Tentative deal ...

**diluted** · January 13th, 2005, 09:19 AM

If this isnt frowned upon by the league Chapel Hill has agreed to loan 15 million dollars (as an investment) to R'leyh they shall pay back 5 million dollars per season for 5 seasons

[img]smile.gif[/img]

**GrendelKhan** · January 13th, 2005, 09:25 AM

The C'thulu Spawn anticipate the acceptance of this intuitive bussiness agreement.

**Stumps** · January 13th, 2005, 12:23 PM

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Scott banned loans. I for one would vote in favour of keeping the ban.

On another note, I don't think you should be able to make trades that require consideration that extends beyond your current subscription. What happens if the person who owes money for five seasons leaves after his subscription expires in four seasons? Does the new owner have to pay the money for the deal he knows nothing about? The same goes for draft picks beyond the expiration of your subscription.

**Graffin** · January 13th, 2005, 12:51 PM

I have no problems with the deal above.

And as far as I understood Scott?s ruling, he was banning loans and deals between seperate leagues.

As for extending beyond subscription periods - Well, if you take your chances and make deals that goes beyond a subscription periods, you just have to accept that the deal becomes worthless if a new manager takes over

**TuringComplete** · January 13th, 2005, 05:20 PM

I don't have a problem with loans per se, but I do think we should have some sort of understanding as a league on what's acceptable and what isn't.

I don't think we should allow any business transactions that extend beyond the period someone is subscribed.

I don't think any agreements should be allowed which trade a player and specify that he'll be traded back after a certain period.

I think loans are very similar to trading future draft picks. Both require something now for a future consideration. As long as there's enough of an interest rate that the borrower isn't getting something for nothing, I think loans are fine.

I wouldn't have a problem with the deal above as long as the term is within the timeframe of the owners' subscriptions.

**King Z-ster** · January 13th, 2005, 08:43 PM

You guys should have just kept your mouths shut and just traded the $5 million for a crappy player for the next 5 seasons, which would be perfectly legit. I don't have any problem with loans, but some people do, so I don't know how well it's going to go over. Just trade a crappy player for the $5 million. Nobody can say anything about that.

**GrendelKhan** · January 13th, 2005, 08:54 PM

I believe the Ban was due to cross-league resources being used. I agree with bussiness deals should only stay within the bounds of subs. My sub should be for 5 seasons. Chapel hill should start getting paid this first season.

-- Actually we discussed that Z. but We both prefered just putting things way out in the open. It's pretty easy to see that this is a good bussiness deal for both parties. $15mil now nets $25mil in time to Chapel Hill. That's deefinately not free money.