Warrior General Games

Originally posted by dahman32
I think if a "letter if intent" could be converted into a contract on day 42, this would be a good situation for all.

1. the agent would be able to keep track of who they were committing to
2. the owners/recruiters would be able to keep track of who committed to them easier
3. on day 42, it converts into a sent contract and neither would have to try to remember (in the rush of day 42, things happen).

I know #3 is a stretch, but you get the idea of the purpose it could serve.

This

Originally posted by dahman32
I think if a "letter if intent" could be converted into a contract on day 42, this would be a good situation for all.

1. the agent would be able to keep track of who they were committing to
2. the owners/recruiters would be able to keep track of who committed to them easier
3. on day 42, it converts into a sent contract and neither would have to try to remember (in the rush of day 42, things happen).

I know #3 is a stretch, but you get the idea of the purpose it could serve.

i love this.

I'm not seeing the necessary controls that protect either the team or the player agents here - all I'm seeing is:

Owners want players to lock in early.
Players want to get out of commitment.

Till I see those (controls), -1.

Originally posted by greengoose
I'm not seeing the necessary controls that protect either the team or the player agents here - all I'm seeing is:

Owners want players to lock in early.
Players want to get out of commitment.

Till I see those (controls), -1.


Basically it is a pre-contract that goes into the similar suggestion of

"Allow someone to SEND the contract on day 41, just don't let the dot sign it."
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4806616

Which is up for a vote

Obviously if the letter is not signed, and another agent signs instead, the team can retract the letter of intent.
Once you sign, it is only a notice.

But there would also be an option that would allow for the team to send the "convert to contract on day 42" clause that would be noticeable by the agent. Again, it is not signing a contract as the player/agent can break the letter of intent before day 42.

In addition...

If a player/agent breaks the letter of intent promise, there could also be some sort of penalty (not in any way that would affect the player) that would be similar to reputation points and may allow others to see the broken letters of intent pattern and stay away from sending them any.

Likewise, if a team breaks the letter of intent promise, then the team would get hit in a morale penalty as well.

Maybe controls is not the term you are looking for, but rather incentives and non-incentives in which this would self-regulate teams sending out letters of intent willy nilly without thinking them through. And agents would have to stake their reputation on signing and being certain that they are solid in their decision.

For those that desire to have letters of intent sent to them, there would be a box that has the option to "Accept Letters of Intent". After accepting and signing the letter, no more letters of intent can be sent to that player until the following season on day 20.

For all others that do not care to use this "letter of intent" option to send out a "pre-contract", then they could choose to leave it the way it is and there would be no change.

Not sure if this makes sense, but hopefully this could be used as a base foundation of how it would operate.

No, I'm talking about controls.

1) LOI length of 1 year tops. Player is more than free to re-sign with the team after he joins them.
2) Where are the controls that keep this from turning into "pre-contract" spamming?
3) When teams have multiple players at the same position, they need to be able to tag players on a priority signing basis
4) Where are the built-in limits to how many of each position/archetype a team can currently have LOI'd and already contracted?
5) Where is the immediate release clauses when teams over-sign positions/archetypes?

These are just some, the whole contract spamming recruiting process needs an overhaul, without that all this does is become "pre-contract" spamming - with the exact same problems.

The idea isn't bad, but it needs some teeth, certainly more than "woohoo, now I got a jail to put commits into" - which is sure what the first 12-13 pages of this thread sound like.

1) LOI length of 1 year tops. Player is more than free to re-sign with the team after he joins them.

This is a contract issue, not a letter of intent issue

2) Where are the controls that keep this from turning into "pre-contract" spamming?

"For those that desire to have letters of intent sent to them, there would be a box that has the option to "Accept Letters of Intent". After accepting and signing the letter, no more letters of intent can be sent to that player until the following season on day 20.

For all others that do not care to use this "letter of intent" option to send out a "pre-contract", then they could choose to leave it the way it is and there would be no change."

3) When teams have multiple players at the same position, they need to be able to tag players on a priority signing basis

No priority - if a team sends it out, it means they want them. First come first serve, otherwise don't use the "letter of intent" system. If teams cannot remember who they wanted to sign by day 42, then as they say "tough TT"

4) Where are the built-in limits to how many of each position/archetype a team can currently have LOI'd and already contracted?

Now I can understand this one. Can't have 25 letters of intent out for 25 WRs. I think it should work like this:
If your team already has 3 WRs signed for the next season, then as a base of players per position (WR at most 6), the team would only be able to send letters of intent to 3 WRs. And say if your team has 1 HB already signed for the next season, the as a base of 3 HBs, they could only send letters of intent to 2 HBs, etc, etc.

5) Where is the immediate release clauses when teams over-sign positions/archetypes?

There would be no need for this if the previous response is implicated. But again, I think that has more to do with regular contract issues than the letter of intents.

Basically, if a team begins to accrue morale penalties, after a certain amount of penalties any player on that team would be allow to self-release from the team. This may be a basic prevention and keep teams from over-signing as it would also give a morale penalty.

update on this???

great suggestion

+1 good ideas in here

Originally posted by Dub J
Post the link to the players in a thread in your team forum and give those agents access to your team forum.

-1 That's about the same as a "Verbal Commitment" which we now doesn't mean anything,lol.

Originally posted by sehorn31
-1 That's about the same as a "Verbal Commitment" which we now doesn't mean anything,lol.

You seriously think anyone would agree to this?

On second thought, +1. This will help my team out greatly for a season or two. My teams will scoop up all the FAs those idiots that demand a LOI will lose.

The last thing GLB needs is "LOI's"!! They have enough to worry about...Like keeping paying Customers after they keep changing and nerfing stuff and the Sim lets Agents down Season after Season! I'm sad to admit that I'm not sure how long I will be around either after my Rookie Team gets done.

Just because the sim pretty much ignores our AIs at times doesn't mean...


oh wait...

Originally posted by sehorn31
The last thing GLB needs is "LOI's"!! They have enough to worry about...Like keeping paying Customers after they keep changing and nerfing stuff and the Sim lets Agents down Season after Season! I'm sad to admit that I'm not sure how long I will be around either after my Rookie Team gets done.

Well, if you are no longer around you wont have to worry about "LOI's"

i love this idea...but it may have side effect...

some agents may not want to do it then teams will hate them and they become terrible agents...
some players may want it to make sure their position locked in and some teams may not want to because they could get upgrades..then that team loses the recruit

im just saying.. I LOVE this idea but its not perfect....