I'll only +1 this if the team would still have to pay out the remaining salary to that dot for the rest of the season.
Otherwise, -1.
Otherwise, -1.
Forum > Suggestions > Allow Signed Dots to Retire Pre-Day 41 If Team Has Finished Season
Originally posted by Novus
I'll only +1 this if the team would still have to pay out the remaining salary to that dot for the rest of the season.
Otherwise, -1.
Since by definition this would take place only sometime between day 33 and day 40 that would be a pretty trivial consideration. But I do not have anything against it.
I'll only +1 this if the team would still have to pay out the remaining salary to that dot for the rest of the season.
Otherwise, -1.
Since by definition this would take place only sometime between day 33 and day 40 that would be a pretty trivial consideration. But I do not have anything against it.
Dub J
offline
offline
Originally posted by yello1
Since by definition this would take place only sometime between day 33 and day 40 that would be a pretty trivial consideration.
Well, I think releasing a dot between day 33 and day 40 is pretty trivial.
Since by definition this would take place only sometime between day 33 and day 40 that would be a pretty trivial consideration.
Well, I think releasing a dot between day 33 and day 40 is pretty trivial.
with the ability to make a player on day 41, 42, ..... to day 48 and be at the same level of TP as a dot made on day 40 there is zero reason to do this
-1
-1
Originally posted by reddogrw
with the ability to make a player on day 41, 42, ..... to day 48 and be at the same level of TP as a dot made on day 40 there is zero reason to do this
-1
completely agreed and another thing that Yello1 didn't take into account is that if this suggestion were implemented it would open up a financial loophole.
with the ability to make a player on day 41, 42, ..... to day 48 and be at the same level of TP as a dot made on day 40 there is zero reason to do this
-1
completely agreed and another thing that Yello1 didn't take into account is that if this suggestion were implemented it would open up a financial loophole.
SciFi not Syfy
offline
offline
Was this not rejected long, long ago because it would give non-playoff teams an advantage in recruiting? Assuming that all teams have 55 players, then teams that could open space on their roster would get first crack at FAs, thus circumventing the day 41 rule.
Originally posted by SciFi not Syfy
Was this not rejected long, long ago because it would give non-playoff teams an advantage in recruiting? Assuming that all teams have 55 players, then teams that could open space on their roster would get first crack at FAs, thus circumventing the day 41 rule.
Gee aiding parity sure is something we would not want to do.
Was this not rejected long, long ago because it would give non-playoff teams an advantage in recruiting? Assuming that all teams have 55 players, then teams that could open space on their roster would get first crack at FAs, thus circumventing the day 41 rule.
Gee aiding parity sure is something we would not want to do.
Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by SciFi not Syfy
Was this not rejected long, long ago because it would give non-playoff teams an advantage in recruiting? Assuming that all teams have 55 players, then teams that could open space on their roster would get first crack at FAs, thus circumventing the day 41 rule.
Gee aiding parity sure is something we would not want to do.
it wouldn't
recruiting is done for good teams before the playoffs starts anyways
and the free agents that would be available to them would only be those cut in this manner in the first place
Originally posted by SciFi not Syfy
Was this not rejected long, long ago because it would give non-playoff teams an advantage in recruiting? Assuming that all teams have 55 players, then teams that could open space on their roster would get first crack at FAs, thus circumventing the day 41 rule.
Gee aiding parity sure is something we would not want to do.
it wouldn't
recruiting is done for good teams before the playoffs starts anyways
and the free agents that would be available to them would only be those cut in this manner in the first place
Greywolfmeb
offline
offline
Originally posted by yello1
Gee aiding parity sure is something we would not want to do.
They wouldn't if they are really retiring, now could they? But this would leave the door open to " I changed my mind, really I did!"
Fulfill your contracts. Then you can feel free to just go away.....
-10000000
Gee aiding parity sure is something we would not want to do.
They wouldn't if they are really retiring, now could they? But this would leave the door open to " I changed my mind, really I did!"
Fulfill your contracts. Then you can feel free to just go away.....
-10000000
PhillyFossil
offline
offline
Personally, I see some value in the basic idea. It's just the structure that is wrong.
My initial thoughts - which appear to also be the view many here are implying - is that there should be a grace period of one or two days after day 40, i.e. after contracts expire. A number of reasons have already been cited within this thread. However, one has not.
The short grace period after expiration of contracts would allow team owners to recover flex when retiring dots. This flex could then be used to extend ownership of the team. With the signing freeze already in place, there is little harm in creating a window like this on day 41 - no contracts can be signed anyway. It benefits the owners, the people who tend to spend the most on Flex (ownership, scrimmages, multiple dots, CEQ, boosting...) So, in effect, this would be simply be a courtesy extended to that specific portion of the customer base.
Imagine if you've owned a team for 7 seasons....you've brought it from Rookies all the way to Pro leagues. You can almost taste World League because it's so close. Then life hits you....and you need an extra week to come up with the cash to buy flex to renew the team....or maybe you just need to wait until payday because day 40 happened to fall on a Wednesday or Thursday. You don't want to lose the team, so you consider retiring one of your players. The only problem is that your dot is under contract, and he can't be released before day 40. In other words, you WILL lose the team, but it could simply be avoided by allowing a 1 day grace period after contracts expire. Doesn't that seem a bit silly?
The current policy is a good way to alienate paying customers at a time when the customer base has already shrunk substantially. It may not affect many customers now, but as the customer base grows, that will change....a lot. GLB is going to want to hold on to new customers willing to spend the kind of money and commitment to run a team. Those, and the agents they tend to associate with, are the core of the company's cash flow, and always will be.
So, wouldn't it be worthwhile to have contracts and team ownership expire on separate days?
My initial thoughts - which appear to also be the view many here are implying - is that there should be a grace period of one or two days after day 40, i.e. after contracts expire. A number of reasons have already been cited within this thread. However, one has not.
The short grace period after expiration of contracts would allow team owners to recover flex when retiring dots. This flex could then be used to extend ownership of the team. With the signing freeze already in place, there is little harm in creating a window like this on day 41 - no contracts can be signed anyway. It benefits the owners, the people who tend to spend the most on Flex (ownership, scrimmages, multiple dots, CEQ, boosting...) So, in effect, this would be simply be a courtesy extended to that specific portion of the customer base.
Imagine if you've owned a team for 7 seasons....you've brought it from Rookies all the way to Pro leagues. You can almost taste World League because it's so close. Then life hits you....and you need an extra week to come up with the cash to buy flex to renew the team....or maybe you just need to wait until payday because day 40 happened to fall on a Wednesday or Thursday. You don't want to lose the team, so you consider retiring one of your players. The only problem is that your dot is under contract, and he can't be released before day 40. In other words, you WILL lose the team, but it could simply be avoided by allowing a 1 day grace period after contracts expire. Doesn't that seem a bit silly?
The current policy is a good way to alienate paying customers at a time when the customer base has already shrunk substantially. It may not affect many customers now, but as the customer base grows, that will change....a lot. GLB is going to want to hold on to new customers willing to spend the kind of money and commitment to run a team. Those, and the agents they tend to associate with, are the core of the company's cash flow, and always will be.
So, wouldn't it be worthwhile to have contracts and team ownership expire on separate days?
Edited by PhillyFossil on Sep 23, 2012 13:28:15
Originally posted by PhillyFossil
Personally, I see some value in the basic idea. It's just the structure that is wrong.
My initial thoughts - which appear to also be the view many here are implying - is that there should be a grace period of one or two days after day 40, i.e. after contracts expire. A number of reasons have already been cited within this thread. However, one has not.
The short grace period after expiration of contracts would allow team owners to recover flex when retiring dots. This flex could then be used to extend ownership of the team. With the signing freeze already in place, there is little harm in creating a window like this on day 41 - no contracts can be signed anyway. It benefits the owners, the people who tend to spend the most on Flex (ownership, scrimmages, multiple dots, CEQ, boosting...) So, in effect, this would be simply be a courtesy extended to that specific portion of the customer base.
Imagine if you've owned a team for 7 seasons....you've brought it from Rookies all the way to Pro leagues. You can almost taste World League because it's so close. Then life hits you....and you need an extra week to come up with the cash to buy flex to renew the team....or maybe you just need to wait until payday because day 40 happened to fall on a Wednesday or Thursday. You don't want to lose the team, so you consider retiring one of your players. The only problem is that your dot is under contract, and he can't be released before day 40. In other words, you WILL lose the team, but it could simply be avoided by allowing a 1 day grace period after contracts expire. Doesn't that seem a bit silly?
The current policy is a good way to alienate paying customers at a time when the customer base has already shrunk substantially. It may not affect many customers now, but as the customer base grows, that will change....a lot. GLB is going to want to hold on to new customers willing to spend the kind of money and commitment to run a team. Those, and the agents they tend to associate with, are the core of the company's cash flow, and always will be.
So, wouldn't it be worthwhile to have contracts and team ownership expire on separate days?
if the $5 worth of flex you would have to buy to extend team ownership 1 season is a make or break deal for you financially you really should not be spending any money on any online game
Personally, I see some value in the basic idea. It's just the structure that is wrong.
My initial thoughts - which appear to also be the view many here are implying - is that there should be a grace period of one or two days after day 40, i.e. after contracts expire. A number of reasons have already been cited within this thread. However, one has not.
The short grace period after expiration of contracts would allow team owners to recover flex when retiring dots. This flex could then be used to extend ownership of the team. With the signing freeze already in place, there is little harm in creating a window like this on day 41 - no contracts can be signed anyway. It benefits the owners, the people who tend to spend the most on Flex (ownership, scrimmages, multiple dots, CEQ, boosting...) So, in effect, this would be simply be a courtesy extended to that specific portion of the customer base.
Imagine if you've owned a team for 7 seasons....you've brought it from Rookies all the way to Pro leagues. You can almost taste World League because it's so close. Then life hits you....and you need an extra week to come up with the cash to buy flex to renew the team....or maybe you just need to wait until payday because day 40 happened to fall on a Wednesday or Thursday. You don't want to lose the team, so you consider retiring one of your players. The only problem is that your dot is under contract, and he can't be released before day 40. In other words, you WILL lose the team, but it could simply be avoided by allowing a 1 day grace period after contracts expire. Doesn't that seem a bit silly?
The current policy is a good way to alienate paying customers at a time when the customer base has already shrunk substantially. It may not affect many customers now, but as the customer base grows, that will change....a lot. GLB is going to want to hold on to new customers willing to spend the kind of money and commitment to run a team. Those, and the agents they tend to associate with, are the core of the company's cash flow, and always will be.
So, wouldn't it be worthwhile to have contracts and team ownership expire on separate days?
if the $5 worth of flex you would have to buy to extend team ownership 1 season is a make or break deal for you financially you really should not be spending any money on any online game
Raiders12
offline
offline
This should have happened a long time ago!
It could easily be put in that an agent could request to retire his player and the team owner could be sent a notice and agree or disagree. Once agreed to, then the appropriate funds removed from the team finances to cover the remaining salary for that player and the player can be immediately retired and not released so they wouldn't be able to change plans and try to circumvent the signing restrictions during the playoffs.
Pretty simple and covers all "concerns" about it, I believe.
It could easily be put in that an agent could request to retire his player and the team owner could be sent a notice and agree or disagree. Once agreed to, then the appropriate funds removed from the team finances to cover the remaining salary for that player and the player can be immediately retired and not released so they wouldn't be able to change plans and try to circumvent the signing restrictions during the playoffs.
Pretty simple and covers all "concerns" about it, I believe.
Edited by Raiders12 on Sep 24, 2012 11:44:36
Jamaicankid21
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
A BIG no from me for this main reason: Team owners put a LOT of time, effort and money (flex) into their teams... recruiting is a biatch mostly... and that would be a MAJOR headache for those owners to log in and suddenly see several positions missing from their rosters WITHOUT WARNING!!! Man up and PM your team owner if you need released in order to retire for flex. It's the RIGHT way to do it.
I agree with this. But I can't even release players from the team. I tried to release a few of my players to retire to make room for other agents that may be coming in for the following season and it doesn't let you.
I gotta give this idea a no though as well.
A BIG no from me for this main reason: Team owners put a LOT of time, effort and money (flex) into their teams... recruiting is a biatch mostly... and that would be a MAJOR headache for those owners to log in and suddenly see several positions missing from their rosters WITHOUT WARNING!!! Man up and PM your team owner if you need released in order to retire for flex. It's the RIGHT way to do it.
I agree with this. But I can't even release players from the team. I tried to release a few of my players to retire to make room for other agents that may be coming in for the following season and it doesn't let you.
I gotta give this idea a no though as well.
PhillyFossil
offline
offline
Originally posted by reddogrw
if the $5 worth of flex you would have to buy to extend team ownership 1 season is a make or break deal for you financially you really should not be spending any money on any online game
Have any kids? If so, you probably know how they can rack up a big bill in a hurry just with unforeseen medical expenses.
How about unexpected job lay offs?
Point is, sometimes &%@$ happens which can be overcome fairly quickly, but it simply needs a little flexibility. Right now, there is none. Most of the time, it's just a matter of bad timing.
Until a freeze option becomes available for agents, there is little they can do except scrap everything they've accomplished if they need to step away from the game for a bit. So, if there is a simple means of avoiding such, then that too should be an option made available.
Besides, what does it hurt to stagger the end of contracts and the renewal of team ownership by having them fall on separate days? Just because you question one's financial priorities doesn't make it a sound argument against the idea I proposed.
if the $5 worth of flex you would have to buy to extend team ownership 1 season is a make or break deal for you financially you really should not be spending any money on any online game
Have any kids? If so, you probably know how they can rack up a big bill in a hurry just with unforeseen medical expenses.
How about unexpected job lay offs?
Point is, sometimes &%@$ happens which can be overcome fairly quickly, but it simply needs a little flexibility. Right now, there is none. Most of the time, it's just a matter of bad timing.
Until a freeze option becomes available for agents, there is little they can do except scrap everything they've accomplished if they need to step away from the game for a bit. So, if there is a simple means of avoiding such, then that too should be an option made available.
Besides, what does it hurt to stagger the end of contracts and the renewal of team ownership by having them fall on separate days? Just because you question one's financial priorities doesn't make it a sound argument against the idea I proposed.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
