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

[SlackJack]

I will reply this evening.

[PsychoticPondGoons]

This is a trade gents. I don't want to hear talk of owners pulling out prematurely because they don't like the outcome.

We're all adults here and can work it out. Gents, over and above that we're men and men don't cat fight over petty things.

Let's have a clean discussion and move it along one way or the other.

[PsychoticPondGoons]

Now. Let's get back to what's important here gents

[jackdaniels]

Now. Let's get back to what's important here gents

 :iatp:

[Burkes Boys]

In all fairness to Slackjack, I think the point is taken that ownership of multiple teams should be reopened for discussion since it's the first time FNHL is allowing it and we are starting to notice some things that don't feel the way "ordinary" should feel, "ordinary". The regular way of doing things isn't necessarily going to work when it's not 1 owner, 1 team.

However, in this case I do feel the owners and teams were transparent and might have even gone to the extent of keeping players traded in 1 direction to 1 team to avoid this type of discussion regarding "precedent setting" trade.

[SlackJack]

I really had nothing more to add at this time but I have been asked to reiterate my stance.

To be clear I think the trade on the table is fair but that alone isn't reason for approval. I don't think this type of deal should be allowed. There is a built-in check and balance with typical trades. Namely competition. Both parties are working to improve their respective teams often at the perceived expense of the other. Of course we all talk a good talk about "win win" deals but the truth is only one GM can hoist the cup. I know who I want that to be and so do you.

So in a normal trade with both parties trying to get the best deal they can for their own team the playing field is clearly level.

In the 4 franchise, 2 GM deal we have on the table, competition has given way to cooperation. In itself this is not a bad thing but in context it is a step away from collusion. While it is true that no player has transferred directly between teams of the same owner; these GM's have put themselves in a position to determine which of their own franchises wins the trade. In other words the door is open to subtly tank one team in order to deal for better assets for the other.

In this type of trade the playing field actually tilts in favour of both GM's. (Against those with only one franchise.)

It is clear that these issues will continue to arise unless we adhere to the rules as they are intended in spirit. Personally I read it as thus: No trading between teams owned by same owner to the effect that no owner of two franchises has an unfair advantage over those who only own one....therefore let's remove temptation by enforcing the rule to prohibit the possibility of one franchise benefiting at the expense of another that is owned by the same person.

So, are trades governed by rules and vetted by the personalities on the trade committee? Or does the trade committee just decide on a case by case basis moving forward? As I am strongly in favour of the former, and because I read the intent of the rule to mean the playing field must be level for all, I must formally submit my veto.

:veto:

Thanks to all for participating in the discussion. It is the only way for a league to be vibrant, thriving, and healthy.

[thunderblade]

Thunderblade is %100 against any transaction that involves 2 teams of same ownership in the future. PigsRule, our Commish allowed multi ownership for the benefit of our league. Put a rule in place to try and prevent any misconduct. Of course if analyzed enough, a loop hole, of a existing rule can be circumvented. For me personally, who is probably by far the oldest manager here,  and  could also be in the running for longest tenure manager, am absolutely against a transaction of this nature in the future. For me this trade is OK, but no longer allowed in future. That's my opinion. 

[PigsRule]

The guideline was agreed to and put in place to avoid situations like the one mentioned where an owner of multiple teams sacrifices one to better another.

In this case, I as well as other FNHLers who have been around to witness how Johnny and PPG compete know there is a very low probability either would throw one of their teams under the bus to improve the other. In fact, both would only make a deal to improve their franchise likely with the hope of having their 2 teams meet in the finals (:CHI-NHL: vs :CLS: for PPG or :NYI: vs :WIN: for JWF).

Either way, All owners and GMs are welcome to comment and provide constructive feedback.

I think the intention is/was positive to flag a concern regarding this trade and we will let the league vote on this deal. I believe majority will rule one way or the other.

[LIVE DynastySports]

Now. Let's get back to what's important here gents

TIG OL BITTIES!
Daddy loves Breateseseseses  :koolaid:

[JohnnyWeissflog]

Bump

Would like to see this solved in a matter of days, if possible