Stephano contract situation - Page 59

Lack of content, flaming (of the French or anyone) and useless posts will be punished. Please keep it from being too inflammatory and keep discussion on-topic. -semioldguy (p.103)

Update: Please read http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=267506#1 and continue the discussion there.

ravemir

Portugal595 Posts

September 19 2011 20:46 GMT

#1161

Just hope we have have a statement from Steph asap, or at least some kind of statement that makes sense from both parties closing this, as right now, this is looking more and more like a mexican soap opera

ride

13 Posts

September 19 2011 20:46 GMT

#1162

The Mill manager said that he couldn't answer to Col right now because he is streaming a showmatch between Lucifron and Hasuobs and cancelling the showmatch wouldn't be fair for these both platers who are not involved in this story.

For the "false contract" it means that in France a contract is very regulated. But Col's contract wasn't ok with some laws. So stephano couldn't "work" with this contract since it is not a legal one.

AzurewinD

United States569 Posts

September 19 2011 20:46 GMT

#1163

On September 20 2011 05:43 Lomak wrote:
I bet you thought that contract was real...

Oh my god, I know image macros are frowned upon, but that is just too perfect.

Youtube Chuck Testa for anyone who doesn't get it.

Koorb

France266 Posts

September 19 2011 20:46 GMT

#1164

According to Millenium manager, the "disorienting means of coL's way to do business with Steph" were that they talk to Stephano during the night, and that Stephano is 18. LOL

s4life

Peru1519 Posts

September 19 2011 20:46 GMT

#1165

One wonders how the french make business partners abroad... perhaps they don't uh?

zarepath

United States1626 Posts

September 19 2011 20:46 GMT

#1166

Does the French court involve guillotines?

Shinobi1982

1605 Posts

September 19 2011 20:46 GMT

#1167

Now that I've heard Llewellys speak on the stream....

coL: It is our intention to consult with other eSports leaders and weigh their opinions highly. Although this is ultimately our business decision and responsibility, the ramifications will be felt world-wide and we feel an obligation to get opinions from our respected colleagues.

I hope coL gets a green light and support from the "eSports leaders" and sues Millenium for ignorance concerning the matter.

xBillehx

United States1289 Posts

September 19 2011 20:46 GMT

#1168

I'm not gonna comment on who I think is right regarding the contract, but I definitely believe that Stephano would have had a much better shot at becoming legitimately good with coL practicing in the MVP house learning from DRG than being locked up in the French scene without even a raise for his efforts. It just feels like he was guilt tripped to stick with Millenium for 0 benefits on his part.

zhurai

United States5660 Posts

September 19 2011 20:47 GMT

#1169

On September 20 2011 05:46 ride wrote:
The Mill manager said that he couldn't answer to Col right now because he is streaming a showmatch between Lucifron and Hasuobs and cancelling the showmatch wouldn't be fair for these both platers who are not involved in this story.

For the "false contract" it means that in France a contract is very regulated. But Col's contract wasn't ok with some laws. So stephano couldn't "work" with this contract since it is not a legal one.

doesn't mean it's a "false contract".
unless this manager doesn't know what "false" actually means.

anrimayu

United States875 Posts

September 19 2011 20:47 GMT

#1170

How about you stop making new accounts to throw in random nonsense every so often?

Tehs Tehklz

United States330 Posts

September 19 2011 20:47 GMT

#1171

I really feel like Blizzard should form a StarCraft eSports Association and set out very specific rules for contracting players to teams. Establish a standard contract for teams to use and if someone violates their contract, they should be subject to penalties: i.e. suspension from participating in any Blizzard sanctioned tournament, which is basically all of the big ones.

Esports needs to just get serious, already.

Chill

Calgary25988 Posts

September 19 2011 20:47 GMT

#1172

On September 20 2011 05:45 Cathasaigh wrote:

Show nested quote +

On September 20 2011 05:40 Chill wrote:

On September 20 2011 05:38 AzurewinD wrote:

On September 20 2011 05:37 havox_ wrote:

On September 20 2011 05:34 Chill wrote:
Yea, this is new information. The fact that col didn't give him a real contract, and just put some "clear intentions on paper" is hugely important to the discussion.

this!
i want this to be read by everybody - statement by col plz?

On September 20 2011 05:17 coljbass wrote:
At the end of the day I am not a lawyer but my partner Jason Lake is. Lot's of people can always say that a contract is "badly" written or it has "no value" but what I can say is that our contract very clearly spells out what we will provide and what is expected from the player. So maybe the focus should be on if someone understands the offer and accepts the offer and then signs the contract, that is probably a tad bit more important than if some clause that is necessary for a French contract is missing.

The intention of a contract is for an offer and acceptance as well as all that is required of both parties and I can safely say that our contract spells all of that out very clearly. There is no doubt that he was getting what he asked for and he should have had no doubt what he was asked for in return. I spoke to him for weeks and answered all questions. So sure we could all spend our lives focusing on something that is not worded correctly or something that is "missing" because I can assure you there is probably not a "perfect" contract out there. The more important issue is did he know what he was being asked to do and did he know what he was receiving in return and did he subsequently sign the contract and agree to the terms as they were? And the answer in this case is absolutely.

I don't understand how this boils down to Jason Bass saying "it wasn't a real contract".

Sounds like you're putting words in his mouth.

My mistake I misread it.

Edit: Well, it depends how you interpret the last sentence of the first paragraph. I guess I should have said it was a real contract but not a real French contract. You can't just blow it off like "Oh, well this is way more important than some clause only applicable to French law." That's hugely important to a legitimate contract.

The whole thing sounded like to me that he was saying he's not the legal expert but Jason Lake is and since he isn't the legal expert he can't say for sure about things that may or may not be missing. But at the same time he can say that the basic intentions of the contract were definitely there and were agreed upon by both parties.

New plan: Everyone wait 2 days and then comment!

/taking my own advice. see you!

derposaurus

United States1 Post

September 19 2011 20:48 GMT

#1173

Stephano is 17 years old... 3-12-1994

You can't sign a legally binding contract under the age of 18.

GLHF lawsuit.

ps: ez

Seronei

Sweden991 Posts

September 19 2011 20:48 GMT

#1174

On September 20 2011 05:40 meRz wrote:

Show nested quote +

To clarify. Just because the contract may be considered "illegal" in France doesn't mean it's illegal in the US. It also doesn't speak much of which one is the "better" alternative other than countries have different standards for validitiy of contracts. Labour oriented contracts are usually heavily regulated on a national level though, which is why this is getting messy because this is coL employing Stephano.

So, trying to thrashtalk the US by saying US allows people signing "illegal contracts" holds no truth because you don't know whether or not it's illegal in the US. So please stop with bullshit like this.

EDIT: Misquote, should've been directed to Seronei for clarification.

Except you're misunderstanding me.
I'm not trashtalking the US if anything I'm trashtalking f0rzaa for making an ignorant statement.

Cromus

France42 Posts

September 19 2011 20:48 GMT

#1175

Jason Lake posted as a response to the Official Complexity announcement on their site:

Everyone is assuming French law is on Millennium's side (and it may be) but don't jump to conclusions. This was a contractor contract, NOT an employment contract. The jurisdiction was Texas, USA and France has treaties that cover such international contracts. We are still investigating this, but people should not write off our situation just yet.

In addition, many spectators have doubted our willingness to follow through with legal proceedings (as I'm sure Millenium does). They need to study history more closely

http://www.gotfrag.com/css/story/37209/

Again, no decisions have been made but I don't think certain people involved with this situation are taking it seriously enough.

This might enlighten people who know law out there regarding the nature of the contract since that seems to be disputed.

zhurai

United States5660 Posts

September 19 2011 20:48 GMT

#1176

On September 20 2011 05:48 derposaurus wrote:
Stephano is 17 years old... 3-12-1994

You can't sign a legally binding contract under the age of 18.

GLHF lawsuit.

But but but...
where is that in the (excuse my) french law?

o o

Emporio

United States3069 Posts

September 19 2011 20:48 GMT

#1177

On September 20 2011 05:48 derposaurus wrote:
Stephano is 17 years old... 3-12-1994

You can't sign a legally binding contract under the age of 18.

GLHF lawsuit.

What a derposaurus