Commissioners...Advice Needed (1 Viewer)

[The_Wolfman]

First, if this belongs in the ACF I apologize and please move.

I'm the commissioner of a fairly big money league and on Tuesday agreed to a trade with one of the other managers. Our league rules state the trade will remain as "pending" for 48 hours, just so the rest of the league can take a look at it, before I put it through (we don't have a league voting system in our league, it's commissioner approval only).

Today, the guy contacts me and says he wants to cancel the trade, for no reason other than he changed his mind about it. The trade hasn't gone through yet, but was already agreed to by both of us on Tuesday. Unfortunately, we don't have anything in our league by-laws specifically about this situation, but the by-laws do say the only reason a trade would be vetoed is because of suspected collusion.

If it was between two other managers I would probably not cancel the trade since they already both agreed to it, but since I'm involved in the trade it's a little different as I don't want to appear biased and upset the league. Thoughts?

FWIW here is the trade:

Larry Fitzgerald

Braylon Edwards

Michael Bush

FOR

Pierre Garcon

Brandon Jackson

Eddie Royal

Thanks any advice is greatly appreciated!

 

[gandalas]

First of all, ignore the players involved. We don't need to know, and in fact you should not have even posted them. That is irrelevant.

Now, it is mainly up to you. If there is nothing in the bylaws, then there is nothing that says you cannot just leave it as it is. A trade accepted is a trade accepted and all that.

But if you think that this trade will make that other owner really pissed, and you may lose an owner for next season and beyond, I would think about it.

Whatever you decide, you need to put something in the bylaws in order to avoid this situation in the future.

 

[Captain Hook]

If it was between two other managers I would probably not cancel the trade since they already both agreed to it, but since I'm involved in the trade it's a little different as I don't want to appear biased and upset the league. Thoughts?Thanks any advice is greatly appreciated!

If it was between two other owners as you suggest above and it was posted, but before the 48 hours was up and one of the two owners involved called the other and wanted to cancel and it was agreed upon, would you allow them to cancel it?There is your answerPS - doesn't belong in the ACF Forum.....it BELONGS in the FF Commissioner's Forum

 

[The_Wolfman]

Thanks for the input Fair point about the players involved being irrelevant, I only put them there to (hopefully) show the trade was not ridiculously unbalanced.I took a look at our league by-laws after posting this and they read as follows:

All trades will be reviewed and approved or vetoed by the Commissioner. Trades will only be vetoed under the following circumstances:1. Suspected Collusion- Collusion is defined as “A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.” - Examples of this include Making a trade that clearly and obviously benefits one team over the other (i.e. Peyton Manning for a back up kicker)o Tradebacks. Trading a player one week, then re-acquiring that same player the next week, a practice used to help cover bye weeks. 2. Trades That Upset the Competitive Balance of the League- Common with new owners, some trades are not collusion as defined above, but may be so unbalanced that they threaten the competitive balance of the league. Everyone here is an experienced owner so I doubt this will come into play. 3. Unanimous League Decision to Overturn the Trade- As commissioner I reserve the right to have the final say over all trades, however, if every owner in the league that is not involved in the trade protests a trade and can make a reasonable case for either (1) or (2) as outlined above, the trade may be vetoed.

After reading this, I feel like it does cover the situation I'm in. There is nothing in there that says I, as the commissioner, will veto a trade because one owner changed his mind about it. I guess it's worth stating directly after this situation, but I do think it's implied by the rules.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Is this guy your friend or even a friend-of-a-friend? If so, just cancel the trade and move on with life. No reason to create ill-will just to win a few fantasy football games.

IN BEFORE "THE INTEGRITY OF THE LEAGUE MUST BE PRESERVED AT ALL COSTS"-guy

 

[mlball77]

Based on what you posted on your trading rules, I don't think you as commish have the obligation to overturn a trade because one party changed his mind. I would actually think it is a bit the other way… you are obligated to process it unless it is collusive, upsets the competitive balance or all non-involved parties want it to be overturned. Since it doesn't sound like any of these scenarios apply, the trade should be processed.

As a team owner, you may want to agree to cancel the trade… just to be cool to the other party. I'd strongly consider this if I was involved in a trade where the other party really wanted to back out of.

Going forward, I would suggest you have a vice commish or some such handle any trade reviews that you are involved in. -That or move to a league vote system or simply to a trade system where there is no review time and trades process as soon as accepted.

 

[golfguy]

whatever you decide in the end, get rid of the stupid 48 hour rule.

 

[Giants4Life]

If someone changes their mind a day after for no reason, what would stop someone from changing their mind a day later after they find out WR 1 is hurt or lost his job?

Overturning it will open up a whole can of worms. Every trade accepted from here on out would be open to overturning a day later.

It is the guy's fault for accepting it. He should've mulled it over, but he didn't.

 

[Wet Doggg]

I think you need to drop the 48 hour rule. If there is no "veto" trade procedure, then there is no need for the 48 hour thing. Make trade just go through immediately. I say the trade stands.

 

[Nate]

First, the 48hr rule was begging to be abused in this way since you put it in.

Second, the other GM is a baby for trying to back out.

Precedents go a long way in making your case in these situations. If it's been generally accepted by the league that a trade is considered final once they go into that silly 48hr limbo, and nobody's ever backed out before, that works in your favor. Technically, I think you're fine to put the trade through.

That said, I've been in the position a few times where it's me vs. another GM in a grey area of the rules. I usually rule in the other GM's favor (unless it's really sketchy) and then immediately put a new rule in writing (named after the other GM, of course) preventing that situation in the future. It cost me the semi-final game once, but having the trust of your league is pretty important if you want to keep the league running smoothly. As a commish it's your responsibility to find the loopholes in the rules before they're exploited.

 

[Dodge]

I think you need to drop the 48 hour rule. If there is no "veto" trade procedure, then there is no need for the 48 hour thing. Make trade just go through immediately. I say the trade stands.

 

[The_Wolfman]

Again, thanks all for the advice.

The reason the 48 hour rule is in place is to put some check on the power of the commissioner. Although the commissioner has final say, the league still does have some limited input on trades, so I thought it was fair to at least give everyone a chance to look at it before putting it through. Maybe it's something to re-evaluate after this.

 

[Old Redskin]

A ton of really good feedback here. And since opinions are like backsides in that everyone has one, here are my two cents...

Perhaps the other way to manage this is to require that any trade must be executed 48 hours prior to the next game day. Then once the trade is made, its done. If other GMs feel that the trade meets either the "Collusion" or "Upsetting the competitive balance of the league," they have 48 hours to make their case and have the trade reversed before game time.

 

[newphatdaddy]

I think your bylaws answer your question fairly clearly: The "other" owner cannot overturn this trade during your 48 hour period, unless he gets a unanimous rule from the league to do so. He's got 48 hours to do that. No unanimous rule, no overturning this trade. That's what your 48 hour period is for. Clear as a sunny day.

re: 3. Unanimous League Decision to Overturn the Trade

- As commissioner I reserve the right to have the final say over all trades, however, if every owner in the league that is not involved in the trade protests a trade and can make a reasonable case for either (1) or (2) as outlined above, the trade may be vetoed.

 

[Pickle Rody]

whatever you decide in the end, get rid of the stupid 48 hour rule.

I see no need for the 48 hour rule. Really. As someone else mentioned, it invites these kind of second guesses. My advice would be to get rid of it next year.Would this owner be pulling this crap with another owner? I think he is just taking advantage of the fact that you are the commissioner and will likely do what he now asks so that you don't look like a dictator to the rest of the league. If the trade had been processed immediately would he be allowed buyers remorse and get it reversed?

I also think newphatdaddy has your answer. The rules cover this scenario. If he wants to back out of the deal, force him to get the support of the rest of the league. I bet once the rest of the league is informed of what he is trying to do that they will force him to consummate the trade - he did agree to it and nobody else has come forward to object.

 

[supersportniner]

Just post a story and email it to the league to see if it will be voted against. It's unfair that the commish always has to bow down to the other players because they feel you have the control to cheat and what not. Damn I need to charge a commish fee. I feel your pain bro!

 

[bleedgreen]

I would get rid of the 48 hour rule. If any trade seems like collusion or like it upsets the balance of the league, owners will voice their opinion and you can overturn it. Hopefully, other owners in your league are trustworthy and knowledgeable so that never, or very rarely, would have to happen.

You say it's a big money league! So there is big cash for the winner? Do you know the other owner? Will friendships be lost? Will he be really upset and will other owners side with him, potentially dividing your league? Will this trade make your team so much better that you feel it could be the difference in winning the cash?

Just some things to think about.

Did you at least ask the guy to give some kind of legit reason why he wants to backout?

I personally wouldn't want to continue with a trade if the other party felt uncomfortable about it. I would cancel and change the rules so that it's not an issue in the future.

 

[The_Wolfman]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Ultimately, I decided that based on the rules our league has for trades (posted earlier in the thread) I can't veto this trade. A commish veto would be the only way to "cancel" it at this point since it's already been accepted by both parties. I just don't have that power given the rules since I know it's not collusion and the trade doesn't upset the balance of the league, which would be the only two cases in which a commish veto would be appropriate, as stipulated by the league rules.

I spent a lot of time crafting the league rules in the offseason and what's the point of having them if I don't consistently abide by them? Everyone in the league received a copy of the rules before the season and had a chance to voice their opinion about any changes they wanted made. Once the draft was over the rules were final. I knew there might be some unexpected circumstances that arose during the year and the league rules are in place to deal with such situations. Especially with a lot of money involved, I wanted the rules to be black and white and eliminate as much gray area as possible, so decisions could be made in a business-like manner, rather than getting personal feelings involved.

I informed the owner of the decision and he seemed to understand. Not that it matters really, but I don't know the guy personally as he is a friend of a friend, but I don't think the decision would have been any different if it was a good friend, since maintaining the integrity of the league is my #1 job as commissioner.