KRFL - a football simulation league
Forums
KRFL :: Forums :: KRFL Forums :: 2020 League Business
Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal << Previous thread | Next thread >>
Go to page       >>  
Moderators: noodles, MarkB
Author Post
Steelers
Sat Mar 21 2020, 01:10p.m.
Registered Member #100
Joined: Sat Jan 25 2020, 07:43p.m.

Posts: 60
New Trade Rule Proposal

( This proposal should be submitted in event comprehensive package is rejected ).


7.1 –In-Season trading is allowed between the opening of the season and the reporting deadline for KRFL week #8 games.



12.1 -A strict off-season salary cap shall be set at$83 million for each team. A team may go above the cap during the season but their in-season salaries must not exceed $93 million or fall below 73 million during the season or post-season, and it must be at or below this cap or floor following the completion of the season. In other words, at the conclusion of the Super Bowl, teams over the cap must release the minimum number of players necessary to go below the cap and to be permitted to begin off season trading. A team can wait to go below the $83 million salary until the next season disk comes out but it will not be allowed to make any off season trades until it goes below the $83 million salary cap.

12.2-Players drafted in the college draft and placed on the rookie squad do not have a salary while on the rookie squad, as they are drafted one year prior to first playing in the KRFL. Therefore, rookie salaries do not count against the $83 million off-season cap or $93 million in-season cap because they are not yet signed by their respective teams, the teams own their rights only. At the completion of the KRFL season following their draft, rookies become the property of their teams, and their salaries…..

12.3-The cap really isn't all that complicated if you think about it. You can't have more than $70 million in future contracted salary at any time, you can't have more than $83 million in present-day salary during the draft and you can't have more than $93million in present day salary from the end of the draft to the end of the season. The salary of a player released during the season shall count toward the team's salary cap for the full year unless he is picked up on waivers by another team.



REASONS FOR THE CHANGE:
This proposal increases the freedom to trade.


Back to top
jonwolgamuth
Mon Mar 23 2020, 09:15p.m.
Registered Member #92
Joined: Sun Jan 28 2018, 01:51p.m.

Posts: 29
I personally hate the early trade deadline, but I know I've read the reasoning for it. I would love to see it extended somehow if the downsides could be mitigated.
Back to top
noodles
Tue Mar 24 2020, 03:46a.m.
Webmaster

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon Feb 18 2008, 02:12a.m.

Posts: 1187
As I've said over and over, I oppose increasing the in-season cap from $88m to $93m. That's enough for me to reject the entire package. As for offering the pieces of this package individually, I'm not sure how that would work as long as the entire package is on the ballot. What happens if idea one is rejected individually but passed in the collection of proposals here. Does one vote supercede the other? Which one? Either divide them up or keep them as one.
Back to top
Steelers
Tue Mar 24 2020, 07:13a.m.
Registered Member #100
Joined: Sat Jan 25 2020, 07:43p.m.

Posts: 60
There is no problem. If you read the amendments, the pieces of the package are only to be voted on if the comprehensive package fails to pass. The comprehensive package contains elements which are met to work together to balance any concerns someone would have with an individual element. So, I can answer specific concerns but general statements like I dont like it really shuts down the conversation.
Back to top
mark
Tue Mar 24 2020, 07:54a.m.
Registered Member #45
Joined: Wed May 05 2010, 11:29p.m.

Posts: 670
We have never had a two tier voting period. Ie if this doesn’t pass we vote again.
Back to top
noodles
Wed Mar 25 2020, 03:42a.m.
Webmaster

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon Feb 18 2008, 02:12a.m.

Posts: 1187
We've never done it before, but if the commissioner agrees that in the event that your comprehensive package is voted down, we are obligated to have another vote dealing with the separate pieces, so be it. If, as you assert, the entire package is necessary to achieve your aims, let it stand on its own because a partial adoption of your suggestions won't result in the balance you desire from the carefully considered whole.
Back to top
KRFL-BayCity
Wed Mar 25 2020, 02:36p.m.
Registered Member #12
Joined: Mon Sep 01 2008, 07:40p.m.

Posts: 720
Bay City would support a week #8 deadline; we are still mulling over increasing the in-season cap....
Back to top
Jimbo0121712000
Wed Mar 25 2020, 09:34p.m.
Registered Member #21
Joined: Fri Sep 05 2008, 01:10a.m.

Posts: 388
I am on the fence on this one. I actually was going to propose to extend to week 6 with a 90 mil cap., so i guess I kind of agree. Like Bay City Ill have to mull over this one.
Back to top
noodles
Thu Mar 26 2020, 02:40a.m.
Webmaster

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon Feb 18 2008, 02:12a.m.

Posts: 1187
Steelers wrote ...

There is no problem. If you read the amendments, the pieces of the package are only to be voted on if the comprehensive package fails to pass. The comprehensive package contains elements which are met to work together to balance any concerns someone would have with an individual element. So, I can answer specific concerns but general statements like I dont like it really shuts down the conversation.


Elsewhere I have been very specific about my objections to the increased in-season salary cap to $93m. If you'd like me to reopen that conversation, here goes: Simply, as a league we dropped the cap to $88m four years ago to put a brake on rampant trading before the playoff push. To reiterate, we collectively agreed that a mid-season sell off of talent in exchange for draft picks was bad for the league. Call it tanking, call it folding, call it whatever you want, we voted in rules to mitigate against it. Moving the trade deadline to week four and giving everyone $5m less in space helped to prevent an NHL style trading frenzy. The rule change has worked to that end and I am fully opposed to going backwards. I am not convinced that your comprehensive package adequately deals with this concern. Sorry.
Back to top
noodles
Fri Mar 27 2020, 02:43a.m.
Webmaster

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon Feb 18 2008, 02:12a.m.

Posts: 1187
Just a procedural question. Are we going to have an additional vote on the individual components of the comprehensive package should it fail to pass? If that is indeed the case, then going forward we need to change the amendment process to make it clear that multiple proposals can be made, each contingent upon the success or failure of the initial proposal, each requiring another vote.
Back to top
Go to page       >>   

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System