how is a loan like trading a stud for as bench?
please do the math for me.
I showed the example of the math in the loan that has happened. point out it's failings for me.
<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">I was just pointing out that this discussion was already taking place. The principle is called "slippery slope". Once you open the door to loans of money - you open the door to loaning of players (not my words).Originally posted by GrendelKhan:
Trying to attach "renting" players to Loans is "sad" in HJ's words. But that happens when you don't have a valid argument against Loans.
<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">True, but generally owners trade players with potential for good players - it is more or less even. Loans of cash don't work that way - it is more like trading your best player for someone's sub so that they will make a good deal with you later on. A trade that is clearly uneven would face the league and Scott rejecting it.Originally posted by GrendelKhan:
All deals will change the "balance" of the league. That is in the nature of deals. You are generaly attempting to get better in your situation, in one way or another.
how is a loan like trading a stud for as bench?
please do the math for me.
I showed the example of the math in the loan that has happened. point out it's failings for me.
Hey, HJ, the discussion's been open long enough. Are you going to post a vote thread?
<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Sorry to make you look elsewhere Leo - I don't see a difference. But the biggest reason to keep them together is that (a real sign that Scott does not ensorse it) loans cannot be paid back without trading players. Since TC is commish - I guess he would have the power to decide whether to split the two requests or not. If it is left to me, then I would ask that we ban bothOriginally posted by Leonidas:
HornetJohn... sorry to screw up your vote only thread but aren't these 2 seperate things? Loaning money and loaning players. I am very much against the idea of loaning players but not too fussed about loaning money. Players effect the game result whereas money doesn't (as least not directly).
<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ March 30, 2005 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Leonidas ]</font></font>
IT is two seperate concepts, lumping them togetehr will affect voting. It isn't a legit vote as it is presented.
-- it's simular to "riders" in congress
A loan is a loan - whether it is a car, boat, signature, equity, player, or cash. Not sure what concept you are talking about - but I am talking about the concept of loaning anything. Besides Scott has not made any of them a part of the game. [img]wink.gif[/img]
Please don't try and insult anyone into saying you see no difference in if it was presented about loans for cash, and a seperate vote about loans of players.
You know better then that HJ.
Are you waqnting to start the slippery slope for how proposals should be preented? using your method as an example? It's just politicking and isn't close to a legit vote.
If you think a loan is a loan is a loan, and truely believe that your wording of your vote will have no impact on the votes, then rewrite it to only speak about cash loans.
As long as there's a cost to the person who is taking the loan and a gain by the person loaning, I don't see what is wrong with it, whether it be players, money or both. If we ban loaning money then that opens up a lot of grey areas - the purchasing of players, the inclusion of money in trades etc. If you ban the loaning of players then every trade has to be scrutinised. If this wasn't a subscriber only league I think it would be different, but I think no one here is going to screw their own team over to help someone else. Maybe an approval by a number of owners where a loan is intended, but then how do we know a trade involving money is not for loan purposes, or even a trade of just players?
From memory, I thought Scott had only forbid the practise of loans that involved different leagues as it upset the balance of each league.
If you ban the loaning of players and/or the loaning of cash, how will this be policed? What about the purchasing of players? What if someone purchases a player, then the original team wants the player back and pays more? What if a team trades a player away, then later on makes a trade to get them back? Or involves cash in the trade to get them back? The idea that there is gain but no immediate loss is flawed with a player deal as the team loaning the player loses. I guess we just accept that everyone will have a different opinion on the matter and let the vote threads take their course. But then even if both loans are banned there's obvious grey areas that could allow loans to slip through without anyone being able to do anything about it, or even knowing about it.
I can't believe this is even being discussed.
In normal leagues, loans are forbidden and considered cheating and I've seen teams and owners ejected from the game for doing that.
Also, isn't this is supposed to be the Champions league??!?! With this talk, it seems like it's becoming the Clicky league. Really, why would ANYONE in this league want to loan money or players so someone else can win. Win within the rules, or is that too much for the pro-loan bunch?
Because really, if this loophole continues to be exploited, who's to say other loopholes won't be exploited.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks