Please help (1 Viewer)

[BUFFooneries]

I am the commissioner of a ten team league and the following trade was proposed and accepted between two owners of the league.

W. McGahee (Buf - RB)

R. McMichael (Mia - TE)

K. Barlow (NYJ - RB)

F. Gore (SF - RB)

L. Maroney (NE - RB)

D. Williams (Car - RB)

Although I am not listing the entire rosters, one of the owners has a noticeably stronger team than the other and this trade was vetoed by the required number of owners to block a trade.

My question is this: I am of the belief that if both owners are in agreement of the trade and both perceive value in the players they are receiving and both have accepted the trade than it is a fair trade. No matter how the owners in the league may view the strength of the players involved. What the power of veto exists is for any situation where collusion between owners obviously exists and a trade made with malicious intent is proposed and accepted. Should I force this trade?

Can anyone else chime in here and offer me assisstance to how I handle this situation??

 

[Crazy8s]

As commissioner, I would revolk owners ability to veto trades. They are only worried about there own team.

 

[CA_7]

Can anyone else chime in here and offer me assisstance to how I handle this situation??

What do your rules say about trades? If they can be veto'd with the required number of votes and zero ability for the commish to overturn than you have your answer.Personally, I don't believe owners should be voting on trades unless someone believes collusion is involved. Yes, that is very diificult to prove but is also why I prefer leagues where I know everyone outside of FF.

 

[faulkfan]

This is why when I commish a league I always give myself veto power. I don't veto trades unless there is collusion and since that is nearly impossible to prove I let them pass.

You should have never given the league the right to vote on trades if you wanted the ability to let them go through. Now tha the system is in place you just have to live with it.

 

[SlaX]

I see nothing to veto. Looks like a fair trade. It's not the stronger team's fault that the rest of the league has weak teams (if this trade indeed does make his team that much stronger).

 

[The Commish]

As commissioner, I would revolk owners ability to veto trades. They are only worried about there own team.

If you have the opinion you say you do, why even have voting in the first place? Just let the owners trade among themselves as they see fit. If something happens that involves collusion etc down the road, you can still fix it with your commish privs.

 

[code]

Sounds like you're bound by your rulebook (majority veto vote), but this should be a good lesson to all commissioners that allowing owners to vote (in their own best interest) to veto any trade is often not in the best interest of the entire league...

Our rulebook provides the following:

1. Trades must demonstrate mutual value (notice, not "equal", but both teams must be able to explain what they gain)

2. Commish approves/rejects all trades

3. Only trades involving collusion or violating leagues rules will be vetoed ("no babysitting" rule)

4. An owner may challenge up to 1 commish ruling (including trade approvals) per season in which case a majority vote will be held

Notice in item #4, the criteria presented for challenging the ruling must demonstrate how #1 or #3 were violated...make the debate about something demonstrable, not about "I want to block another team from improving"...

 

[Winning IS Everything]

I agree that you should not have a league vote to veto. In one of my leagues the Commish has veto power but a league vote can overturn a veto only. We have never been in that situation but I think it would work ok.

I see no reason to veto this trade.

 

[PMENFAN]

As commissioner, I would revolk owners ability to veto trades. They are only worried about there own team.

Exactly. When you give the power of veto to other owners, they will veto out of spite, not principle, when they think a good team is getting better. IT's bad policy.In other words, it sounds like they colluded to veto the trade to prohibit a team from improving. Rules to veto trades are bad policy for this very reason. They are rules for whiners. Commish's can kill collusion alone. They don't need the other owners.

 

[Saints-Man]

I agree that you should not have a league vote to veto. In one of my leagues the Commish has veto power but a league vote can overturn a veto only. We have never been in that situation but I think it would work ok.I see no reason to veto this trade.

I would only veto this trade if he suspects collusion like he stated. In the league I commish, I only had to veto a trade once, and it was obvious collusion. The owners never even balked so I must have been right.

 

[Saints-Man]

As commissioner, I would revolk owners ability to veto trades. They are only worried about there own team.

Exactly. When you give the power of veto to other owners, they will veto out of spite, not principle, when they think a good team is getting better. IT's bad policy.

Depends on the league. In 2 (of my 9 leagues), the owners have veto authority. A majority of the owners must object within 24 hours for a trade to be revoked. In my 5 years in the league, no trades have been overturned. If you have responsible and reasonable owners, it can work.

 

[TommyGilmore]

If the rules allow owners to veto trades, then why override your rules?

The best way to resolve this is to privately approach the owners who vetoed the trade and convince them to let the trade through.