KRFL - a football simulation league
Forums
KRFL :: Forums :: KRFL Forums :: 2014 League Business
Proposed Amendment No. 3 - Adjusting the Tender Eligible Rule << Previous thread | Next thread >>
Moderators: noodles, KRFL-BayCity, mark, MarkB
Author Post
noodles
Mon Mar 31 2014, 01:42a.m.
Webmaster

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

Posts: 1268
Impacted Rules: 14.6 and 14.7

Proposed Change:
The simple solution is to insert this language into both Rules 14.6 and 14.7:

A player must be under contract for three full years with the SAME team to be eligible for the Tender/Franchise designation. A player who is traded mid-season with three years left INCLUDING the current season will retain eligibility. Traded players who do not meet the three year limit will be marked with an asterisk in the spreadsheet.)

Explanation:
A slight ambiguity has emerged after the implementation of the Franchise Player Eligibility rule that took effect last year concerning the portability of contracts during trades. Currently: Franchise eligibility does not follow the player traded to a new team with less than three full remaining contract years. The intention being that a player must be under contract for three years with the SAME team to be franchise eligible. The same rule should also apply to Tender eligibility to keep things clear.

Example:
Presently, Joe Kapp, QB, could be signed for three years by Team A but traded to Team B with one year left on his contract. The terms of the contract (the 3 years) would allow him to be traded with his tender (but not franchise) eligibility still intact for the new team. Because of the ambiguity in the rules, this year we have to let Joe Kapp, QB, be tender eligible. My goal is to close that option for next year and beyond. My rule states that Joe Kapp, QB, must play for three years on Team B to be eligible.







[ Edited Mon Mar 31 2014, 01:47a.m. ]
Back to top
MarkB
Mon Mar 31 2014, 12:14p.m.
Mark Blume

Registered Member #81
Joined: Mon Oct 14 2013, 08:54a.m.

Posts: 1980
I am Ok with this.
Back to top
mark
Mon Mar 31 2014, 12:36p.m.
Registered Member #45
Joined: Wed May 05 2010, 11:29p.m.

Posts: 826
This is a good clarification.
I thought this was the intention of the previous rule change as well.
Back to top
rfick
Wed Apr 02 2014, 09:44p.m.
Guest

I would support this.
Back to top
 

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