|
|
Post by reyalmanza on Apr 13, 2012 20:54:28 GMT
really? if you go in chat you said the following
Blackarm59: but not worth veto IMO
kinda contradicting yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on Apr 13, 2012 20:57:04 GMT
Not really, I am saying that in 4 of the TABs eyes it isnt fair. I didnt say anything about what I think about!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 20:58:36 GMT
really? if you go in chat you said the following Blackarm59: but not worth veto IMO kinda contradicting yourself. You do realize that Pats was not one of the five that voted because he is not even a TAB Member, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on Apr 13, 2012 21:00:22 GMT
I'd leave it Joey, most of these new guys dont understand the rules as they havent read them, so I wouldnt expect them to read the comments
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 21:00:34 GMT
Only 3 TAB vetoed...and 1 of those vetos was only given as a free pass cause ravens wanted out after he read a few comments. So far there has been alot more teams that think this trade was fine. But I get it, we play under TAB rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on Apr 13, 2012 21:01:39 GMT
Only 3 TAB vetoed...and 1 of those vetos was only given as a free pass cause ravens wanted out after he read a few comments. So far there has been alot more teams that think this trade was fine. But I get it, we play under TAB rule. Broncos approved but then said he wanted to swap vote to a VETO |
|
|
|
Post by reyalmanza on Apr 13, 2012 21:03:05 GMT
can you change votes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on Apr 13, 2012 21:04:14 GMT
I'm sure they can. Broncos didnt anyway for fairness
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 21:05:37 GMT
Really I don't care until one of these vetos involves me. Just don't like that there are 32 owners and only 6 peoples opinions on players future matter when it comes to trades.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 21:07:23 GMT
Dont have the chat feature so haven't been able to read what was said there but I don't like the way the veto's came on not because of the value of the trade but because ravens not liking it. Just think that once trade has been posted for tab votes and accepted the ability to back out should be gone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 21:09:28 GMT
But that being said what tab says is final and the matter is done with. But I know that tab would love to hear others opinions of our votes as long as it is done in a constructive and non belligerent way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 0:22:03 GMT
that's my fault, i shouldn't have said anything. Sorry 49ers
|
|
|
|
Post by Bengals GM (Darryl) on Apr 14, 2012 2:10:29 GMT
Let me put this out there for the new GM's...This may be redundant to those who have been here.
Many times, on such trades, suggestions will be given on how to make the trade acceptable. And although it isn't required, giving a strong (and/or sensible) reason of how that trade will help your team is encouraged. Should the teams choose to rework the trade, then the option exist. That's just something to keep in mind.
As for calling this specific trade a "rape" it didn't happen, or in the least, if taken that way - was not the way it was meant, as it was directed towards explaining that sometimes an organization itself must be protected as an element of upsetting the balance of the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bengals GM (Darryl) on Apr 14, 2012 2:11:42 GMT
Only 3 TAB vetoed...and 1 of those vetos was only given as a free pass cause ravens wanted out after he read a few comments. So far there has been alot more teams that think this trade was fine. But I get it, we play under TAB rule. Again? Really? |
|
