<p style='margin-bottom: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; outline: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: #434343;]'Think of it this way. You can date a person who has multiple partners or you can date someone in an exclusive relationship. Both are fine, but if one person thinks it's exclusive and the other is sleeping with everyone in town, you've got a problem. And probably a disease or something.' <p style='margin-bottom: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; outline: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: #434343;] Gold
Simonoz wrote: Cheap shot TiB You guys? Hey....I'm still merely a visitor here......... Just as well. There has been a lot of slavering and gnashing of teeth over that kid on the Gold Coast going to foreign shores. Far too young for the martini set.
TerryinBangkok wrote: Simonoz wrote: Cheap shot TiB You guys? Hey....I'm still merely a visitor here......... Just as well. There has been a lot of slavering and gnashing of teeth over that kid on the Gold Coast going to foreign shores. Far too young for the martini set. Indeed SNoZ, you take New York, and let me take Manhattan
http://espn.go.com/fantasy/football/s... Thats a great article, fair few points I agree on there, 'Veto the veto.' being the main one. I reckon everyone in the league should give it a read, even if it isn't set rules for us, just so we can all understand a few things... Il keep checking up here when I can, but other than that, hope everyone is enjoying the off-season
I've been considering the auction theory. I don't think it is required. We all put up players that are available in our threads. In the example provided in OP, I made it known Roo and Boyd were available in my team thread and with private messages.I accepted the best offer. My suggestion is that if a team earmarks a player as available, and you have a sincere interest in said player, then you should start serious negotiations.
[span style='font-size: 16px;]chels wrote: [span style='font-size: 16px;]I am starting to think we need Nelson Mandela to assist our Trade Commissioner in a review of all trades that had or have a condition(s) attached. Nice idea, but both seem to be in the same boat now - or near as.
Raptor wrote: I've been considering the auction theory. I don't think it is required. We all put up players that are available in our threads. In the example provided in OP, I made it known Roo and Boyd were available in my team thread and with private messages.I accepted the best offer. My suggestion is that if a team earmarks a player as available, and you have a sincere interest in said player, then you should start serious negotiations. The subtle difference my Dromaeosauridae friend, is that in an auction bids may be seen by all. Being open it is not subject to the angst caused by some recent trades. It was suggested it might be fun. Where open bidding is involved, there is a chance the seller might get overs. The auction idea was not put up as 'required' - it is simply there if any coach wishes to avail him or herself of it. By putting God (who remains a popular player) up for auction you may well have picked up a lower draft pick than anticipated, or a combination of low ++. The auction allows you to sit back and review without the pressure of having to commit to one offer or the other. And in the end you retain the right to reject all bids. There have been cases of trade deals that, when revealed, some coaches have suggested that they would have gone higher (or better) had they known. The auction allows for this and it is open for both seller and buyer, thus more transparent. No one is under any obligation to use it.
TerryinBangkok wrote: Raptor wrote: I've been considering the auction theory. I don't think it is required. We all put up players that are available in our threads. In the example provided in OP, I made it known Roo and Boyd were available in my team thread and with private messages.I accepted the best offer. My suggestion is that if a team earmarks a player as available, and you have a sincere interest in said player, then you should start serious negotiations. The subtle difference my Dromaeosauridae friend, is that in an auction bids may be seen by all. Being open it is not subject to the angst caused by some recent trades. It was suggested it might be fun. Where open bidding is involved, there is a chance the seller might get overs. The auction idea was not put up as 'required' - it is simply there if any coach wishes to avail him or herself of it. By putting God (who remains a popular player) up for auction you may well have picked up a lower draft pick than anticipated, or a combination of low ++. The auction allows you to sit back and review without the pressure of having to commit to one offer or the other. And in the end you retain the right to reject all bids. There have been cases of trade deals that, when revealed, some coaches have suggested that they would have gone higher (or better) had they known. The auction allows for this and it is open for both seller and buyer, thus more transparent. No one is under any obligation to use it. I fully intend to use it. It's nothing more than a different way to agree on a trade. Instead of doing it through PMs or email, it's done in open post. I can always refuse the highest bid... I am keen to see if it has a market stabilising/establishing effect.
Raptor wrote: I suppose I could put up one BJ and see what the best offer is. And when you do, I'll be first in line with a bid ....
Simonoz wrote: Um.......have we resorted to bidding on a BJ in the off season ? &lt;giggles&gt; I'll be more interested to see if this proposed 'auction' process actually works. That's why I mentioned my interest here and in the Packers thread - just to give the 'auction' idea a bit of a kick along and hopefully see the discussions amount to something that does right by everyone in the league. Poor Mr Goddard - the subject of so many jokes in coming weeks one would suggest ...
melbandy wrote: I've heard of people paying for a BJ, but not bidding for one. ORFFA ahead of the curve again. Be interesting what the Trade Practices Act has to say on that one, but certainly it breathes a bit of life into the 'auction' concept. Or is it simply that the Packers have discovered new frontiers in pre-season training incentives? /Portals/0/User%20Images/blowjob.jpg
There used to be a laneway between an old workplace of mine and a nightclub. If you went out on the balcony at smoko, you used to hear a bit of begging for a BJ out there, but I don't remember anyone bidding for one.