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.

Collusion Question (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

dloew

Footballguy
Our league awards all transaction money from trades and add/drops to the QB, RB and WR who score the most points throughout the year.A trade went down a few weeks ago where if any player involved in the trade wins the transaction money, it will be split 50/50.There is no league rule that addresses this situation. The players involved provided fair value. Should a trade of this type be legal?

 

BigJim®

Footballguy
No, I would not allow that even if it isn't in the rules. They aren't trading players, they are trading league prizes.

 

Avery

Footballguy
col·lu·sion n.

A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

A teams seem to be try to reduce the risk of trading away a player that could equal a monetary prize.

Let's look at the definition one term at a time.

Is it fraudulent?

The terms have been made public and to the best of our knowledge what is stated is what is agreed upon, so no fraud is involved.

Is it illegal?

As you stated, there is no rule forbiding this sort of transaction.

Is it deceitful?

The terms have been made public so no deceit is involved.

Both teams are attempting to help themselves and being open to the league in the matter they plan to achieve that. It appears there is no collusion.

It is an inventive trade and it is now up to your league to deceide if this trade should be allowed for reasons other then collusion and whether this sort of trade should be made illegal in the future.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BigJim®

Footballguy
Whenever something's involved in a trade other than the actual players, there's a problem.
Exactly, I can't believe there are responses using "collusion" analysis. If I trade away my top player to some other team in return for him giving me his championship trophy if he wins this is not a FF trade. What they are doing is hedging... these guys are trading rights to league prizes thinking half of something is better than 100% of nothing. That doesn't make it a FF trade. Tell them to go buy some FF insurance. League prizes are intended to award achievement, not be split as a component of a trade.
 

Avery

Footballguy
Whenever something's involved in a trade other than the actual players, there's a problem.
Exactly, I can't believe there are responses using "collusion" analysis. If I trade away my top player to some other team in return for him giving me his championship trophy if he wins this is not a FF trade. What they are doing is hedging... these guys are trading rights to league prizes thinking half of something is better than 100% of nothing. That doesn't make it a FF trade. Tell them to go buy some FF insurance. League prizes are intended to award achievement, not be split as a component of a trade.
Perhaps the fact that the title of the thread is "Collusion Question" lead to the "collusion analysis". :wall:
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
Would you allow someone to trade LT for Johnathan Wells and $50 in lottery tickets?This trade amounts to doing exactly that. I agree with BigJim, nix the trade.

 

Avery

Footballguy
Whenever something's involved in a trade other than the actual players, there's a problem.
Exactly, I can't believe there are responses using "collusion" analysis. If I trade away my top player to some other team in return for him giving me his championship trophy if he wins this is not a FF trade. What they are doing is hedging... these guys are trading rights to league prizes thinking half of something is better than 100% of nothing. That doesn't make it a FF trade. Tell them to go buy some FF insurance. League prizes are intended to award achievement, not be split as a component of a trade.
Perhaps the fact that the title of the thread is "Collusion Question" lead to the "collusion analysis". :wall:
I'm sorry, misdirecting post titles doesn't mean you are looking at the right issue.
Agreed.However, I believe a collusion analysis was called for since people tend to label any trade they feel is "unfair" as collusion. Is is important to understand the issue at hand to be able to decide the "fairness" of a deal.

The germane issue for this trade has nothing to do with collusion and I believe that is important for the league to understand that.

 

BigJim®

Footballguy
Whenever something's involved in a trade other than the actual players, there's a problem.
Exactly, I can't believe there are responses using "collusion" analysis. If I trade away my top player to some other team in return for him giving me his championship trophy if he wins this is not a FF trade. What they are doing is hedging... these guys are trading rights to league prizes thinking half of something is better than 100% of nothing. That doesn't make it a FF trade. Tell them to go buy some FF insurance. League prizes are intended to award achievement, not be split as a component of a trade.
Perhaps the fact that the title of the thread is "Collusion Question" lead to the "collusion analysis". :wall:
I'm sorry, misdirecting post title doesn't mean you are looking at the right issue. This guy clearly had a gut feeling something was wrong, all I'm doing is pointing out what that is.
 

BigJim®

Footballguy
Whenever something's involved in a trade other than the actual players, there's a problem.
Exactly, I can't believe there are responses using "collusion" analysis. If I trade away my top player to some other team in return for him giving me his championship trophy if he wins this is not a FF trade. What they are doing is hedging... these guys are trading rights to league prizes thinking half of something is better than 100% of nothing. That doesn't make it a FF trade. Tell them to go buy some FF insurance. League prizes are intended to award achievement, not be split as a component of a trade.
Perhaps the fact that the title of the thread is "Collusion Question" lead to the "collusion analysis". :wall:
I'm sorry, misdirecting post titles doesn't mean you are looking at the right issue.
Agreed.However, I believe a collusion analysis was called for since people tend to label any trade they feel is "unfair" as collusion. Is is important to understand the issue at hand to be able to decide the "fairness" of a deal.

The germane issue for this trade has nothing to do with collusion and I believe that is important for the league to understand that.
All I'm saying is fairness is not the end-all be all of analysis. 3 guys used that analysis and concluded nothing was wrong so it should pass. Just because it might be "fair" for someone chasing a $100 championship prize to pay me $50 for LT does not mean the assessment ends there, as it did in a few responses.
 

Jaysus

Good times!
Would you allow someone to trade LT for Johnathan Wells and $50 in lottery tickets?
I would.Back when our league charged a fee for trades, it was commonplace for one owner to pick up the charge for both teams as extra incentive for the trade to be accepted.

It seems like that is the case here. One owner may be thinking that the trade is fair, but also like his chances of winning some money and can not mak up his mind; so the other owner offers to split the prizes if one of the players is a money winner.

One who wins money can do what ever they want with it anyway... what if they would have agreed to split the money 50/50 between charities? No harm there, right?

 

Avery

Footballguy
Whenever something's involved in a trade other than the actual players, there's a problem.
Exactly, I can't believe there are responses using "collusion" analysis. If I trade away my top player to some other team in return for him giving me his championship trophy if he wins this is not a FF trade. What they are doing is hedging... these guys are trading rights to league prizes thinking half of something is better than 100% of nothing. That doesn't make it a FF trade. Tell them to go buy some FF insurance. League prizes are intended to award achievement, not be split as a component of a trade.
Perhaps the fact that the title of the thread is "Collusion Question" lead to the "collusion analysis". :wall:
I'm sorry, misdirecting post titles doesn't mean you are looking at the right issue.
Agreed.However, I believe a collusion analysis was called for since people tend to label any trade they feel is "unfair" as collusion. Is is important to understand the issue at hand to be able to decide the "fairness" of a deal.

The germane issue for this trade has nothing to do with collusion and I believe that is important for the league to understand that.
All I'm saying is fairness is not the end-all be all of analysis. 3 guys used that analysis and concluded nothing was wrong so it should pass. Just because it might be "fair" for someone chasing a $100 championship prize to pay me $50 for LT does not mean the assessment ends there, as it did in a few responses.
FWIW, I didn't say it should necessarily pass.I just concluded no collusion was involved. It's an important distinction between telling leaguemates that a traded is "vetoed" becuase it is beyond the scope of the league and allowable trades and telling that that you colluded; attempted to fraud the league.

The difference is calling the honesty and integrity of some of your leaguemates into question.

 

BigJim®

Footballguy
Whenever something's involved in a trade other than the actual players, there's a problem.
Exactly, I can't believe there are responses using "collusion" analysis. If I trade away my top player to some other team in return for him giving me his championship trophy if he wins this is not a FF trade. What they are doing is hedging... these guys are trading rights to league prizes thinking half of something is better than 100% of nothing. That doesn't make it a FF trade. Tell them to go buy some FF insurance. League prizes are intended to award achievement, not be split as a component of a trade.
Perhaps the fact that the title of the thread is "Collusion Question" lead to the "collusion analysis". :wall:
I'm sorry, misdirecting post titles doesn't mean you are looking at the right issue.
Agreed.However, I believe a collusion analysis was called for since people tend to label any trade they feel is "unfair" as collusion. Is is important to understand the issue at hand to be able to decide the "fairness" of a deal.

The germane issue for this trade has nothing to do with collusion and I believe that is important for the league to understand that.
All I'm saying is fairness is not the end-all be all of analysis. 3 guys used that analysis and concluded nothing was wrong so it should pass. Just because it might be "fair" for someone chasing a $100 championship prize to pay me $50 for LT does not mean the assessment ends there, as it did in a few responses.
FWIW, I didn't say it should necessarily pass.I just concluded no collusion was involved. It's an important distinction between telling leaguemates that a traded is "vetoed" becuase it is beyond the scope of the league and allowable trades and telling that that you colluded; attempted to fraud the league.

The difference is calling the honesty and integrity of some of your leaguemates into question.
Which is why I said collusion is a red herring and this trade should be nixed under other considerations. As for Jaysus, wow, have fun with that league the next time someone trades a carton of cigarettes for future considerations. Prison league?
 

-OZ-

Footballguy
:unsure:Off hand, I'd say this should be the norm. If a player wins the award, he was owned by both owners, therefore they should share the prize. Who would get the $$$ otherwise? The team that drafted the player, or the team that ends up with him at the end of the year?I like the rule, but I'd amend it to share the prize among all owners of the player, or just the team that drafts him. Unless I'm missing where this is clear, the trade, with agreement, should stand.

 

GregR_2

Footballguy
Would you allow someone to trade LT for Johnathan Wells and $50 in lottery tickets?
I would....
If your particular league allows outside money to be used to influence the league, then of course that's fine. Any group of 12 can decide what kind of league they want. Some leagues have auctions that use real money with no caps.But 99% of leagues are not like that, and so responses here are most likely going to be based on a more common setup where paying cash for players is definitely not allowed.

 

Varmint

Footballguy
I don't make rules that cannot be enforced....

For example..

"splitting of prize money is not allowed"

although you can create a rule that prohibits this, how can it be enforced?

IF they want to divvy the money in their living room, how can I stop it....and how can you prove it if they deny it.....

It's all about character.

 

Avery

Footballguy
I don't make rules that cannot be enforced....

For example..

"splitting of prize money is not allowed"

although you can create a rule that prohibits this, how can it be enforced?

IF they want to divvy the money in their living room, how can I stop it....and how can you prove it if they deny it.....

It's all about character.
But that's why you need the rule.If it's about character, you make a rule and trust in your leaguemates to follow that rule.

It's clear from this thread that there is not a consensus as to whether this trade is "wrong" so why would their character determine weather they attempt a trade like this or not?

In fact, the fact that they divulged the money split shows me that there isn't a character issue here, simply an issue as to what the "scope" of a trade can be.

Why not define that?

 

Varmint

Footballguy
I don't make rules that cannot be enforced....

For example..

"splitting of prize money is not allowed"

although you can create a rule that prohibits this, how can it be enforced?

IF they want to divvy the money in their living room, how can I stop it....and how can you prove it if they deny it.....

It's all about character.
But that's why you need the rule.If it's about character, you make a rule and trust in your leaguemates to follow that rule.

It's clear from this thread that there is not a consensus as to whether this trade is "wrong" so why would their character determine weather they attempt a trade like this or not?

In fact, the fact that they divulged the money split shows me that there isn't a character issue here, simply an issue as to what the "scope" of a trade can be.

Why not define that?
You can define it all you want....THEN, try to enforce it.

All you're going to accomplish is to let eveyone know that if you're going to split the money...don't let anyone else know about it....or else.....nothing will happen.

 

Avery

Footballguy
I don't make rules that cannot be enforced....

For example..

"splitting of prize money is not allowed"

although you can create a rule that prohibits this, how can it be enforced?

IF they want to divvy the money in their living room, how can I stop it....and how can you prove it if they deny it.....

It's all about character.
But that's why you need the rule.If it's about character, you make a rule and trust in your leaguemates to follow that rule.

It's clear from this thread that there is not a consensus as to whether this trade is "wrong" so why would their character determine weather they attempt a trade like this or not?

In fact, the fact that they divulged the money split shows me that there isn't a character issue here, simply an issue as to what the "scope" of a trade can be.

Why not define that?
You can define it all you want....THEN, try to enforce it.

All you're going to accomplish is to let eveyone know that if you're going to split the money...don't let anyone else know about it....or else.....nothing will happen.
I think you're missing my point.If it's about character, you expect your leaguemates to follow the rules.

If it's about character, you don't have to "enforce" the rule but you do have to define the rule for it to be followed.

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
I don't make rules that cannot be enforced....

For example..

"splitting of prize money is not allowed"

although you can create a rule that prohibits this, how can it be enforced?

IF they want to divvy the money in their living room, how can I stop it....and how can you prove it if they deny it.....

It's all about character.
But that's why you need the rule.If it's about character, you make a rule and trust in your leaguemates to follow that rule.

It's clear from this thread that there is not a consensus as to whether this trade is "wrong" so why would their character determine weather they attempt a trade like this or not?

In fact, the fact that they divulged the money split shows me that there isn't a character issue here, simply an issue as to what the "scope" of a trade can be.

Why not define that?
You can define it all you want....THEN, try to enforce it.

All you're going to accomplish is to let eveyone know that if you're going to split the money...don't let anyone else know about it....or else.....nothing will happen.
I think you're missing my point.If it's about character, you expect your leaguemates to follow the rules.

If it's about character, you don't have to "enforce" the rule but you do have to define the rule for it to be followed.
Gotta agree here.You can have a rule saying you have to submit your best lineup.

Good luck defining / enforcing that. I may honestly think Chris Perry has a better chance to score than Stephen Davis in a given week. Or think David Carr performs better than Peyton Manning this week.

Still, you can have the rule to show the intent of the league.

Speeding isn't enforced except when it's violated badly. Should we revoke all speeding laws, or increase them to the point where exceeding the limit by 3 MPH warrants a ticket?

 

Varmint

Footballguy
I don't make rules that cannot be enforced....

For example..

"splitting of prize money is not allowed"

although you can create a rule that prohibits this, how can it be enforced?

IF they want to divvy the money in their living room, how can I stop it....and how can you prove it if they deny it.....

It's all about character.
But that's why you need the rule.If it's about character, you make a rule and trust in your leaguemates to follow that rule.

It's clear from this thread that there is not a consensus as to whether this trade is "wrong" so why would their character determine weather they attempt a trade like this or not?

In fact, the fact that they divulged the money split shows me that there isn't a character issue here, simply an issue as to what the "scope" of a trade can be.

Why not define that?
You can define it all you want....THEN, try to enforce it.

All you're going to accomplish is to let eveyone know that if you're going to split the money...don't let anyone else know about it....or else.....nothing will happen.
I think you're missing my point.If it's about character, you expect your leaguemates to follow the rules.

If it's about character, you don't have to "enforce" the rule but you do have to define the rule for it to be followed.
I understand that the original post asked the question..."Should a trade of this type be legal? "

The fact that there is no rule against it..makes it legal ..so the REAL question is...

"Should there be a rule against this"

My answer is that you can make all the rules you want but they are useless if you cannot enforce them....therefore, it becomes a question of character..

Do you want people in your league who think that this kind of act is ok?

 

BigJim®

Footballguy
If you need to worry about your ability to enforce rules, you don't trust your fellow league members. I guarantee the commish of my main league loses zero sleep worrying about enforcing rules.

 

Kit Fisto

Footballguy
Without this turning into last week's "ethics" flame war...

Since it is not written in your rules that owners can't work out side deals, you have to allow it. You can't make rules changes in the middle of the year when you notice something amiss.

After the season ends, put it up for a vote amongst your owners and decide whether or not to edit your rule.

For the record, in the leagues I am in, and the one I commish, no "side deals" of any shape or form are allowed. If two owners work something out in secret, that's them... if they get caught, they'd each forfeit a quality draft pick (dynasty). This happened once, and the following year, side deals were nixed and it was written into the rules. Hasn't happened since.

 

Avery

Footballguy
I don't make rules that cannot be enforced....

For example..

"splitting of prize money is not allowed"

although you can create a rule that prohibits this, how can it be enforced?

IF they want to divvy the money in their living room, how can I stop it....and how can you prove it if they deny it.....

It's all about character.
But that's why you need the rule.If it's about character, you make a rule and trust in your leaguemates to follow that rule.

It's clear from this thread that there is not a consensus as to whether this trade is "wrong" so why would their character determine weather they attempt a trade like this or not?

In fact, the fact that they divulged the money split shows me that there isn't a character issue here, simply an issue as to what the "scope" of a trade can be.

Why not define that?
You can define it all you want....THEN, try to enforce it.

All you're going to accomplish is to let eveyone know that if you're going to split the money...don't let anyone else know about it....or else.....nothing will happen.
I think you're missing my point.If it's about character, you expect your leaguemates to follow the rules.

If it's about character, you don't have to "enforce" the rule but you do have to define the rule for it to be followed.
I understand that the original post asked the question..."Should a trade of this type be legal? "

The fact that there is no rule against it..makes it legal ..so the REAL question is...

"Should there be a rule against this"

My answer is that you can make all the rules you want but they are useless if you cannot enforce them....therefore, it becomes a question of character..

Do you want people in your league who think that this kind of act is ok?
I guess we just disagree here.You are implying that merely the act of trying a trade like this, even if it's not outlawed by the rules, means that the person has "poor character" and I disagree.

Again, it's clear by this thread that a number of people "think that this kind of act is ok."

How can you question the character of someone who would attempt a trade like this, when many think that it is merely a smart trade and not a dishonest one?

Now, if this type of trade is not allowed by the rules, there is no question as to the character of the person who tries to cicumvent the rules.

Leaving a situation and rule vague will only encourage a misunderstanding.

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
Do you want people in your league who think that this kind of act is ok?
I'm missing where this is such a heinous act.One team wants a player, the other team doesn't mind trading that player except that he thinks he has a good chance (or some chance anyway) of winning $ with this player. Therefore he requests the stipulation. Why is this a problem?

Now if the rule were that the team drafting the player gets the prize, and they circumvented this, I'm with you. But that isn't what was said so far.

This is MUCH different than saying "If I win the Super Bowl, we split the prize".

 

Varmint

Footballguy
Do you want people in your league who think that this kind of act is ok?
I'm missing where this is such a heinous act.One team wants a player, the other team doesn't mind trading that player except that he thinks he has a good chance (or some chance anyway) of winning $ with this player. Therefore he requests the stipulation. Why is this a problem?

Now if the rule were that the team drafting the player gets the prize, and they circumvented this, I'm with you. But that isn't what was said so far.

This is MUCH different than saying "If I win the Super Bowl, we split the prize".
Wait a second...I never said one way or the other if this should be allowed.I simply asked it that kind of act bothered you....if so, don't ask them to join your league..

As for splitting the Superbowl money.....

You can't stop it from happening.....so who the hell would write a rule against it i?

As long as it doesn't efect the outcome of the game...who CARES what happens to the money when it's over?

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
As for splitting the Superbowl money.....

You can't stop it from happening.....so who the hell would write a rule against it i?

As long as it doesn't efect the outcome of the game...who CARES what happens to the money when it's over?
Splitting the SB prize $ obviously shows collusion, as it gives another team motive to benefit another team. No such conflict applies here.I suppose if two people split the money, but NEVER trade, it's ok.

 

PoolShark

Footballguy
Do you want people in your league who think that this kind of act is ok?
I'm missing where this is such a heinous act.One team wants a player, the other team doesn't mind trading that player except that he thinks he has a good chance (or some chance anyway) of winning $ with this player. Therefore he requests the stipulation. Why is this a problem?

Now if the rule were that the team drafting the player gets the prize, and they circumvented this, I'm with you. But that isn't what was said so far.

This is MUCH different than saying "If I win the Super Bowl, we split the prize".
I agree with this 100%.It was already stated that the traded players alone were fair value for each other.

I would assume that the "top player" money is paid out to the owner who has the player on his roster at the end of the season. It sounds to me like the owner who actually drafted this player and owned him for 1/2 the season just wants a portion of the pot if the player manages to cash in.

As OZ mentioned, this is nothing like splitting playoff money.

Not to mention the fact that you don't have rules in place that would disallow it anyway.

Plus, this is an oddball situation. We have a rule that prevents cash being exchanged as part of a trade, but this really doesn't fit that bill. I really don't see a problem with what they did, mainly because of the unusual way that this prize money is awarded.

Just out of curiosity, did the owner who traded away the potential high scorer say that he would not have made the deal without this stipulation?

 

notoriousbob

Footballguy
This is a direct result of having prize money attached to individual players instead of team acheivement.Now since you said that both teams paid fair value, I have to assume that you mean that without the 50/50 split the trade is kosher. What's the problem? If I have a QB that has a shot at the prize $, but I am offered a good RB and WR for him that would help my team out overall, I have a conflict. Do I improve my team, or do I sit on this one player that might make me some $? This owner did the smart thing and improved his team, but also maintained a financial interest in the player that he presumably drafted and is entitled to compensation for.Simply stated, this is no problem. Especially since there is no rule against it, and because the trade was not uneven as a result of it. Now the trade described above, getting LT for a bum and $50, that might be a problem.

 

Varmint

Footballguy
As for splitting the Superbowl money.....

You can't stop it from happening.....so who the hell would write a rule against it i?

As long as it doesn't efect the outcome of the game...who CARES what happens to the money when it's over?
Splitting the SB prize $ obviously shows collusion, as it gives another team motive to benefit another team. No such conflict applies here.I suppose if two people split the money, but NEVER trade, it's ok.
I disagree...Case in point..

In 2001 I was playing a good friend of mine in the championship...his wife had just lost his job and of course, it was around Xmas time...

Being the Commissioner, I had the $1300 prize money in my possession.

I called him to my work just before the lineups were due and asked him how sure he was about his lineup....he was damn sure..

I handed him the envelope with the $1300 in it and told him to have a merry Xmas...

We played

I won

He got the money...I got the trophy....

no collusion at all but the money was needed more in his home than mine.

Like I said earlier...if it doesn't effect the outcome of the game, who cares about the money?

 

BigJim®

Footballguy
Well, after reading all of the posts in this thread I'm convinced there is something inherently problematic about awarding money for individual positional scoring. I've been in a redraft for many years that awards for high team scoring and we never run into issues like this. An award system of this type will lead to weird situations where, for example, a guy who loses his top WR to injury really needs to do an LT for another RB + WR, but instead he places the monetary value of the individual player (LT) over the competitiveness of his team as a whole. To solve for that general trade inflexibility, you will see side deals such as the one being raised here; otherwise trades simply won't happen. I'm not saying the behavior mentioned is "heinous," in fact under this format I've concluded it's inevitable for this issue to arise. However, I personally would not play in this sort of format simply because it would tend to put individual performance ahead of team competitiveness. I'd think it would impact everything from draft day (team bundling midround picks to get 2-3 uber studs who may earn $) to playoffs (fringe playoff teams maintaining status quo with $$ studs instead of looking for team improvement). Everyone loves money, but I'm in FF to make the most competitive team that I can.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top