I'm aware of when a contract is offered there is a disclaimer, but what is the reason we can't renegotiate a contract with 1 season contract players. It happens in the NFL and other sports and I honestly can't see any reason?

Cheers

Actually, it doesn't happen in the NFL. This is how it works:

A veteran may not renegotiate to raise his salary for twelve months after the most recent renegotiation. Additionally, no player or team can agree to renegotiate a term of a previously signed contract for a prior year. No contract can be negotiated for a current season after the last regular season game. Furthermore, rookie contracts cannot be renegotiated for one year after the signing date or the following August 1, whichever is later.

I stand corrected, problem still exists though

Granted, can see what happens in NFL but this is a game, not real life. Sometimes things need to be different from a gameplay perspective.

So basically, my questions as a dumbo from the UK not knowing every arcane rule of the No Fun League are simple ones.

Is what Gustoon described a problem that affects the gameplay of this cracking game? Is it something that would irritate people joining the game afresh who like American Football but not to the extent of knowing every contract rule the No Fun League have?

The reason for this rule is because of a loophole it creates - you could, theoretically, outbid all other players to sign a player to a one year contract with a low bonus, then renegotiate to a long term more favorable deal; this rule is in place to force you to participate legitimately in the free agent bidding, it's there to prevent gamesmanship from this loophole.

Yeah I understand that, but surely a rule could be put in that if you sign a FA to a one season deal you couldn't renegotiate a low-ball deal like that, the same way a trade would work?
But also give the host team first dibs on that player.

Some of the bidding for players here is absurd with people offering inflated contracts to secure the hire and in turn not managing the team properly...which of course is their prerogative, but it ruins the game IMHO

I can see Gustoon's point now.

That can easily be mitigated in game though.

If you're saying someone gets player X in with salary A and bonus B for the 1 year deal, then use that as a starting point for further contracts. If it can be assumed a player improves and that players in the game don't have a conscience and want the team to benefit by accepting a low salary, then use the salary/bonus from the first contract as a minimum that player would accept; so if the owner wanted to give a 5 year deal at salary C and bonus of D where C < A and D < B, player would refuse knowing his market value was set by the owner to be A and B when the first contract occured.

Owners giving artificially inflated contracts to lowball later just cause cap issues for themselves in that instance.

Now if a player doesn't improve, declines, would they accept a slight reduction? Probably as their market value would reduce.

Yep, that's what I mean, but not sure its implementable (is that a word?)

Why don't you just not offer 1 year contracts?

If you offer 2 years or more, you can still have the player on your roster the next season, and renegotiate then.

I've only been playing this game for just over a week now and knowing what I do about cap room and how easy it is to destroy it in real life is in the back of my mind. Couple that with all of our 'new teams'...... well you want to get it right don't you?
The FA pool is very weak in any real talent and the draft, like the NFL is a craps shoot, the last thing you want to do is to lock up 53 players and at the season end find out they have declined which puts you into dead cap space...its all impacting.

Its an aspect of the game that I don't like or think is necessary, 0.02.