What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Commissioner/ Collusion Question (1 Viewer)

smogroller

smogroller

Footballguy
I am the commissioner of my league and had agreed to a trade with another owner (Funchess/V. Davis for M. Ryan).  A group of owners got together and decided to all vote against it to mess with me and the other owner.  They didn't want either of us to have the trade, as it would make both our teams stronger.  As commissioner, would it be moral/right for me to allow the trade to go through anyway.  Is what they are doing a form of collusion?

 
This is seems like a fair trade. Not sure why they are acting this way. Have you and other owner had questionable trades in the past?

The whole idea behind a trade is to improve both teams, whether it be for present or future potential production.

If they all independently don't like it and vetos are allowed then the veto should stand. If you have proof they are messing with you and that they are colluding (such as lobbying others to join their cause then this is truly collusion and the trade should stand.

Either way sounds like you are going to need a bunch of new leaguemates.

 
The league vetoed the trade. You have to honor that if you have any integrity as a commissioner (and as a human being).

By definition, this isn't collusion. (Because it's obviously not a "secret agreement" if you know about it.)

It's a pretty crappy situation, though. If these people aren't your friends, then I would disband the league next year.

 
We used to allow trades to be vetoed by league members ... but we did away with that years ago.  It was the best move ever.  Trades go through as soon as they are accepted.  Do some trades seem unbalanced?  Sure, but lots of real-life trades seem unbalanced, as well.  As long as both sides agree, there's no need to allow veto votes.

 
You either set or agreed to the rules before the season began.

Uphold & abide by the rules of your league; that’s your obligation. Trade was vetoed by a vote.

Change it next year. Not now.

 
TheCommish said:
We used to allow trades to be vetoed by league members ... but we did away with that years ago.  It was the best move ever.  Trades go through as soon as they are accepted.  Do some trades seem unbalanced?  Sure, but lots of real-life trades seem unbalanced, as well.  As long as both sides agree, there's no need to allow veto votes.
Click to expand...
I eliminated trade voting in the league I run a couple years ago, easily the best decision I've made in that league.  The funny thing, there is so much less complaining about trades now.  When there was voting, it seems like people vetoed, then felt they had to defend that position, even if they didn't truly have a strong opinion on the trade.  Since eliminating voting, I've not had a single trade that required any kind of evaluation, nor met much in the way of resistance from other owners not involved in the trade.  

 
smogroller said:
I am the commissioner of my league and had agreed to a trade with another owner (Funchess/V. Davis for M. Ryan).  A group of owners got together and decided to all vote against it to mess with me and the other owner.  They didn't want either of us to have the trade, as it would make both our teams stronger.  As commissioner, would it be moral/right for me to allow the trade to go through anyway.  Is what they are doing a form of collusion?
Click to expand...
Poetic justice at its finest.  You set up a league which allows owners to vote and you get bit in the #### because owners voted down your deal.  You made your bed, now lie in it.  

 
It’s really a shame when owners vote to veto trades because it makes teams other than their own better rather than on the merits of the trade itself.  IMO it’s downright unethical and just plain ****ty behavior.  That is clearly not the intent of allowing vetoes.

That said, they are your rules.  I do think that if the rules allow you to override the veto that you should.  After all, rules are rules and there’s nothing collusive about that trade.  But I’d sure rethink playing FF with these guys again after this season, unless the rules are changed to remove veto votes. 

 
Unfortunately, when I set up the league, it was defaulted with the trade vote, and I didn't see this coming.  In a fit of anger, I changed the rule and allowed the trade.  Probably a big mistake. 

 
Joe Summer said:
The league vetoed the trade. You have to honor that if you have any integrity as a commissioner (and as a human being).

By definition, this isn't collusion. (Because it's obviously not a "secret agreement" if you know about it.)

It's a pretty crappy situation, though. If these people aren't your friends, then I would disband the league next year.
Click to expand...
The secrecy (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. Collusion is an action or agreement that limits (or attempts to limit) open competition and/or provides an unfair advantage.

It sounds like they didn't just all independently decide to vote against the trade. They formed an alliance and all agreed to vote against it. Telling the people you colluded to screw with that you screwed with them doesn't make it not collusion.

 
Why do leagues exist where owners have the option to veto trades? In no universe is it a good idea.

And of course you can't let the trade go through anyway. 

 
The secrecy (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. Collusion is an action or agreement that limits (or attempts to limit) open competition and/or provides an unfair advantage.
Click to expand...
Which scenario is more "unfair":

1. the majority of the league follows the rulebook and legally vetoes a trade.

2. the commissioner supersedes the rulebook and overturns a legal veto?

 
smogroller said:
Unfortunately, when I set up the league, it was defaulted with the trade vote, and I didn't see this coming.  In a fit of anger, I changed the rule and allowed the trade.  Probably a big mistake. 
Click to expand...
Yup you messed up. People are going to throw a fit.

 
Pretty much what everyone else has said, follow the rules. Find a new league next year, because you have stupid rules and crappy owners. 

 
smogroller said:
Unfortunately, when I set up the league, it was defaulted with the trade vote, and I didn't see this coming.  In a fit of anger, I changed the rule and allowed the trade.  Probably a big mistake. 
Click to expand...
Now here's your chance to do the right thing.  Go back and undo the trade, apologize to the league, put the voting back in place for this year, and let everyone know that you would like to revisit the voting issue next year.  

If you can't do that, you should really consider stepping down as commish ASAP.

 
Joe Summer said:
Which scenario is more "unfair":

1. the majority of the league follows the rulebook and legally vetoes a trade.

2. the commissioner supersedes the rulebook and overturns a legal veto?
Click to expand...
If their league had a serviceable rule relating to collusion, you'd have to decide if it supersedes the voting rule. If they don't I would live with the veto.

That said, my point was that secrecy is not a requirement for collusion.

 
Joe Summer said:
The league vetoed the trade. You have to honor that if you have any integrity as a commissioner (and as a human being).

By definition, this isn't collusion. (Because it's obviously not a "secret agreement" if you know about it.)

It's a pretty crappy situation, though. If these people aren't your friends, then I would disband the league next year.
Click to expand...
lol no

 
Yes, it is collusion.
Collusion is legal in your league, per your trade voting rules.
Change it for next year.

I know this isn't a popular position these days, but your best move is to admit you were wrong, apologize, say you acted hastily in an emotional moment and veto the trade per league rules. People will understand if you made a bad move in the heat of the moment and reversed it to make it right.

 
smogroller said:
Unfortunately, when I set up the league, it was defaulted with the trade vote, and I didn't see this coming.  In a fit of anger, I changed the rule and allowed the trade.  Probably a big mistake. 
Click to expand...
Yikes, what a crappy situation and what a bunch of dirtbags owners you have in your league. I would be looking for another league but fwiw here is what I might try to do (imho).

1. Go back and undo the trade and send out an email explaining that it was a mistake on your part. However make clear that the veto rule is in place for trades that other owners deem unfair, not for blocking trades that help both teams. Tell the league you feel there may be some collusion going on and would like clarification from the vetoing owners.

Does the veto rule specify any criteria such as if an owner thinks a trade is unfair they have a right to vote to veto it? Or is it a blank check? If it has specific criteria then maybe you have some options (have them explain their reasoning). If these owners won't/can't explain their reasoning and you feel they are colluding maybe see if the rest of the league agrees.

How many owners voted against the trade?

Basically, try and use whatever rules that are there to your advantage without changing any them. If the rules are sloppily written or non existent then there is nothing you can do.

Lastly, find a new league or lose the dirtball owners (make it clear they go or you do). GL!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Consider the veto a form of protest in your league. They're following the rules and showing the commish how stupid the rule is.

We've been over the collusion argument a few times. Not all illegal or unethical activity is collusion.  The "collusion" claim is irrelevant.

 
BobbyLayne said:
You either set or agreed to the rules before the season began.

Uphold & abide by the rules of your league; that’s your obligation. Trade was vetoed by a vote.

Change it next year. Not now.
Click to expand...
Agree with this post 100%, you can't change agreed upon rules mid-season, let the league know that owner input on trades for next season will no longer exist. If they don't like it find another league to play in. 

 
Pretty crappy league if the commish supersedes the rules to help his own interests.  If you don't like the rules change them next year.  You can't change the rules of the league mid season unless all the owners agree to it, and since they vetoed your trade I'm guessing they won't.

 
BobbyLayne said:
You either set or agreed to the rules before the season began.

Uphold & abide by the rules of your league; that’s your obligation. Trade was vetoed by a vote.

Change it next year. Not now.
Click to expand...
This.  It's a bad rule, not a bad trade.  But, you can't change the rules mid-season just because the rule sucks.  

 
Cross the Rubicon, when the Senate ordered Caesar to disband his legions and come home to face trial did he do what he knew was wrong? Nope! 

 
This is why I never play in a league with owner trade veto because there are to many b*****s who veto every trade and claim it's strategy. Tell their punk a***s to reconsider and vote again and that if it's vetoed again you are disbanding the league at seasons end.

 
Thanks for everyone's input.  I ended up reinstating the rule and having an anonymous revote.  In the end, the trade was not voted down and it went through. 

 
smogroller said:
I am the commissioner of my league and had agreed to a trade with another owner (Funchess/V. Davis for M. Ryan).  A group of owners got together and decided to all vote against it to mess with me and the other owner.  They didn't want either of us to have the trade, as it would make both our teams stronger.  As commissioner, would it be moral/right for me to allow the trade to go through anyway.  Is what they are doing a form of collusion?
Click to expand...


-OZ- said:
Consider the veto a form of protest in your league. They're following the rules and showing the commish how stupid the rule is.

We've been over the collusion argument a few times. Not all illegal or unethical activity is collusion.  The "collusion" claim is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Based on the OP's bolded statement I would think that collusion is very relevant.  Now whether or not the group of owners really got together and decided to all vote against the trade is the crux of the argument.  Taking the OP at his word I would say this is collusion and very relevant to the discussion.

 
Gally said:
Based on the OP's bolded statement I would think that collusion is very relevant.  Now whether or not the group of owners really got together and decided to all vote against the trade is the crux of the argument.  Taking the OP at his word I would say this is collusion and very relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Not really. Whether you label it collusion, a conspiracy, or jackassery doesn't matter in the slightest. 

 
your league is terrible.  a trade with those players should not escalate any higher than a "meh" from any other owners... wow!~

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
My Commissioner is Cheating
Replies
17
Views
1K
massraider
massraider
Zow
Trade issue in new league - drama ensues
2 3
Replies
138
Views
4K
5-ish Finkle
5-ish Finkle
Judge Smails
  • Poll
Would you veto this trade?
Replies
34
Views
971
beef
beef

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top