I think GLB should include contracts for coaches. It would give GM's some security, and it would be nice if a GM would stick to a commitment. With contracts for GM's, the owner could designate how many seasons they want them for. They could also cut them whenever they wanted. It would also promote more GM's to interact more with owners. I don't like having the opportunity where you can just drop a team. I think it'd be nice to have more communication.
Forum > Suggestions > Contracts for GM's
TaySC
offline
offline
How would you account for things like RL coming up and a coach all of a sudden (sometimes unexpectedly) not having time to do an adequate job?
A contract would NOT force a coach to spend X amount of RL hours actually doing the job, it would just force them to wear the title, thus screwing the team over if something came up and they couldn't fulfill their obligation.
- 1
A contract would NOT force a coach to spend X amount of RL hours actually doing the job, it would just force them to wear the title, thus screwing the team over if something came up and they couldn't fulfill their obligation.
- 1
Myd
offline
offline
Originally posted by aaronwoolley1
I think GLB should include contracts for coaches. It would give GM's some security, and it would be nice if a GM would stick to a commitment. With contracts for GM's, the owner could designate how many seasons they want them for. They could also cut them whenever they wanted. It would also promote more GM's to interact more with owners. I don't like having the opportunity where you can just drop a team. I think it'd be nice to have more communication.
So you don't like the way a GM can cut free of a team whenever they want but advocate the opportunity for teams to cut a GM whenever they want to?
-1 Commitments go both ways.
I think GLB should include contracts for coaches. It would give GM's some security, and it would be nice if a GM would stick to a commitment. With contracts for GM's, the owner could designate how many seasons they want them for. They could also cut them whenever they wanted. It would also promote more GM's to interact more with owners. I don't like having the opportunity where you can just drop a team. I think it'd be nice to have more communication.
So you don't like the way a GM can cut free of a team whenever they want but advocate the opportunity for teams to cut a GM whenever they want to?
-1 Commitments go both ways.
aaronwoolley1
offline
offline
I think that this could be a good idea if it was ironed out. I think that the commitment could go both ways. I mean, when someone signs a contract, and someone sends out a contract, they intend to keep to that contract. I think if someone has something come up, they can talk about it. Thats why I said the owners could get out of the contract.
This wouldn't be a money contract. Just basically a letter of intent that is official
This wouldn't be a money contract. Just basically a letter of intent that is official
Antonine
offline
offline
But in the end, when a co-ordinator doesn't want to coach for a team any more, then keeping them tied to a title is not going to achieve anything. They can simply not scout, not adjust the AI, not even look at the team, if that's how they feel. So you'd be better off without them filling that spot anyway.
TaySC
offline
offline
Originally posted by Antonine
But in the end, when a co-ordinator doesn't want to coach for a team any more, then keeping them tied to a title is not going to achieve anything. They can simply not scout, not adjust the AI, not even look at the team, if that's how they feel. So you'd be better off without them filling that spot anyway.
^^^ this ^^^
Contracts for players make it to where the team can utilize the player in games.
There is absolutely nothing a team or team owner can do to MAKE a coach scout and gameplan.
This topic does absolutely nothing to change either of those facts.... all that it could do is tie them to some meaningless title, which does nothing for the team or the coach.
But in the end, when a co-ordinator doesn't want to coach for a team any more, then keeping them tied to a title is not going to achieve anything. They can simply not scout, not adjust the AI, not even look at the team, if that's how they feel. So you'd be better off without them filling that spot anyway.
^^^ this ^^^
Contracts for players make it to where the team can utilize the player in games.
There is absolutely nothing a team or team owner can do to MAKE a coach scout and gameplan.
This topic does absolutely nothing to change either of those facts.... all that it could do is tie them to some meaningless title, which does nothing for the team or the coach.
-1as I see it if a owner or GM is worth a shit then they will stick together. if one is sorry then they split. this unneeded and unwanted in my opinion
Greywolfmeb
offline
offline
Originally posted by TaySC
There is absolutely nothing a team or team owner can do to MAKE a coach scout and gameplan.
This topic does absolutely nothing to change either of those facts.... all that it could do is tie them to some meaningless title, which does nothing for the team or the coach.
QFT
This so called contract is unenforceable and is meaningless.
-1
There is absolutely nothing a team or team owner can do to MAKE a coach scout and gameplan.
This topic does absolutely nothing to change either of those facts.... all that it could do is tie them to some meaningless title, which does nothing for the team or the coach.
QFT
This so called contract is unenforceable and is meaningless.
-1
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
