EPTHowever, with franchising being involved with non-endemic orgs, I could see some teams being less friendly about this kind of situation. I'm sure FQ wouldn't be happy about going through with a trade they felt was positive for them to then have it end up in them giving one of their players away essentially.
2018 Esports General Discussion - Page 15
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
However, with franchising being involved with non-endemic orgs, I could see some teams being less friendly about this kind of situation. I'm sure FQ wouldn't be happy about going through with a trade they felt was positive for them to then have it end up in them giving one of their players away essentially. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On July 06 2018 02:15 Gahlo wrote: He had the chance to protect himself from this kind of a situation and chose not to. It's like complaining that you get fucked up in an accident when you don't wear your seat belt. I never really like analogies but let me give my viewpoint. So here the law is designed to essentially default protect the employee. In your analogy it's more like each person has to negotiate a seatbelt with the car company or pay less money for the car(I believe that's the tradeoff I've seen mentioned). Here it would be the law requires all cars to have seatbelt default. So as a family we've run some fast food franchises for last decade or so until selling. Often low level employees just vanish without notice and this is terrible. The high level employees however typically give a few weeks to a month notice, one of our very top actually gave us years notice of their plans to immigrate which they helped train a replacement eventually. What I'm getting at is giving notice is a good thing for a company. We can't just then say ok you fired because you're leaving. Meteos talking to them about leaving is good. The fact that Riot forces Meteos to do this should tell us how pro company it is. The fact that there is no enforcement of the reverse is the problem. In order to dismiss someone here(poor performance) you have to go through a process. The first step if formal warning of infraction or poor performance. Then you have to attempt to help the person improve performance. Next step is if they still poor you give them final formal written warning. Then finally can dismiss them. It's a long tedious process and sometimes frustrating as am employer but it serves a good measure to protect employees from shitty managers. I can't recall the timeframe but that's the gist of it. I have no clue how Sports works however, this is just trying to explain where my opinion comes from. At the end of the day there are two main differences I see here between most peoples opinion on this and mine. 1) Meteos should have had a contract that didn't allow this -> He shouldn't need the contract to specifically not allow this as this shouldn't be able to happen 2) 100T did everything by the books as a business -> Doing what is legally right isn't the only criteria for business I understand why people think differently and I get there are tradeoffs for having different legal approaches as well as culture surrounding this kind of thing. My personal views are just the tradeoffs aren't worth it for society in the long run. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
| ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
I’m not in complete disagreement with the sentiment that contracts are org slanted, but if 100T can’t get a jungler in return for his departure they are really fucked unless it’s between splits. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
| ||
|
Bladeorade
United States1898 Posts
On July 06 2018 19:38 Numy wrote: I never really like analogies but let me give my viewpoint. So here the law is designed to essentially default protect the employee. In your analogy it's more like each person has to negotiate a seatbelt with the car company or pay less money for the car(I believe that's the tradeoff I've seen mentioned). Here it would be the law requires all cars to have seatbelt default. So as a family we've run some fast food franchises for last decade or so until selling. Often low level employees just vanish without notice and this is terrible. The high level employees however typically give a few weeks to a month notice, one of our very top actually gave us years notice of their plans to immigrate which they helped train a replacement eventually. What I'm getting at is giving notice is a good thing for a company. We can't just then say ok you fired because you're leaving. Meteos talking to them about leaving is good. The fact that Riot forces Meteos to do this should tell us how pro company it is. The fact that there is no enforcement of the reverse is the problem. In order to dismiss someone here(poor performance) you have to go through a process. The first step if formal warning of infraction or poor performance. Then you have to attempt to help the person improve performance. Next step is if they still poor you give them final formal written warning. Then finally can dismiss them. It's a long tedious process and sometimes frustrating as am employer but it serves a good measure to protect employees from shitty managers. I can't recall the timeframe but that's the gist of it. I have no clue how Sports works however, this is just trying to explain where my opinion comes from. At the end of the day there are two main differences I see here between most peoples opinion on this and mine. 1) Meteos should have had a contract that didn't allow this -> He shouldn't need the contract to specifically not allow this as this shouldn't be able to happen 2) 100T did everything by the books as a business -> Doing what is legally right isn't the only criteria for business I understand why people think differently and I get there are tradeoffs for having different legal approaches as well as culture surrounding this kind of thing. My personal views are just the tradeoffs aren't worth it for society in the long run. Do you not pay attention to sports at all? This isn't a normal job. This is like one of your fast food employees telling you is he trying to get a job at Burger King and you're like well shit we need someone to fill your position so you talk to Burger King and swap employees. Meteos signed a contract to be paid to play, that contract was owned by 100T and they chose to trade his contract for someone elses contract. Players rights are negotiated by a Players Union for instance the NFL has the NFLPA (Players Association). If players want better rights it is up to them to have stronger representation in their PA to negotiate better contracts. I don't see any problem with what 100T did. The coach/GM of my favorite sports team, New England Patriots, has traded many STAR players over the years with no warning. You play a sport, Esport or physical sport, and this is one of the potential negatives. You do not always get to choose who you play for unless you specifically negotiate it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On July 07 2018 04:23 Gahlo wrote: And contracts will continue to be as org slanted as they are until the players that their association seriously and, if needed, make it an official union. This is a /s right? I cant think of an American sport where contracts are more player friendly than LOL. Teams being profitable is still dependent on Riot magicing a few more broadcast rights deals together. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On July 07 2018 05:17 cLutZ wrote: This is a /s right? I cant think of an American sport where contracts are more player friendly than LOL. Teams being profitable is still dependent on Riot magicing a few more broadcast rights deals together. Maybe in concept they are, but in practice, not so much as they don't comprehend the rights they have at the negotiating table. Kids this young that probably never had a normal job are probably telling the agent "Try and get my a good team and a bunch of money." On July 07 2018 05:10 JimmiC wrote: Will probably always be Org slanted, in all the major NA sports unless a player negotiated a "no trade clause" they can be moved at any time. I'm sure since it is over here they will look to something to that. In football not all the money is guaranteed, rest they are. This means even if they stop playing a guy and can't trade him they still have to pay him. I'm unsure how it works with riot. So in that way it is player slanted. Who knows what Metoes signed, most (99%) of players hire a agent who they pay to make sure they get a fari deal and the most money/best conditions. I'm not sure if there are agents. But I'm really not sure what the big drama is about, this is a common occurrence in "regular sports" and Metoes is doing himself a dis service because unless he was so much better then others (which he is not) why would you sign someone who makes a big stink over someone who does not? No trade clauses already have a place in the LCS rulebook. It's illegal to have a contract with somebody who wants/is able to work, refuse them the ability to work, and not pay them. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On July 07 2018 07:22 cLutZ wrote: You are vastly overrating the teams' strength in negotiations. If this was the NBA and we extrapolated the revenue splits, its not likely any player would make over $200k, and that wouldn't include housing. Wasn't Impact's deal rumored at 1m/4 years? If the players have negotiation rights that they don't know about because they don't keep themselves informed, they effectively don't have that right in negotiation. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On July 07 2018 07:27 Gahlo wrote: Wasn't Impact's deal rumored at 1m/4 years? If the players have negotiation rights that they don't know about because they don't keep themselves informed, they effectively don't have that right in negotiation. That is what I'm saying. When you don't include the money Riot is making, LCS players get a larger % of LCS revenue than players in any sport. By riot's model, players are guaranteed 35%, which is actually 52% of the money teams+players have access to. Compare that to 48% in the NFL, and 50% in the NBA. However the 35% minimum has never been triggered in an LCS, so the player % of revenue is exceeding 52% of the team + player revenue. Although we don't really have access to the numbers, the salary leaks and team revenue leaks, despite being incomplete, indicate they are getting at least 60% of revenues, and its not evident that any team is currently profitable from LCS activity. https://dotesports.com/the-op/news/lcs-franchising-revenue-14975 http://proplayerinsiders.com/nfl-player-team-news-features/the-nfl-revenue-split-with-players/ https://nba.nbcsports.com/2016/10/13/report-nba-revenue-to-remain-50-50-split-in-new-cba-players-want-money-for-retired-players/ | ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
also by the fact that he refrences NFL as being the only ones to not have guaranteed money (there are usually several different amounts of guaranteed money in a contract earmarked for different scenarios) I'm going to assume he means in the event of a team terminated contract, better known as cutting someone, because that is the situation where the NFL stands out.Basically the main situation where this plays out is 1)Player has a break out year 2)Teams signs player at inflated rate because teams think said year is the new norm 3)2 years into a 5 year deal, Player is nowhere near break out year level. In the NFL you can just cut him and you are good to go, you are only out the signing bonus and the seasons he already played. In Baseball you have to pay him the full contract even if you cut him. The only real way to cut down on your losses is to work it into a trade, but there are a ton of variations as to how that works so lets just say it exists. as an aside I should add the NBA has a rule where you can cut someone and their contract dissapears from your books, but this is only with regard to revenue sharing and the salary cap, the player still gets paid. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
P.S. Guaranteed contracts are actually more of an intra-player issue. Every dollar a cut player earns is a dollar an active player cannot earn. So, in essence, the cut rule really just protects active players over players that are not injured, but have fallen off a cliff in performance (cutting injured players still counts against the rev share as they must still be paid). P.P.S. The NFL system is also the best system for fans because it lets their teams recover more quickly from terrible management. See, contra, the Nets. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
| ||
|
AdsMoFro
Japan4761 Posts
ESPN reporting Altec and Adrian are gonna be released as well. With Lost (Academy ADC) coming up to the starting roster. http://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/24185076/echo-fox-makes-multiple-moves-ahead-league-legends-trade-deadline Edit: Oh and btw, today is the day of roster lock. Gl Fenix! Good guy Rick Fox, am I right? | ||
| ||
