A few comments.
1. Our new agent has no previous experience in the CPHL. I believe he's a smart cookie and will get to know the ins and outs of the league. But to expect him to understand how it all works right now is unrealistic. That's why were are reviewing his contracts more carefully. Its to protect him and the integrity of the league. The flip side is we process today's contracts and then countless GMs will be lining up for similar pay cuts.
2. When a GM proves himself we allow them a lot more leeway. In fact the only contracts that have been rejected are ones that were outside the scope of the current rules as KG said.
3. No matter how many rules/guidelines we have in this league there will always be instances when the commish team has to step in and make decisions. You either trust we have a good sense of fairness and are capable of making those decisions or you don't. I think/hope most of you do.
To answer some other questions in this thread:
Are there any checks to inflation in this league?
- Yes but inflation is a natural way to balance competitiveness. You should NOT be able to afford a team of superstars long-term. As your team gets better there salaries should rise and the talent will be spread across the league. But considering the few UFAs we have in the league, AND the fact that overall few teams struggle to make the cap - inflation is not a concern.
Also how long does the league plan on monitoring GMs and Agents? When does a new Agent or GM finally become a "veteran" Agent or GM that no longer needs monitoring?
- When we feel that they have a good sense of how the league works. Tying a specific timeline to this simply isn't a good way of doing it.
I'd like to add that I have a general idea of how the compensation system for agents works
- They are measured purely by the value of their contracts. We'd like to improve this system to include other factors down the road, but its gotta be a system that is not overly complex.
Take for example a player like Tony Amonte who is making 5 times as much as what he should be, should he not be given a paycut cause he has a new agent? I think that there are certain situations that paycuts are totally warranted, not saying that all the offers that get sent in are fair cause I know some of my fellow GM's to well to be that naive. 
However I feel that in Neils case that the inclusion of a NTC is a very good reason to consider a paycut. IMO it should be up to the agent to decide the value they place on a NTC for their client not the leagues
I agree with all of this but to expect our new agent to be able to make those assessments w/o the benefit of previous CPHL experience is simply not realistic.
I just wanted the other gm's to hear my side of it bc it made me look like I was the "bad guy" in all of this when I was making a totally fair deal. It seems all the ones who i've talked to agree with me on the matter. The deal is void from this end now anyways.
I want to be real clear on this. There are no "bad guys" in this situation. GMs are expected to do what's best for their team. However, ultimately someone has to be considering the bigger picutre for the league overall. That's our jobs, and though GMs may not always agree with our decisions, they are made in the best interests of the CPHL in general.
Isn't that you?
