Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
the lone star

Transition Tag Dispute

How Would You Resolve This Dispute?  

3 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Question

So in one of my dynasty leagues, we have a free agency system set up that allows a player's previous owner to place a "tag" on said player. If the tag is placed on that player, then the owner says something along the lines of "Tag Player At $10." So if another team wants to make sure that the player doesn't go back to the original owner, the other owner can say "Match Player At $10." Thus, the new owner is now bidding $10, and has caused the previous owner to renounce his rights to the player. However, anybody else can come in and increase the bid on the player after that, so Team C can say "Bid $11 on Player" and now Team C is the highest bidder. Team B can continue to bid on the player after this, but Team A (the original owner) cannot.

Unfortunately, the Commissioner of my dynasty league uploaded the tags and started free agency about 2 weeks late. Furthermore, when he did upload the tags, the price that each tag was at had increased by a dollar due to how the system was set up. Previously tags were done by the messaging board, but this time around he used MFL's internal bidding system. For what it's worth, he was able to secure a player during last year's free agency when it was messaging board only.

Because of this goof, an owner who decided to match a $10 bid was told by the commissioner that he would have to actually pay $11. The owner pointed to a message he left on the message board and how he clearly indicated "Match the bid for Player at $10." The commissioner admitted that he made a mistake when inputting the bids, but said that since he started free agency two weeks late, and that other players were also tagged (and currently being bid on), he just couldn't reset free agency. The bidding owner was understanding of this, and asked if he could get the $1 back once transaction was completed. The commissioner did not find this to be a suitable solution for some reason and said that only the $11 payment (which, again, the bidding owner did not consent to) would suffice. The bidding owner then asked if instead of resetting all of free agency, that the bid on the one player he bid on could be reset. The commissioner gave this some thought, but eventually said no, and demanded the $11 instead. 

What do you all make of this, and how would you all resolve the dispute? The commissioner admitted to the fact that it was his own error, but is still demanding that the other owner pay due to someone else's mistake. What do you think the best solution for this is? Should all the tags be reset since the commissioner goofed on them, or should only the one tag in question be reset? Should the bidding owner be compensated for the $1 that was mistakenly taken away from him, or should he be forced to pay regardless of whose mistake it was? 

Keep in mind that the average team only has around $50 to spend, so the $1 overcharge is somewhat significant in the sense that it represents 2% of a team's bidding allowance. MANY players have been won for $1 in the past, so the bidding owner actually has a valid claim about how it negatively effects his strategy, especially when given the fact that he clearly indicated his intent to match at $10 and not pay $11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
1 hour ago, the lone star said:

Nope. Not to my knowledge.

I know I have seen some scenario that had the "tag player at $10" bid situation.  It struck me as a very odd way of doing things so I have seen it before.  Maybe it was a different screwed up situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 1/30/2019 at 9:24 AM, Gally said:

Seems to me you asked this same thing in this thread about 8 months ago.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/766280-how-do-you-interpret-this-rule/?page=0#comment-21026841

So that's kind of different in my mind, but I see what you're saying about it being the same. I pared it down this time to make it easier to follow, and I'm also asking an entirely different question. 

Regardless, how would you resolve the dispute at hand?

And my apologies if this all comes off as redundant. I do appreciate your input and time. It means a lot. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I guess it makes no sense that the actual bids couldn't be used.  You are talking about only one specific situation.  Just roll back the salaries to the actual salary bid.  I don't understand why this is an issue at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 2/3/2019 at 12:01 PM, the lone star said:

but why?

All you do is post idiotic posts about collusion and crap like this. Go away and worry about who killed JFK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 2/12/2019 at 7:23 AM, beerbuff said:

All you do is post idiotic posts about collusion and crap like this. Go away and worry about who killed JFK.

You can always ignore my posts. Or maybe even privately message me and nicely voice your concerns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.