TSM denies allegations from former challenger players threatening to sue
Team SoloMid might be getting sued by some of its former players, though the team says it's done nothing wrong.
On Feb. 16, America’s top League of Legends franchise dove into the challenger scene by picking up Team Confound and putting them under the Team SoloMid banner. But just over one month later on Mar 21., the team was terminated, as first reported by Esportsheaven's Jacob Wolf.
Team SoloMid Darkness marksman David “t3azer” Berube leaked video of their scrims against Counter Logic Gaming Black to that team's upcoming opponent, Team Fusion. While Team Fusion and Counter Logic amicably moved past the kerfuffle, Team SoloMid did not. It dropped the team.
That's brought about speculation that Team SoloMid owner Andy "Reginald" Dinh was unhappy with the team's performance and used the incident as a chance to remove them. The 1-7 team never really lived up to SoloMid's high standards of play. That's hardly unexpected, however. The squad only qualified for the challenger series due to Cloud9 Tempest's suspension.
According to the Esportsheaven report, SoloMid still owed wages to the Darkness players. That may be the driving factor for the next part of the saga: Three members of the team will pursue legal action against their former employer, according to a report on theScore last night.
Mid laner Lyonel “Arcsecond” Pfaender says the team was surprised they were canned due to the unilateral actions of Berube, alleging that SoloMid “wrongfully terminated” their contracts and “did not fulfill services agreed upon in the contract”—all claims that Team SoloMid refute. The trio of players—Pfaender, Ryan “Big Ol Ron” Ballard, and Paul “Indivisible” Nguyen—has consulted a lawyer and informed SoloMid they will pursue legal action.
SoloMid owner Andy "Reginald" Dinh, however, told Esportsheaven today that the team followed the terms of their contract pursuant to the team's dismissal. They notified the players of their pending release on Mar. 30, a full 30 days notice as required in the contract, and paid the players their last 30 days of wages through April 21, as the team no longer desired their services.
It's unclear how this situation gets resolved, but if both parties remain adamant the only place we'll really find out is in the courtroom.