Fishman Explains Cloud9 Roster Exit

Published September 22, 2026

Dzmitry “Fishman” Palishchuk says the group now associated with PARIVISION could have continued under the Cloud9 name if the parties had agreed new terms after The International. In a new interview, the player described how the squad moved from Entity to Cloud9 on contracts that were already close to expiring. His account helps explain why the Cloud9 chapter was brief, but it also comes with an important qualification: Fishman said he did not know the exact figures discussed during the attempted renewal.

According to Fishman, Cloud9 did not sign the players to a fresh set of agreements when it acquired the Entity roster. The organization bought out the existing Entity contracts, and those deals remained the basis of the players’ employment under the new banner. Because their end dates were already approaching, Cloud9 soon had to decide whether to offer extensions. Fishman said the contracts were not renewed after TI. That sequence is the firm part of his recollection: an organizational transfer first, followed by expiring agreements and no new deal. It is more precise than saying that Cloud9 assembled a completely new roster and then immediately released it. The competitive group already existed; only its organizational home had changed. Fishman used that distinction to explain why he believes the later PARIVISION lineup might instead have remained with Cloud9.

What Fishman knows — and what he does not

Fishman was much more cautious when the interview turned to money. He said he believed the monthly figures had been seven thousand dollars at Entity and eight thousand dollars at Cloud9. He then repeated a version of the renewal talks that he had heard: Cloud9 allegedly offered fifteen thousand dollars to Volodymyr “No[o]ne” Minenko and the other players, while No[o]ne reportedly asked for between twenty thousand and twenty-five thousand. Fishman did not present those numbers as documents he had seen or terms he had personally negotiated. He stressed that he did not know the exact sums and could not confirm that the retelling was accurate.

That caution changes how the interview should be read. The contract route from Entity into Cloud9 is Fishman’s account of what happened to his own team. The proposed salaries are a second-hand explanation for why a renewal may not have been completed. Treating both parts as equally certain would turn his speculation into a confirmed negotiation record, which he expressly declined to do.

Fishman’s central point was not that one published number ended the deal. It was that the team’s future under Cloud9 depended on replacing contracts that were nearing their end, and that replacement never happened. He added that PARIVISION’s position was that money was not a problem, but this does not establish what Cloud9 formally offered or what every player required. The useful conclusion is narrower: the same competitive core had a possible route to remain with Cloud9, yet the parties did not conclude the agreements needed for that route. The players therefore continued their careers outside the organization rather than extending the short Cloud9 period.

Why the contract distinction matters

A roster acquisition and a full round of new player signings are not the same transaction. In Fishman’s description, Cloud9 initially acquired the rights attached to the existing Entity deals. That allowed the lineup to compete under Cloud9 without settling its next long-term contracts at the same moment. The unresolved stage came later, when renewal was required.

This timeline also explains the wording behind Fishman’s claim that today’s PARIVISION group could have been in Cloud9. He was describing an unrealized continuation of a lineup that Cloud9 had already operated, not a later offer to recruit five unrelated players. The distinction keeps the story centered on continuity, expiring agreements and a failed extension rather than on a new transfer that never began.

• Confirmed sequence: Cloud9 bought out the players’ Entity contracts, and those existing agreements were close to their end.
• Fishman’s limitation: he repeated the salary figures as information he had heard and said he could not verify the exact amounts.

Part of Fishman’s account	Appropriate level of certainty
Entity-to-Cloud9 move	A buyout of existing player contracts, according to Fishman.
Renewal salary figures	An unverified retelling that Fishman explicitly described as uncertain.

Fishman’s wording leaves the financial disagreement unresolved. His account explains one possible path from Cloud9 to PARIVISION, but it cannot assign a definitive price to the failed renewal without direct confirmation of the terms.