New FA Signing "Problem" - New Rule Inside

[sovstar]

I'm still mulling this over and looking over everything, but just to get everything out there...

The Mules Milton Martin before negotiations



And after negotiations

[roadrash]

There is a league rule against severly backloading contracts. Nothing against front loading them. Of course, prior versions wouldn't take a heavily front loaded contract.

After reconsidering, allowing front loaded contracts is a good thing, but if you take an initial offer, and just drop the salary without "loading" the bonus up, is the problem.

So how do we correct it?

NEW RULE: So, temp. rule until we get a patch or mke this a permanent rule.

You can NOT take advantage of this. If you extend a player's contract you must do it for his asking price on the base salary. No going lower for now, not even $100,000. We can check this, it's pretty easy to check it, and we will check all extended contracts for now.

This seems pretty extreme. If a patch comes out in the next few days we could just say no renegotiating. We could institue a house Deion Rule, or something similar.

For instance the salary across the life of the contract must be equel or greater than the bonus. This can't be retroactive, cause Kcin has frontloaded the majority of his contracts this year (Fuckin Collins).

As for Kobeck, like Cringer, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if he did it purposely, since it was unknown there was no rule for it. And we can't make up rules as we go just to please our sense of fairness.

[sovstar]

As for Kobeck, like Cringer, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if he did it purposely, since it was unknown there was no rule for it. And we can't make up rules as we go just to please our sense of fairness.

I pretty much feel the same way. Very disappointing to see, but not much we can do about it I don't think. I've seen similar things happen in other leagues and all you can really do is prevent it from happening in the future.

I no longer buy Kobeck's original logic that he posted in response to my question. Shame on you, Chris. And to think of how much grief you gave me for being unfair in the past.
:roll:

[BurlingtonBolts]

Then can we look into instituting a rule to protect the rest of the owners from potential exploited bugs, either on purpose or otherwise:

Something like one of these two examples from other leagues I am in:

"As always, the commish will overrule any transactions that are against the competitive spirit of the league."

Or this one:

" In addition, GM's should strive to always offer reasonable contracts. Abuse of AI tendencies and bugs will not be tolerated.

Any contract or contract offer can be subject to review by the Commissioner Council. If a contract has been determined to have exceeded established 'sportsmanlike' limitations (the determination of 'sportsmanlike' to be made by the Commissioner Council), then the offending owner may be required to renegotiate said contract or release the player altogether. The owner could also be subject to additional penalties, up to and including expulsion from the league. "

Thoughts?

[BurlingtonBolts]

I personally like the last one, from the hfl.

I personally can't believe we don't have something similar here already. A shame, but what can you do?!

Again, if I pissed anyone off other than Kobeck earlier, that wasn't my intention. I just think things like this can tarnish a leagues reputation.

I mean we are all here to have fun, right? So why cheat? (sighs)

[JesterBlaze]

And we can't make up rules as we go just to please our sense of fairness.

I disagree. That's exactly how and why rules are made up.

After seeing the disparity that Sovstar posted the advantage the Mules have cap-wise should be great in 2-3 seasons. I'd like to see some attempt at smoothing this out, maybe a mandated resigning of any players obtained through this method in the next off-season or something.


- Jester

BTW Kobeck - This isn't a personal attack against you or anything, I just don't think it's fair to let signings such as was posted stand.

[Cringer]

Unfortunetly this has already happened, and we will live with it. First off we don't even know if Kobeck will get screwed next season of the one after that with guys holding out on him because of this.

We will be watching for this in the meantime, and it is no longer allowed. We will move on and we will be fine. Some sort of punishment will be considered, but as it stands right now I am not really for it.

[Suicane]

Wow, I didn't realize the discrepency was that big, it is upsetting because I know that as a long time FOF player if i saw something like that happen (the computer allowing you to get such a drastic deal) I would immediatly realize something was wrong and if it was in a MP setting I would contact the commish right away and/or post over on FOFC about the happening, but I would not say cest la vie and go ahead and do it, consequences be damned.

That being said, I can't get inside Kobecks head, he has always seemed like a cool cat but i really don't know him, my gut tells me he had to know what was happening was wrong but as I can't be positive I'm not gonna go into full bash mode.

My solution to the situation is this. Kobeck did get screwed over earlier in FA when we had to resim, he was upset but he moved on, that earns him points in my book. I say we let these 2 things stand as sort of a "makeup" for what happened to him earlier and maybe force him to renogiate both players fairly in 1 or 2 seasons time.

[sovstar]

Kobeck did get screwed over earlier in FA when we had to resim, he was upset but he moved on, that earns him points in my book.

Oh brother.
:roll:

[Suicane]

Kobeck did get screwed over earlier in FA when we had to resim, he was upset but he moved on, that earns him points in my book.

Oh brother.
:roll:

I'm just saying, he could of been a total dick and caused a giant stink, and he didn't.

And how did I know you were gonna react like that? I know you too well.

[Matt]

So this bug applies to only re-signing guys?
I know that during FA I offered guys, like Collins, his requested signing bonus and very small salaries. Is this new for multiplayer with the new patches? I'm asking because I don't want to be considered a cheat. I just assumed that this was normal when my offer was accepted. I knew that I had little chance to actually sign Collins, but what the hell it was worth a shot.
This all being said, does the rule apply to signing FA also.

[sovstar]

So this bug applies to only re-signing guys?
I know that during FA I offered guys, like Collins, his requested signing bonus and very small salaries. Is this new for multiplayer with the new patches? I'm asking because I don't want to be considered a cheat. I just assumed that this was normal when my offer was accepted. I knew that I had little chance to actually sign Collins, but what the hell it was worth a shot.
This all being said, does the rule apply to signing FA also.

Only applies to renegotiations. Free agency allows the possibility of competition, so you're free to offer anything. Apparently this was just introduced with 5.1.

[Matt]

I'm still mulling this over and looking over everything, but just to get everything out there...

The Mules Milton Martin before negotiations



And after negotiations

I wish my CB would have re negotiated a contract like this. I woulda had some extra cap space to try and sign Isaac Campbell

[dberner30]

This is all very interesting. At some point in the old version I tinkered with my guys contracts to try and figure out a way to move more money into the current year. As some of you who follow the real NFL understand, a team with extra space this year will typically renegotiate a deal or two that pays out a larger chunk of that in this year to basically allow for cheaper cap in the coming years. (Basically carrying forward unused money is how I see it). I tried taking guys who wanted to resign for min. in current year and then higher amounts in the later years and shifting that money to current year base and it failed. I also tried upping bonus and dropping later years somewhat and that failed. Frankly, I was a little pissed that they wouldnt do those deals (my deals did not alter by much the total asking price just the timing for cap years). It seems the attempt to "fix" that is all screwed up. If we are creating a rule we need to keep in mind that shifting money to current year should be a viable option. So maybe the answer is that any offer, no matter how structured, for a renegotiation must be within 5% of the total asking price. In other words if a guy wants to increase the bonus and drop the salary that is okay. Or if a guy wants to drastically lower later years and increase early years and increase bonus to take more hit now (cap surplus teams) that should be acceptable. So, in short i propose we modify the renegotiation rule set out early to allow whatever a team wants to do with the caveat that the total offer must be within 5% of asking price. I would suggest a thread be set out on the forum for guys to post asking prices for guys they are making this type of offer to so that there is nothing being hidden. Then if you get caught violating the rule the player gets cut or you get punted from league or both.

[BIGWOOD1488]

I like that idea my self DB,as it allows us to tentaively move forward and keep things goin as well as sets down a set guideline that is easy for everyone to understand.