[Pandan]

My response is, go and look at any other esports player contract.

I don't use those terms, but in my familiarity of contracts with not just aussie but international orgs - its a carbon copy. Those terms exist for reasons mate. Not just Starcraft in gaming - you've got FPS gamers there as well.

End of the story is, if the management doesn't like you, they can get rid of you. What's the problem? If you don't like management, you can leave provided the terms.

ON TOP OF THAT - Avant offered to alter the contract for discussion, I know that as fact.


Here's the thing that I'm reading between the lines on. How many people are in ToR? A shitload? You are leaving avant because not all 70 thousand of your members are getting a moonglade contract.

Here's how you would have had the contract offered from any other org - DOX will back me up on this...

Baseline commitment for all ToR members = X
Extra Over for Top players (likely NXZ + Pezz?) = X+Y
Extra Over performance bonus = X+Y+Z

If you expect EVERY player to get the X+Y+Z or even the X+Y, you're dreaming. Do you think even in Nv of all teams, everyone gets the same as Moonglade? Do you think even in Nv, the console team gets the same as a SC2 team? NO, of course not - every single team and player in every org is different and gets different terms.

Quick Comments

	SLCNPezz:	Pandan, just because this may be a "standard" contract to lesser gaming organisations, that doesn't make it okay.
	syfChadMann:	I think the problem Pandan was that no one got anything...

[ToRSpartaz]

Originally Posted by Pandan

ON TOP OF THAT - Avant offered to alter the contract for discussion, I know that as fact.

Here's the thing that I'm reading between the lines on. How many people are in ToR? A shitload? You are leaving avant because not all 70 thousand of your members are getting a moonglade contract.

It seems that you already do not have a basis to make comments in relation to this dispute. If you don't know even the basis for who actually represented the SC2 division. 7 players have been representing Avant, originally starting with 6 until we picked up NXZ.

And despite the fact that this is one thing that you have been supposedly told, I personally have been pointing out the issues with the contract in relation to not only my players - but the implications for other teams as well.

You seem to be uninformed regarding the situation or at least only understand one side of the story. I would prefer it if we could leave this behind us now, there is no point on dwelling on something that isn't going to moving in any direction forwards or backwards.

And to those who have shown such signs of support It is much appreciated

[SLCN.Petrify]

Originally Posted by Pandan

My response is, go and look at any other esports player contract.

Do they all offer nothing to the players and in return take away every single right a player has? If so, no wonder there's been so many issues in esports with player contracts.

Here's the thing that I'm reading between the lines on. How many people are in ToR? A shitload? You are leaving avant because not all 70 thousand of your members are getting a moonglade contract.

Here's how you would have had the contract offered from any other org - DOX will back me up on this...

Baseline commitment for all ToR members = X
Extra Over for Top players (likely NXZ + Pezz?) = X+Y
Extra Over performance bonus = X+Y+Z

If you expect EVERY player to get the X+Y+Z or even the X+Y, you're dreaming. Do you think even in Nv of all teams, everyone gets the same as Moonglade? Do you think even in Nv, the console team gets the same as a SC2 team? NO, of course not - every single team and player in every org is different and gets different terms.

Um... the contract was only offered to Team ToR members, which is like 6-7 people?

As for the rest of the stuff about nv that's basically totally irrelevant and supports my argument; the 'x+y+z' shit was NOT offered to anybody. The only thing that was offered was 'x' and in turn everything that was taken away was the rest of the alphabet in both english, russian, chinese, japanese and korean.

Pandan just read this please:

This is the main thing that put me off the contract, why even put this in there if it's just done on a "case by case basis". It pretty much means the contract doesn't mean anything, and that Avant can do whatever they please. And if I sign I'm locked in for 6months, so I can't even get out if they aren't providing any support.

It isn't even a contract. It's an AVANT can do whatever they want with providing you nothing for 6 months. It's retarded. If it's standard practice then its disgusting.

[|Erasmus|]

my 2c: some of these things were fixed, but the contract was still -crystal- clear about the responsibilities of the players, while being markedly less so about the extent of the support Av would provide.

The players were concerned that the contract was not fair, and from the conversations I saw, instead of Av reassuring them and maybe trying to accommodate them in some way, it kept being pushed back, the contract was just described as "standard", and individual players were then trying to be pressured to sign separately. From my discussions with them, this just made them even more suspicious about said contracts, and there was no real 2 way process of communication.

edit: Seriously pandan... no need to make claims about how everyone wants a moonglade like contract. And there are 6 players in the team. And yes, they were/are willing to accept different levels of support given the differences in results they have achieved.

[Pandan]

Originally Posted by |Erasmus|

my 2c: some of these things were fixed, but the contract was still -crystal- clear about the responsibilities of the players, while being markedly less so about the extent of the support Av would provide.

The players were concerned that the contract was not fair, and from the conversations I saw, instead of Av reassuring them and maybe trying to accommodate them in some way, it kept being pushed back, the contract was just described as "standard", and individual players were then trying to be pressured to sign separately. From my discussions with them, this just made them even more suspicious about said contracts, and there was no real 2 way process of communication.

I have not seen a copy of the contract with what the player receives in their individual promises, I have only seen the contract template. If that information was missing, Avant simply needed to add the minimum commitment per contract. Pretty simple solution.

...and of course they sign separately, they are all different players with different needs, and most importantly, completely different legal entities.

The contract is standard (though obviously it was missing the minimum commitment). In its entirety, it's basically a formal code of conduct and minimum commitments for the player. I don't see how anyone should be calling it dodgy or unfair.

I can, however, see if people are unsure or concerned. Frankly, this is why I don't like eSports contracts when there is no salary involved - because of how people react to the most minor ammendable issues.

EDIT: When I witnessed the contract template, I specifically asked for player arrangements to be removed, as it in particular was none of my business.

[SLCNPezz]

I think my POV might be different from the rest of ToR's because I was personally provided with some financial support, albeit delayed.

I am personally thankful for the expenses covered for me to ACL brisbane. I think I was the only one in ToR who wanted to stay with Avant, but I did not want to sign this contract. As Petrify said, the contract just wasn't that promising to the players, it gave all the power to the management, and didn't promise anything for the players.

The one promise it made was gear, which let's be honest, every pro sc2 player already has, and it's really only a hindrance to get used to new gear. The second thing it mentioned in the contract was this:

4.2. AVANT shall provide the Player with support to attend national and international events.
4.2.1. The nature and level of this support will be on a case by case basis and through mutual agreement between AVANT and the Player.
4.2.2. AVANT will not be held liable in the event that a lack of support precludes the Player from attending any event.

This is the main thing that put me off the contract, why even put this in there if it's just done on a "case by case basis". It pretty much means the contract doesn't mean anything, and that Avant can do whatever they please. And if I sign I'm locked in for 6months, so I can't even get out if they aren't providing any support.

Once again, I know Nick feels wronged in many ways by Wes and Avant, but for me personally they have treated me pretty well, and I'd like to part in a professional manner.

[Pandan]

I was under the impression that the contract I witnessed had specifically had what Avant gives to players removed (i.e. commitment to X national events plane + accomodation fees) etc.

If NONE of the contracts had that in it, then Avant is at fault for not including it.

[SLCN.Petrify]

Originally Posted by Pandan

I was under the impression that the contract I witnessed had specifically had what Avant gives to players removed (i.e. commitment to X national events plane + accomodation fees) etc.

If NONE of the contracts had that in it, then Avant is at fault for not including it.

There we go.

[Pandan]

As I said above, I specifically asked for that to be removed from the contract I saw.

[SLCNPezz]

Well I don't really know why you're going on such a big rant if you haven't seen the current contract. It seems to me that you agree now that the contract isn't very well designed? Well, that's okay. I hope everything is clear.

Quick Comments

RuineD:

pezz brings the pain

[ToRDolo]

Huh, you're basing your entire defence of Avant's contract practice on an 'impression' from their standard contract template. Not just any template, but one which had Avant's responsibilities towards their players (which was Spartaz's primary concern and the one which Petrify brought up in his first post) removed... what ground are you trying to stand on here?

Also - contracts should be extremely black and white, that's why they tend to be wordy. So that every situation is clear cut. If they're wordy (as you and others have said about Avant's) and still not clear cut then there is something very, very wrong with the 'legal document'.

[EXCL]

Originally Posted by ToRDolo

Also - contracts should be extremely black and white, that's why they tend to be wordy. So that every situation is clear cut. If they're wordy (as you and others have said about Avant's) and still not clear cut then there is something very, very wrong with the 'legal document'.

Exactly - its called 'transparency'. From what I have read here it appears it certainly wasn't. Too many open ended or catch all clauses for Avant. I've also been involved in contractual development for the company I work within and the examples given so of what was in this contract are unreal.

[Pandan]

So, to be clear as Spartaz keeps not directly answering it;

Did you guys SPECIFICALLY say to Wes/Avant "Where does it say that NXZ gets his ACL flights/accom in the contract? You need to add that into his contract"

If you didn't, then you needed to be more clear.

If you did, and Avant didn't - then Avant weren't prepared to honor that committment.



My understanding is that Avant was fully prepared to add that in (as I was asked about it a week ago or so).

[SLCN.Petrify]

Originally Posted by Pandan

So, to be clear as Spartaz keeps not directly answering it;

Did you guys SPECIFICALLY say to Wes/Avant "Where does it say that NXZ gets his ACL flights/accom in the contract? You need to add that into his contract"

If you didn't, then you needed to be more clear.

If you did, and Avant didn't - then Avant weren't prepared to honor that committment.



My understanding is that Avant was fully prepared to add that in (as I was asked about it a week ago or so).

Even if you added in some term that completely garuanteed that the players provided financial support, it's still has these terms:

AVANT reserve the right to recall all support given, from product, gear & financial support.

5.7 Breaches of this Agreement are determined by AVANT management.

These literally mean if Avant don't like you, they can terminate the contract and get everything back. Go find me a contract between two companies that has ANYWHERE near that type of power to ONE party of the contract and I will give you $1million dollars subject to the signing of the following contract:

1. $1 million dollars will only be provided on a case by case situation
2. If you do anything I don't like ever I can recall $1million dollars if i actually do give it to you
3. I get to decide whether you have breached term 2.
4. If a breach does occur the power I have is limitless. My preferred remedy is that you in fact give me 2 million dollars.

Seems fair? Its standard practice in the industry

[Pandan]

Can you send me the contract you have? The one I have does not state that particular clause whatsoever.

In fact, the contract I have doesn't state that anywhere.

[SLCN.Petrify]

Originally Posted by Pandan

Can you send me the contract you have? The one I have does not state that particular clause whatsoever.

In fact, the contract I have doesn't state that anywhere.

-removing until i figure out how to remove personal information-

there you go

Note: This is a pretty old version... but it gives you an idea of what they were proposed

[SLCN.Petrify]

I will agree to those terms but only if you sign the above contract. Its standard practice.

Quick Comments

Pandan:

Is this the part where I say "no need to be snippy, mate" ?

[UHF]

AVANT reserve the right to recall all support given, from product, gear & financial support.

These literally mean if Avant don't like you, they can terminate the contract and get everything back.

Not that it's any of my business, but you quoted this before:

1.1.2. If no written warning is provided in time and the team or player still decide to leave, AVANT reserve the right to recall all support given, from product, gear & financial support.

I assume if Avant terminated the contract, this wouldn't be applicable (unless it's listed elsewhere).

[SLCN.Petrify]

Originally Posted by UHF

I assume if Avant terminated the contract, this wouldn't be applicable (unless it's listed elsewhere).

Except for the fact that Avant get to decide where any breaches have occurred. Even if they're wrong, 'their ruling is final'.

[UHF]

Originally Posted by SLCN.Petrify

Except for the fact that Avant get to decide where any breaches have occurred. Even if they're wrong, 'their ruling is final'.

Well let's be fair, that's a different matter (which i didn't want to touch :P)

The subject of Avant being able to retrieve all support as per 1.1.2, is only if ToR left the contract earlier than stipulated and without proper notice (not if Avant remove ToR).