Warrior General Games

Originally posted by sickie8305
This Is A Good Idea If There Was Fame. If A player Has Been On The team For More Than 2 Seasons Then They Should Be Able To Reject The Trade If They Are In A Multi Season Contract But If In A 1 Season Deal It Should Not Be In Effect. Some Idea's Are Good If The Moderators And Haters In This Forum Gave Them A Chance...

why should fame matter?

It's a contract clause suggestion, not a requirement

having read nearly half of that overly capitalized sentence, I see what he's getting at and there could potentially be something to it. But it's more of a separate idea.

I think it's a good idea. Hell, maybe even be the only kind of contract. Too many people on here seem to always be looking for someone to screw them over with any suggestion. That is the problem. If you are a guilty type, you seem to always be suspicious of others. Maybe most owners that say "NO" to this are the GM's that "rape" other peoples teams or are the type that like to screw over players to make an extra buck for themselves.

As far as getting screwed, it can work both ways. As some have said, players can use this against owners and force them to keep them or whatnot. However, owners can say "Well, you rejected that offer, so now I'm making the choice to rot you"

Players can't really use this against owners. The only way they could is if this were the only kind of contract... which is your initial suggestion, and I respectfully disagree. Your point B kind of explains why your point A is bad. It's just a contract to allow no-trade clause contracts that people don't like any more to come to an agreeable solution for both parties rather than a stalemate that leaves the team losing money and a player unhappy.

.

k

Know what still needs to be epic'd and implemented?

This.

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Know what still needs to be epic'd and implemented?

This.

I agree.

wtf does a suggestion need to do to get Epic'd? Some mod needs to get in here and answer that if they aren't going to do it.

Nearly 10 pages now, not a single downside has been mentioned, there's a lot of support for it, it would be useful... seriously, what the hell else does it need? Are you telling me that epic PMs are really that much more important than this?

Should be Epic'd.

Actually, I take that back. This topic shouldn't even exist, because this should have been put in the game a long time ago. An approval trade clause always made more sense than the rigid no trade clause we were given instead.

fur tru

It has probably been said, but this should just be included in the no trade clause. It is want happens in real life. If a team wants to trade a player with a no trade contract they still can but it must be approved by the player.