules.
or
B) This illegal FP player is to be released immediately.
So it's your call guys. Based on past experience, votes where we are seeking the majority tend to drag themselves out. So he's how we'll do this one. The 1st option to earn 8 votes will be the option we go with for this unique situation.
I'll start the voting by throwing my support behind option A. It was a minor mistake and I don't think he should be penalized for an oversight.....
8/3/2010 9:07 PM (edited)