Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

I Am the Stig

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

106 Excellent

About I Am the Stig

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,658 profile views
  1. At 446 pages, you should hope to find someone who loves you the way the Shark Pool loves talking about Josh Gordon.
  2. And The league ruled what they wanted to do. Another league may have done nothing. I’m not trying to convince you of anything and you aren’t going to change my mind. It is ok that we see this differently.
  3. We have laws against murder. We also have laws that allow killing under specific circumstances. There was no rule either requiring disclosure of or forbidding extra conditions on trades.
  4. I say you do and you say you don’t. That’s the beauty of different leagues with different opinions and rules. This league will decide for itself how to handle this.
  5. There was no requirement to disclose the conditions as there is no league vote on trades. Stop projecting your league rules and standards onto this league. It was a bad oversight but legal within the framework of the league. The trade would be collusion in your league. Both things can be true.
  6. How thick does a bylaw have to be to say: "All conditions of a trade beyond player currency, must be made available for league review." ?
  7. Lots of things can be written to address the spirit of the unwritten rules to cover unforeseen scenarios. In fact several rules and procedures could have been put in place to prevent this type of trade from being processed. The reality this league was woefully short on rules and this is what happens.
  8. While in your league such “currency” may not be allowed in this league it was not expressly forbidden. You can’t look at this as what is right or wrong in your league. What only matters is how the affected league rules are and how they will address this moving forward.
  9. No disclosure was required therefor nothing was kept secret. He willingly agreed to the terms to sit MT. He easily could have passed on the trade, nothing was forced upon him.
  10. No, he wasn’t forced to do anything he wasn’t willing to do. He is the one who wanted MT. MT was not forced upon him. This was more a situation of “would you rather” and he would rather have MT for 3 out of 4 weeks or not at all.
  11. They made a trade that was public knowledge to the league. The league, regardless of the players involved have no say and no recourse to either discuss, veto or question the trade. There simply is no league requirement to disclose the conditions of the trade. There was nothing "secret" about the trade. Everyone saw the trade. Where it went sideways was the league questioning the new MT owners decision to sit MT. Again, this is another question that is frankly none of the leagues business unless rules specifically state that all managers must start their most obvious players o
  12. Sorry but it does. It was a condition of the trade and the trade is the transaction. IF there was no trade and they discussed roster lineups that is collusion because it was secret in every way possible. The trade was not secret but the full condition was not disclosed. The trade did not happen in secret but there was no requirement to disclose the extra condition based on current league rules.
  • Create New...