BDL 2019 Summer Owners Meeting - Completed

[TedLavie]

19 hours ago, Jlash said:

No idea what this means, but if you're voting 'no' to keep the language muddled then just say that. 

No I'm voting for the current rule, which is : if you cut someone (non 3d/fa/sub500 cut), you have to pay for his yearly salary the reminder of the contract. You're arguing, possibly rightfully so, that this rule was never voted for. I'm saying I want this rule in place for the future, and if we need to clean up the language then let's do it. I probably shouldn't be the one to do it though since I'm not a native speaker.

Fact is, the rule we have now prevented any of these kind of cuts for the 6 years I've been in BDL, which is the end result I want. Changing it now will create tanking opportunities I want to avoid. 

And the difficulty of tracking dead money is a fake excuse. We can do it easily and if SirA or bcb are concerned about it I will happily explain them how. 

[Jlash]

18 minutes ago, TedLavie said:

the rule we have now prevented any of these kind of cuts for the 6 years I've been in BDL

And somewhere along the line the language changed, and now it makes it seem like you can track dead cap over multiple years of a contract after cutting someone. We've never once agreed on that, so we won't be implementing it just because you or whoever added that ability into the spreadsheet. That's now how this works.

Again, for what, the fifth time, I know tracking dead cap isn't hard, because it's on the spreadsheet. But like bcb acknowledged, easy isn't necessarily free of future complications like I've pointed out. Bottom line is 1. We never agreed to track cap over multiple years and have never done it. 2. It does the opposite of what we're trying to do it, and adds unnecessary complications to all of this.

That's the last time I'll explain the same thing on this vote topic.

[TedLavie]

36 minutes ago, Jlash said:

And somewhere along the line the language changed, and now it makes it seem like you can track dead cap over multiple years of a contract after cutting someone. We've never once agreed on that, so we won't be implementing it just because you or whoever added that ability into the spreadsheet. That's now how this works.

Again, for what, the fifth time, I know tracking dead cap isn't hard, because it's on the spreadsheet. But like bcb acknowledged, easy isn't necessarily free of future complications like I've pointed out. Bottom line is 1. We never agreed to track cap over multiple years and have never done it. 2. It does the opposite of what we're trying to do it, and adds unnecessary complications to all of this.

That's the last time I'll explain the same thing on this vote topic.

You're missing my point but whatever.

I just don't feel the need to change something that has worked well before. 

[Jlash]

17 minutes ago, TedLavie said:

You're missing my point but whatever.

I just don't feel the need to change something that has worked well before. 

Not a change 

Not a change

Keeping track of dead cap over multiple years is a the change

Not a change

(That was to the tune of Allen Iverson 'practice' talk).

[Scoundrel]

Yes on 8