|
|
Post by St. Louis Sting on Feb 9, 2017 11:03:50 GMT -5
Proposal: Effective immediately, a player can only have up to 50% of their total salary retained by another team(s) at any time. This will eliminate free rentals of star players on larger contracts.
Of note, this also applies if multiple teams are retaining portions of a single player's salary. The aggregate amount retained by all teams must not exceed 50% of the original salary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill (Ragin' Cajuns) on Feb 9, 2017 12:32:42 GMT -5
I would prefer to see a HARD Dollar amount per team per year as opposed to a percentage but this is a great start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norwich Nemesis on Feb 9, 2017 18:48:59 GMT -5
I have voted no, simply because I am not a fan of the second part of this proposal. Would happily see part 1 implemented as I agree that free rentals shouldn't really be allowed, but I don't see someone retaining a few dollars of a contract that already has someone or multiple people retaining 50% salary already as an issue as it doesn't have any effect on the problem at hand, which is the free rentals.
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Sting on Feb 9, 2017 19:28:31 GMT -5
I have voted no, simply because I am not a fan of the second part of this proposal. Would happily see part 1 implemented as I agree that free rentals shouldn't really be allowed, but I don't see someone retaining a few dollars of a contract that already has someone or multiple people retaining 50% salary already as an issue as it doesn't have any effect on the problem at hand, which is the free rentals. That part can be edited out if necessary. That isn't a huge sticking point for me, just a kicker I thought made some sense |
|
|
|
Post by Pensacola Pelicans on Feb 9, 2017 21:11:07 GMT -5
I voted yes, but I tend to agree with Nemesis. The second part probably wouldn't happen anyway. That said, I could take it or leave it. Doesn't change the essence of what you're trying to do. I'm good with your suggestion that it could be edited out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norwich Nemesis on Feb 10, 2017 5:33:57 GMT -5
I will leave my vote as no, but if the second part is indeed edited out, then you can consider it a yes vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Sting on Feb 19, 2017 12:27:04 GMT -5
I have edited the second part out of the proposal, which would change Norwich's vote to a yes and give this proposal the required votes to be approved. This goes into effect starting now
|
|
