ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise NHL: Transactions => Franchise NHL => NHL Leagues => Franchise NHL: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: SlackJack on November 08, 2014, 07:01:22 PM
-
Would you like to close the loophole?
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=179731.0
VOTE TOTALS
6 teams voted YES, close loophole for same team to resign recently bought out player
:COL-NHL:
:TOR-NHL:
:CAR-NHL:
:STL-NHL:
:WAS-NHL3:
:TBL:
10 teams voted NO, don't restrict buyouts players from being resigned by their recent owner.
:CLG:
:BOS-NHL:
:FLO:
:EDM:
:VAN:
:PHI-NHL:
:CHI-NHL:
:CLS:
:OTT:
:LAK:
-
Yes
-
Yes
-
Yes
-
No from Flames
-
No from B's
-
Yes close it.
It's 1 Vote per GM not team.
Ripper
-
It's 1 Vote per GM not team.
Ripper
An owner that's paid for 2 franchise is limited to 1 vote?
Why?
This from an owner that hasn't paid his 5 bucks?
One vote per team is standard.
-
Can I get a more clear explanation of what is being voted on?
-
Would you like to close the loophole?
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=179731.0
It is NO for me because:
+ doesn't disadvantage or hurt any team competitively
+ is a rule open & available for all to use
+ allows for "cap correction" by budget strapped teams holding bad/inflated contracts
+ becomes anti-competitive to block 1 team from bidding in Free agency & an added admin step.
-
Yes close it.
It's 1 Vote per GM not team.
Ripper
And I say anyone with a name that starts and ends with the same letter cannot vote.
-
And I say anyone with a name that starts and ends with the same letter cannot vote.
:rofl:
-
I hate this loophole as much as any, but it does add uniqueness to the league. I will just split and let the rest of the league decide.
Caps - no
Oilers- yes
-
Canucks say No
-
Flyers say no
-
I don't think we should actually be voting until we know what we are voting on.
Are we eliminating buyout discounts?
Are we saying the a GM can't buyout a player and then rebid on him?
Are we putting a time limit on when a GM can rebid on their own bought out player?
How do we plan on closing the loophole? I think that makes a big difference.
-
:CHI-NHL: say No man! No man. NO!
Needless tinkering.
-
:CHI-NHL: say No man! No man. NO!
Needless tinkering.
:CBJ: are on side with the smart owner of the Hawks.
NO from Columbus.
-
I don't think we should actually be voting until we know what we are voting on.
Are we eliminating buyout discounts?
Are we saying the a GM can't buyout a player and then rebid on him?
Are we putting a time limit on when a GM can rebid on their own bought out player?
How do we plan on closing the loophole? I think that makes a big difference.
The vote is political theater. A Yes vote continues the conversation. A No vote puts it off again until next year.
-
I don't think we should actually be voting until we know what we are voting on.
Are we eliminating buyout discounts?
Are we saying the a GM can't buyout a player and then rebid on him?
Are we putting a time limit on when a GM can rebid on their own bought out player?
How do we plan on closing the loophole? I think that makes a big difference.
The vote is political theater. A Yes vote continues the conversation. A No vote puts it off again until next year.
Sounds about right.
I think it's a none issue.
As for whether it's realistic or not. Hey we're playing in fantasyland here so as long as it's not limited to some owners it shouldn't be flagged as a problem.
That's how I see this.
-
Intelligence would not be the first thing I think of when I think of most FNHL GM's.
Even the most uneducated of you should understand that 2 votes because you own two teams doesn't make sense?
-
Intelligence would not be the first thing I think of when I think of most FNHL GM's.
Even the most uneducated of you should understand that 2 votes because you own two teams doesn't make sense?
Whattttttttttttttttttttttttt! :veto: :veto: :veto: :veto: :veto: :veto:
I paid $35 I can vote twice if I choose, and I choose to. What a joke.
-
Intelligence would not be the first thing I think of when I think of most FNHL GM's.
Even the most uneducated of you should understand that 2 votes because you own two teams doesn't make sense?
I agree with Jonathan. This is definitely the wrong way to go about this.
And I think it makes plenty of sense for an owner that owns two teams make two votes because he put his money in to own two teams.
-
There's an undercurrent here beyond the issue at hand. Passion is good but please let's channel it in a positive way. We can talk about dual ownership in a different thread at a different time.
Have no worry about the outcome of this particular vote. Participation in the process is what is important. In the future we'll engage way more people in any serious movement for change.
-
There's an undercurrent here beyond the issue at hand. Passion is good but please let's channel it in a positive way. We can talk about dual ownership in a different thread at a different time.
Have no worry about the outcome of this particular vote. Participation in the process is what is important. In the future we'll engage way more people in any serious movement for change.
:iatp:
-
Intelligence would not be the first thing I think of when I think of most FNHL GM's.
Even the most uneducated of you should understand that 2 votes because you own two teams doesn't make sense?
Dont be angry dude!
And btw whatever youre smokin passing it along, there's a line forming behind me.
-
Ripper -> (http://www.babyblankets.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/crying-baby.jpg)
I love it. Two guys who shoot from the hip having their say. :winner:
All good!
-
It was my idea and I fought for you all to own multiple teams so the activity level would be high. I am a mastermind and when I have an idea it's to make leagues stronger.
Could you ever imagine a GM (even owning three teams) being more important than the Rip? People check in on this league just because I'm in it, people want to join just to play me. Our Champion from last year still can't stop smiling because he beat the Show Stopper. FNHL voted me Innovator of the decade.
I will call you out if I think you follow, I do cross the line, I bring more passion then the fruit vines in Southern Brazil.................but I'm Amazing and you know it!
Next vote.....should Rips vote act as a Wild Joker and supersede everything.....stay tuned!
If you get it you get it!
-
It was my idea and I fought for you all to own multiple teams so the activity level would be high. I am a mastermind and when I have an idea it's to make leagues stronger.
Could you ever imagine a GM (even owning three teams) being more important than the Rip? People check in on this league just because I'm in it, people want to join just to play me. Our Champion from last year still can't stop smiling because he beat the Show Stopper. FNHL voted me Innovator of the decade.
I will call you out if I think you follow, I do cross the line, I bring more passion then the fruit vines in Southern Brazil.................but I'm Amazing and you know it!
Next vote.....should Rips vote act as a Wild Joker and supersede everything.....stay tuned!
If you get it you get it!
Wouldn't be logical for a guy buying into 2 teams to have 1 say. Like owning shares.2 teams = 2 shares! That's just math man. Plain and simple.
-
Hey it's just Math guy.........when you vote on trades do you vote twice?
Singed, it's just logical!
-
Hey it's just Math guy.........when you vote on trades do you vote twice?
Singed, it's just logical!
the real issue here is weather multi-ownership is good for the league. It has been discussed before and will no doubt be debated again. Let's just not do it here.
Regardless of the number of votes, we are learning how people feel. This participation is key to a healthy league. Let's hope we hear from more GM's regardless of the outcome!
-
I am neutral.
I do find it an easy cop out on a contract and I dont like that it allows people to extend players at free will knowing that worst case scenario they can always buy them out.
at the same time, its a level playing field and would create more work from the admin side.
-
Ottawa Senators management submits a No vote on the grounds that this is a non-starter of a rule change.
The big question is How does modifying the "Buy-Out and Try to re-sign" guidelines improve the overall level of competition in the league? As it stands, I do not believe the rule benefits any particular group nor individual.
In the event Los Angeles is permitted to vote, Kings would also vote No.
Otherwise the Los Angeles franchise abstains.
- DD
-
Hey it's just Math guy.........when you vote on trades do you vote twice?
Singed, it's just logical!
What?? Ripper you are still out in LF!
That's Apples and Oranges man. League wide vote means 1 vote per team.
:TC: is select members, that would be double counting.
-
Ahhhhh ok, wait....... are you asking me to sign your daughters hat?
-
Oh what now Snug votes no? Next time we have a discussion lets all say what we really mean. Gotta stick a pin in this one.
-
I didnt vote no. I voted neutral. I still hate it, just not sure I hate it enough to put pigs through the extra admin work since I am gathering that both admins are not hot on the idea.
-
REPOST from another thread but relevant here as well from a league setup perspective:
We have to make cap management tools available to owners to dig themselves out of holes previous owners have dug or ones they've dug themselves.
Otherwise, ppl get frustrated with the cap issues their team face and they decide to abandon the team.
To promote ownership stability and foster long-er term commitment to building winning franchises we have created these tools for owners to use. Call them loopholes but in fantasy play, no one wants to get stuck with too many problems that block them from contending. Buying out, resigning and applying for a Buyout discount are all cap management tools to help teams compete on the fly.
-
VOTE TOTALS
5 teams voted YES, close loophole for same team to resign recently bought out player
:COL-NHL:
:TOR-NHL:
:CAR-NHL:
:STL-NHL:
:WAS-NHL3:
10 teams voted NO, don't restrict buyouts players from being resigned by their recent owner.
:CLG:
:BOS-NHL:
:FLO:
:EDM:
:VAN:
:PHI-NHL:
:CHI-NHL:
:CLS:
:OTT:
:LAK:
Cleaning up votes and posts and added the vote totals to the first post.
5 Yes votes to change the rule on buy outs that would stop the same team buying out a player to bid on the same player who is a Free agenct.
10 No votes to let the existing BO rules remain which means a team can buyout player X or a random example like Alexander Semin (LOL) and bid on Semin in the free agent pool with the 29 other teams and be allowed to win and resign Semin.
-
or a random example like Alexander Semin (LOL)
The vote was actually 6 GM's to 4 with 1 undecided. But make no mistake, it's in the rules so I intend to use this loophole as much as anyone! :rofl:
-
But make no mistake, it's in the rules so I intend to use this loophole as much as anyone! :rofl:
That's what it's there for man. LOL
And everyone had a shot at Semin each of the 3 times :COL-NHL: sent his sorry azzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz to free agency. Open market system. Got to love it! :thumbsup:
-
The vote was actually 6 GM's to 4 with 1 undecided.
Sry bud. Each team that paid a fee gets 1 vote.
5 YES to 10 NO.
-
Would you like to close the loophole?
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=179731.0
VOTE TOTALS
5 teams voted YES, close loophole for same team to resign recently bought out player
:COL-NHL:
:TOR-NHL:
:CAR-NHL:
:STL-NHL:
:WAS-NHL3:
10 teams voted NO, don't restrict buyouts players from being resigned by their recent owner.
:CLG:
:BOS-NHL:
:FLO:
:EDM:
:VAN:
:PHI-NHL:
:CHI-NHL:
:CLS:
:OTT:
:LAK:
Any more teams out there want to punch a voting card?
YES means you want to restrict teams from being able to resign a player they just bought out.
NO means you want to leave the rules as they are (allows a team to buyout and resign the same player from free agency where the other 29 teams have a shot at picking him up if they want to bid).
-
I vote Yes to close the loophole
Also when I agreed to come aboard as :TBL: owner GM & paying a large fee (comparable) I was given the price as $5 to return for year 2. Not that $10 will break me but its the principal of being told one thing to & being hit with an additional fee. No one likes hidden fees
-
I vote Yes to close the loophole
Noted.
-
Also when I agreed to come aboard as :TBL: owner GM & paying a large fee (comparable)
Replied on the proper thread called "FNHL ALL OWNERS VOTE: INCREASE to 10$ in 2015-16 or 2016-17?"
Stickied on homepage right here man
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=207557.msg971096#new
-
Sry bud. Each team that paid a fee gets 1 vote.
5 YES to 10 NO.
Keep in mind that the league is moving away from dual ownership and that what I said is valid. The votes being what you said, and the actual human opinions being as I did.
-
OK councillor. Let's put it to bed.
-
OK councillor. Let's put it to bed.
Just as soon as the league has a policy of one owner per team. :toth:
-
Guys, put your junk away and put your pants back on. Pissing match over.
-
I guess i am rescinding my vote, i didn't pay a fee.
-
I guess i am rescinding my vote, i didn't pay a fee.
You raised the issue but it doesn't look like you voted? Anyhow......pay the fee!