Hawks_G wrote:

---

What are you looking to find out? Why someone would vote against the deal? Individual reasoning by each BOD?

Let me know what you are looking for in disclosure and maybe Eric will address it.

---

Ya, I would like to know the general reasoning behind voting the deal down, because IMO it probably shouldn't have been voted down. I'm sure I can guess why it was voted down anyway though. I'm more than happy it has been reworked.

I think that when a deal is vetoed all assets in the deal should be frozen for 48 hours to try and give the two teams time to patch the deal up or work something similar out.

Hawks_G wrote:

---

What are you looking to find out? Why someone would vote against the deal? Individual reasoning by each BOD?

Let me know what you are looking for in disclosure and maybe Eric will address it.

---

I think that indeed, it should be disclosed if there is any additional information such as intent to tank a team, or wrongdoing, along with reasons for a veto.

I'd like to know for the future why a trade is going to get veto'd because if it's going to be simply a matter of someone making a really stupidly bad deal (which is what I see here), I have a big problem with that.

It's better to veto too much than to veto too little.

One-sided deals are the biggest injustice in a cash league. This is not just for fun. There are hundreds of dollars to be won.

I've read a majority of the posts in this thread, and will try to answer the issue here as I have been doing through e-mails in the past 20 minutes.

First Off, the deal has been completely veto'd. All involving players have been moved back to their original teams.

The decision was made within the best interest of the league, and the involving teams. The reason the deal has been reversed (without devulging too much information here), was that future of the teams management wasn't taken into as much consideration as it should. The B.O.D. felt that the deal wasn't strong enough on both parties to finalize. No blame has been put on either GM, as they weren't doing anything intentionally wrong here. This, in the end, could all be boiled down to a misunderstanding.

The reason the B.O.D. is in position here, is for instances like this. To make sure that all things remain true, and that movement is made in the best interest.


On the issue of completely lopsided deals getting approved, the BRHL2 will always do its' best to make sure the long term goals of the league stay intact. One of those goals is to make sure all 30 teams are competitive on some level. The league cannot afford questionable descions about team management affect the league years down the road. In most leagues, this would not be the case as trying to get ahead is the goal. However (and this is based completely on possibility, not as if it has happened here, because is hasn't), if a GM continues to make poor calls and disrupt his team management just for the sake of trading away good talent for nothing. Then The league will have to step in as early as possible. If for instance a GM were to tarnish a team, then quit, who is punished? You could say, him, since he paid. Or you could say the next GM, because he has less to work with. Or you could say the league, since there were teams able to make bad deals and boost other teams chances at winning more money. All in all, the method of "If a GM makes a bad deal, too bad" won't really fly here. We have to make sure that the BRHL2 and it's GMs are held accountable for all actions, now and in the future. We can't have other GMs get upset, start to question the league and other GMs in such that people don't want to be here. So with that being said, the league and the B.O.D. will continue to do it's job and make sure the BRHL2 is here on good terms. I'm glad we're not close to a situation like this, but the B.O.D. has to make sure it stops before it starts.