Trade rules seem unclear

[nerwffej]

Trade Committee - If zero to one TC members are involved then trade must receive five approvals.  If two TC members are involved then trade must receive four approvals.
Ernesto (Flash) :SF:
Nick (NickF) :ATL:
Chris  (papps) :PHI:
Dan (OUDAN) :NYY:
Corey (Corey) :NYM:
Dave (tarheels55) :WAS:
Paul (Paul S.) :STL:
Dan (Dan Wood) :CHW:

As listed there is 8 members on the committee.
Rules say 5 approvals for trade when only 7 members vote 4 approve and 3 veto how does that make it void.
1 member still has to vote could be needed #5 or could be nail in coffin but when trade is voided before doesn't seem fair.
What has happened in the past is fine but when rules are black and white they need to be followed as they state period.
If we go by %s then rules need to say % not a exact number.

[Dan Wood]

It had 3 vetoes before the fourth approval came in. Whenever a trade reaches the needed amount of vetoes it is taken off the board.

[nerwffej]

The rules are clear and say nothing about veto amounts. They clearly say only about approvals and with 8 members and 4 approvals and 1 member not voted trade should be left till that member posts his vote weather be 5th for approval or 4 veto and would have squashed trade.

[Dan Wood]

That was when we only had 7 TC members. The rules have yet to be amended. I think 3 vetoes is more than enough to show the opinion of the TC

[nerwffej]

I am good with that but we need to make rules state that because as it is seems unfair to have 8 people on committee and pick which members vote is one that actually gets used. Say one didn't vote yet and tar heels vote for then last minute one vetoes does trade get passed because had the 5 needed or veto because 3rd guy chimmed in for the 3. As rules show we should honor the 5 passes because it is what is in the rules and if gets amended then so be it.

[Dan Wood]

As far as I remember, as soon as it reaches 2 vetoes that is it... We have been doing that from the start and I believe nothing has changed. I have had trades vetoed before (Billy Butler trade with the Reds last season) and as soon as we reach the veto limit it doesn't matter how many approvals it gets. If that is something that specifically needs to be written into the rules then that is something for the administrative arm of this league to deal with. But for me, it was two vetoes and tough breaks

[Brian]

I am good with that but we need to make rules state that because as it is seems unfair to have 8 people on committee and pick which members vote is one that actually gets used. Say one didn't vote yet and tar heels vote for then last minute one vetoes does trade get passed because had the 5 needed or veto because 3rd guy chimmed in for the 3. As rules show we should honor the 5 passes because it is what is in the rules and if gets amended then so be it.

Its a double standard I agree with nerwffei u have votes OK then it should go thru but it didn't because  of the 3rd veto why is that.I'm not trying g to cause a problem I just want get a clarification on this

[Dan Wood]

The rules have to be changed for the new 8th member of the TC... it used to be this, and this is why...

http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=127458.10

The TC started out with 5 members, then expanded to 7 members, and now 8 as we don't always get everyone to vote.

So it is my assumption, according to the way things have gone in the past, every time we add a new member to the TC an additional approval(s) are required. So since we now have an all time high of 8 members, we should now need 6 approvals to pass. But it has yet to be changed so I amsure that is an oversight. But, I have been around for a long time and two vetoes always submarined a trade.

I don't know why there is such an uproar over this (indians you are new)... This isn't new territory, we have all had trades vetoed - and it has always been two and out

[Brian]

Thanks for letting me know I was confused that's all. Then I agree with voting I have no problems with it at all

[nerwffej]

Rules do need to change according because if we started out with 5 and needed 2 vetoes then how can it only be 2 vetoes needed with 8 members. Easy fix is put black and white in rules is a % but as of now states in black and white only that there is required amount needed to pass according to how many members left after who is involved in the trade. It is not fair to dismiss some voters according to each trade. All members need to be voting for it against.