Millennium/NPPL clash
- Thread starter TJ Lambini
- Start date
I don't think anyone has asked this yet, but would we be seeing a different result if the Tontons had made the Top 18 this year?
Great, I was wondering when we would get around to hating on the French.
What was the name of the snake in Jungle Book? The 'TruSSSt in me' guy?
What was the name of the snake in Jungle Book? The 'TruSSSt in me' guy?
Ed, I don't think he was trying to blame the Ton Tons in any way, he was implying that if the Ton Tons had qualified for the NPPL and not been demoted as they were, that because of Laurent being on the Millennium Board and at the same time owning the Ton Tons, that perhaps (Takedown's suggestion not mine ) no such exclusion mandate would have been made.
I think it probably would have still been made because it's much easier for the Ton Tons to back fill 7 spots for a tourney in Marseilles than for Joy, Nexus and XSV.
The thread was getting stale, wanted to open up a can of worms 
I'm not trying to hate on the french... just wondering if we'd see a different outcome if Laurent's team was involved.
I'm not trying to hate on the french... just wondering if we'd see a different outcome if Laurent's team was involved.
Clarification!
I had a talk to Christian in Menace regarding this locked rooster issue. He told me that he voted on a locked rooster for 18 players which wouldnt have effected the teams who didn't put in their first squad in Marseille.
Since I posted that I thought Menace were trying to make it harder for the NPPL teams in the CL I was clearly wrong.
Menace voted for this rule to stop teams from stacking their rooster during the season with other players.
I don't personally agree on that issue but want to make it clear to everybody that Menace in fact haven't done anything shady against the NPPL teams. It only looked like that before all the facts was on the table.
Magued
I had a talk to Christian in Menace regarding this locked rooster issue. He told me that he voted on a locked rooster for 18 players which wouldnt have effected the teams who didn't put in their first squad in Marseille.
Since I posted that I thought Menace were trying to make it harder for the NPPL teams in the CL I was clearly wrong.
Menace voted for this rule to stop teams from stacking their rooster during the season with other players.
I don't personally agree on that issue but want to make it clear to everybody that Menace in fact haven't done anything shady against the NPPL teams. It only looked like that before all the facts was on the table.
Magued
probably setting myself up to get flamed but here goes;
a capped roster is not uncommon in many sports and prevents teams from bringing in guests to improve fortunes if results are not going too well, seems fair providing the cap is 15-18 players allowing the teams in question to have in effect 2 squads. (contractural obligations aside)
non participation at an event creates a scheduling problem and affects qualification to the ko stages if the prelim groups are not of equal sizes, although i see the point that compulsory attendance is unfair on 3 teams not having that rule is surely unfair on all the other CL teams
purely a view expressed from the outside. flame away
a capped roster is not uncommon in many sports and prevents teams from bringing in guests to improve fortunes if results are not going too well, seems fair providing the cap is 15-18 players allowing the teams in question to have in effect 2 squads. (contractural obligations aside)
non participation at an event creates a scheduling problem and affects qualification to the ko stages if the prelim groups are not of equal sizes, although i see the point that compulsory attendance is unfair on 3 teams not having that rule is surely unfair on all the other CL teams
purely a view expressed from the outside. flame away