I agree with Jim and don't think you should be able to add clauses into a deal that allow you to reversea trade later on. If a coach has got that degree of uncertainty about doing a trade either don't do the trade or wait until they have a clearer picture on that players future by waiting to do a trade in January, when they know which players are on AFLlists and what position(s) they are eligible to be selected in for Supercoach.
I think Terry's summary is apt, the ruling is simple, however it nullifies the trade below which passed uncommented, noted or vetoed. Lovely Banks and Charlie's Opening have agreed a trade which sees Majak Daw head to Charlie's Opening in exchange for Josh Hill and a pick 69 Followed 4 hours later by this post from Bandit: Also need to declare (and this may open a can of worms) that if Hill gets delisted then Jen has the right to reverse the deal. Jen was worried he would be without a home so I added that clause. I'm waiting for Bama to bring the hammer down now as when I think about it it means those players are off the table until the preseason trade period, when they could be back on! I personally don't have a problem with it in this case, which is why I posted the way I did, though at the time I thought the condition and the trade were in the same post... However I'd suggest that in light of Terry's post the status of this trade requires clarification. On chel's rather pointed example and note, the implication is too sinister for me, if I thought two coaches were colluding like that I wouldn't be moving for veto, I would be moving for expulsion.
dmandrews wrote: I agree with Jim and don't think you should be able to add clauses into a deal that allow you to reversea trade later on. If a coach has got that degree of uncertainty about doing a trade either don't do the trade or wait until they have a clearer picture on that players future by waiting to do a trade in January, when they know which players are on AFLlists and what position(s) they are eligible to be selected in for Supercoach. +1
I don't see any harm in coaches having clauses in trades that allow for their reversal and, if they do, I don't believe they need to make it public. If a reversal takes place, it's just a new trade that happens to involve the same players as another trade - as long as its within a trade period, I don't see any problem with it at all.Both trades are subject to being vetoed as well. Whats the issue with it?
ant, I may be thick (again) but TiB's point was 'However, as I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there is nothing to prevent you from trading the player back (effectively reversing) at the next trade period and there is nothing to prevent the two trading parties from having a private agreement to do this at the time the initial trade is made.' For mine a conditional contract should be disclosed as a conditional contract. I have real difficulty being able to accept a deal that is reversed in the same trade period (e.g., the mid season trading period) but I am blowed if I can see how a trade done in the (say) mid season session can contain an undisclosed clause that means it is reversed in the (say) end of season trading period. In earlier posts that was described in a particular scenario I raised as 'collusion.'
Chels, your example shouldn't get past the first 48 hr veto period, let alone the second. I really don't have any problem with people setting clauses. If its collusion, it will be sniffed out pretty quickly and vetoed. In fantasy NBA, I've been involved in many trades that have a reversal clause based on injury. Ie. if an involved player gets injured, the trade can be reversed. If it helps two people feel ok enough to get a deal done, what harm does it have on the rest of us?
I accept your argument and your greater knowledge of practices in other leagues ant. What I struggle with is why the condition(s) of a trade (e.g., subject to fitness and / or subject to position) should not be disclosed to the rest of the association. How can a member make an informed decision on the viability of a trade when not fully informed of any side agreement(s)?
Len - my team was not as good as it looked. I needed to rebuild, and I need to start now or I was in going to be in a worse position come this time next season, when I would get zero for the older players I traded. I would not finish top 4 with them in '14. I would be doing well to make the finals at all. Many hours study went into the current team I have, I believe I will make the finals next season and then improve from there, rather than slide down the ladder. The names on my list may look sub-par now but by the end of '14 I think many will be surprised. Chels - Riewoldt was listed on my team page as available. You were free to offer a trade for him. Our discussions were around you wanting a young forward, so I didn't bring up the old Riewoldt. I was getting no good offers for Boyd and Riewoldt, and IMO Bama's was easily the best. I received 2 young players that I know well and I believe will have a good future. I also received pick 45. I would have received nothing for these players this time next year. I gave Gawn up as well, but I personally do not rate him (Bama does and that is fine). I stand by my remark that comparing trading Ablett (best SC player ever) for a third rounder (800th best SC player ever) to taking the best deal over 2 weeks negotiating for 2 guys (that no one wanted to give up anything for) as absurd. It's truly absurd, and that is fact, not an opinion. In one year I get NOTHING for those players. So taking the best offer now is a bad thing somehow?
Lenh191 wrote: I think Terry's summary is apt, the ruling is simple, however it nullifies the trade below which passed uncommented, noted or vetoed. Lovely Banks and Charlie's Opening have agreed a trade which sees Majak Daw head to Charlie's Opening in exchange for Josh Hill and a pick 69 Followed 4 hours later by this post from Bandit: Also need to declare (and this may open a can of worms) that if Hill gets delisted then Jen has the right to reverse the deal. Jen was worried he would be without a home so I added that clause. I'm waiting for Bama to bring the hammer down now as when I think about it it means those players are off the table until the preseason trade period, when they could be back on! I personally don't have a problem with it in this case, which is why I posted the way I did, though at the time I thought the condition and the trade were in the same post... However I'd suggest that in light of Terry's post the status of this trade requires clarification. On chel's rather pointed example and note, the implication is too sinister for me, if I thought two coaches were colluding like that I wouldn't be moving for veto, I would be moving for expulsion. Given that I am probably reading these multiple quotes out of context, what part of 'at the next trade period' is not understood? Why is this trade nullified? [I mean, it is Monday morning guys and I am not through the first coffee yet]. I read this as a regular trade with a disclosed agreement. Bandit suggests that the two players involved might be back on the table come 2014. How is that not in accord with what I have stated above? I am not suggesting that I agree entirely with the rule, just telling you how it stands at the moment. It is not up for debate either. We opened a forum for that purpose, but nobody came. Should coaches feel strongly enough about it, an amendment to the trading rules can be tabled, in a separate thread, with or without the presence of the Trade Commissioner, and now that the current trade period has passed. As for chel's pointy example, if expulsion is the same as walking the plank, then I have no probs with that.
TerryinBangkok wrote: Lenh191 wrote: I think Terry's summary is apt, the ruling is simple, however it nullifies the trade below which passed uncommented, noted or vetoed. Lovely Banks and Charlie's Opening have agreed a trade which sees Majak Daw head to Charlie's Opening in exchange for Josh Hill and a pick 69 Followed 4 hours later by this post from Bandit: Also need to declare (and this may open a can of worms) that if Hill gets delisted then Jen has the right to reverse the deal. Jen was worried he would be without a home so I added that clause. I'm waiting for Bama to bring the hammer down now as when I think about it it means those players are off the table until the preseason trade period, when they could be back on! I personally don't have a problem with it in this case, which is why I posted the way I did, though at the time I thought the condition and the trade were in the same post... However I'd suggest that in light of Terry's post the status of this trade requires clarification. On chel's rather pointed example and note, the implication is too sinister for me, if I thought two coaches were colluding like that I wouldn't be moving for veto, I would be moving for expulsion. Given that I am probably reading these multiple quotes out of context, what part of 'at the next trade period' is not understood? Why is this trade nullified? [I mean, it is Monday morning guys and I am not through the first coffee yet]. I read this as a regular trade with a disclosed agreement. Bandit suggests that the two players involved might be back on the table come 2014. How is that not in accord with what I have stated above? I am not suggesting that I agree entirely with the rule, just telling you how it stands at the moment. It is not up for debate either. We opened a forum for that purpose, but nobody came. Should coaches feel strongly enough about it, an amendment to the trading rules can be tabled, in a separate thread, with or without the presence of the Trade Commissioner, and now that the current trade period has passed. As for chel's pointy example, if expulsion is the same as walking the plank, then I have no probs with that. <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px;]Have another coffee <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px;][span style='font-size: 12px;]If Hill gets delisted and not picked up by an AFL club then Bandit has to trade Jen a player for nothing...[span style='font-size: 12px;]Is that even an allowable trade? <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px;][span style='font-size: 12px;]Wondering if this explains a couple of trades of late where the clause may have existed but not have been made public.. <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px;][span style='font-size: 12px;]Also wondering how far this is allowable without being subversive to the intent of the trade table.[span style='font-size: 12px;]No AFL team is going to reverse a trade because a player ended up being delisted, injured or crap. <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px;]I do believe Terry that if the rule is that there can be no 'reversible' trades after the 48 hours, then this trade has to stand without the reversal clause, leaving it as it is sets a precedent that at some point will bite us. All good and possible to correct at the next trade session if both players are AFL eligible, but the fact that this status cannot be guaranteed (McCarthy?) means the condition should be abolished or given legs to stand on, I prefer abolish.. <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;][span style='font-size: 12px;]FWIW No-one should bother approaching me with a deal that involves a get out clause..
I appreciate the honesty in the recent posts in this thread - thank you. Collusion is evil, even reprehensible, and has no place here. If I bored anybody by drawing this out I apologise, but I thought it was a debate worth entering into. The next time we are having a rules review period I will put a formal proposal into a thread. BTW, I am not planning on walking the plank any time soon, I was just seeking some clarification. 'Watching the wheels' is a metaphor (or is it a simile?) for where I am right now. No conditions subsequent in any of my trades - but then I did not trade (just kidding).
chels wrote: I appreciate the honesty in the recent posts in this thread - thank you. Collusion is evil, even reprehensible, and has no place here. If I bored anybody by drawing this out I apologise, but I thought it was a debate worth entering into. The next time we are having a rules review period I will put a formal proposal into a thread. BTW, I am not planning on walking the plank any time soon, I was just seeking some clarification. 'Watching the wheels' is a metaphor (or is it a simile?) for where I am right now. No conditions subsequent in any of my trades - but then I did not trade (just kidding). I am thankful for someone else stirring the pot chels, Terry gets cranky with my continual attempts to not leave things alone
Lenh191 wrote: chels wrote: I appreciate the honesty in the recent posts in this thread - thank you. Collusion is evil, even reprehensible, and has no place here. If I bored anybody by drawing this out I apologise, but I thought it was a debate worth entering into. The next time we are having a rules review period I will put a formal proposal into a thread. BTW, I am not planning on walking the plank any time soon, I was just seeking some clarification. 'Watching the wheels' is a metaphor (or is it a simile?) for where I am right now. No conditions subsequent in any of my trades - but then I did not trade (just kidding). I am thankful for someone else stirring the pot chels, Terry gets cranky with my continual attempts to not leave things alone Lol, +1 good to be critical