EPTNRG Esports joins NA LCS - Page 4
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
IMoperator
4476 Posts
| ||
|
oo_Wonderful_oo
The land of freedom23126 Posts
What's the point of 3/5 rule if it applies only for 1st game of the split. It's even worse than getting kicked instantly after team sells out. - Hey, you can play one game and then be gone, cya. | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On November 17 2015 09:18 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: I mean, let's be real. What's the point of 3/5 rule if it applies only for 1st game of the split. It's even worse than getting kicked instantly after team sells out. - Hey, you can play one game and then be gone, cya. It gives players leverage. They need to give them a contract for the whole split at least. | ||
|
bbc23
United States416 Posts
On November 17 2015 09:13 IMoperator wrote: It makes me feel bad that the players earned their way into the LCS and then all got kicked out of their team. The 3/5ths rule really needs to apply to teams trying to buy their way into the LCS. They didn't get kicked out. Their contracts ended. They weren't good enough to be renewed, I don't get why teams should have an obligation to re-sign guys who have proven to be poor in the LCS. | ||
|
oo_Wonderful_oo
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On November 17 2015 09:32 Redox wrote: It gives players leverage. They need to give them a contract for the whole split at least. Why, lol. I'm probably too cynic for current world, but I don't see a single reason, why do I want to spend money as NRG owners on keeping guys, whose contracts are over, on bench, just to please them. | ||
|
IMoperator
4476 Posts
On November 17 2015 09:37 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Why, lol. I'm probably too cynic for current world, but I don't see a single reason, why do I want to spend money as NRG owners on keeping guys, whose contracts are over, on bench, just to please them. Shouldn't the players who made it into the LCS own the spot and not the org? isn't that how CS does it now with the majors? | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On November 17 2015 09:37 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Why, lol. I'm probably too cynic for current world, but I don't see a single reason, why do I want to spend money as NRG owners on keeping guys, whose contracts are over, on bench, just to please them. Because players wont play for you if you dont give them a contract. Idk whats so hard to get here. Also there might be a minimum contract length for LCS players, not sure about that one. And why the fuck do you talk about "want"? The whole point of the discussion is if there should be a rule to make them do something they dont want. https://www.facebook.com/LoLWickd/posts/762383057200161 | ||
|
Amarok
Australia2003 Posts
| ||
|
orzeu
Poland5205 Posts
If I had money I would just hire Apdo and bust team to LCS every split and sell. | ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
| ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
Amarok
Australia2003 Posts
It's a fair point that well run, wealthy organisations will rise the tide of for players in terms of conditions/opportunities, but there has to be rules to stop owners from screwing players over. They might not be superstars but rules should take into account guys like Cris or Mash as much as anyone else. | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
And before people tell me they weren't even given a shot... No, they were. The entire Challenger series but they got cut. Cuts happen before the season even begins in every sport even after being drafted. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On November 17 2015 13:13 Itsmedudeman wrote: Uh, all the people complaining about players getting kicked are being pretty hypocritical. Wouldn't anyone that played on a team that retained their LCS spot have "earned" their LCS spot the same way that the Coast players did? If not more so considering much harder competition? So how do people justify xpecial getting kicked? How about Steelback who won the fucking LCS and ended up losing his spot? I never heard anyone say that FNC *shouldn't* be allowed to do that. It's the same fucking thing except they weren't on shit tier teams that were aiming to be barely above bottom tier. It's their team, they get to hire who they want. And before people tell me they weren't even given a shot... No, they were. The entire Challenger series but they got cut. Cuts happen before the season even begins in every sport even after being drafted. They were not cut. They were never on the team that bought their spot. Which is the only reason why this was possible in the first place. People always talking about how their contracts ran out. This does not matter at all. If their contracts ran longer they would still be contracted to Coast. Just that they dont have an LCS spot anymore because Coast sold that one. This is why this transaction is such a remarkable precedent. For the people with the football comparisons. This is like a never heard of team buying a Premier league spot and filling it with their own team of players, not like a team getting new players after being promoted. 90% of people here are completely missing the point. | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
Hell, if TL wants to sell their spot right now and the new team decides to revamp their roster would that be any different? No, and morally I'd argue they're completely justified to do so since TL was doing it anyway. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On November 17 2015 13:38 Itsmedudeman wrote: Uh, is that surprising? If a team gets bought out, then it's not their team anymore. This is true in the corporate world and in sports. If they so want to replace everyone, they can. They own it. You can argue it's not fair all you want, but it's just how it is. The legal precedent and context is no different and NRG did not do anything illegal. Hell, it's WHY they bought the team in the first place. Why buy it if they have no control over it? This post makes me sad. I think you did not understand a single word of what I said. Again, their team did not get bought. Noone got replaced. If the Coast players had a longer contract they would still have lost their LCS spot. Only the LCS spot was bought, nothing else. And yes that is very surprising. It is something that has never happened before in League and that most people did not think was possible. It is also something that is not possible in most sports. | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
On November 17 2015 13:45 Redox wrote: This post makes me sad. I think you did not understand a single word of what I said. Again, their team did not get bought. Noone got replaced. If the Coast players had a longer contract they would still have lost their LCS spot. Only the LCS spot was bought, nothing else. And yes that is very surprising. It is something that has never happened before in League and that most people did not think was possible. It is also something that is not possible in most sports. And? All very legal. What is your basis for argument here? If their contracts ran longer then they would still be on the team and have to employ their players. No one is contracted by Riot. If there is a loophole or an inconsistency in the system it has to do with Riot's arbitrary way of keeping the scene afloat because it can't support itself. And regardless of whether buying out the team is a possibility, none of that matters regarding the moral outrage that the players aren't playing in LCS. Why? Because even if Coast retained their spot they are not legally bound to keep their players after the promotion tournament anyway. From a players perspective, your argument is not really relevant because the same thing could happen and has happened. | ||
|
bbc23
United States416 Posts
On November 17 2015 13:52 Itsmedudeman wrote: And? All very legal. What is your basis for argument here? If their contracts ran longer then they would still be on the team and have to employ their players. No one is contracted by Riot. If there is a loophole or an inconsistency in the system it has to do with Riot's arbitrary way of keeping the scene afloat because it can't support itself. And regardless of whether buying out the team is a possibility, none of that matters regarding the moral outrage that the players aren't playing in LCS. Why? Because even if Coast retained their spot they are not legally bound to keep their players after the promotion tournament anyway. From a players perspective, your argument is not really relevant because the same thing could happen and has happened. No, what he's saying (and what I apparently didn't get at 1st either) is that what NRG bought was literally only the spot. None of the contracts would have transferred even if they were signed till 2030. This makes Coast's statement even more flimsy as I'm sure they'll send another team (possibly the same one minus Konkwon) to try for the CS again. | ||
| ||
