19-20 Status Thread

[Phil-Cornwall]

There were rumors of collusion between 2 teams years ago, where one team would make a bare minimum 'shill' (up) a bid on another team's RFA

[Brian-Cleveland]

I'm pretty sure we've done all drafted RFAs get 25%.

[Scott-New York]

Integrity, first rule in the rule book

[Scott-New York]

Jul 3, 2019 14:56:57 GMT -5 Brian-Cleveland said:

I'm pretty sure we've done all drafted RFAs get 25%.

We have, in error. The rule book states differently.

[Phil-Cornwall]

Jul 3, 2019 14:57:09 GMT -5 Scott-New York said:

Integrity, first rule in the rule book

it happened. You'd have to read all their PM's to catch it doe.

[Scott-New York]

"Once the last phase has completed, owners will need to review all of their RFAs who have not been bid upon and decide to keep them (at 90% of asking price) or release them without penalty at which point they will become unrestricted free agents"

[Dane-Hamilton]

gtgfhl.proboards.com/post/34246

Teams who have had players bid on will then have 24 hours to decide if they will keep the player (by matching 90% of the highest bid or 90% of the players asking price, whichever is higher [note, if the player was a RFAI the percentage to match will be 75%])

Is it RFA I (drafted players) the only ones that get the 75%

[Scott-New York]

Yes, and only if they are bid on. RFA II & III get 90%

[Dane-Hamilton]

So from the rule book I found

Tier I (Drafted Players ELC) ** Can be matched by owning team if cap permits by paying the player 75% of highest offer or the players asking price whichever is higher **

and

Once the last phase has completed, owners will need to review all of their RFAs who have not been bid upon and decide to keep them (at 90% of asking price) or release them without penalty at which point they will become unrestricted free agents.

We have been allowing keeping of RFA I at 75% the last 3 years, is it possible that the last line wasn't updated in the rule book when we added RFA I definitions? Everything else in the rule book that has 90% except that line also has a note that says if RFA I it is 75%

[Dane-Hamilton]

If you make a bid on one of you own players your bid is your bid and you do not get to apply the 10% (for RFA II and RFA IIIs) or 25% (for RFA I) matching discount.

(by matching 90% of the highest bid or 90% of the players asking price, whichever is higher [note, if the player was a RFAI the percentage to match will be 75%])

Above are the examples from the rulebook

I think we just forgot to put the *or 75% of asking in that one line for RFA I

[Scott-New York]

I have a better question, why do we give the discounts at all? We get discounts when we sign to term. If an RFA is asking 8m, for example. Using 25% and 6 year term, he ends up being contracted at 5.25. At 90%, his contract is 6.3. What player and his agent are going to sign for 1.7 less than his asking or worse yet, 2.75. That's just not happening.

[Dane-Hamilton]

gtgfhl.proboards.com/post/43279/thread

Tier I players in the past have given the owning teams 75% off asking price if no bids are received, this seems right to me but can we get this cleared up as well?

Why the change of heart in less than a year?

[Scott-New York]

I believe it was suppose to be this way all along and was just calculated wrong. As I pointed out, why would a player take 2.75m less than he's asking?

[Dane-Hamilton]

Because he’s an RFA and we don’t have an arbitration system like the NHL. I’m sure most RFAs in the NHL have an asking price too they just don’t get it majority of the time.

[Scott-New York]

Do you think they take 25% off the top and then give their teams another 12.5% after that. It's nowhere near realistic no matter how you want to twist.