16 out of 18 have voted so it could finish 9-9 if the missing 2, vote differently, meaning we're in the same position as we are now. I assume this would mean the Commish would have the deciding vote. So, unless we wait for those 2 to vote, to see if they both favour one way or the other, and as some teams are waiting to complete trades, dependant on a ruling, as a matter of expediency, I suggest The Commish make a ruling, one way or the other, which will allow those teams to get on with it. I'm not one of those teams.
Yeah looks like you will have to make a ruling seeing as MSD will be starting soon. The Highway only has a 1/3 chance of getting up anyway which is assuming that if we got to 9-9 with all voting that the ruling would be that My Way gets implemented. I guess we could wait until midday AEST but I don't see any harm in making a ruling sooner rather than later so we have a decision on a way forward.
[span style='text-decoration: line-through;]When are we starting tomorrow, because I can't be in tomorrow night as I'll be in Bega umpiring, The previous comment answered my question so I'll be right and if not I'll pm a list.
As it looks like we're going down the 'My way' route I have a quick question about on-trading picks - is an active pick always active or does each trade of the pick have to have a corresponding delistment?
DamoH wrote: As it looks like we're going down the 'My way' route I have a quick question about on-trading picks - is an active pick always active or does each trade of the pick have to have a corresponding delistment? Yeah each pick should equal to the amount of delisted players or players traded out. If I trade 4 players for 1 player, then I have made 3 picks active to trade if I choose.
Sorry didn't answer your question at all, I would think if I have received your pick then traded it to someone else, then that pick should be active from the first trader (you) the middle man shouldn't have to delist because the pick is already active at the start. Make sense?
The same comment as I just posted in the MSD Delistmets thread. This right here (above comments / confusion) is why all picks should be automatically active, and then traded as coaches see fit. No need to screw around, no confusion, and I still can't see how this advantages or disadvantages anyone more / less than others.
JPK wrote: The same comment as I just posted in the MSD Delistmets thread. This right here (above comments / confusion) is why all picks should be automatically active, and then traded as coaches see fit. No need to screw around, no confusion, and I still can't see how this advantages or disadvantages anyone more / less than others. No that's why mandatory delistments works
I'm pretty sure it's an advantage to trade away my picks I'm not using to secure a decent player with no major consequence to my list and I'm sure it's an advantage for the coach who doesn't want the player or values your picks your not using more. With accountability of picks I would be reluctant to do deals like this. I'm sure it's a disadvantage to other coaches who have no control over deals getting done like this. .
ddsaints wrote: I'm pretty sure it's an advantage to trade away my picks I'm not using to secure a decent player with no major consequence to my list and I'm sure it's an advantage for the coach who doesn't want the player or values your picks your not using more. With accountability of picks I would be reluctant to do deals like this. I'm sure it's a disadvantage to other coaches who have no control over deals getting done like this. . So for the first 2 teams it's a win/win? How is that unfair. For the coaches that have no control, can they not bid their own picks if they want the player? I don't get this whole advantage/disadvantage thing, everyone plays under the same rules. In the draft the teams with the top 3 picks took 3 elite mids, because I had pick 11, I was disadvantaged, we did not rewrite the draft rules. Part of the game is down to negotiating, part research. If I do my research and identify youth thenm why should I have to delist them so I can trade a pick I am not going to use? This will only benefit the otherteams as they will be able to draft them. It's such a pity as trades became more viable without all the penalties now involved. Can't really see myself included in trades going forward as if my squad isn't attractive enough then no one will trade as I cannot include picks to sweeten the deal as I will then have to delist project players. On another note if I have to delist to trade a pick, if the team I have traded to wishes to on trade that pick then they should also delist, otherwise there is no penalty for them if they had never planned to use that pick. What I mean is if they traded to get that pick to use it to sweeeten another deal with a different team, they should have to pay the same price that the original owner did.
ddsaints wrote: I'm pretty sure it's an advantage to trade away my picks I'm not using to secure a decent player with no major consequence to my list and I'm sure it's an advantage for the coach who doesn't want the player or values your picks your not using more. With accountability of picks I would be reluctant to do deals like this. I'm sure it's a disadvantage to other coaches who have no control over deals getting done like this. . DD, I'm probably missing something, but in your first line you state that both coaches are advantaged by the deal. Why should we stop this? What is the disadvantage to the other coaches? Edit: What EE said.
DamoH wrote: ddsaints wrote: I'm pretty sure it's an advantage to trade away my picks I'm not using to secure a decent player with no major consequence to my list and I'm sure it's an advantage for the coach who doesn't want the player or values your picks your not using more. With accountability of picks I would be reluctant to do deals like this. I'm sure it's a disadvantage to other coaches who have no control over deals getting done like this. . DD, I'm probably missing something, but in your first line you state that both coaches are advantaged by the deal. Why should we stop this? What is the disadvantage to the other coaches? Edit: What EE said. The disadvantage I think is one team is now stronger from gaining a player he may never have got without throwing in picks, and one team now has extra picks before others which he may never have got. If I'm picking behind a team that has gained an advantage from a trade like this, I'm going to be annoyed. If I had to account for my picks I wouldn't be so rash in throwing them around in trade offers, trying to secure the gun with the picks thrown in. You would think more thought would go into trade offers.
[span style='font-size: 48px;]Ruling - all picks are live. Highway option has been voted in. [span style='font-size: 10px;]If there are any other comments, I don't care.
ddsaints wrote: Maybe we need an outsiders opinion or ruling. Maybe your right. With all this debate going on and no real clarity on each scenario maybe we justneed to take the simplest option and review prior to the next trade window as this is possibly affecting other deals. Can we please just get some sort of conclusion. Whilst we're on this I feel it is a little unfair to expect that the commissioner to make a ruling when their is a tied vote. My belief would be that there should be a panel of 3 that have the deciding votes as with 3 we will always get a result. We have 3 mods, Tomster, JPK &insider so we should leave it to them to determine the outcome of a tied vote by voting themselves.
Tomster wrote: [span style='font-size: 48px;]Ruling - all picks are live. Highway option has been voted in. [span style='font-size: 10px;]If there are any other comments, I don't care. Jeez, no need to shout, it's not like any of us were getting worked up over the issue
I'm glad a decision has been made. Thanks Glad I could liven up the joint, now to get this target off my back