Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Proposal to Ban Loans - Discussion thread

  1. #1
    Inactive Member hornetjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 30th, 2002
    Posts
    169
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    It seems that while most of us thought that we were just okaying this one time loan - some had taken that as an okay to make any loans they wanted. So my proposal is the banning of any types of loans (whether inter-league or between leagues). So I guess I have to wait 72 hours before opening up the voting thread -but this is the discussion area for this vote.

  2. #2
    Inactive Member GrendelKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 11th, 2004
    Posts
    205
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Sour Grapes.

    [img]smile.gif[/img]

  3. #3
    Inactive Member kidpreacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 11th, 2002
    Posts
    44
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    I never agreed to any type of loan and had no understanding nor knowledge of a loan taking place.
    I disagree with the premise of a loan in Simgalaxy. It shifts the balance of power with gain but no Immmediate loss in any area. There is no loss in player talent as there would be in a cash for player deal. There is no loss in any position of an organization. Plus 4h has no control over the collecting of said loan. GK has a year to make the payment and he can make it at anytime during the year.
    NO immediate loss with an immediate gain equals a shift in balance of the league. Plus why didn't they post the question with a posting of Possible Loan. In my mind and most owners, a deal is involving players, I never even assumed that there was a loan in that posting.

  4. #4
    Inactive Member TuringComplete's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2004
    Posts
    246
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Originally posted by kidpreacher:
    I never agreed to any type of loan
    <font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Only a majority has to agree, and in the case of the loan that happened, no one objected.

    and had no understanding nor knowledge of a loan taking place.
    <font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Anyone who was reading the board at the time had the opportunity to know about it since they did ask if it was okay before doing the deal.

    I disagree with the premise of a loan in Simgalaxy. It shifts the balance of power with gain but no Immmediate loss in any area.
    <font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">By this logic, other transactions that must be eliminated:</font><ul type="square">[*]<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Trading draft picks for draft picks in a different year</font>[*]<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Trading a player now or cash now for a future draft pick</font>[*]<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Trading a 19 year old AA guy on your bench for a veteran. (Keep in mind you did say gain with no "Immediate" loss. Giving up a benched guy results in no immediate loss.)</font>[/list]<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">
    There is no loss in player talent as there would be in a cash for player deal.
    <font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Obviously, since this is a cash for cash deal. There is also no loss in player talent in a cash for player or cash for draft pick deal. At least for one side of the transaction.

    There is no loss in any position of an organization.
    <font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Not true. 4H is going to have a lower fame rank, less money for bonuses, less money for training, less money for contracts, etc. Any gain made by GK is balanced by 4H's loss. If you think that this loan was a bad deal for 4H, that's one thing, but you can't claim that there was no loss involved.

    Plus 4h has no control over the collecting of said loan. GK has a year to make the payment and he can make it at anytime during the year.
    <font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">That sounds to me like the payment schedule was agreed on. As far as having "control" there are multiple deals that have been made which rely on one person to fulfill their obligations later. In fact, I owe GK a future draft pick. If 4H accepts that there's some risk involved (after all, GK could die), I don't know why you're going to tell him he can't take the risk.

    NO immediate loss with an immediate gain equals a shift in balance of the league.
    <font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">This is always the case. If I trade away my starters for good youth, I'm shifting the balance in the league. I get worse in the short term hoping to get better in the long term. A team I trade with might go on to win the championship. Are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to trade vets for youth?

    Plus why didn't they post the question with a posting of Possible Loan. In my mind and most owners, a deal is involving players, I never even assumed that there was a loan in that posting.
    <font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">I think you may be reaching too far when you say "most owners." Who else do you know that didn't read it? They did post and ask if it would be acceptable to the league. If they were trying to be underhanded about it they could have included a couple of players and gone ahead without asking. If anyone who read the post thought it was being sneaky, they could have easily posted a new thread called calling attention to the loan thread.

    You know, Stumps, this is fun!

  5. #5
    Inactive Member DaFreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 16th, 2002
    Posts
    63
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    the trade of cash was completely above board. they asked in the forums if it was ok well before they actually made the agreement. i also have to agree with almost everything turing posted in his post.

  6. #6
    Inactive Member hornetjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 30th, 2002
    Posts
    169
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    You know...I keep hearing that no one objected and yet I will quote one objection that was seemingly overlooked:

    Stumps
    Champion
    Member Rated:
    posted January 13, 2005 08:23AM
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yeah, I'm pretty sure Scott banned loans. I for one would vote in favour of keeping the ban.
    --------------------

    So by the rules - where was the official vote? Since there was no vote and there was an objection - it seems appropriate to me to intiate a vote now.

    <font color="#000002" size="1">[ March 24, 2005 05:51 PM: Message edited by: hornetjohn ]</font>

  7. #7
    Inactive Member hornetjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 30th, 2002
    Posts
    169
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Just to clarify, I have and had no problem with the intial loan. Sheed and I traded coaches in League 7 before it was said that was not allowed. I just don't like the idea of loans - and was very surprised to see a topic discussion that I had assumed was just about that one loan be used to state that the league had okayed loans. And hey, if a vote goes in favor of loans then that works for me - hey, I was against the salary cap too and now I like the salary cap.

  8. #8
    Inactive Member TuringComplete's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2004
    Posts
    246
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Originally posted by hornetjohn:
    You know...I keep hearing that no one objected and yet I will quote one objection that was seemingly overlooked:

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

    So by the rules - where was the official vote? Since there was no vote and there was an objection - it seems appropriate to me to intiate a vote now.
    <font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">You're right, of course. It was a judgment call. Since Stumps only seemed in favor of maintaining a ban under the supposition that Scott had imposed one, (an issue that was disputed later in the thread,) I didn't count it -- especially since I was only going back and cataloging the decisions that had been made at that point.

    I included it since there didn't appear to be any serious objections, and they had done the loan. I figured that once it was done, if someone wanted to do a loan in the future, it would take the league voting it down to stop it -- meaning it was currently approved.

    As far as "by the rules," we hadn't implemented any rules on the decision making process at that point.

    I think it's great that you disagree with the status quo and you're taking the initiative to make a change. That's what the process is there for. I'm just trying to clarify what's led us to this point.

  9. #9
    Inactive Member TuringComplete's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2004
    Posts
    246
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Sadly there hasn't been too much discussion yet on what exactly is being voted on and how the vote should be written -- mostly what the discussion period should be for. I'll take this opportunity to get the ball rolling.

    I think it should be specified in the vote what types of loans we are voting on. Obviously the people who are against loans would be happy with a no vote, but a yes vote shouldn't mean "Any loan is acceptable."

    Here's what I think it should be:
    </font><ul type="square">[*]<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Players can not be loaned. Players can be involved in a loan, for example: I give GK $10M now, he gives me Joe Schmoe and $10M later. However, not: I give GK Joe Schmoe now and at the start of next season he gives me Joe Schmoe back and $10M.</font>[*]<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Loans can extend no longer than the owners have a paid subscription. I wouldn't even include the "freebie" time after the subscription expires. If you want to do a 5 season deal, both parties have to be subscribed for 5 seasons.</font>[*]<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Loans have to have interest of at least 10% per season. Just as you can't trade of a player for nothing, trading $10M now for $10M later is not a fair exchange.</font>[/list]<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">What do you think of these parameters?

  10. #10
    Inactive Member hornetjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 30th, 2002
    Posts
    169
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    I will be a no vote - but have a question on the loan parameters when an player is involved. Would Joe Shmoe allow an owner to not pay any interest on the loan? (IE..because GK gives you Joe Schmoe he only is required to pay 10 million)

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •