POLL 2020 - Hard or Soft Cap for IAFA signings

[David - Cleveland]

This past season we used the SOFT cap for IAFA signings.

In a nutshell, teams are limited to a certain number, in our case $5M. IF they choose to pay more, they are heavily penalized. But this does allow richer teams a certain advantage of course in that they are better able to pay.

A HARD cap would strictly limit, in our case $5M the amount that case be spent on IAFA signings. Not to colour the ballot, but I believe a more fair and equitable approach.

I will leave it to YOU to decide.

[aaron_commissioner]

I prefer soft cap, as penalties will still affect high spending teams in the long run. If we have a hard cap, non desirable teams may always have difficulty recruiting IFAs.

[tycobb32]

vote for soft cap

[CardsGM_Sean]

We can vote all we want but my issue was more so that we abruptly switched from a hard cap to a soft cap without any warning or explanation.

[David - Cleveland]

Dec 19, 2017 7:06:04 GMT -8 CardsGM_Sean said:

We can vote all we want but my issue was more so that we abruptly switched from a hard cap to a soft cap without any warning or explanation.

I believe I have already apologized for this.
And that is why this vote is being held, to firm this process for the future.

But thanks for the input!

[David - Cleveland]

We will go with the HARD CAP (remaining $5-Million) for the foreseeable future.
Again apologies for any confusion over this after I took over as Commissioner.

But we are good to go now!
And you can plan accordingly for your off-season budgeting based on this decision.