Owner disputes (1 Viewer)

[Wrigley]

We came away from our winter meeting with several potential rule change

One of which was a limit on the number of transactions a team is allowed to make(I'm not looking for a discussion on the merits of this rule.

The problem has come up after the totals had been calculated, and the rules had been passed. One owner believes the "rules" question was misleading, and hard to understand, and thus believes there should be a re-vote

Here is the rule as it was written:

2: Transaction limits: y/n

if yes, what limit: 80 or 90 transactions(if the transaction limits are passed, the transaction limit with the most votes will be accepted)

The total were:

Yes: 9

NO: 3(the 3 highest transactions last year)

Transaction votes:

80-6

90-3

The owner, with the problem, believes that if given a choice, the owners that voted for 90 would have voted for no, rather than voting for 80.

He concedes that a transaction limit should be in place(after all 9 owners did vote for it), but that the league should re-vote on the number of transactions the league is limited to. His thinking is that the owners that didn't want a limit, would all vote for 90, and thus give us a 6-6 vote..........While I contend that the league has already voted.......and the "no" vote was their vote.

First, should I have another vote? Second, who should be allowed to vote? The owners that voted for the limit, or the league as a whole? Third, is the question misleading, or is this owner just upset that they didn't get their way?

Your help would be appreciated.

 

[Big Blue Wrecking Crew]

Ideally, you would have worded the initial question to have all voters vote on the transaction number, whether their vote was yes or no, so I can see where the other vote has a bit of a beef.

Best thing to do now would be to revote on transaction number with a compromise number in mind if there is a tie (i.e. 85 transactions if 6-6 vote occurs). This way, you avoid a third vote.

HTH

 

[Wrigley]

Of course the owners that didn't want the limit, are going to want the largest limit they can receive.

 

[DropKick]

"The owner, with the problem, believes that if given a choice, the owners that voted for 90 would have voted for no, rather than voting for 80."

I think it was worded fine and I don't buy the statement above. They voted "yes" knowing the actual number would be decided upon and that the lower number was a possibility. If they couldn't live with "80", they should have voted "no".

 

[the moops]

Winter meetings?

Yikes

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Winter meetings?Yikes

 

[Oh Yes!]

Winter meetings?Yikes

they are fun. drunken meetinngs.

 

[Wrigley]

Winter meetings?Yikes

don't hate the game

 

[ditka...mike ditka]

sounds like you should just allow unlimited ones and have a transaction fee. Kinda silly to limit owners that want to be active.

 

[Oh Yes!]

Kinda silly to limit owners that want to be active.

couldnt agree more. im one of the more active owners in this league. actually the most active. i generally have around 100-120 moves a year. making more moves doesnt always translate to success. pretty sure i dropped a few guys (bradley) that could of helped me... i finished 9/12

 

[Tom Servo]

From the way I read it, if you were opposed to a transaction limit, you didn't vote on the second question. I could see how that owner could come to that conclusion coming from a high-transaction man myself. Of course, I'd have voted for the higher limit in an attempt to limit the damage. Then, next year and in subsequent years, seek to either hike the limit or eliminate it.