|
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidlegends.net/staff/Zyd/SK.jpg)
Poor results aren't the only thing plaguing SK Gaming this split. Two articles from the Daily Dot highlight just how far SK is falling. The first is in regards to the current roster potentially refusing to play and the second is an open letter to Riot from Gamers2.
A source within SK Gaming told the Daily Dot that the players had been threatened with legal action should they refuse to play and have even requested the intervention of Riot Games.
“Riot have told the players that they must play the remainder of their games for this season in the interests of 'competitive integrity,” a source close to the games developer said. "They have made it clear they will not be happy if this is compromised by forfeited games.”
http://www.dailydot.com/esports/sk-gaming-player-revolt-lcs/
The letter doesn’t just allege that Badawi acted improperly in acquiring AD Carry Mohammad "Jebus" Tokhi, but also that SK Gaming made efforts to poach the team's roster following its own internal crisis.
http://www.dailydot.com/esports/gamers2-badawi-sk-gaming-open-letter-riot/
|
Maybe Zytan will play support now so SK had to get new subs which would explain the fantasy lcs "leaks"?
|
On July 15 2015 01:22 Majax wrote:More about SK drama http://www.dailydot.com/esports/sk-gaming-player-revolt-lcs/I like how orgs can not fulfill obligations towards players or kick them whenever they wants but players can't leave even when the orgs are trying to screw them over. Riot sure looks totally on the organisation's side.
Sounds to me like players are refusing to play because of an argument with the management. We dont know the details of this argument. Maybe the management had a point and the players were indeed not fulfilling their obligations. Maybe the management was unreasonable, no idea.
In any case I think it is obvious that it is not ok for players to refuse to play or to lose their games on purpose. Both sides should be obligated to fulfill their contractual obligations.
|
On July 15 2015 02:18 Redox wrote:Sounds to me like players are refusing to play because of an argument with the management. We dont know the details of this argument. Maybe the management had a point and the players were indeed not fulfilling their obligations. Maybe the management was unreasonable, no idea. In any case I think it is obvious that it is not ok for players to refuse to play or to lose their games on purpose. Both sides should be obligated to fulfill their contractual obligations.
I agree, but the article tell us that apparently riot was helping the org enforce their contracts.
When you put this in perspective to what happened with Move Your Mothers, Copenhagen Wolves, or even Lemondogs/NiP I find it despicable that Riot only seem to care about things that could appear in public and have a negativ impact on their image (which are always players side) and never about everything that could be swept under the rug (every organisation failure).
So much for a player-focus compagny.
|
Riot's motivation here is pretty simple; forfeiture of games is far more damaging to them than anything else that could predictably happen in this situation.
That it ends up aligning with the organization's interest here is more coincidental than intentional.
|
On July 15 2015 02:30 Majax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2015 02:18 Redox wrote:On July 15 2015 01:22 Majax wrote:More about SK drama http://www.dailydot.com/esports/sk-gaming-player-revolt-lcs/I like how orgs can not fulfill obligations towards players or kick them whenever they wants but players can't leave even when the orgs are trying to screw them over. Riot sure looks totally on the organisation's side. Sounds to me like players are refusing to play because of an argument with the management. We dont know the details of this argument. Maybe the management had a point and the players were indeed not fulfilling their obligations. Maybe the management was unreasonable, no idea. In any case I think it is obvious that it is not ok for players to refuse to play or to lose their games on purpose. Both sides should be obligated to fulfill their contractual obligations. I agree, but the article tell us that apparently riot was helping the org enforce their contracts. When you put this in perspective to what happened with Move Your Mothers, Copenhagen Wolves, or even Lemondogs/NiP I find it despicable that Riot only seem to care about things that could appear in public and have a negativ impact on their image (which are always players side) and never about everything that could be swept under the rug (every organisation failure). So much for a player-focus compagny.
All the article tells us is that Riot told the players to play their games to the end of the split to maintain competetive integrity. The very thing you just agreed to.
|
On July 15 2015 03:16 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2015 02:30 Majax wrote:On July 15 2015 02:18 Redox wrote:On July 15 2015 01:22 Majax wrote:More about SK drama http://www.dailydot.com/esports/sk-gaming-player-revolt-lcs/I like how orgs can not fulfill obligations towards players or kick them whenever they wants but players can't leave even when the orgs are trying to screw them over. Riot sure looks totally on the organisation's side. Sounds to me like players are refusing to play because of an argument with the management. We dont know the details of this argument. Maybe the management had a point and the players were indeed not fulfilling their obligations. Maybe the management was unreasonable, no idea. In any case I think it is obvious that it is not ok for players to refuse to play or to lose their games on purpose. Both sides should be obligated to fulfill their contractual obligations. I agree, but the article tell us that apparently riot was helping the org enforce their contracts. When you put this in perspective to what happened with Move Your Mothers, Copenhagen Wolves, or even Lemondogs/NiP I find it despicable that Riot only seem to care about things that could appear in public and have a negativ impact on their image (which are always players side) and never about everything that could be swept under the rug (every organisation failure). So much for a player-focus compagny. All the article tells us is that Riot told the players to play their games to the end of the split to maintain competetive integrity. The very thing you just agreed to.
I agree that riot did that.
I just find it despicable that they value competitive integrity( when it favours them, never forget Gambit in that London
LAN) over the well being of those young teenagers.
|
Korea (South)11232 Posts
To be honest I didnt see that coming. I always thought that SK was one of the better organizations which takes care of their players.
|
Biggest mistake here is that SK should've booted nRated a long time ago, not mid-split after a heated argument. At the same time, the biggest loser here is the SK gaming team, I doubt players like Sven will struggle to find a new team.
As for the second article... dayum, poor Ocelote. Having your star player poached by that scumbag Badawi's bad enough, but then finding out someone else tried to poach your whole team, coach included? That's rough.
|
On July 15 2015 04:08 Zato-1 wrote:
As for the second article... dayum, poor Ocelote. Having your star player poached by that scumbag Badawi's bad enough, but then finding out someone else tried to poach your whole team, coach included? That's rough.
And not just any someone, but SK Gaming, the team that Ocelote was the face of for years.
|
On July 15 2015 03:05 Saradin wrote:
Riot's motivation here is pretty simple; forfeiture of games is far more damaging to them than anything else that could predictably happen in this situation.
That it ends up aligning with the organization's interest here is more coincidental than intentional.
Agreed. Also we don't know how much Riot knows, it sounds like they only got input from SK the organization, not the players. Ofc they should be suspicious as to why players would try to brigade against their team, but they also have to think of personal interests, which is keeping the game schedule.
Honestly reading through the article, the thing I found important was the mentioning of nRated as a mediator. That shouldn't really be a thing if the team is working properly (you can have a delegate to talk to them, but it sounds like nRated was the one doing the talking because the others didn't want to). Also the threat of losing sponsors shouldn't be shoved on to the players, they should be encouraged to play well and win, but sponsor satisfaction should not forced to be their prime concern: if that's the reason I was told to play well, I would be discouraged, especially because as a player I have option of leaving the team.
SK just looking like a big mess. Honestly with how long nRated was on the team I really lost trust in their decision making, but it seems that compared to what was going on underneath he could have been considered one of the things holding the team together.
|
On July 15 2015 03:56 Chexx wrote:
To be honest I didnt see that coming. I always thought that SK was one of the better organizations which takes care of their players.
Article says Alex Müller was not present for some time due to vacation or so. His replacement didnt do the best job it seems.
|
On July 15 2015 03:52 Majax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2015 03:16 Redox wrote:On July 15 2015 02:30 Majax wrote:On July 15 2015 02:18 Redox wrote:On July 15 2015 01:22 Majax wrote:More about SK drama http://www.dailydot.com/esports/sk-gaming-player-revolt-lcs/I like how orgs can not fulfill obligations towards players or kick them whenever they wants but players can't leave even when the orgs are trying to screw them over. Riot sure looks totally on the organisation's side. Sounds to me like players are refusing to play because of an argument with the management. We dont know the details of this argument. Maybe the management had a point and the players were indeed not fulfilling their obligations. Maybe the management was unreasonable, no idea. In any case I think it is obvious that it is not ok for players to refuse to play or to lose their games on purpose. Both sides should be obligated to fulfill their contractual obligations. I agree, but the article tell us that apparently riot was helping the org enforce their contracts. When you put this in perspective to what happened with Move Your Mothers, Copenhagen Wolves, or even Lemondogs/NiP I find it despicable that Riot only seem to care about things that could appear in public and have a negativ impact on their image (which are always players side) and never about everything that could be swept under the rug (every organisation failure). So much for a player-focus compagny. All the article tells us is that Riot told the players to play their games to the end of the split to maintain competetive integrity. The very thing you just agreed to. I agree that riot did that. I just find it despicable that they value competitive integrity( when it favours them, never forget Gambit in that London LAN) over the well being of those young teenagers.
I dont see how you can get that from the article or this situation though. There is almost mothing in it about Riot, surely nothing despicable.
Btw only 1 player on SK is a teenager. :D
|
Elements and Roccat should be happy, it will be much easier to avoid relegations if two of their main rivals (SK and CW) implode before the season is over
|
I wasn't really expecting this from SK.
|
On July 15 2015 05:38 Ansibled wrote:
I wasn't really expecting this from SK.
All ships sail smoothly in fair weather, but if a craft is facing a storm for the first time, you get to see what it's made of. This is the first time SK has been in serious danger of losing their spot in the LCS, so any cracks in the team that wouldn't normally show are going to flare up bigtime.
In the same vein, if CLG has a bad split and has to fight for their life in the Promotion Tournament, you know what to expect from them because they've been there before, whereas there's a chance that a team like C9 might implode in the same situation, just because you've never seen them under so much strain before.
|
The only thing I'm taking away from this is that it's ridiculous that CS teams don't have the same poaching protections that LCS teams do.
I get that CS teams can be a bit more nebulous (more likely to have a "just 5 friends" setup), but there are still some legit orgs down there that are getting fucked over by the old boys' club of LCS ownership.
|
Note, the article was updated with a statement from a Riot representative.
"To clarify, we absolutely did not tell players of SK Gaming that they had to play the remainder of their games to preserve competitive integrity," Yeh wrote. "Any final decision in this kind of case would be between the players and organization. If SK Gaming is unable to field a complete roster for any week, they would have to forfeit their matches that week."
|
I wonder If TSM even thinking about possibility to picking Sven... Pretty sure after worlds with new Rules and Bjergsen becoming true NA player ,TSM can get more imports.. No way that Santorin gonna get away with his jungle style .Maybe he even gonna get full exposed in playoffs..
|
i doubt the players have a contract that states they must win the next games, so good with that threatening thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
