View Poll Results: When should our new retirement rules being implemented
|
Retroactively
|
|
9 |
32.14% |
Now and going forward
|
|
4 |
14.29% |
After conclusion of the CPHL season
|
|
15 |
53.57% |
01-13-2021, 09:58 AM
|
#1
|
Franchise Player
|
Retirement Rule Vote #3 (Timing)
Moving forward the definition will be as follows:
For the purpose of these rules, the definition is that a player is considered retired when they announce that they are retiring from pro hockey or taking an off ice position. The announcement must be made by the player, their agent, their team, or reported as confirmed by a reputable media source. If a player announces they are done in the NHL but continuing to play pro hockey elsewhere (e.g. KHL), they will still be considered active in the CPHL. A player still being technically active in the NHL via LTIR will no longer be considered an exception for their status as being retired. A player that retired during the season will be considered retired in the CPHL immediately (except when noted in the rule option below). A player that retires at the end of their NHL season, or announces that they will be retiring at the end of the NHL season, will be permitted to complete their CPHL season.
The rule will be applied as such:
All players that fall under the above definition will be retired immediately per the above, except if the player is announcing their retirement at the end of the NHL season, in which case they will be permitted to complete their CPHL season including playoffs. Where the matter is not clear, it will be put to a vote of the league GMs, with a majority required to retire the player. If the player “un-retires” it will be made available as a free agent to the league, following standard UFA bidding rules, with the team’s original GM holding the right to match the winning offer to retain the player. Per standard UFA bidding rules, teams, including the original GM must have the available cap space for their bids.
The GMs have further voted to remove the buyout penalty.
This vote is to align on timing.
Do we implement these rules
Retroactively: Meaning we would apply it to any players that have announced their retirement, including those on NHL LTIR, in this off-season
Now: Meaning going forward from this point
Later: Meaning after conclusion of this CPHL season.
|
|
|
01-13-2021, 11:25 AM
|
#2
|
Franchise Player
|
I want folks to understand that if we make this change after the current season, we will continue to function under an umbrella of ambiguity where we try our best to apply the rule based on how its been applied in the past, until then. It felt like there was a strong appetite to make a more immediate change.
Not trying to steer the vote - but I just want the ramifications to be understood.
|
|
|
01-13-2021, 01:02 PM
|
#3
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
|
The wording just confuses everything for me
__________________
2018 OHL CHAMPIONS
2022 OHL CHAMPIONS
|
|
|
01-13-2021, 03:31 PM
|
#4
|
Franchise Player
|
what parts?
|
|
|
01-13-2021, 04:05 PM
|
#5
|
Franchise Player
|
I voted for now and onwards, but on reconsideration, I'd actually be in the retroactive camp.
|
|
|
01-13-2021, 04:17 PM
|
#6
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
what parts?
|
I get it now, it was the "this offseason" part I slipped on. We're mid-season so I was reading this offseason as the same as option 3. You were saying this NHL offseason... then it all connected
oxygen isn't as clear in hamilton
__________________
2018 OHL CHAMPIONS
2022 OHL CHAMPIONS
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Hanna Sniper For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-14-2021, 10:22 AM
|
#7
|
Franchise Player
|
Still need more votes...
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-14-2021, 10:46 AM
|
#8
|
First Line Centre
|
I am already not looking forward to all the straggler voting needed to determine who is retired.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to BagoPucks For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-14-2021, 11:13 AM
|
#9
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BagoPucks
I am already not looking forward to all the straggler voting needed to determine who is retired.
|
Ya Im in agreement.
While not ideal for everyone, I think ripping off the band aid and doing these all at once is simplest.
|
|
|
01-14-2021, 12:21 PM
|
#10
|
Franchise Player
|
OK so we are at a majority wanting to make these changes after the season.
Which means for now guys on LTIR will remain active, but guys like Crawford and Bouwmeester will be retired.
|
|
|
01-14-2021, 01:50 PM
|
#11
|
First Line Centre
|
I was referring to GMs who arent as hyperactive as I am.
|
|
|
01-15-2021, 12:38 PM
|
#12
|
Franchise Player
|
Jon can you add these new rules to the top of our rules page with a note that they commence at the start of the 2021 CPHL off-season?
|
|
|
01-28-2021, 01:52 PM
|
#13
|
Franchise Player
|
Bump - this is the thread where GMs voted NOT to make any immediate changes.
Which as I pointed out:
"I want folks to understand that if we make this change after the current season, we will continue to function under an umbrella of ambiguity where we try our best to apply the rule based on how its been applied in the past, until then. It felt like there was a strong appetite to make a more immediate change.
Not trying to steer the vote - but I just want the ramifications to be understood."
So here we are again - back to where we started.
I would like to make the rule changes now because I'm tired of this being a point of confusion and argument.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-28-2021, 01:59 PM
|
#14
|
Franchise Player
|
I think why some of the votes went to the end of the season, was that it would only be fair to enact the rule changes retroactively if it was in-season, and that seemed like a boat load of work for the moderation team to alter multiple cap issues.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
|
|
|
01-28-2021, 02:18 PM
|
#15
|
First Line Centre
|
This doesn't impact me, and probably won't this season, but my vote to wait was because of the anomaly of a year we're in. I viewed it as there are a lot of "retirements" coming through midway through our season because of the hugely delayed NHL season start when they would normally be more in line with ours.
Ultimately I'm not that tied to the decision.
|
|
|
01-28-2021, 02:50 PM
|
#16
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
I voted retroactive. I admittedly am not affected by this, so I don't really have a horse in the race, so my viewpoint is somewhat biased.
I still think it's valid though to do retroactive and clean everything up. It will be ripping off a bandaid, but will collectively save everyone time and eliminate uncertainty and ambiguity.
Its one less thing to need to keep an eye on and provide opinions on when retirement issues come up.
|
|
|
01-28-2021, 04:35 PM
|
#17
|
Franchise Player
|
A new poll might be in order, with only option 1 and 3. I might alter my own vote to retroactive, if someone has the time to rustle through the past retirements. A one point I might have thought, 'you made your bed, now lie in it', but now I'm kind of the impression that waiting for the changes are more trouble than it's worth, especially considering the question of a rule change was brought about by disagreements that are ongoing.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:56 AM.
|
|