|
|
Post by CSCommish on Sept 15, 2014 23:34:54 GMT -5
Hmm...
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Sept 15, 2014 23:35:28 GMT -5
Huh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Sept 15, 2014 23:35:39 GMT -5
What emergency?
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Sept 15, 2014 23:37:20 GMT -5
lol sorry. I CTRL-Enter'd when I wasn't ready.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Sept 15, 2014 23:38:11 GMT -5
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Sept 15, 2014 23:38:59 GMT -5
I think each situation should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but that's just my take
|
|
Matt
Other 
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Sept 15, 2014 23:39:51 GMT -5
As long as it is monitored and not abused I don't see a problem to try and help a new guy out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Sept 15, 2014 23:40:10 GMT -5
Steve's finances weren't good, but over time in other leagues, I've seen much worse situations that have required more action and trades. I just don't see a general rule thoroughly solving this issue because there are always different variables in each situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Sept 15, 2014 23:43:04 GMT -5
You got a point there Shale, but I wasn't comfortable arbitrarily giving darryl 20M just because I'm a nice guy. It needs to be tied to something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Sept 15, 2014 23:44:00 GMT -5
But in BBSBL, people can now direct deposit board cash into in-game cash, even though people still make cash swap deals there all the time. There could always be a points to in-game cash direct deposit here as well, but with how valuable points are, I can't see too many people taking that option over trading for more in-game cash. Plenty of teams here have cash to move, so there isn't a lack of in-game cash like there now is in BBSBL.
Just some stuff to keep in mind.
|
|
Spencer
General Manager 
Posts: 5,928
|
Post by Spencer on Sept 15, 2014 23:44:03 GMT -5
Once for only new GMs. How about only to get back to 0?
Or enough to cover expenses for the current year?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Sept 15, 2014 23:44:46 GMT -5
You got a point there Shale, but I wasn't comfortable arbitrarily giving darryl 20M just because I'm a nice guy. It needs to be tied to something. I wasn't suggesting that either, but each situation is different and this one isn't that huge compared to other financial messes I've encountered. |
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Sept 15, 2014 23:50:42 GMT -5
6 teams here have max $50 million in-game cash. I understand this for FA purposes, but Darryl can easily find a way to trade for $10-20 million if not more.
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Sept 16, 2014 0:10:39 GMT -5
6 teams here have max $50 million in-game cash. I understand this for FA purposes, but Darryl can easily find a way to trade for $10-20 million if not more. Find a way.... yes. Easily? Just depends on who those teams are and how much they want to bail him out. |
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Sept 16, 2014 0:15:55 GMT -5
6 teams here have max $50 million in-game cash. I understand this for FA purposes, but Darryl can easily find a way to trade for $10-20 million if not more. Find a way.... yes. Easily? Just depends on who those teams are and how much they want to bail him out. True |
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on Sept 16, 2014 1:42:47 GMT -5
I like the idea of only doing it once. Though I have plans in the works to get my cash sorted out as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Glover on Sept 16, 2014 6:02:17 GMT -5
Find a way.... yes. Easily? Just depends on who those teams are and how much they want to bail him out. True |
|
noah
Other
Posts: 843 
|
Post by noah on Sept 16, 2014 11:48:01 GMT -5
I think it'd be good to allow a new owner one opportunity to decide to draw any amount from stadium cash to in-game cash.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Sept 16, 2014 19:38:33 GMT -5
Leaning towards permitting this; after all, the team did earn those profitable dollars; my system is arbitrarily moving into a made-up account.
Teams with no stadium fund will have to find ways to rectify the situation, ie: trade, waive, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Sept 16, 2014 19:58:07 GMT -5
I would keep it to a relatively small amount, and maybe just enough to cover negative cash. Get them back to zero, or maybe $5M, and let them go from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Sept 16, 2014 20:19:05 GMT -5
I think the wording would be something along the lines of:
Owners who take over franchises with negative cash balances shall be permitted to withdraw from the team's Stadium Fund back into the Cash on Hand. In no case shall more than 20M from the Stadium Fund be withdrawn for such purposes, nor shall the team's Cash on Hand exceed 10M as a result of such transfer. This one-time withdrawal shall be limited to changes in ownership only, whether by a new owner or transfer in ownership, and shall occur only during the new owner's first off-season.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Sept 16, 2014 20:20:05 GMT -5
...ideally before the first FA sim so that the new owner can partake in the festive activities.
|
|
noah
Other
Posts: 843
|
Post by noah on Sept 17, 2014 10:04:35 GMT -5
I think the wording would be something along the lines of: Owners who take over franchises with negative cash balances shall be permitted to withdraw from the team's Stadium Fund back into the Cash on Hand. In no case shall more than 20M from the Stadium Fund be withdrawn for such purposes, nor shall the team's Cash on Hand exceed 10M as a result of such transfer. This one-time withdrawal shall be limited to changes in ownership only, whether by a new owner or transfer in ownership, and shall occur only during the new owner's first off-season. My suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Sept 17, 2014 10:09:11 GMT -5
I think the wording would be something along the lines of: Owners who take over franchises with negative cash balances shall be permitted to withdraw from the team's Stadium Fund back into the Cash on Hand. In no case shall more than 20M from the Stadium Fund be withdrawn for such purposes, nor shall the team's Cash on Hand exceed 10M as a result of such transfer. This one-time withdrawal shall be limited to changes in ownership only, whether by a new owner or transfer in ownership, and shall occur only during the new owner's first off-season. My suggestion. Good suggestion, maybe it's franchises with 10M in Cash on Hand or less. |
|
noah
Other
Posts: 843
|
Post by noah on Sept 17, 2014 10:41:01 GMT -5
The second sentence covers it pretty well, I think. You can bump up to no higher than $10m in hand with no more than $20m of your stadium fund.
My personal preference is for more liberal take-backsies, but it's a well-thought and cogent rule as it is.
|
|
