Should The Commish Be Able To Unilaterally Remove Owners? (1 Viewer)

[the lone star]

So we had this scenario present itself. Our Commish wants to boot a guy because the Commish feels like the owner's conduct is detrimental to the league. Furthermore, the Commish and some of the other owners want to include their buddy, but can't right now since nobody has left.

The Owner in jeopardy went through the rulebook and found a clause that said if someone is to be removed, it has to be put to a vote with at least 75% of the vote in favor of removal.

Nobody knew about this clause before, including the Commish. But the Commish thinks it is his right to unilaterally remove the owner because it is a league he set up himself after being disappointed with other leagues.

I've never had beef with the other Owner and don't want to force him out. Sure, some of his communications have come off as brusque, but that's no reason to boot him. Nor do I want the Commish to unilaterally force him out, I just don't like the thought of that since we have all invested years and money building our teams.

So what do you think is the correct course of action? Should the commish be able to remove him?

 

[Insein]

What do you think? It's pretty obvious

 

[voiceofunreason]

Unreal, the gift that keeps taking.

 

[Deamon]

So we had this scenario present itself. Our Commish wants to boot a guy because the Commish feels like the owner's conduct is detrimental to the league. Furthermore, the Commish and some of the other owners want to include their buddy, but can't right now since nobody has left.

The Owner in jeopardy went through the rulebook and found a clause that said if someone is to be removed, it has to be put to a vote with at least 75% of the vote in favor of removal.

Nobody knew about this clause before, including the Commish. But the Commish thinks it is his right to unilaterally remove the owner because it is a league he set up himself after being disappointed with other leagues.

I've never had beef with the other Owner and don't want to force him out. Sure, some of his communications have come off as brusque, but that's no reason to boot him. Nor do I want the Commish to unilaterally force him out, I just don't like the thought of that since we have all invested years and money building our teams.

So what do you think is the correct course of action? Should the commish be able to remove him?

I really hope the commish removes you.  He should have a long time ago.

 

[JamieMurphy]

I really hope the commish removes you.  He should have a long time ago.

I really hope the mods stop letting lone troll post his nonsense in here. I take this as a relatively serious fantasy football site, not a "whose chain can I yank today" site

 

[voiceofunreason]

I really hope the commish removes you.  He should have a long time ago.

But it’s his friend with the erectile disfunction.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Rulebook?

 

[elshagon]

You are a disruptive force to whatever league you're in.  You are deceptive, annoying and a pain.  I would boot you too.  You're polls are crazy how you word them.  Are you an adult?

 

[Arodin]

He can't really be having this many diverse problems in one league.  He has to be scouring message boards collating league issues to bring them to our attention one by one.

May I recommend Commissioner: Impossible podcast, which features several fantasy experts discussing commissioner issues in fantasy football.  Several entire episodes dedicated to "bad commish stories" like these.

 

[Interseptopus]

If it's you being removed, yes, I would too

This question was asked and answered days ago

 

[the lone star]

This is seriously about a guy in our league right now. Personally, I don't like giving the Commish too much power. He's obviously gonna have a great deal of latitude, but collecting dues, changing rules, vetoing trades, AND removing owners is just a bit too much in my eyes.

 

[Tanner9919]

So we had this scenario present itself. Our Commish wants to boot a guy because the Commish feels like the owner's conduct is detrimental to the league. Furthermore, the Commish and some of the other owners want to include their buddy, but can't right now since nobody has left.

The Owner in jeopardy went through the rulebook and found a clause that said if someone is to be removed, it has to be put to a vote with at least 75% of the vote in favor of removal.

Nobody knew about this clause before, including the Commish. But the Commish thinks it is his right to unilaterally remove the owner because it is a league he set up himself after being disappointed with other leagues.

I've never had beef with the other Owner and don't want to force him out. Sure, some of his communications have come off as brusque, but that's no reason to boot him. Nor do I want the Commish to unilaterally force him out, I just don't like the thought of that since we have all invested years and money building our teams.

So what do you think is the correct course of action? Should the commish be able to remove him?

whats the rule book say? 75% ? 

dude stays.it's in the rules.why have a rule book if you can't follow the rules.

my work is done here.

Ciccio, a porta.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG58IXGW3qs

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Yes, particularly if he is not a coach/owner himself.

 

[DropKick]

Absolutely.  Remove owners, veto trades, change rules... He is the commish for a reason - we're talking the Wisdom of Solomon here.  The overall good of the league comes first and only the commish understands that completely.

 

[finfansteve]

What the heck did the owner in question do to possibly be removed?

ive been in hundreds of leagues and the only reason we get rid of owners is because they collude. I can’t think of any other reason to boot an owner 

 

[bagger]

So we had this scenario present itself. Our Commish wants to boot a guy because the Commish feels like the owner's conduct is detrimental to the league. Furthermore, the Commish and some of the other owners want to include their buddy, but can't right now since nobody has left.

The Owner in jeopardy went through the rulebook and found a clause that said if someone is to be removed, it has to be put to a vote with at least 75% of the vote in favor of removal.

Nobody knew about this clause before, including the Commish. But the Commish thinks it is his right to unilaterally remove the owner because it is a league he set up himself after being disappointed with other leagues.

I've never had beef with the other Owner and don't want to force him out. Sure, some of his communications have come off as brusque, but that's no reason to boot him. Nor do I want the Commish to unilaterally force him out, I just don't like the thought of that since we have all invested years and money building our teams.

So what do you think is the correct course of action? Should the commish be able to remove him?

Couldn’t figure this out before the season?

 

[Tool]

This is seriously about a guy in our league right now. Personally, I don't like giving the Commish too much power. He's obviously gonna have a great deal of latitude, but collecting dues, changing rules, vetoing trades, AND removing owners is just a bit too much in my eyes.

Seriously, get lost.

 

[the lone star]

Seriously, get lost.

lol, nice name.

But thanks for the response.

 

[the lone star]

Couldn’t figure this out before the season?

It never came up tbh.

 

[da_budman]

If he is worse than you..... definitely yes......  oh and also you.  

 

[Joe Summer]

Man, this is worse than the Qanon thread.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

 

 

[TheWinz]

obviously you know what this other owner did, so why not tell us?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

If it's you - absolutely.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I really hope the commish removes you.  He should have a long time ago.

I feel as though I’ve missed something relevant here. 

 

[Interseptopus]

I feel as though I’ve missed something relevant here. 

He's posted this at least 2 times now and posts the weirdest polls for advice on his league in multiple forums, which is apparently has more problems than any league I've ever heard of. I honestly think he's making up issues just to post on the forum. Just to troll and irritate people. I'm not sure he's old enough to drive, which makes it worse. According to others, he has been told to only post these so often by mods, and has apparently forgotten.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Damn guys.  Please stop enabling him.  Seriously, just refrain from responding or check the name of the OP and just don’t click on the thread. You’d swear this guy was related to the Kardashians or something and can use Jedi mind tricks to get people who otherwise have common sense to be unable to stop themselves from typing a response.

 

[beerbuff]

Damn guys.  Please stop enabling him.  Seriously, just refrain from responding or check the name of the OP and just don’t click on the thread. You’d swear this guy was related to the Kardashians or something and can use Jedi mind tricks to get people who otherwise have common sense to be unable to stop themselves from typing a response.

On the Assistant Coach thread he's crying about the commissioner and a trade from 2015.....