Banackock

Was counting against my cap for some reason. Get rid of him tbh. @Street x Lite @BobertZ

Very understanding and I can promise you we'll take a look at a bunch of stuff this season. In the meantime, I'm unsure if there's one already but if not, we'll throw up a discussion in the VHLM GM forum for the time being to hear thoughts and suggestions. Just be the guy to blow Las Vegas and Robbie's ego out of the water.

I intend for my "tender" as VHLM commissioner to not be the length of a "bushito - VHL stay". Hopefully I can chug through this position as long as possible. Stability and a lack of turnover would be great for the league. Unfortunate that the right amount of planning had not taken place prior to retracting two teams - or they at least hadn't planned for this. I, among others, are simply attempting to smooth over the ride and will be look at ways to improve and better the VHLM for the future. Thank you for the suggestions and opinions.

Yep. didn't put the rule into place to begin with. I literally was hired right during retraction, remember? Frank and I will look at this all during this season. Thanks for your suggestions.

Im aware of the rules. Was not a decision made "just" by me. Others were involved - I made the post. For next season, something else may take the current rules place. Potentially 1 inactive and all actives placed in draft or waivers.

Why are you asking? Has it not been done this way forever? Frank and I didnt bring it in. An active FA helps and earns TPE. An inactive is usually 50-100 tpe. Im sure it's something Frank and I will look at with the retraction. In my opinion, it's saying 1 active, 1 inactive or 1 inactive and all actives will be place into the draft for future seasons.

Property

property

Yeah. For RETRACTION, I don't think a huge amount of thought was put into it other than "hey, this will help the league". I'm sure they looked at possible outcomes, but maybe not all of them. A huge deal was made about Robbie relocating a team (which imo, was a good move) and they wanted to hold off until next season (Frank and I pushed it), but retention was made so quickly (and poor Bratislava). I think @Frank and I are always open to suggestions. IMO, the VHLM is important and vital to the league. We can't get rid of the VHL and have 80 TPE rookies playing against 700 tpe players. Everyone (new and vet) needs somewhere to start and grow. I want to make the VHLM as good as the VHL, or close to it. We should all care about it - enjoy our time etc. I get it's not as huge, but we shouldn't blow it off and focus simply on VHL. If you ever have suggestions (or anyone else), let us know. As for this situation, we'll touch up on it, but inactive FA signings I can promise you will stay at 1. As for active, even with the teams decreasing from 7 to 5, I'd say it'll remain the same moving forward.

Absolutely. My bad! Apologies. We made a top 10 list for "pests" so I always taken tone from those people in the tones they generally give off, lol.

Yes, thanks. (Social/Work situations you can listen for tone. Words you cannot).

3.5

No. In the ending it clearly states it's a one season thing only. It's something Frank and I will need to discuss during the season for next year. I do feel as though the 1 and 1 can still work as active FA's are pretty damn rare.

Which is why we're not having one. It would be cool to see strong dominance, sure. Would likely be fun for all those players, sure (is what I meant). But it's not happening, so quit bitching and go play with DT.

Apparently so. Spending too much time with retention on my mind Please don't take my grade 3 away from me.

Officially an ASS?

@Street x Lite @Bushitroll @TheLastOlympian07 @BobertZ @Frank @JardyB10

It's come to my attention that the right amount of planning was not done for retention as we ran into a slight bump in the road. However, have no fear - your friendly neighborhood green guys are here. Retraction was a good thing for the league, whether or not I liked the teams they chose to sink down into the bayou. It creates more active, stable teams and could potentially prevent the roller-coaster seasons/spans which @JardyB10 so graciously ranted about. The VHLM is a big part of the league, whether you see it or not. It shouldn't be looked as a stepping stone for us vets, but almost the lifeline to the league when it comes to new members. It's their first game, first update, first goal and first teammates they meet. The VHLM pops their cherry for everything on here. If we have one big super team this season, it would be fun and great to watch. I love Vegas. I love what Robbie is doing there, but I do not agree that having a "free-for-all", even just for one season, is a good thing. Previous tenured commissioners and such took out two VHLM teams to prevent stuff like this. Official ruling 2-1 + Robin Hood Effect You are able to sign 1 INACTIVE free agent and 2 ACTIVE free agents. For this year and THIS YEAR ONLY, you are able to deal your FA rights to another team for a youth package of player(s) or pick(s) with the limitations that you can only acquire ONE other teams rights. To finalize this, each team will be able to sign a maximum of 1 inactive and 2 actives, unless they acquire singular rights to sign an ACTIVE free agent via trade. IF this happens, they may sign an additional active free agent and will officially cap out and no longer can sign active FA's or acquire them through trade.

Property

Property

2.5

Nor is it really ours. We did not plan for retention and were brought in after the notion was already in place. Was more of a "Oh, okay" type of thing from Frank and I. All I'm going to say now is that I've sent a PM off to Higgins and Frank regarding the situation with a couple of suggestions. Now, it should not surprise you that @Higgins has read and not responded, lol. I don't feel as though I should lay down a decision on my own without discussion with these 2. @Higgins was adamant that he got the final say in relocation and that it wasn't gonna happen this year. Frank and I made that happen for @BobertZ. So, should be apart of this too then tbh. So everyone is aware, I am leaning towards everyone being able to sign 2 players. I believe in competition and that's the main reason we seen the retention of two teams. the VHLM is a huge part to the league - whether veteran members think so or not. Usually we just breeze through it and it's wrong. We should embrace every stage of our careers. Both sides of the frozen pond are important and serve a purpose to the VHL community. Now, I love Las Vegas. They got a hell of a team going, but I do not agree that they should be able to sign 4 more Free Agents because they're the new "Miama Heat" of the VHLM and people just want to be there to win (or be apart of it). I have an additional suggestion: For this season, open it up to 2 and 1. You're able to sign 2 actives/1 inactive. HOWEVER, if one team doesn't wanna sign an active, they can toss their Free Agent "right" for the season to the other team in a trade. Be warned, I find out you tamper and tell the player to get the rights traded or they won't play there, you will be dismissed of your GM duties. @Frank Once I hear anything from the other 2, a ruling would be made but this is likely where I stand.

4