Re: Gorgui Dieng (MIN-C/PF)

by **DmanofGod1** Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:00 pm

All of this doesn't matter

Havanna has the legal bid and no vote is needed.

My bid was completely legal and now we all know the rules.

by **MistaDuMa** Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:06 pm

DmanofGod1 wrote:"Team can match the total contract with less year"

1) Is to the right in "reducing year"
2) Also in the hoops rule book under "free agency-reducing year"

well shit, fuck me right? Need to get back on that hooked on phonics

by **itssamman** Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:06 pm

Need to add something into the rulebook of different scenarios so things like this don't happen in the future. If someone wants to help and draft something, thanks

by **HELLFISH** Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:08 pm

MistaDuMa wrote:I mean... he's technically following the rule to the T but it's rule that doesn't make sense all the time.

for example

7.5/7.5/7.5/7.5 would be technically an invalid big since it's not 160% of $5m even though it's more money and less years.

This is definitely something we need to address.

yeah,
it a forum wide Bidding Rule that never did make much since to me.

i felt 60% was not a real #?
should be more like 15% for 1 year cut and 25% for 2 year cut

5 year 50M (10 Per) could be cut to
4 year 11.5M per for total of 46M
3 year 12.5M per for total of 37.5M

i dont see any one ever using the 60% or 75%

by **DmanofGod1** Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:12 pm

Yea, a change would be fine with me.

Though the 60% didn't apply here as the rules were clear my bid was legal.

But a 60% increase for 1 year and 75% increase for 2 years less is a bit much.

by **itssamman** Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:23 pm

Reading over the rule during lunch and I realize the 'or'.
My apologies. Crazy the stuff you can overlook when you're at work. Akron had a legal bid. My apologies for the confusion everybody

by **itssamman** Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:24 pm

And I agree with Akron 60/70% increase is a bit much. We should probably lower that. Will start a thread about this soon

by **tazzouz** Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:04 pm

I would assume the rule would mean that matching the contract with one lesser year would be the minimum, anything more than the original contract value with less years would also be suitable. That might be enough of a rule change to just say its a minimum

by **tazzouz** Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:05 pm

Yes, whats up with side deals? Shady shady business Razz

by Dalpsar Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:31 pm

tazzouz wrote:Yes, whats up with side deals? Shady shady business

Havana always doing shady business, you know how it works Rolling Eyes

by **HELLFISH** Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:52 pm

Dalpsar wrote:
tazzouz wrote:Yes, whats up with side deals? Shady shady business

Havana always doing shady business, you know how it works

Yeah Arkon went ZERO DARK 30 when i point out the mention of side agreement?

by **itssamman** Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:01 pm

HELLFISH wrote:
Dalpsar wrote:
tazzouz wrote:Yes, whats up with side deals? Shady shady business

Havana always doing shady business, you know how it works
Yeah Arkon went ZERO DARK 30 when i point out the mention of side agreement?

Do we need Robert Mueller to look into this? Lolol

by **DmanofGod1** Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:20 pm

well there was a friendly side agreement between me and Havanna

Nothing wrong with that. Just couldn't be enforced of course.

by dboy77_2000 Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:47 pm

I wouldn't call it a "deal"...more of a friendly understanding Wink

. No exchange of goods involved...

by **MistaDuMa** Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:38 pm

dboy77_2000 wrote:I wouldn't call it a "deal"...more of a friendly understanding . No exchange of goods involved...

That's what I said when I got busted with a hooker. Embarassed

by Sponsored content