Franchising a Player Rules

[Jared A]

It's been discussed... however, would we be adding the 10% pay increase to the costs of franchising a player?


I can see it both ways, but wanted to hear what Troy was thinking.

[Ben C.]

Technically this is a rule that has been a part of this game from the beginning. Here's a link to the original rules on franchise tags: http://www.fangm.com/affl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22 and the relevant part:

Franchise players will be paid at least an annual salary equal to an average of the top 5 players at his position (QB, RB, WR, TE, OL, DL, LB, DB, K/P) or 120% of their existing annual salary (whichever is higher)

So if, for example, AFFL's Green Bay were to put the franchise tag on Eli Manning in 2011, he would be guaranteed a salary of at least $31,200,000 based on a 20% increase from his 2010 salary of $26,000,000.

[Onyxgem]

Technically this is a rule that has been a part of this game from the beginning. Here's a link to the original rules on franchise tags: http://www.fangm.com/affl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22 and the relevant part:

Franchise players will be paid at least an annual salary equal to an average of the top 5 players at his position (QB, RB, WR, TE, OL, DL, LB, DB, K/P) or 120% of their existing annual salary (whichever is higher)

So if, for example, AFFL's Green Bay were to put the franchise tag on Eli Manning in 2011, he would be guaranteed a salary of at least $31,200,000 based on a 20% increase from his 2010 salary of $26,000,000.

Yup forgot all about that 120% increase they are supposed to get, but the question would be...what is somebody bid the % of the amount on the franchise tag like they normally do, would that still have to be the 75% of 31mil or?

[Goodell]

It's something that's written as the NFL had it for franchise tags, but nothing we've ever instituted and it's always been the team selects who they are going to tag and we used the published values by position from NFL for top 5 or top 10 salaries, and don't even look to our own salaries to calculate that but go off the NFL's numbers for what a top player at a position should be worth generally.

I would probably see it as something that would be an off-season topic and poll next year as to whether we don't just use the NFL's numbers for all tags, but instead also look at the sim salary and do the increase requirement based upon our sim salary if applicable or possibly also calculate our own top 5/10 salaries based upon sim league contracts.

It would be great if everything was going to be set in stone for the next 5 years, but with the volitility in the NFL right now we have no idea what the next labor agreement will bring or what new rules will come with that. We may not institute all new rules (as most voted not to this year) but we'd probably try to replicate the spirit of the new NFL rules whenever they get a new aggreement. There may not even be franchise tags then, who knows. A lot of uncertainty about the NFL's future and what they are going to agree to.

It's a good point about the salary increase and something that we've had slip through the cracks every off-season in naming tagged players because it was so much more efficient to just rely upon the NFL's numbers. Whether or not we stop doing that would probably have to be put to the usual rules discussions, but probably not until next off-season because we wouldn't change a rule for this season now plus it could even be irrelevant depending upon the new labor agreement and if most GMs want to go along with a new reality for next year that also changes how things have been done. Not ideal, but the NFL GMs face much of that same uncertainty these days with the labor agreement problems.

[John W.]

I understand that we use the NFL's average top 5 salary for our free agency because it is easier than trying to track multiple leagues. But I would say that the 120% figure should be followed as the purpose of it to me seems to be to avoid GMs overpaying in the last (or only) year of a players contract. Also a player should not be expected to accept a pay-cut because he is good.

It was also included in the rules since the beginning so I don't think it should require a new vote to implement.

[Onyxgem]

I understand that we use the NFL's average top 5 salary for our free agency because it is easier than trying to track multiple leagues. But I would say that the 120% figure should be followed as the purpose of it to me seems to be to avoid GMs overpaying in the last (or only) year of a players contract. Also a player should not be expected to accept a pay-cut because he is good.

It was also included in the rules since the beginning so I don't think it should require a new vote to implement.

Since the rule has never been used it has to be voted on IMHO. But i also think that even if it is voted on it should't go into effect till the next year after it is voted on so everybody knows what the rules are going to be going into FA.

[John W.]

Since the rule has never been used it has to be voted on IMHO. But i also think that even if it is voted on it should't go into effect till the next year after it is voted on so everybody knows what the rules are going to be going into FA.

It was listed as the initial Franchise Player rule on Mon Jul 02, 2007 (http://www.fangm.com/affl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22).

Just because the issue hasn't come up shouldn't void the rule.

[Onyxgem]

Since the rule has never been used it has to be voted on IMHO. But i also think that even if it is voted on it should't go into effect till the next year after it is voted on so everybody knows what the rules are going to be going into FA.

It was listed as the initial Franchise Player rule on Mon Jul 02, 2007 (http://www.fangm.com/affl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22).

Just because the issue hasn't come up shouldn't void the rule.

And as the commish said it has never been used before. Even if there was a area where it should have been used it never has been used...so the rule is voided itself.

[John W.]

it never been enforced or has the situation never occured?

[Onyxgem]

it never been enforced or has the situation never occured?

Sounds to me like it has never been enforced because we use the NFL salaires to determing the franchise stuff not our salaries here.