Abrogation of "And they'll never be back" rule

Do you want this rule that doesn't let players being traded back get abrogated?
Why did buree allow previous trades that violated the rule to go through and decide to implement the trade now...is it fair or he's going to satisfy his personal purpose (everything seems to let people think that way)?

The rule itself doesnt make much sense to me, its not this rare for a team to reacquire a player in reality, but I'm not sure what are the reasons behind the rule.

So a good question would be: "why the rule is there to begin with?".

I highly doubt bure had a purpose, I dont really see any trade heavily hurting his chances...unless Erik Cole became a sniper overnight, which probably didnt happen.

Claude, it's not Christmas anymore.
See when the Booth's trade get processed.

The rule has been violated several times now and implementing it now and retroactively is not good conduct at all. How far do you go back to negating trades? What about if some of those players also eventually got traded away? Do you negate those trades to? That's something that's only done to save face. You cannot implement a rule when it has never been implemented all season!!! Either make sure the rule is applied starting next season or completely wipe it away. That is the way this league should conduct itself.

Until I get some serious evidence I'm going to think everyone plays with honor and pride just like my team does, thats my point of view.

I'm not really sure about what to vote, but hopefully someone will explain why there is such a rule to help us decide.


The "retroactivity" thing isnt coming from the committee, its just something I (me, myself) thought could be used for Plek deal (cause it happened like 2 days ago) but hardly could be used for anything happened before.

Buree opinion about possible similar problems in older trades was "if they happened, its too late to fix, nevermind about them", you probably missed that cause it was in Italian.

Do you really think doesn't know what he's doing? He's not an angel. He has even yet to respond to any of my posts. If he is in the right, he should have no problem responding to me. How long have you known about this rule, Mik? Did you just conveniently decide to remember it today?

The more time it takes to hear for a response from Mik, the angrier I become. Why the rule was suddenly remembered today? This is a folly on the league's part. Not mine. Why am I being punished for it? Mik and the trade commission are supposed to know all the rules at all times. This mishap is not my fault and could have been avoided with a prior precedent.

You know, Mik, instead of just deciding to negate the trades, you could have just put the trades under review and allowed the entire league to vote. The other members maybe could have saved your ass on this one. But, you took matters into your own hands. This is disturbing, especially when you and the trade commission made such a royal screw up. In a screw up like this, such unilateral decisions should not be made. A reasonable person could also have allowed my trades to go through and then just say that no such trades will be allowed in the future from here onward. But, no, you take the unilateral approach and decided to throw me under the bus.

Edited by superjoe1991 - 26/1/2011, 21:18

He said he had to go out (for a gay gangbang I guess) so you'll have to wait his return for a reply...

And CG joins the fun...LOL

Mik went with his girlfriend to the cinema tonight.
He'll be back later...and I can't wait to see his feedback.

I can't vote in the poll?...

But I want it deleted.

I don't know what happened in the past, if there were trades of players who have "gone back"in their teams before the old contract expired, also with the players Mik.
If yes(with Mik's players), we can think of a bad faith by Mik, otherwise it is likely that Mik hasn't noticed any irregularities, like the other commissioners.

It 'hard to decide whether to cancel or not. In theory no, if there was no need to delete it because this rule will have a reason to exist, we decided together when we created the rules.

Delete it is to admit that we realized, and then to accommodate all we pretend it never existed. It 'so easy.

If there were other irregularities in the past, we can think of "suspending" the rule only temporarily until the end of the season. Go back and correct it is very difficult, but the rule, if we think carefully about it, is a correct rule and right to exist.

lol, everything like.. what?


to prevent loans and limit 'grey' trades.
Something could happen frequently otherwise, like these days are showing.


i forgot about that rule, it was thought and created like 3 years ago. Latest flurry of trades (some of them being fishy.. and some other teams ideas i learned) made me wondering if there was not anything against it.. i went back to check and found the rule was there.

It's funny the one who found we were missing something is the one who gets the blame.
You talk like i'm the only one responsible for forgetting about the rule.. no idea why i should be considered as such, especially when i don't think i had taken advantage of it yet.


any GM is supposed to know the rules. They were made public you know lol.
If someone doesn't know the rules it might happen that will hurt him. How weird eh?


The trades were blocked waiting for LC decision, that's all that matters. And it was inevitable after realizing they were against the rules.
So much for your crappy accusations.


would you mind to provide some examples of players that came back to their former team during the length of the same contract?


the outcome of this thread will be taken into consideration, but the decision to keep the rule or nor it's only League Commission's decision.

Per come la vedo io, applicare la cancellazione delle trade soltanto a quelle fatte dopo che mik ha riscoperto la regola (con un certo tempismo sospetto) non va bene, secondo me, o le si annullano tutte oppure per quest'anno si tollera questa situazione e dall'anno prossimo si applica la regola in modo rigido, con le penalità del caso.
La regola però, sempre secondo me, andrebbe modificata se non cancellata, perché così com'è è molto restrittiva soprattutto in regime di salary cap che produce spesso la necessità di muovere giocatori per l'esigenza di rientrare nel tetto e poi perché rendrebbe il gioco più dinamico con possibilità maggiori di movimento.

e' probabilmente una delle poche regole del regolamento che mi ricordavo e quindi ci sono affezionato. Don't delete it!

mah, con tutti i giocatori che ci sono è così restrittivo non potersi riprendere uno che si è già avuto durante lo stesso contratto?!
magari si potrebbe specificare per l'anno prossimo che il giocatore può tornare se nel frattempo è passato da un'altra squadra.. ma resterebbe lo spazio x il magheggio a 3

Quanto al fatto che altre trade (poche credo) siano passate pur infrangendo la stessa regola, riscrivo qui quello che ho chiesto in commissione:
se uno viene beccato mentre vi ruba in casa vi parrebbe logico permetterglielo perché qualcun altro ha svaligiato un altro domicilio facendola franca? cosa ci sarebbe di inaccettabile nell'impedirglielo?
ovviamente mi riferisco al principio, non sto paragonando i reati..


Sottolineo che cancellare una regola in corsa perché qualcosa è sfuggito in passato può far passare un principio pericoloso:
se scopro che in passato è accaduto qualcosa di non perfettamente regolare (magari senza nessun dolo) posso scientemente compiere la stessa irregolarità (con dolo) forte del fatto che nessuno potrà impedirmelo anche se mi beccano, perché tanto potrò dire che si era già verificata.


ma perché 'sto forum dice che ho già votato nel sondaggio anche se non è vero? era già successo l'altra volta..
in pratica se guardi i risultati ti dice che hai già votato..
non vuole che uno voti sulla base dell'andamento? un forum antipecoroni insomma