If a player retires

[Marklar_33]

while theres a contract offer up for him, he wont sign it

So should a team have to pay a contract to a player who WONT sign it due to retirement?

 

[Virgil]

Re: 2008-09 Bidding/Trading/Extending/Father-Son

Cancel those bids on Massie and Hyde then

They dont want contracts, they've retired

Thought Massie would be kept with Bassett gone

Im not taking a hit on those 2 players, no way, thats ******* bullshit

Being delisted /= retirement.

 

[sante]

Yes, they should still pay him.

 

[sante]

Re: 2008-09 Bidding/Trading/Extending/Father-Son

Can you withdraw bids on players, whose bid is not activated?

 

[wheels4]

if you want to make the game more realistic i would say no.

actually seeing as massie was delisted maybe u should have to pay his contract that u offered him, because it would mean you delisted him after making an offer so he would probably accept the offer.

Hyde you should not have to pay because first you offered him a contract then he retired so it would be like trying to offer someone a contract but they decline and say no im retiring.

 

[Virgil]

Was thinking about this before. I think if the contract has been signed (ie. Hyde) then it should have to be paid out, as this is actually what happens (see M. Voss). However, in Massie's case, I think he should be able to withdraw his contract offer, seeing as he hasn't actually been signed yet.

So, Massie could be dropped but Hyde has to be paid out. Perhaps Hyde can qualify as a long term injury, thus allowing a rookie to be promoted?

 

[Virgil]

Re: 2008-09 Bidding/Trading/Extending/Father-Son

Hyde retired then

Massie good as, he;s no longer getting a contract from me

Withdraw offer to Benjamin as well, cheers

Have you actually got any of these players contracted for next season Marklar, or have you just got bids on them? If you only have bids on them, then they aren't on your list and hence you don't have to pay them squat. If you actually won a contract, however, you'll have to pay them out as per the rules.

 

[Virgil]

Re: 2008-09 Bidding/Trading/Extending/Father-Son

Can you withdraw bids on players, whose bid is not activated?

Can't see why not. You offer them a contract and then renege before it is signed, ala Nathan Thompson. Can't see a logistical problem with that.

 

[sante]

Re: 2008-09 Bidding/Trading/Extending/Father-Son

Can't see why not. You offer them a contract and then renege before it is signed, ala Nathan Thompson. Can't see a logistical problem with that.

But can I then offer them a different contract?

 

[Russian]

Hyde only retired because he didn't get a contract. If Massie retires it will be for the same reasons. Nobody will convince me otherwise on that.

Also rule 4 in the bidding thread says Once you make a bid, it is final. While that may not be the best wording, the intent is that you cannot withdraw it or change it. The corrections are only supposed to be for typos. If there's a lot of coaches who want this changed I'll change it, but as much as I'd like to take back a couple of my offers, I won't be supporting it.

The point of offering a 30 day contract was to set a starting point for a contract, not to give you 30 days to wait and see if a stat getting spud gets delisted. Otherwise you could make 5 year $1m 30-day bids on all your players, and stop anybody else bidding until you were sure what contract you wanted, then withdraw the offer and make a new bid for that contract. You can't compare it to Nathan Thompson, as the only reason that drags on is because he and his manager don't want to sign the deal immediately. The delays here are to allow counter bids to determine a fair price, because we don't have players and managers to do it for us.

Nobody was forced to make a bid before October 31 when AFL delistments will be known. The idea is that you offer contracts to those you are certain are staying, and consider the risk when offering contracts to others, same as you have to consider what you're doing when offering a 5 year deal to a 28 year old.

 

[Virgil]

Hyde only retired because he didn't get a contract. If Massie retires it will be for the same reasons. Nobody will convince me otherwise on that.

Also rule 4 in the bidding thread says Once you make a bid, it is final. While that may not be the best wording, the intent is that you cannot withdraw it or change it. The corrections are only supposed to be for typos. If there's a lot of coaches who want this changed I'll change it, but as much as I'd like to take back a couple of my offers, I won't be supporting it.

The point of offering a 30 day contract was to set a starting point for a contract, not to give you 30 days to wait and see if a stat getting spud gets delisted. Otherwise you could make 5 year $1m 30-day bids on all your players, and stop anybody else bidding until you were sure what contract you wanted, then withdraw the offer and make a new bid for that contract.

There is no advantage to the part that I have bolded, because withdrawing the bid would give the rest of us the opportunity that was supposedly denied to begin with.

I don't have a problem with withdrawing bids. Occasionally things don't go as planned and you're left in Marklar's position. It's nonsensical for him to not be able to reassess his contracts in light of new developments. Nothing has been signed yet, and now that certain players don't have clubs it would be silly to sign them on.

The only problem it creates is the administrative aspect where you then have to fix stuff. I can see how that would be ridiculously annoying, but I still think, for authenticity's sake, that current bids should be withdraw-able. Players who have signed on for next year should have to remain on the list, but I see no logical reason for forcing Marklar to sign Massie, etc.

 

[loopy_cam]

I agree with Russian.

 

[Russian]

There is no advantage to the part that I have bolded, because withdrawing the bid would give the rest of us the opportunity that was supposedly denied to begin with.

I can work out how to exploit that, I'm sure others can too

The only problem it creates is the administrative aspect where you then have to fix stuff.

And there's that

 

[Virgil]

I can work out how to exploit that, I'm sure others can too

So how does this relate to Marklar? Would you agree that, for the purposes of this game, it is illogical to offer a contract to a player that does not have a club? And if so, would it also not be logical to withdraw an offer made to a player who has since become clubless?

How about a new rule regarding bids on players who subsequently get delisted or retire, on the provision that the bid has not yet been finalised?

 

[iampig]

I agree with Russian.

Yep..ditto

Way I see it u have 2 choices regarding Spud/Fringe Dweller players

Back your judgement & try to sign em cheap in Oct while doubt over their future exists.

or

Play it safe & wait till November to sign em when their future is clear increasing the risk of bidding from oppo clubs.

 

[Russian]

So how does this relate to Marklar?

Because the only way he gets what he wants is if there's a rule change. If there is a way to exploit a rule change it will be exploited, like every other one has been. And I'd rather leave one rule that isn't broken as long as coaches think instead of just bidding for anyone and everyone, than bring in a new one then another 3 to close the loopholes.

Would you agree that, for the purposes of this game, it is illogical to offer a contract to a player that does not have a club?

Yes. That's why I wouldn't have offered them contracts. It's stupid. As it would be for =KaNga= to bid on Crawford, even though he'll get better points on a bad day than Hyde or Massie at their best. He didn't do it.

How about a new rule regarding bids on players who subsequently get delisted or retire, on the provision that the bid has not yet been finalised?

It might happen (after the AFL PSD as they're not definitely gone until then) but I don't like it

 

[Marklar_33]

Meh, only one year deals

 

[Elite Pete]

Agree with Russian