Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
That's fine too. Don't really care, tbh. I guess the only benefit a no-trade would have as opposed to this would be that people wouldn't be able to offer for players you don't want them to with the no-trade and would with the player option.



Totally agree with you. Something should be done so that the no-trade option is more powerful for players.

My god there are some really ignorant and inexperienced players answering the OPs post in this thread. Its guys like them that ideas like this are needed.

A no trade option is already in game so effectively if signed that way the player already denounces all and any trades. No one seems to think this is a stupid idea because it is in game already. Now having an option to over ride the trade is a standard and normal thing in every professional sport where players can be traded. Of course it is not written into the contract but the manager and player/agent are intelligent humans and can sit down and over ride the agreement if the desire need be. This would also clear up a little problem of a GM screwing over teams by trading away all the players when the owner's back is turned.

I cant for the life of me figure out why some people say this is stupid because it gives the player power over the owner. If the owner doesnt want that as part of the original contract he doesn't have to sign the player (see what I did there? I flipped the common answer of "you signed the contract" and put it on the owner).


And if most of you guys would get your heads out of your asses you will see the player has zero power and most likely if the player rejected the trade he will be ridding the pines the rest of the season.

Also if you do not like the idea of an option to override the trade then as an owner you do not have to use this contract feature and as a player you can refuse to sign the offered contract.


I am all for this idea but Bort needs to find away for owners/teams to be penalized for benching rotting players first as this woulds just give immature owners another reason to screw over a player.

<3

Originally posted by SwagOnLock
As an owner I would never, ever offer a contract like this.

so you don't have to offer one. There's already a no-trade option that you can choose to offer or not.

This idea is a solid middle ground, and why it isn't implemented as an *option* is totally beyond me.

Indeed.

this idea could be enhanced to something like the baseball 10:5 rule

in this case we could name it the 4:1 or 5:1 rule which would state:

if a team has committed to one team for more than 4 consecutive seasons (or 5 if it's the 5:1) then that player gets the right to VETO a trade.

honestly i don't understand the purpose of a NO TRADE CLAUSE. if the owner doesn't want to trade him, he doesn't have to trade him. why is there a no trade to begin with? i would like clarification on that.

*headdesk*

The no trade clause isn't for the owner, it's for the player. If the player wants to go to the team with which they signed and played there, it sucks if they sign on for 2 seasons and 2 weeks later the owner trades them to some winless team who just got gutted.

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
*headdesk*

The no trade clause isn't for the owner, it's for the player. If the player wants to go to the team with which they signed and played there, it sucks if they sign on for 2 seasons and 2 weeks later the owner trades them to some winless team who just got gutted.

oh ok, cuz it seems like people want the no-trade clause so that the players don't ask management to trade them. thats what i thought it was mainly used for.

i never knew a player would demand a no-trade clause, but after hearing what you are saying, now i see how it benefits the players.

p.s. i know how a no-trade clause favors in professional sports, just didn't realize that GLB one was more to protect the owners than the players.

Ah. Well, yeah, that's how they work.

.

I'm just going to keep bumping this until one of the following happens:

1. It is implemented (or Bort says that he intends to do so).

2) It is moved into epic suggestions.

3) A mod gives a reason for it NOT being moved into epic suggestions.

4. Someone finding SOME sort of actual downside to it.

I like it. The 2 ideas have always been make players approve all trades but the counter (which IMO makes perfect sense) is "they shouldn't have to it doesn't happen IRL" so i like the idea of having the acceptance clause

Well at least you're letting it get off the front page with the bumps (+1 to you)

The idea is great, it stops a LOT of crying on the forums, and shouldn't be ridiculously difficult (+1 to the idea)

For a bonus point it increases the importance of communications between players, owners, and trading team's owners (bonus +1)

The only problem I can see is if a player goes inactive? Maybe make it so if they player doesn't reject a trade in 7 days then it is auto-approved?

Well, I'm not gonna spam it or anything, I'm just not going to let it die like I have with a number of other good ideas that have been agreed with a lot and not done anything with.

Good call on that last bit though. Finally a legitimate (if very small) issue. And an interesting one at that. I'm not sure I know what the best answer would be. I mean, that is definitely a potential solution. At the same time, you could just leave it as is and if the player isn't around to approve the trade, then no trade is made. I see the frustration but, at that point, it's just functioning like a no-trade clause. Sucks for the owner as it always does if a player goes inactive for a while, but the point of the idea pretty much IS to be a no-trade clause with the possibility for a trade if all parties agree without the player needing to re-sign and trust the owner's intentions.

I'd be open to suggestions on that though and/or administrative decision regarding it.

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Well, I'm not gonna spam it or anything, I'm just not going to let it die like I have with a number of other good ideas that have been agreed with a lot and not done anything with.

Good call on that last bit though. Finally a legitimate (if very small) issue. And an interesting one at that. I'm not sure I know what the best answer would be. I mean, that is definitely a potential solution. At the same time, you could just leave it as is and if the player isn't around to approve the trade, then no trade is made. I see the frustration but, at that point, it's just functioning like a no-trade clause. Sucks for the owner as it always does if a player goes inactive for a while, but the point of the idea pretty much IS to be a no-trade clause with the possibility for a trade if all parties agree without the player needing to re-sign and trust the owner's intentions.

I'd be open to suggestions on that though and/or administrative decision regarding it.

I agree with Knick's solution, although I'd make it four days (because players normally should be logging in at least every other day to check their team's board and tactics).

Basically, if an owner attempts to trade a player with such a clause, the player gets an alert, with a link to "Accept the Trade" or "Refuse the Trade."

If he clicks "Accept the Trade," the trade goes through that night. If he clicks "Refuse the Trade," the trade is refused and that player cannot be offered in a new trade to that team for a set time period (to prevent owners' essentially spamming the player).

If he clicks neither within 4 days, then the trade is treated as accepted and goes through.

I agree that this should be epic, btw.