Warrior General Games

I mean, come on... I'll admit when I first saw this thread, I thought oh yes, maybe I can convince him to send his players to our team!! But you know what, my team might get helped if that was to happen, but we would be gutting another team and creating a replacement patsy. Is it really run for anyone to steamroll over another team 135-0 like the Milwaukee Cougars got beat by today? Let's make this league competitive. If that means removing the bottom 8 of us (and that includes my team), then so be it.... But if this league really wants to be the pro league, the professionals and the elite, having even more gutted teams is not going to help bring that about.

Originally posted by texasdanger
Originally posted by Hollywoodx2x


to join a winner...? and perhaps compete for a championship? i dont think any player in any competitive sport joins a team because he would want to even out a league...either he is trying to find the best financial situation for himself or puts himself in a situation where he would compete to win a championship... that is why players in the late years who havent won a ring always try to go to team that is a contender. Never have i heard a player said yeah i joined "blank" because it evens out the division or the conference.. so your logic is quite twisted i think my friend. I do however respect the rebuilding you have done with your team, no doubt. And I am sorry that you inherited a team that was gutted however that was your choice to purchase the team and someone at the end of the day is going to move up and someone is going to move down in the league division's. So yes I would think that the Globetrotters should be considered as all teams should be. And we should not be dismissed as a team to have a chance to bring players in who are a higher level based on the fact that we are stronger as a team than your own.

also would like to add... if frankel was to join the Globetrotters or even a team higher in the standings than us it doesnt bring the level of competition down. The teams who dont belong in the division eventually will move down and the teams in triple A who are worthy will move up.. and the cycle will continue. The Utopia Legends were in AAA last year and are doing quite nicely for themselves


The fallacy in your logic is that in this game not all teams can compete on a level playing field. I count roughly 6 or 7 teams that were very poorly managed last year. I don't know how many of them are still with the original owners, obviously my team is not. How are these teams EVER supposed to get better? There are no rookies like Adrian Peterson or Randy Moss or Darren McFadden that can immediately make a team better. It doesn't work that way in this game. In this game you have to toil away and level and level and level your players in order to make them good. Real life isn't quite the same. By your logic, we should take all the teams that can't compete in this league and flush them down to BBB league right now. This is a game and it should be about a level playing field where all teams have the same opportunity. How do you think the teams in the Western Conference feel? They have one or two "patsies" I think is the term someone used in another thread while the Eastern conference has 4 or 5. Which teams have a tougher road? At the very least, conference realignment should have happened after the end of last season.

If this situation was to happen in the NFL (which it never would today), the NFL would distribute all of the team's players to every team in the league via a draft. It wouldn't be a free for all. Look at the USFL disbandonment... The players entered the draft the following year. Every team got a shot, even the bad ones.


There is a whole thread dedicated to this topic in the Announcements forum - it's called "Gutting / Collusion Ideas".

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=175644&page=1

I am against gutting to ANY team. I would prefer this team to be sold and the players remain where they are.



What we have here is good old fashioned socialism--let's even the playing field so EVERYBODY has a chance to win while sitting around a campfire singing John Lennon's "Imagine."
Give me a break.
It's called a free market. Let the individual have the choice, let Frankel have the choice to take his players where ever his impulse may take him.....which better be The Revolvers, Comrade Frankel .

Originally posted by texasdanger
Here's an alternative idea that I like even better - sell the team to a new owner that has the time to put into it and leave the roster as is.

Yeah..can someone explain how this ISN'T gutting and /or colluding?

It's like a text book definition, right?

I agree with Drazz on this.

It's already a shame what's happened with Valentine and the ACB, and I would hate to see the Gangsters dismantled as well. If they are, though, I would rather see them go to a team like the Thunder. We already see the stink that still lingers from the Mustangs championship. And we don't need any more blemishes (imagined or real) on USA Pro.

Originally posted by whteshark
What we have here is good old fashioned socialism--let's even the playing field so EVERYBODY has a chance to win while sitting around a campfire singing John Lennon's "Imagine."
Give me a break.
It's called a free market. Let the individual have the choice, let Frankel have the choice to take his players where ever his impulse may take him.....which better be The Revolvers, Comrade Frankel .


Hah, actually I figured someone would equate part of what I said to socialism, but look at what I have said in context. I do not care that all teams be equal. Rather, what I am advocating is not creating another welfare team. There are three options as I see it:

1. Give the players to a needy team - I am against this idea after thinking about it and I have tried to make that clear in my posts. I do not want the players on the Thunder if it means the end of the Gangsters.

2. Have a draft - distribute equally to all teams. This is what the NFL would do, the real-world model of what we are playing.

3. Keep the team as is and sell it to another owner. *DING* *DING* *DING* We have a winner! This is the perfect solution!

Originally posted by texasdanger
3. Keep the team as is and sell it to another owner. *DING* *DING* *DING* We have a winner! This is the perfect solution!




Seriously...all talk of socialism aside..that's what the rules say is supposed to be done, right?

The new owner should get to decide what happens with this roster? Haven't we had like a million threads on this? Didn't Harper get punished for exactly this thing when he traded the last remains of his farm team to the Mustangs before selling it off?

Originally posted by texasdanger
Originally posted by whteshark

What we have here is good old fashioned socialism--let's even the playing field so EVERYBODY has a chance to win while sitting around a campfire singing John Lennon's "Imagine."
Give me a break.
It's called a free market. Let the individual have the choice, let Frankel have the choice to take his players where ever his impulse may take him.....which better be The Revolvers, Comrade Frankel .


Hah, actually I figured someone would equate part of what I said to socialism, but look at what I have said in context. I do not care that all teams be equal. Rather, what I am advocating is not creating another welfare team. There are three options as I see it:

1. Give the players to a needy team - I am against this idea after thinking about it and I have tried to make that clear in my posts. I do not want the players on the Thunder if it means the end of the Gangters.

2. Have a draft - distribute equally to all teams. This is what the NFL would do, the real-world model of what we are playing.

3. Keep the team as is and sell it to another owner. *DING* *DING* *DING* We have a winner! This is the perfect solution!



1. Players of that caliber aren't going to play for a weak team, nor should he be forced to play for somebody he doesn't like when he has the power to find a better situation for himself.

2. Dude, nobody's paying us to play. In fact we're spending money to give our players every advantage. Why are guys going to spend a alot of money on flex points when they may end up on a team that sucks or end up on a team where they can't stand the coaches or The GM? The answer, Comrade, is they're not. They'll either retire their player or screw their player and go inactive.

3. See answer one.

I'm going to say it again, and glad to see others agree, its collusion. And, its one of the key issues in the game right now.

Take a look anywhere in the forums and see the crap about the Mustangs and Tim and all that from last season. Then, look at all the crap the mods, USA Pro and the Alpha guys get. Then, think about what's going to happen when their is another merge WITHIN USA Pro and among Alpha guys.

It will not end well.

I understand wanting freedom of choice for your players, but all the players are under the control of their contract owners. AND frankel said the issue was time to run the team GM's, man, that simple. Plenty of good guys out there happy to help.

Originally posted by whteshark
1. Players of that caliber aren't going to play for a weak team, nor should he be forced to play for somebody he doesn't like when he has the power to find a better situation for himself.

2. Dude, nobody's paying us to play. In fact we're spending money to give our players every advantage. Why are guys going to spend a alot of money on flex points when they may end up on a team that sucks or end up on a team where they can't stand the coaches or The GM? The answer, Comrade, is they're not. They'll either retire their player or screw their player and go inactive.

3. See answer one.


You know, your name calling aside, the issue is that you are suffering from the same thing I initially did when I first saw the post - selfishness. My immediate thoughts were that can make my team better, nevermind the ramifications to the league. What you are advocating is taking and pillaging from one team to give to another and leaving the one team gutted and helpless. That isn't capitalism, my friend. That's despotism.

Your answer to Option 3 is lacking. It is the right solution. If the players do not wish to remain on the team, they are then free to choose the team they wish to play for when their contract is up.

Originally posted by texasdanger
Originally posted by whteshark

1. Players of that caliber aren't going to play for a weak team, nor should he be forced to play for somebody he doesn't like when he has the power to find a better situation for himself.

2. Dude, nobody's paying us to play. In fact we're spending money to give our players every advantage. Why are guys going to spend a alot of money on flex points when they may end up on a team that sucks or end up on a team where they can't stand the coaches or The GM? The answer, Comrade, is they're not. They'll either retire their player or screw their player and go inactive.

3. See answer one.


You know, your childish name calling aside, the issue is that you are suffering from the same thing I initially did when I first saw the post - selfishness. My immediate thoughts were that can make my team better, nevermind the ramifications to the league. What you are advocating is taking and pillaging from one team to give to another and leaving the one team gutted and helpless. That isn't capitalism, my friend. That's despotism.

Your answer to Option 3 is lacking. It is the right solution. If the players do not wish to remain on the team, they are then free to choose the team they wish to play for when their contract is up.





Greed's been around since the Bible. Its human nature to want to take from one to make something or someone else better. Shit doctors do it when they take from a dead body and give life to another. The gangsters are the dead body and we are the ones looking for the transplant. While that may be a drastic example it is pretty simple and signifies that of the real life world. Take from one to benefit another.

Originally posted by drazz00

I understand wanting freedom of choice for your players, but all the players are under the control of their contract owners. AND frankel said the issue was time to run the team GM's, man, that simple. Plenty of good guys out there happy to help.

And if the owner really wants to give up the team and some of his players want to go with him, then the prospective owner can be made awae of the fact and maybe agree to trade them all ahead of time. At least then, whoever this new owner is would be able to get some compensation.

This scenario being presented is EXACTLY what has caused the most issues on the board and EXACTLY what Bort has been working so hard to prevent.

Originally posted by purehatred
Originally posted by drazz00


I understand wanting freedom of choice for your players, but all the players are under the control of their contract owners. AND frankel said the issue was time to run the team GM's, man, that simple. Plenty of good guys out there happy to help.

And if the owner really wants to give up the team and some of his players want to go with him, then the prospective owner can be made awae of the fact and maybe agree to trade them all ahead of time. At least then, whoever this new owner is would be able to get some compensation.

This scenario being presented is EXACTLY what has caused the most issues on the board and EXACTLY what Bort has been working so hard to prevent.


But until something is put into place this is exactly what will happen. We will take and take and take until theirs nothing left or someone puts the ultimate stop to it. Always going to be someone out there that will do the opposite of what you or me think is right.

Originally posted by texasdanger
Originally posted by whteshark

What we have here is good old fashioned socialism--let's even the playing field so EVERYBODY has a chance to win while sitting around a campfire singing John Lennon's "Imagine."
Give me a break.
It's called a free market. Let the individual have the choice, let Frankel have the choice to take his players where ever his impulse may take him.....which better be The Revolvers, Comrade Frankel .


Hah, actually I figured someone would equate part of what I said to socialism, but look at what I have said in context. I do not care that all teams be equal. Rather, what I am advocating is not creating another welfare team. There are three options as I see it:

1. Give the players to a needy team - I am against this idea after thinking about it and I have tried to make that clear in my posts. I do not want the players on the Thunder if it means the end of the Gangsters.

2. Have a draft - distribute equally to all teams. This is what the NFL would do, the real-world model of what we are playing.

3. Keep the team as is and sell it to another owner. *DING* *DING* *DING* We have a winner! This is the perfect solution!



okay that might be your point now but your original thought was that no team that was decent already should be in the running for Frankel's services. Only teams that currently subpar should have any chance to sign him.. or am I mistaken? and still you have your three options that make sense to you and to your advantage so let me break them down for you.

1. a needy team doesnt deserve to sign free agents which is what they would be any more than a team that is already good. Unless there was some sort of salary cap to limit the money you can spend on players.. which there is not.
2. have a draft? these players are already playing in the pro's so this point is just a ridiculous.
3. this one is an option but only if he wants to stay there. and i wouldnt consider this gutting because we are talking about one guy.. moving his and his players alone... he isnt have a free for all sale of all his players to another team...so forget that notion from jump street

Originally posted by Shagg

Greed's been around since the Bible. Its human nature to want to take from one to make something or someone else better. Shit doctors do it when they take from a dead body and give life to another. The gangsters are the dead body and we are the ones looking for the transplant. While that may be a drastic example it is pretty simple and signifies that of the real life world. Take from one to benefit another.

Crazy metaphors aside, this still doesn't address the fact this seems to be against the actual rules of the game.

In order for those teams to move fomr one team to another, there should be fair compensation.

see above post if there was something in place we wouldn't be here discussing it and it wouldn't be happening. I'd be all for selling the team outright but thats the owner's decision.