You can craft an entirely new deal...that won't stop a "revision" of the last one.
Also, you can predict where that pick will be with public information located throughout the game. It will be a high one, based on current estimations.
Also, that rule Doc got deleted by me accidentally. I was cleaning my drive and clicked it. Fear not, I have the same information on a Word.doc
Wait so based off current estimations it will be a low one. Those same estimations could lead to it being a much better pick in the same amount of time it took it to go bad. Right?
I dunno maybe I need to see the rules doc. never really saw it I don't think.
The previous ways revisions worked were you had to present a trade to the BOE and then we would either allow or veto.
We found that ineffective since you could just make the trade separately.
So in a sense, you have a chance to "revise" but it would fall under the catagory of "new"
So, what you're saying is we waste 2 trades when we have to fix them. Not right.
That's not true, actually. When a trade is deemed null and void, making a new one still counts as just one trade. So you didn't use two trades on our blockbuster.
You can craft an entirely new deal...that won't stop a "revision" of the last one.
Also, you can predict where that pick will be with public information located throughout the game. It will be a high one, based on current estimations.
Also, that rule Doc got deleted by me accidentally. I was cleaning my drive and clicked it. Fear not, I have the same information on a Word.doc
Also forgot to mention, I think it would be a good idea to have said rules transcribed into a CF comment as well. That way we can ensure no accidentes happen or small rule change edits that no one realizes either.
(Or any comment edits)
Hey, no complaints from me. There isn't anyone on here that likes being an asshole more than I do!
With that said, I'm not breaking any rules. So that comment makes no sense. Just sayin.......
What I meant is that first post was you saying that you had read and agreed to the rules and now you're saying that you never saw them
Ohhh that's what you mean. I get the confusion now, sorry I misspoke before, I meant:
"I dunno maybe I need to see the rules doc. again never really read it I don't think." - I just confirmed I did so we could start. Lol
Either way, wasn't speaking as if I didn't agree to the rules...... I am abiding by them. Just pointing out how they're screwing me over at the moment. That's all.
If there are any GM's who have an AGM who is interested in becoming the General Manager for either the Rangers or Kings, let either me, or philly know and we can set it up.
If there are any GM's who have an AGM who is interested in becoming the General Manager for either the Rangers or Kings, let either me, or philly know and we can set it up.
Thanks,
Bo53Horvat
BOE
Hi I am the AGM for Toronto and am interested in becoming the GM for the Kings. Thanks
If there are any GM's who have an AGM who is interested in becoming the General Manager for either the Rangers or Kings, let either me, or philly know and we can set it up.
Thanks,
Bo53Horvat
BOE
Hi I am the AGM for Toronto and am interested in becoming the GM for the Kings. Thanks
We're looking for GM's with a bit more experience on CF at this time.
Who has a young defenseman they can spare? Can be an unsigned prospect, a signed prospect, or a young, NHL-ready dman. I'll reward you handsomely.
I have Claesson available.
I'm not gonna meet your asking price, and he's not quite what I'm looking for. He'd be nice, but I want someone waiver exempt (i.e. a future piece, not a win-now piece). Thomas Chabot is who I'm looking for.
I'm not gonna meet your asking price, and he's not quite what I'm looking for. He'd be nice, but I want someone waiver exempt (i.e. a future piece, not a win-now piece). Thomas Chabot is who I'm looking for.
KSIxSKULLS a aimé ceci.
Répondre
CapFriendly
CapFriendly