EXV: 2017 / 2018 Trade Discussion thread

[Holz]

1. Maybe the coach didn't want to use another rookie pick.

2.  Maybe the coach wanted a better nat pick instead of the rook pick that was added.

3. Maybe the coach agreed with the rejection and decided that they had originally underestimated the 'market value' of the player/s involved and has decided to use a player with 'less value' in the direct swap.


These are decisions that the coach should make. Not the admin.

to answer those 3 questions.

1. Ok if they didn't want to use a rookie they dont have to use it and they are in the same position as the deal they agreed to.

2. Again they agreed to just getting the player.

3. That is why you ask around the value of the player (BEFORE YOU CONFIRM). The only post about Hopper leading up to the confirmation was that he was in the hard to get tier. There was no mention that he was being traded, no PMs that I was aware of him being shopped around.

In regards to the admin making the decision the two coaches involved made the decision to straight swap. If i hand't of stepped in then all he would have got is Lycett. I stepped in and got him Lycett + Rookie 9. I have put the coach in a better postion. If people are unhappy with a external party being involved then the orginal deal can stand as both coaches wanted it to when they agreed.

[Rids]

1. Maybe the coach didn't want to use another rookie pick.

2.  Maybe the coach wanted a better nat pick instead of the rook pick that was added.

3. Maybe the coach agreed with the rejection and decided that they had originally underestimated the 'market value' of the player/s involved and has decided to use a player with 'less value' in the direct swap.


These are decisions that the coach should make. Not the admin.

to answer those 3 questions.

1. Ok if they didn't want to use a rookie they dont have to use it and they are in the same position as the deal they agreed to.

2. Again they agreed to just getting the player.

3. That is why you ask around the value of the player (BEFORE YOU CONFIRM). The only post about Hopper leading up to the confirmation was that he was in the hard to get tier. There was no mention that he was being traded, no PMs that I was aware of him being shopped around.

In regards to the admin making the decision the two coaches involved made the decision to straight swap. If i hand't of stepped in then all he would have got is Lycett. I stepped in and got him Lycett + Rookie 9. I have put the coach in a better postion. If people are unhappy with a external party being involved then the orginal deal can stand as both coaches wanted it to when they agreed.

At the end of the day, I would be filthy if this occurred to me. People have every right to change their mind when a trade is in a stalled status. Anyways, I have shared my thoughts. This seems wrong to me on every level.

[GoLions]

Once a trade is rejected, it is up to the coaches involved to decide if they want to renegotiate or not. At that point, they can scrap the trade, or modify it pending who is deemed as 'winning' the trade. If Atto decides he wants to scrap it, then he can. You can't force him to renegotiate if he doesn't want to, even if it sees him getting more in return than he originally was. That's just a stupid way to admin this situation.

In BXVs we had a trade where one side was deemed to be losing too much and should have gotten more in return. They thought it was even and didn't want more in return, and decided to scrap the trade eventually as the original trade had received too many complaints and was going to be rejected. This is a similar situation, and imo should be treated in the same way, where the coaches get to decide what happens after the initial rejection, not yourself.

[Rids]

Once a trade is rejected, it is up to the coaches involved to decide if they want to renegotiate or not. At that point, they can scrap the trade, or modify it pending who is deemed as 'winning' the trade. If Atto decides he wants to scrap it, then he can. You can't force him to renegotiate if he doesn't want to, even if it sees him getting more in return than he originally was. That's just a stupid way to admin this situation.

In BXVs we had a trade where one side was deemed to be losing too much and should have gotten more in return. They thought it was even and didn't want more in return, and decided to scrap the trade eventually as the original trade had received too many complaints and was going to be rejected. This is a similar situation, and imo should be treated in the same way, where the coaches get to decide what happens after the initial rejection, not yourself.

[Holz]

At the end of the day, I would be filthy if this occurred to me. People have every right to change their mind when a trade is in a stalled status. Anyways, I have shared my thoughts. This seems wrong to me on every level.

Fair enough and noted, I guess i take a very different approach, when I agree to a deal that is my giving my word that i will do it. If i got told i was losing, then i dont mind as i do my research ask other coaches before i confirm my deal. Under no circumstance would i back out the deal especially if im getting extra for free, even if it is allowed (which it isnt). I would be furious if I was in Spinkings situation.

[GoLions]

At the end of the day, I would be filthy if this occurred to me. People have every right to change their mind when a trade is in a stalled status. Anyways, I have shared my thoughts. This seems wrong to me on every level.

Fair enough and noted, I guess i take a very different approach, when I agree to a deal that is my giving my word that i will do it. If i got told i was losing, then i dont mind as i do my research ask other coaches before i confirm my deal. Under no circumstance would i back out the deal especially if im getting extra for free, even if it is allowed (which it isnt). I would be furious if I was in Spinkings situation.

Maybe Atto would have preferred to do another player swap to balance it out? Maybe he didn't feel comfortable accepting more than he originally was? And considering how things have been handled, he has every right to not want to go through with the trade anymore.

[elephants]

I would be furious if I was in Spinkings situation.

Agreed, I'd be very unhappy if someone backed out of a deal because they were told they were losing by the rest of the comp. Unless significant change happens (ie, a player suffers an LTI) I'm of the belief that a trade should be carried through.

[Rids]

What happens if Atto decides he will trade Neal-Bulleen for Lycett instead of Hopper because their values were closer and the trade would be passed?

Atto might have no interest in national picks or rookie picks.

He deserves the right to renegotiate it the way he sees fit.

[elephants]

The real question here,

Do we refer to this as Hopper-Gate, Lycett-Gate, Hopcett-Gate or Lypper-Gate

[Holz]

What happens if Atto decides he will trade Neal-Bulleen for Lycett instead of Hopper because their values were closer and the trade would be passed?

Atto might have no interest in national picks or rookie picks.

He deserves the right to renegotiate it the way he sees fit.

then that is an option if the original deal can not be sorted, and it was sorted. So it didn't have to come to that.

Considering I was actually the coach who had an issue with the deal and it got no other major comments. Then the easiest and most fair thing to do is instead just pass the trade as it stood, if thats what Atto wants.

[GoLions]

What happens if Atto decides he will trade Neal-Bulleen for Lycett instead of Hopper because their values were closer and the trade would be passed?

Atto might have no interest in national picks or rookie picks.

He deserves the right to renegotiate it the way he sees fit.

then that is an option if the original deal can not be sorted, and it was sorted. So it didn't have to come to that.

Considering I was actually the coach who had an issue with the deal and it got no other major comments. Then the easiest and most fair thing to do is instead just pass the trade as it stood, if thats what Atto wants.

How can you say it was sorted when Atto never agreed to it? All that happened was that you made a recommendation to balance out the trade, Spink agreed it was fine, Atto did not. So the trade should still either be in renegotiation, or scrapped if that's what Atto wants to do. I honestly don't get how you can be arguing in favour of passing a trade that hasn't been confirmed by all coaches involved.

[Holz]

What happens if Atto decides he will trade Neal-Bulleen for Lycett instead of Hopper because their values were closer and the trade would be passed?

Atto might have no interest in national picks or rookie picks.

He deserves the right to renegotiate it the way he sees fit.

then that is an option if the original deal can not be sorted, and it was sorted. So it didn't have to come to that.

Considering I was actually the coach who had an issue with the deal and it got no other major comments. Then the easiest and most fair thing to do is instead just pass the trade as it stood, if thats what Atto wants.

How can you say it was sorted when Atto never agreed to it? All that happened was that you made a recommendation to balance out the trade, Spink agreed it was fine, Atto did not. So the trade should still either be in renegotiation, or scrapped if that's what Atto wants to do. I honestly don't get how you can be arguing in favour of passing a trade that hasn't been confirmed by all coaches involved.

I was the only coach he actually even had an issue with it.

So realistically i can solve this all with this.

Trade 12:
Stallions give: Scott Lycett
Metal give: Jacob Hopper

Passed.


I just cant understand how this logic breaks down.

If i agree to a deal that gets me lycett am i not be default agreeing to a deal for Lycett + Rookie 9.

Ele made it even clearer.

Hopper for Lycett was agreed upon.
Spink has offered to give up Rookie 9 for Nothing.


Essentially this is Atto's decision.

Does he reject or approve Rookie 9 for Nothing.

If he wants to reject that then he by all means can.

I think this is beomcing a bigger deal then it has to be. Im waiting on a response from Atto in PMs so we can sort this.

[elephants]

Im waiting on a response from Atto half the competition in PMs so we can sort this.

Sounds like me trying to trade!

[Rids]

Hopper for Lycett is an awful trade and it should have been rejected. There is no way Lycett is worth a top 5 pick in any draft especially  with Vardy now competing for that pinch hit ruck spot at the Eagles.

You were not the only coach with an objection to this trade.

The rejection was 100% correct. It is now up to Atto and Spink to sort out the next steps as they see fit.

[Holz]

Hopper for Lycett is an awful trade and it should have been rejected. There is no way Lycett is worth a top 5 pick in any draft especially  with Vardy now competing for that pinch hit ruck spot at the Eagles.

You were not the only coach with an objection to this trade.

The rejection was 100% correct. It is now up to Atto and Spink to sort out the next steps as they see fit.

If thats peoples opinions then im more then happy to reject the trade as it stands. But if Spinking ads stuff that makes it deemed a valid trade, then as we have always done Atto should not be able to back out of the deal. I will make this more formal though.


This will be put to a vote to formalise the rule that has been happening for years.

Option 1: If a deal is agreed to but under review then it it to be dealt as two separate deals. example

1. Player X + Player Y is locked in
2. Player/Pick Z for 0 the person getting the things for free can accept or reject the deal.

then we see if it passes.

Option 2:

If a deal is agreed upon and it goes under review then either player can back out without any explanation.

Thats me talking as Admin.


Now me talking as a coach. If any Coach agrees to a deal then backs out of it when they are getting more then the agreed upon deal then thats pretty much me done as dealing with you. I cant think of many things more wrong then that. There is no valid reason to ever pull out of a deal you agreed upon, you either didn't do your research, you didn't ask around enough. You do that stuff before you agree to a trade and not after. You will instantly lose all credibility in my books.