EXV: 2017 / 2018 Trade Discussion thread

[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.

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.

I do not want that as a rule sorry. And if it is a rule and it affects me then I will step away from EXV.

Every coach should determine the outcome of any trade they are a part of. Changing your mind in a renegotiation should be allowed. Using different players to the initial rejected trade should also be a viable outcome if BOTH coaches agree to it.

[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.

I do not want that as a rule sorry. And if it is a rule and it affects me then I will step away from EXV.

Every coach should determine the outcome of any trade they are a part of. Changing your mind in a renegotiation should be allowed. Using different players to the initial rejected trade should also be a viable outcome if BOTH coaches agree to it.

Thats fine, it looks like people want the rule changed to Option 2.

The deal is getting renegotiated and we are going with option 2 at the moment for Hopper Gate.

As a coach though for me its an unwritten rule that you stick by your word. Jumping in to snipe a player after a deal is being negotiated it just as bad. I personally will not be talking to either coach about their players until this is finalized.

The rule was designed to stop these two things from happening which are in my opinion far worse things then not letting people get out of a deal they agreed upon.

[nostradamus]

l don't remember seeing this vote.

Anyway, our choice is option 2 .........we in Russia vote for democracy  :P

[GoLions]

The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.

I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.

This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made

[nostradamus]

The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.

I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.

This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made

spot on

[Holz]

The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.

I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.

This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made

Im not saying i wont deal with Atto, I just find it hard to deal if the other person can pull out any time and they have a history of doing so. That me as a coach.

What break done is this logic though.

If i agree that A = B and then  C is > or = to B then its fair enough t assume A > or = to C is it not.

anyway its going to vote.

Are you not worried that people will influence people and vote trades down and talk down the guys they are getting soo much that people dont want to do the trade with that coach and instead deal with the coach influencing their opinion?

Its almost a disadvantage positing a trade as if i post Pick X for Pick Y. Then its free reign for coaches to talk down player Y down soo much that i pull out of the deal and trade with other coaches.

[GoLions]

The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.

I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.

This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made

Im not saying i wont deal with Atto, I just find it hard to deal if the other person can pull out any time and they have a history of doing so. That me as a coach.

What break done is this logic though.

If i agree that A = B and then  C is > or = to B then its fair enough t assume A > or = to C is it not.

anyway its going to vote.

Are you not worried that people will influence people and vote trades down and talk down the guys they are getting soo much that people dont want to do the trade with that coach and instead deal with the coach influencing their opinion?

Its almost a disadvantage positing a trade as if i post Pick X for Pick Y. Then its free reign for coaches to talk down player Y down soo much that i pull out of the deal and trade with other coaches.

To me, the reason he wanted to pull out of the trade is because you approved it without him confirming the trade himself, which is fair enough to me. The rest of what you just said just seems like a completely different issue that is unrelated to this one. Do you understand that coaches don't want trades processed when they haven't agreed to them? That is really the only problem here. It has nothing to do with other coaches saying they're losing heaps in a trade and that they'd offer more for Player X or anything like that. You approved a trade that Atto didn't agree to, and he isn't happy with it, and neither are a number of other coaches. If what you just mentioned, where a coach pulls out of a trade that they confirmed themselves, because other coaches told them that they could offer way more, then that is a completely different issue, and I hope you can see that.

[Nige]

The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.

I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.

This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made

spot on

[Holz]

The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.

I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.

This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made

Im not saying i wont deal with Atto, I just find it hard to deal if the other person can pull out any time and they have a history of doing so. That me as a coach.

What break done is this logic though.

If i agree that A = B and then  C is > or = to B then its fair enough t assume A > or = to C is it not.

anyway its going to vote.

Are you not worried that people will influence people and vote trades down and talk down the guys they are getting soo much that people dont want to do the trade with that coach and instead deal with the coach influencing their opinion?

Its almost a disadvantage positing a trade as if i post Pick X for Pick Y. Then its free reign for coaches to talk down player Y down soo much that i pull out of the deal and trade with other coaches.

To me, the reason he wanted to pull out of the trade is because you approved it without him confirming the trade himself, which is fair enough to me. The rest of what you just said just seems like a completely different issue that is unrelated to this one. Do you understand that coaches don't want trades processed when they haven't agreed to them? That is really the only problem here. It has nothing to do with other coaches saying they're losing heaps in a trade and that they'd offer more for Player X or anything like that. You approved a trade that Atto didn't agree to, and he isn't happy with it, and neither are a number of other coaches. If what you just mentioned, where a coach pulls out of a trade that they confirmed themselves, because other coaches told them that they could offer way more, then that is a completely different issue, and I hope you can see that.

Understand but if you agree to Player X you by default agree to Player X + Something.

I walk into a shop and go im interested in buying this Phone for $800. You pay your cash and receive the phone. The manager just announces to the The teller that they have a special promotion the teller then says good news you also receive this free gift card for $50 to this store for anything you want.

Then the person buying the phone says i didn't agree to that, I have changed my mind I dont want the phone anymore give me my $800 back.

What does the store owner tell you.

Sorry but you cant do that if you dont want the free gift card you dont have to take it but we cant give you your money back you have already bought the phone.

The person then walks out with the phone, they can use the gift card, trade it to someone else or chuck it in the bin.

[GoLions]

The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.

I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.

This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made

Im not saying i wont deal with Atto, I just find it hard to deal if the other person can pull out any time and they have a history of doing so. That me as a coach.

What break done is this logic though.

If i agree that A = B and then  C is > or = to B then its fair enough t assume A > or = to C is it not.

anyway its going to vote.

Are you not worried that people will influence people and vote trades down and talk down the guys they are getting soo much that people dont want to do the trade with that coach and instead deal with the coach influencing their opinion?

Its almost a disadvantage positing a trade as if i post Pick X for Pick Y. Then its free reign for coaches to talk down player Y down soo much that i pull out of the deal and trade with other coaches.

To me, the reason he wanted to pull out of the trade is because you approved it without him confirming the trade himself, which is fair enough to me. The rest of what you just said just seems like a completely different issue that is unrelated to this one. Do you understand that coaches don't want trades processed when they haven't agreed to them? That is really the only problem here. It has nothing to do with other coaches saying they're losing heaps in a trade and that they'd offer more for Player X or anything like that. You approved a trade that Atto didn't agree to, and he isn't happy with it, and neither are a number of other coaches. If what you just mentioned, where a coach pulls out of a trade that they confirmed themselves, because other coaches told them that they could offer way more, then that is a completely different issue, and I hope you can see that.

Understand but if you agree to Player X you by default agree to Player X + Something.

I walk into a shop and go im interested in buying this Phone for $800. You pay your cash and receive the phone. The teller then says good news you also receive this free gift card for $50 to this store for anything you want.

Then the person buying the phone says i didn't agree to that, I have changed my mind I dont want the phone anymore give me my $800 back.

What does the store owner tell you.

Sorry but you cant do that if you dont want the free gift card you dont have to take it but we cant give you your money back you have already bought the phone.

The person then walks out with the phone, they can use the gift card, trade it to someone else or chuck it in the bin.

I think a better example would be something like

Customer believes a phone is worth $800, and so offers $800 for the phone, employee agrees to accept the $800

Store manager informs them both that the phone is only worth $500, and they say that they cannot sell that phone for $800, but if the customer would like, they can accept something else as extra, such as (insert subjective gift value here)

The employee is happy to make this deal, so the manager and employee process this deal without getting the customer's opinion

The customer is not happy with this exchange being made without them having a say, and does not wish to buy the phone anymore.



Now, a better way to do this, is also getting the customer's opinion on what they would like added extra to them. If they decide that they don't like the recommendation by the manager and would like something different, then they can continue to negotiate. If they decide that they no longer want the phone, then that is also fine. If they decide that they wish to pay a different amount for the phone ($500), then they can also do that.

[Rids]

The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.

I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.

This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made

spot on

[Ziplock]

I think Holzs logic is pretty sound, but I dont think it's good practice. However,

Stallions give: Scott Lycett
Metal gives: Jacob Hopper

We are on the hunt for high quality kids. Lycett is a gun when fit, but we hope Hopper will be a jet later down the track.

Confirm. Sad to see Hopper go as the kid has loads of potential, but we have some urgent issues to fix now and Lycett is almost the perfect player to do so.

Holz has suggested this is too one sided so I'm adding my first Rookie Pick. Trade now reads:

Stallions give: Scott Lycett + R9
Metal give: Jacob Hopper

Atto to confirm

Further change to this, as I've been told it is still too one sided :/

I'm now adding my second round Nat pick (24)

Trade now reads:

Stallions give: Scott Lycett + R9 + N24
Metal give: Jacob Hopper

The fact Spink clarified the trade needed to be confirmed makes this clear cut to me that the trade should be reverse.

[Holz]

I think Holzs logic is pretty sound, but I dont think it's good practice. However,

Stallions give: Scott Lycett
Metal gives: Jacob Hopper

We are on the hunt for high quality kids. Lycett is a gun when fit, but we hope Hopper will be a jet later down the track.

Confirm. Sad to see Hopper go as the kid has loads of potential, but we have some urgent issues to fix now and Lycett is almost the perfect player to do so.

Holz has suggested this is too one sided so I'm adding my first Rookie Pick. Trade now reads:

Stallions give: Scott Lycett + R9
Metal give: Jacob Hopper

Atto to confirm

Further change to this, as I've been told it is still too one sided :/

I'm now adding my second round Nat pick (24)

Trade now reads:

Stallions give: Scott Lycett + R9 + N24
Metal give: Jacob Hopper

The fact Spink clarified the trade needed to be confirmed makes this clear cut to me that the trade should be reverse.

It is,

We are both waiting on Atto, Spink has been in talks with Atto and this is the first he has heard abut Atto being unhappy.

[Spinking]

Just an FYI for all those with an interest in the Hopper / Lycett trade situation. I offered to either renegotiate or scrap it. Atto has opted to scrap it, so the deal is off.

So now chasing high quality young mids if anyone is keen on a deal.

[Rids]

Roulettes putting the combo of Zac Jones and Rhys Mathieson up for a mid or defender.

Message me and Nostra if they interest.