KRFL : Forum / topic
/football/
en-gb2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00algykrebbs@nospam.comhourly12000-01-01T12:00+00:00Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00New 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.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00markWe have never had a two tier voting period. Ie if this doesn’t pass we vote again.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00jonwolgamuthI 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.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00SteelersThere 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.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00noodlesAs 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.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00noodlesThanks for clarifying that, Mark. That wasn't at all evident in the discussion. The only problem I see is what if the package passes but one of the elements of the package fails on a separate vote. Which takes precedence? To be honest, I'm not really sure why the separate elements are even on the ballot given Jim's insistent argument that his finely tuned proposal requires all the elements working together in concert to achieve his desired result. If one or two legs of a three-legged tool are removed, we are left with something that nobody can sit their asses on.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00noodlesWe'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.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00KRFL-BayCityBay City would support a week #8 deadline; we are still mulling over increasing the in-season cap....Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00noodlesJust 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.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00Jimbo0121712000I 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.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00noodlesSteelers 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.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00Steelersthere is no need to change the amendment process. Your first sentence is illogical. Voting on a package which has separate elements is different than voting on the separate elements separately. Your individual objection to the package does not deal with the problem of monopolies in the league , an issue which was discussed in previous posts.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00markPersonally I am starting to feel bullied by your presence (Jim)in this process. I’m now going to wait for voting and vote as I see fit. It’s starting to just not be worth the bother. Signing off until voting time.👋Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00noodlesI don't see how my sentence is illogical at all. I asked if it were the case that if the package amendment failed, were we going to have another round of votes to deal with the individual elements, something we have never done previously. It's a simple question. If the answer is yes, we would indeed need to adjust the amendment process to accommodate the change in procedure (Maybe someone else would also like to propose an Idea A backed up by an Idea B in case Idea A doesn't pass. You were clear that you expected a second vote: "As my amendment proposals state, the separate elements of the comprehensive package are to be voted on only if the comprehensive package is rejected."Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00MarkBnoodles wrote ...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. ----------------------Sorry I have not responded until now. Work has been a mess this week because of vague government imposed stay at home orders. I intent was call for a vote on BOTH the comprehensive package and each of the individual proposals during the one-time voting process. However, it would be made clear the the vote on the individual proposals would be irrelevant if the comprehensive package passed.If anyone has an issue with that, please offer your suggestion.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00MarkBTampa Bay feels the same way as Bay City about this proposal.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00Steelersmark wrote ...Personally I am starting to feel bullied by your presence (Jim)in this process. I’m now going to wait for voting and vote as I see fit. It’s starting to just not be worth the bother. Signing off until voting time.👋I have agreed with several of your ideas and opposed others.I discuss ideas, never attack persons.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00Steelersnoodles wrote ...Thanks for clarifying that, Mark. That wasn't at all evident in the discussion. The only problem I see is what if the package passes but one of the elements of the package fails on a separate vote. Which takes precedence? To be honest, I'm not really sure why the separate elements are even on the ballot given Jim's insistent argument that his finely tuned proposal requires all the elements working together in concert to achieve his desired result. If one or two legs of a three-legged tool are removed, we are left with something that nobody can sit their asses on.If the package passes, there will be no voting on the individual elements.If the package fails, the various elements still provide some options for owners who either think the present rules provide incentives for tanking or monopolies. I hope the package passes because it provides both factions some relief.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00MarkBIf the package passes, there will be no voting on the individual elements. [/quote1585397926]------------------------- That statement is not true. We will vote ONCE and ONCE only on ALL proposals. As I have stated, the comprehensive package AND each individual proposal will be on the ballot and voted on at the SAME time, unless the proposal is withdrawn before the vote. The vote will list the comprehensive package first with the stipulation that if it passes, the votes on the individual proposals will be null and void. If the comprehensive package fails to pass, we will NOT conduct a second vote on the individual proposals at a later date. It is too much work for me to do so, we've never done it before, and we aren't going to start now.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00SteelersI did not mean to overstep.You are using a process which produces the same results.I am not trying to make you do too much work and did not mean to imply you had to vote at different times. Thanks for clearing that up.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00MarkBMarkB wrote ...Tampa Bay feels the same way as Bay City about this proposal.After further consideration, I do not support this proposal.Re: Amendment Proposal: Increased Trade Proposal
http://aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13031
2024-03-29T01:21:10-04:00MarkBYes 9, No 15 FAILS