[USML Announce] USML - Comments on transactions and reporting

[Blocker, Mark B.]

Jeff:
 
  I agree with all of your comments.  However, I am happy to correct the transactions if you like.  Give me a call and we can work out who will do what.  I will have time tonight to work on this.
 
  -- Mark B.
 


________________________________

	From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of JHWinick at aol.com
	Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 3:12 PM
	To: announce at usml.net
	Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Comments on transactions and reporting
	
	
	
	In a message dated 4/11/2007 8:56:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mblocker at Sidley.com writes:

		Gang: 

		  Some comments on the various e-mails about transactions. 

		1.  Week One transactions:  Unless I misunderstood the transaction reporting for the first week, I do not think we properly entered the post-draft transactions.  On the website, all of the players that were the subject of post-draft transactions appear to have been activated as if they started the season on the active roster, and my understanding was that those players would be activated effective 4/8.  Here is an example.  I drafted Juan Rivera, who is on the DL, and after the draft replaced him with Mike Sweeney, who I obtained in the rotation draft.  Again, my understanding was that for players I obtained at auction, I got their first week stats no matter what (in this case, a zero since he is on the DL), and then Sweeney was activated as of Sunday, April 8.  However, on the system, all 20 ABs that Sweeney has since opening day (4/1) show up on my team totals.  In addition, if you click on transactions, there are zero transactions listed with an effective date of April 8, even though there should have been numerous such transactions.  Am I wrong about this or just missing something?  IF I am right, I will compile a list of post-draft transactions and go back and fix all of this retroactively.

		2.  GOP transaction:  A transaction was entered yesterday for GOP, but it shows an effective date of 4/9 (Monday).  That can't be right under any scenario, is it?

		3.  Future FAAB transactions:  I had not considered the issue of how to handle our e-bay style FAAB bidding.  I do not believe that we can handle it by simply adjusting down the contract of the obtained player, because I think the system will deduct the full amount of the actual bid from a team's FAAB budget.  I will do some looking around the site, but it seems to me that the likely fix will be to (1) continue to have teams submit sealed bids to usmltrans and (2) sometime on Sunday evening, I will review at them, and then "un-do" any affected transactions and re-enter them as if the appropriate e-bay price had been paid.  This will still reduce the burden on the commissioner, because the only transactions that will need to be re-entered are ones where there are competing bids.  

		  I am interested in people's thoughts on the above items. 

		  -- Mark B. 

	Mark,
	 
	1.  You are correct on the transactions being back-dated too far.  That was my fault and is a function of entering things in the middle of the night.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll be happy to correct those so that they reflect activation on the 8th, rather than the 1st.
	 
	2.  The GOP transaction should be effective on the 8th.  Another mistake on my part, but one that's easy to correct.
	 
	3.  I think you and I are on the same page with respect to FAAB.  But here is my take.  We will use the automated system, with the understanding that the system will automatically award the player to the successful bidder at the full bid price.  Teams will have to shadow their bids with submissions to USMLTrans and either you or I will then correct both the salary of the player as well as add dollars back to the successful team's FAAB budget.  As for all other transactions issues, including contingent bidding, I think we agree that we will allow what the system will accommodate and otherwise our rules will change to match the functionality of All Star Stats.
	 
	Jeff



	
________________________________

	See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . 


Sidley Austin LLP mail server made the following annotations on 04/11/07, 15:28:06:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this
communication, including attachments, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on such 
taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.  In addition, if any such tax advice is used or referred
to by other parties in promoting, marketing or recommending any partnership or other entity,
investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be construed as written in connection
with the promotion or marketing by others of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this
communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20070411/cd12f907/attachment-0001.htm