VOTE: 4-Way deal BJ's - Isles - Hawks - Jets

[izaman3]

To be clear this deal passes the smell test. I believe it is honest and fair and I have no doubt that on that basis it will be approved.

That said, it muddies the water for future deals of a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" nature.

I propose that (future) deals of this sort be put to a formal vote. It's a simple solution.

I agree and I do think that it would be very good for us to vote on this type of thing as a league.

[Jonathan]

To be clear this deal passes the smell test. I believe it is honest and fair and I have no doubt that on that basis it will be approved.

That said, it muddies the water for future deals of a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" nature.

I propose that (future) deals of this sort be put to a formal vote. It's a simple solution.

Yes, very much so and gives an advantage to those who own 2 teams. If my Oilers need help somewhere and my trade partner wants more than I can offer, it seems awfully easy to just look on my other team to facilitate the deal. Seems like the same thing as trading with yourself. Not saying this happened in this deal, as I am not in TC and have not even analyzed it.

[dickiedunn]

That said, it muddies the water for future deals of a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" nature.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the basis of any agreement between parties one where each side's "itch" gets "scratched"? That is the foundation of any trade, meeting the needs of parties involved, no. This trade passes that litmus test and other tests in my opinion.

I believe the fact that only two owners were involved helped facilitate negotiations between 4 teams and that resulted in a much quicker and smoother discussion. That is a positive.

I propose that (future) deals of this sort be put to a formal vote. It's a simple solution.

I think PR stated this trade could be put to a league wide vote. However I do not believe there are any steadfast rules to say which trades need to go through the ringer. Or are there? Worth discussing.

[papps]

I just wanted to throw this out there that even prior to this trade I am not a fan of owners having more than one team. I think it's not good for the league and it can lead to some issues. It's just my opinion.

With that said, I have no problem with this trade. I just don't like the multi-team thing from when it started.

[JohnnyWeissflog]

Very good points taken up here 

I actually never even thought this deal would be vetoed. As already mentioned there are no players moving from the same owner's team to another. However, I must admit that owners with two franchises in possession have more opportunities or alternatives when negotiating a trade. Is it fair to the GM's with one franchise? Maybe not.

I understand and accept if this trade doesn't go through. But only for the reason that GM's with 1 franchise are in unequal position compared to me and a couple of others. I would like to get a rather quick verdict on this matter anyhow, because the outcome will quite heavily affect my near future actions and planning.

If there are people concerned about the duel ownership, I can put on sale.

[jackdaniels]

I will put this out there as well. So maybe we should limit the number of trades any given team can make because god forbid an active owner might have a competitive advantage over an inactive one.

Wow guys. Everyone go back and reread your posts. Some read like my tongue n cheek comment above.

[PsychoticPondGoons]

So I count 1 clear VETO on this trade the reason being ------- I'm not 100% clear. Is it that Avs owner is flaggin conflict of interest or rule infraction or ?

Slackjack can you clarify.

Anyone else, do say what's on your mind. However, a trade will not be vetoed solely on a discomfort because I won't veto a 30oz AAA angus steak that's been aged and shows perfect marbling just because it gives my a crap load of gas afterward. LOL

[PsychoticPondGoons]

I just wanted to throw this out there that even prior to this trade I am not a fan of owners having more than one team. I think it's not good for the league and it can lead to some issues. It's just my opinion.

With that said, I have no problem with this trade. I just don't like the multi-team thing from when it started.

Multi owner thing is a whole other ball o wax Papps.

Of course, the alternative was seen as being boring with teams sitting unowned so why not bridge the gap between now and the next amazing owner that dares step into this league to challenge us.   Anyone want to buy the Canes there's talent in that roster!

I still hear you man! I'm not a huge fan of guys holding multiple teams in 1 league (but I appreciate the trust and vote of confidence by those same guys voting with their cash to say YES, I believe in this league and I believe I can kick ass from several different locations LOL) but it works for now especially given we're 30 deep. Maybe 31 when Seattle lands an NHL franchise.   And ultimately activity level and good activity at that gents, means we have ourselves an incredible league for the foreseeable future!

[PsychoticPondGoons]

Toronto management believes everything is kosher with this trade. BUT are extremely concerned with trades dealing with the same owner of 2 teams. PPG really invigorated the league. But in future I believe it should be 2 separate trades. Avoids this discussion and in NO way circumvents the Rules.

OK, Thunderblade you've spoken now let's be clear was that a VETO from Toronto ? And if it is, what is the precise reason so we're all clear. The Trade committee we have in FNHL is knowledgeable and strong in hockey. Gents know what should fly and what should in a 5th yr league.

I'm not pushing for this 4way to go through necessarily but if it's to be vetoed it should be done for the right reason and not because guys discover there needs to be a new rule.

A new rule is a different discussion altogether and doesn't happen overnight in Franchise NHL.

[PsychoticPondGoons]

All FNHL Owners are asked to vote on this 4-way trade.
Please add you feedback either way as comments could lead to future rule change or possible revisions to guidelines for multiple team ownership.

PPG proposed me a master plan, and after only minor modifications we came up with the following monster deal between four franchises.

sends to
C Antoine Vermette, $3.8m (2012-2015)

sends to
RW David Clarkson, $4.5m (2013-2016)

sends to
Round 1 - 2014 (21st overall from )
RW Tom Wilson, $0.8m (2014-2016)
D - Stuart Percy (2011: 1/25 - 0 Games)

sends to
C Lars Eller, $4.7m (2013-2016)
C J.T. Miller, $2.0m (2013-2015-EL)


This deal should be effectively plugging holes in our rosters.
My wanted to get rid of one of the highly paid RW's and needed a C in return.
needed cap space and had too many centers.

Thanks for the smooth talks PPG! 

Thank you ALL!