EPT[Spring 2016] Esports General Discussion - Page 42
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
Wita
Denmark267 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9448 Posts
On June 18 2016 06:55 Wita wrote: Regi is a bit of a wet cunt isnt he. Must say his case is weak as fuck. Read the twitlonger again. And then look at the dates and the salaries paid out. Think about it twice before you post again. | ||
|
EsanLOL
479 Posts
But I mean it's hard to tell of course without more information. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
Prolly why half their roster got banned for boosting. Got to pay the bills somehow, no? | ||
|
EsanLOL
479 Posts
2/11: DT contracts Biofrost 3/15: DT pays first month of Biofrost's contract 4/15: DT misses second payment due to "banking delay" 4/21: TSM opens support tryouts 4/23: TSM and Biofrost enter initial talks with Riot's permission due to nonpayment So I guess the issue is at what point do you differentiate late payment from nonpayment? From DT's perspective, the LOI is valid simply because they intended to pay Biofrost but the payment was late and Bio breached the contract by engaging TSM. From Bio/TSM/Riot's perspective, this was nonpayment and the agreement was void. Nonpayment is grounds for material breach, but late payment alone is often not grounds for material breach. I don't think it's as open and shut in TSM's favor as others think. | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
You can't not pay your employees, banking delay or not. Hell, a year ago my old employer dicked my payroll by a few factors of ten and cancelled it as to not double my salary. They caught the error and paid me a huuge bonus to shut my mouth because normal professionals expect better than bullshit like that, and straight up knowing accounting fucked up and there was a potential that people would have to deposit a cheque instead of getting direct deposit would tilt the whole office and screw productivity. Any business that is fucking around and not paying its people / missing payments / paying late is a scummy ass sketchy ass business i dont think any person with self respect should want to be involved with. This isn't a "oops my bad" thing it is a colossal and unacceptable error. | ||
|
EsanLOL
479 Posts
On June 18 2016 10:27 iCanada wrote: If I don't get paid for a week when I should have been I'm probably quitting. That is some bullshit. You can't not pay your employees, banking delay or not. Hell, a year ago my old employer dicked my payroll by a few factors of ten and cancelled it as to not double my salary. They caught the error and paid me a bonus pay period to shut my mouth because normal professionals expect better than bullshit like that, and straight up knowing accounting fucked up and therewasa potential that people would have to deposit a cheque instead of getting direct deposit tilt the whole office and screw productivity. Any business that is fucking around and not paying its people / missing payments / paying late is a scummy ass sketchy ass business i dont think any person with self respect should want to be involved with. This isn't a "oops my bad" thing it is a colossal and unacceptable error. As a freelancer myself, I know it's a common practice to insert a "material breach includes delayed payment" into agreements to avoid these types of scenarios precisely because late payments are NOT breach of contract. Again, there is a difference between not paying people and paying people late. I'm not saying late payment is acceptable or good business practice, the question is whether a week late payment is enough to breach an agreement on grounds of nonpayment. | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
It's different than freelancing because payroll is something you're supposed to be able to make regularly. Your whole operation is supposed to be able to automatically handle payroll, and if you can't, that's a huge red flag. It's very different therefore than being late on a one-time payment - being late on payroll by more than a day suggests extremely serious financial issues. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
BrownBear
United States6894 Posts
I don't like Regi that much but he does deserve respect for looking out for his players. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
though im a little confused what theyre calling a LOI... a LOI is a letter of intent, which is usually used for mergers and acquisitions as a sort of "hey lets talk seriously" before arriving at a definitive agreement. it outlines terms but is non binding though generally indicates that the parties will negotiate in good faith. it may be binding and a valid contract if there is consideration of some sort for both sides. IANAL though i deal with this stuff via M&A for work. it would see what they're calling a LOI is some sort of prelim agreement that Bio will be paid x for playing blah blah blah while they negotiate a long term contract. it sounds pretty binding, though most contracts come with some clause about termination for cause/ bankruptcy/ nonpayment/ material breach which you can argue occurred if DT wasn't paying Bio. even if there isnt there's an argument the contract is non enforceable under UCC or the other thing i forget the name of. i'd wonder about any arbitration clauses/ waivers to trial as well. either way it looks like DT screwed the pooch. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Thorin did a sober analysis about some parts of this with his "break this contract" video, but most people still don't understand even a modicum of the law, or (in many ways even less) the economic. This leads to things like howling for a union (no sports league has had one with even 5 times this revenue) or blame the teams for things Riot does and blame Riot for things the teams do. | ||
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
For the booster thing you toss in a clause about false representation and cover your ass. Sue for damages. EZPZ Also Reggie is paying for a pretty solid lawyer it sounds like. $400 is kind of on the upper end. A partner a tier 1 corporate law firm charges about $700-$1000 for reference. Makes sense though, TSM is probably a 10 figure revenue business. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
I'm not an employment expert, but IMO a better solution to boosting/raging bans for teams is to structure contracts so that there are bonuses at the end of the split for not being suspended during the split. Economically those suits are impractical, and plus, a kid with no college education that you just fired after about a year of employment is going to be too poor to pay you by the time you win a case against him. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
There is both the offer & acceptance, as well as consideration on both sides. There is also an intention on both sides for it to be a legally binding contract. And, I don;t think you can have either side say there is no intention for it to be legally binding given that they call it an LOI and in most jurisdictions you need to explicitly state that contracts are not intended to be legally binding. Unless there is some weird wacky laws in whatever jurisdiction i don't see how they have an argument. I mean, i guess maybe the argument on DT's end is that Biofrost's actual deliverable is playing in professional matches for them, and not practicing for them, they don't care if he practices and just that he plays professionally. That being said, I sincerely doubt they didn't schedule him scrimming and shit, and they likely would have terminated him if he refused to scrim. | ||
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 21 2016 08:35 ticklishmusic wrote: yeah i think that is a workable structure. the issue i see coming up with that is it may make you less attractive vs. other teams which may be willing to put less money "at risk"/ more money up front. there are plenty of good players and while you want to cover your butt in some way you dont want to gimp yourself. still like you mentioned there are all sorts of creative structures to make work. Well you sort of hint at the central question here: whether a team can get away with this depends on who needs the other more, and I think on this front the teams have all the negotiating power. Honestly I would have thought there'd be more anti-player contracts at this point, but either Riot is subtly negotiating on behalf of players, teams are afraid of the PR fallout, teams are being nice, or teams just don't have clever enough lawyers. Like there is no way a team should ever be screwed by a players' actions. They have such a ridiculously strong bargaining position compared to players that they should be able to protect themselves easily in their contracts. Once teams start hiring better lawyers expect a scandal to erupt where a player signs a really terrible contract because he's desperate to get into LCS, but then later when things start turning around, complains to Reddit about how unfair his contract is. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On June 21 2016 08:37 iCanada wrote: Yeah, that is pretty much a binding contract from my perspective having delved into a lot of contract law to write my PE exam, although again IANAL. There is both the offer & acceptance, as well as consideration on both sides. There is also an intention on both sides for it to be a legally binding contract. And, I don;t think you can have either side say there is no intention for it to be legally binding given that they call it an LOI and in most jurisdictions you need to explicitly state that contracts are not intended to be legally binding. Unless there is some weird wacky laws in whatever jurisdiction i don't see how they have an argument. I mean, i guess maybe the argument on DT's end is that Biofrost's actual deliverable is playing in professional matches for them, and not practicing for them, they don't care if he practices and just that he plays professionally. That being said, I sincerely doubt they didn't schedule him scrimming and shit, and they likely would have terminated him if he refused to scrim. well, a LOI is typically not really legally binding which is where my confusion arises (as i wrote earlier, i agree that the elements of a contract are all there). that "deliverable" structure is weird as hell and i wonder if that's even legal... On June 21 2016 09:11 GrandInquisitor wrote: Well you sort of hint at the central question here: whether a team can get away with this depends on who needs the other more, and I think on this front the teams have all the negotiating power. Honestly I would have thought there'd be more anti-player contracts at this point, but either Riot is subtly negotiating on behalf of players, teams are afraid of the PR fallout, teams are being nice, or teams just don't have clever enough lawyers. Like there is no way a team should ever be screwed by a players' actions. They have such a ridiculously strong bargaining position compared to players that they should be able to protect themselves easily in their contracts. Once teams start hiring better lawyers expect a scandal to erupt where a player signs a really terrible contract because he's desperate to get into LCS, but then later when things start turning around, complains to Reddit about how unfair his contract is. i think cLutz said it best - blind leading the blind tripping over the blind. | ||
| ||
