Owner Threatens To Quit The League

[TomServo 0]

Shakespeare,

 

If you wanna come on here and whine about how this guy is tooling your league mates, you *HAVE* to be willing to explain yourself. Multiple posters have asked about or commented on the specific changes made, and you haven't fessed up to them. Until you do, don't expect many to blindly accept that this guy should be ruined.. after all, if he was being such a jerk, the rest of the league wouldn't have backed down, they'd have tossed him out.

 

The funny thing is... after this season, LJ + Fitz might not seem like such a jackpot.. you just never know in fantasy football.

[Parja 0]

Also, the idea that a strong commish could have single handedly made a ruling and solved everything is off-base. You'd still have owner(s) angry and ready to quit whether it was one guy's ruling or a group's vote.

 

No it's not. A good commish can find a way to resolve the issue quickly and with the minimum pain possible. It's when you let things fester and go to a league vote that the threats of leaving the league come about.

 

Of course, a good commish would have put together a solid set of rules in the first place to avoid crap like this.

[Shakespeare 0]

why don't you tell us WHY it is better for the league and maybe we'll agree with you.

 

We had 2 trades that were being disputed by some members in the league. It had to do with the way our keeper rules were structured. Reading the rules, it's easy to see why each side felt the way they did. I'm not going to disagree with anyone who says that this was a major f*ckup on our parts. We've learned our lesson. This has been the only hiccup of it's kind in 6 years.

 

So, the vote is split 50/50 on this issue. We were at a standstill. And, not to mention, we're asking owners involved in the vote to vote on what they thought the rules are. It's not fair to ask owners to vote for/against their own interests. What do you expect people will do? So another solution was proposed. One that was as fair *as possible* considering the situation. Most owners, myself included, were willing lose out for the betterment of the league. One owner, as Dan put it, held the league hostage.

 

I think a lot of you are wanting tons of details because you are trying to gauge who's getting the better end of the deal. I guess that's just how most people think. I'm not faulting that. And it's given me a clearer picture of just how lucky I am to be in a league with people who (for the most part) put the group ahead of their own selfish interests. The question is, are you willing to do what you think is best for your league, or do you always want just what's best for yourself?

[DrJ 0]

How is it that after 6 years the league all of the sudden has a "major disagreement" with the keeper rules and completely alters them? How did this not come up 5, 4, 3, 2, or even 1 year ago?

 

There obviously has to have been some interpretation of the rule that has been used in the past....that's the precedent, that's what stands. Whatever happened last year, the year before, the year before that should happen again this year. Otherwise, you need to set some date in the future for the changes so that people REALLY aren't voting on how it effects their team.

 

This guy has a legitimate beef based on what I've read here.

[TD Ryan2 316]

Reading the rules, it's easy to see why each side felt the way they did.

 

I'm sure it is easy.

Can I please read the rules myself now? And list the trade(s) too. It'll help me to make a more informed decision. thanks.

 

 

I think a lot of you are wanting tons of details because you are trying to gauge who's getting the better end of the deal.

 

I think you're wrong.

I think maybe I can think of some other solution that maybe you haven't thought of yet.

 

again. thanks.

[Shakespeare 0]

How is it that after 6 years the league all of the sudden has a "major disagreement" with the keeper rules and completely alters them? How did this not come up 5, 4, 3, 2, or even 1 year ago?

 

This guy has a legitimate beef...

 

Because these rules are new to this season. We voted on them at the 2005 draft. But, our faults for not being specific enough, because half the league sees them one way and half another.

 

You're right. He does have a beef. He also has a vote. If he wants to leave after the vote, then fine. But manipulating your buddies with a threat to leave is another story. Don't you see the difference?

[TD Ryan2 316]

You're right. He does have a beef. He also has a vote. If he wants to leave after the vote, then fine. But manipulating your buddies with a threat to leave is another story.

I think you've already made up your mind and you don't care what we think.

 

I don't think you've thought any of this through very thoroughly.

 

 

again. please give me FACTS. League Rules. And Trades involved.

 

thanks.

[BoltAddiction 0]

So, let me give you some background...

 

The owner in question has 2 keepers: L.J. and Fitz. He also landed the #1 pick in this year's draft. So, I just want to point out up front that he's got a strong team heading into this season.

 

We have a very democratic league. Sure, we have a commish. But we put every rule change, every problem to vote. It's worked great for the past 6 years. This season, we had a major disagreement on the written keeper rules. Half the league saw them one way. Half saw them another. 50/50 split. And what made matters even worse was that voting on these rules in the middle of trading season forced owners to chose between what they thought was best for the league and what was best for their team. Can we say, 'Conflict of interest?'

 

Anyway, a solution was proposed where we all sat down and agreed on new keeper rules. Then, we throw everyone back into the draft pool and redraft. Certainly, the owner in question stood to lose the most. But he wasn't the only one. A lot of owners stood to lose a lot in terms of keepers and extra draft picks.

 

We had 1/2 the league vote 'yes' to this solution. And before a few more owners could provide the majority votes, this owner wrote an email to the league threatening to leave if we continued with this idea. In the end, we have a lot of nice guys in our league and even though they agreed with the solution, they backed down out out of friendship. Essentially, they took the high road so that the owner in question wouldn't get so upset.

 

How do you guys feel about this? Is it ever okay for an owner to give the league an ultimatium? Or, do you think his response was appropiate considering his keepers? How would you respond if this happened in your league?

Our league is relatively the same. However, we grandfather rules (for lack of a better term) which go into effect in the following year to avoid just this problem. As an example, we have a waiver wire which works on reverse order from draft picks, such that the last team to draft has the first waiver pick until used, and so on. We had pre-season discussion of turning the waiver wire into an auction format - highest bid gets player. Ultimately, we agreed that if such a rule is voted on, it does not go into effect until 2007, so that the teams who are at the front half don't vote against it just to protect themselves this year, while the teams at the back end don't vote for it just to gain an advantage this year. This avoids getting threats.

 

On a personal level I think threats are bush, but if I had LJ and someone said I would have to throw him back because the league wanted to change its format, I would be upset. The question really is how many of the owners would have made the same threat before you criticize this one?

[Jesus Christ 0]

In my keeper league all rules have to be given a year's notice. We used to be a keep 3 league then went to 2. I think it was after the 2003....so the season ended in 2003, had an end of year meeting, someone proposed to drop it 2. some wanted it some didn't but what we did was voted for it but it wouldn't take place until the start of the 2005 season, that way, any draft picks or trades that were made with 2004 in mind wouldn't be effected and then 2004 could be played with 2005 in mind...

[DrJ 0]

Because these rules are new to this season. We voted on them at the 2005 draft. But, our faults for not being specific enough, because half the league sees them one way and half another.

 

You're right. He does have a beef. He also has a vote. If he wants to leave after the vote, then fine. But manipulating your buddies with a threat to leave is another story. Don't you see the difference?

 

Fine - then go back to the old rules if there is disagreement and agree on an entirely new set of rules that go into effect in the future, like you did last season. Don't "interpret" them on the fly and screw this guy....simple enough.

[mobb_deep 920]

We had 2 trades that were being disputed by some members in the league. It had to do with the way our keeper rules were structured. Reading the rules, it's easy to see why each side felt the way they did. I'm not going to disagree with anyone who says that this was a major f*ckup on our parts. We've learned our lesson. This has been the only hiccup of it's kind in 6 years.

 

So, the vote is split 50/50 on this issue. We were at a standstill. And, not to mention, we're asking owners involved in the vote to vote on what they thought the rules are. It's not fair to ask owners to vote for/against their own interests. What do you expect people will do? So another solution was proposed. One that was as fair *as possible* considering the situation. Most owners, myself included, were willing lose out for the betterment of the league. One owner, as Dan put it, held the league hostage.

 

I think a lot of you are wanting tons of details because you are trying to gauge who's getting the better end of the deal. I guess that's just how most people think. I'm not faulting that. And it's given me a clearer picture of just how lucky I am to be in a league with people who (for the most part) put the group ahead of their own selfish interests. The question is, are you willing to do what you think is best for your league, or do you always want just what's best for yourself?

 

This is a competition not a bake sale. Quit trying to act like you're holier then thou because "you put the group ahead of selfish interests". The object of fantasy football is to win the championship and the $$. It's not so everyone can all drink chardonay and sword fight with one another after the season.

 

Anytime money and competition is involved in anything people are going to look out for what's best for them. Not because they're selfish, it's "human nature", or they lack the mental capacity to be empathetic. They want what's best for them because they want to win the $$ damnit.

 

Now get off your high horse and live with the decision the league made. It doesn't matter if the rest of the owners "backed down" or the LJ owner promised them all blowjobs if they agreed with him. They all made a decision and it's a done deal. If you want to change the rules then announce your intentions (you are the commish right?) on the league forum and change the rule at the end of the season.

[JGB_11 0]

sounds like a pretty piss poor league. You simply can't change a keeper league overnight, that's bush league. I would quit this league in a heartbeat. Listen Fantasy Football isn't rocket science, it isn't hard to create a league from scratch that works well with proven and time tested rules.

 

I find it hysterical that people think they need to re invent the wheel. Fair, well known, and consistent rules are the cornerstone of any league. If a league has been around 6 years and still hasn't managed this, it isn't worth consideration. Just my 2 cents

 

good post

[Shakespeare 0]

I'm sure it is easy.

Can I please read the rules myself now? And list the trade(s) too. It'll help me to make a more informed decision. thanks.

I think you're wrong.

I think maybe I can think of some other solution that maybe you haven't thought of yet.

 

again. thanks.

 

Ryan, I appreciate your interest and input. But, I'm not here to see what everyone thinks our rules mean. Our league is made up of relatively smart guys (myself not included) and there is a legitimate disagreement. My concern is more with how you resolve a split league and what kind of people you want in your group.

[DrJ 0]

Ryan, I appreciate your interest and input. But, I'm not here to see what everyone thinks our rules mean. Our league is made up of relatively smart guys (myself not included) and there is a legitimate disagreement. My concern is more with how you resolve a split league and what kind of people you want in your group.

 

I generally try not to screw people, so people don't threaten to quit my leagues...but that's me.

[Shakespeare 0]

This is a competition not a bake sale. Quit trying to act like you're holier then thou because "you put the group ahead of selfish interests". The object of fantasy football is to win the championship and the $$. It's not so everyone can all drink chardonay and sword fight with one another after the season.

 

Anytime money and competition is involved in anything people are going to look out for what's best for them. Not because they're selfish, it's "human nature", or they lack the mental capacity to be empathetic. They want what's best for them because they want to win the $$ damnit.

 

Now get off your high horse and live with the decision the league made. It doesn't matter if the rest of the owners "backed down" or the LJ owner promised them all blowjobs if they agreed with him. They all made a decision and it's a done deal. If you want to change the rules then announce your intentions (you are the commish right?) on the league forum and change the rule at the end of the season.

 

Mobb, I totally respect your opinion. But, I do disagree with your opinion.

 

And, to correct you, it's merlot and bocce ball. I wouldn't want you thinking I was a... you know, pus*y.

[MBison 0]

I gotta agree with a lot of you.. I'd quit too in the same situation.

 

I'm in an auction league and my keepers are LJ for $6 and Boldin for $6. Without detailing # of players and salary cap, let's just say those are great prices (LT went for $50 last season).

 

If they made some change today about reauctioning everyone, I'd quit instantly.

[TD Ryan2 316]

My concern is more with how you resolve a split league

you resolve it like you resolve any other dispute.

you examine the FACTS and make a ruling based on them.

If you don't know the FACTS you have little chance of resolution.

 

 

and what kind of people you want in your group.

this right here is part of your problem.

 

it doesn't matter what answer I give you because all you want to hear is:

- we play in leagues with self serving ass holes. there's no way that any of us are in leagues with longtime friends and family. We wish we could have a league of upstanding choir boys like you do. It really svcks for us to be stuck here on the fantasy football island of misfits.

[ffdomino 0]

Mobb, I totally respect your opinion. But, I do disagree with your opinion.

 

And, to correct you, it's merlot and bocce ball. I wouldn't want you thinking I was a... you know, pus*y.

 

Sounds like you were just fishing for people to side with you but what you have offered does not sound like fair play.

 

Why are you afraid to devulge the trade rule and the trade that took place? Where you involved with this trade? Would an alternate solution hurt you more than the other guy?

 

The key you are forgeting is that people signed up for a KEEPER league. This is not a keeper league now. It is like leasing a BMW and getting handed a Hundai the next year because your BMW's seatbelt has a stain.

[mobb_deep 920]

you resolve it like you resolve any other dispute.

you examine the FACTS and make a ruling based on them.

If you don't know the FACTS you have little chance of resolution.

this right here is part of your problem.

 

it doesn't matter what answer I give you because all you want to hear is:

- we play in leagues with self serving ass holes. there's no way that any of us are in leagues with longtime friends and family. We wish we could have a league of upstanding choir boys like you do. It really svcks for us to be stuck here on the fantasy football island of misfits.

 

 

Exactly. This guy already knows what he wants to hear. He just wants all of us to reiterate his stance so he can take this thread back to his league and say "see I told you so". Now that he's found out only 1 or 2 of the 50+ replies even remotely agrees with him we're all "selfish", or unable to control our "animal instincts". He's obviously the commish, and has got himself neck deep in quicksand, resulting in this futile attempt to gain approval.

 

I'm sure he's a real nice cat, and a cool guy to be friends with. Unfortunately he's not only completely wrong, he's in complete denile. Those two don't add up to a recipe for successful communication.

[Shakespeare 0]

Sounds like you were just fishing for people to side with you but what you have offered does not sound like fair play.

 

Why are you afraid to devulge the trade rule and the trade that took place? Where you involved with this trade? Would an alternate solution hurt you more than the other guy?

 

The key you are forgeting is that people signed up for a KEEPER league. This is not a keeper league now. It is like leasing a BMW and getting handed a Hundai the next year because your BMW's seatbelt has a stain.

 

I will say that the vote was over weather or not a GM could trade Tiki before the declaration of keepers, where we could only keep 2. Even though I would benefit from the owner *not* being able to trade (because Tiki would be available for *me*), I voted for his right to make the trade.

 

But I guess from now on I should just do what's best for me first, right? Because what I'm hearing is that's the way most people would do, so it must be the right way...

[ffdomino 0]

 

Exactly. This guy already knows what he wants to hear. He just wants all of us to reiterate his stance so he can take this thread back to his league and say "see I told you so". Now that he's found out only 1 or 2 of the 50+ replies even remotely agrees with him we're all "selfish", or unable to control our "animal instincts". He's obviously the commish, and has got himself neck deep in quicksand, resulting in this futile attempt to gain approval.

 

I'm sure he's a real nice cat, and a cool guy to be friends with. Unfortunately he's not only completely wrong, he's in complete denile. Those two don't add up to a recipe for successful communication.

 

[TD Ryan2 316]

 

I'm sure he's a real nice cat, and a cool guy to be friends with. Unfortunately he's not only completely wrong, he's in complete denile. Those two don't add up to a recipe for successful communication.

 

I am truly not trying to pile on.

 

based on the info provided (or lack thereof) I completly disagree with the direction they're going in.

 

a group of 3rd parties on this board may have a better chance at coming up with solutions/resolutions because:

1. we are not emotionally involved

2. we have nothing to gain/lose

3. I'm smarter than ... sorry, no piling on.

[akareckas 0]

I will say that the vote was over weather or not a GM could trade Tiki before the declaration of keepers, where we could only keep 2. Even though I would benefit from the owner *not* being able to trade (because Tiki would be available for *me*), I voted for his right to make the trade.

 

But I guess from now on I should just do what's best for me first, right? Because what I'm hearing is that's the way most people would do, so it must be the right way...

 

So glad you clarified. there is a 'stock' answer. No trading before keepers are declared is the only way I've seen it done. This is to prevent owners from stockpiling picks by dealing guys they can't keep. It's to keep parity in place.

[ffdomino 0]

So how does this warrant a redraft? That is what I am trying to figure out here...

[DrJ 0]

So how does this warrant a redraft? That is what I am trying to figure out here...

 

Agreed, that seems completely excessive. How did it go from a vote on trading to a complete redraft?

 

What was the rule change that happened in the offseason that effects this anyways? Were keepers never even allowed before this season, this is the first year they are allowed, and you never specified whether you could trade? If there were keepers before, were trades allowed in the past?

 

We're really just getting more questions than answers here...

 

Also, how does him not being able to trade Tiki really help you? Are you referring to him being available in the draft for you if he wasn't traded? I'm sorry, but that's a pretty small effect for your team and you're really kind of stretching it to say that it would have been terrible for you that the trade was allowed... there are other players to draft...

[TomServo 0]

This guy doesn't want reasoned discussion, he just wants to be RIGHT.

 

Happens all the time when you play with self-serving brainiacs.

 

We had a guy quit our league partially because of this... he was part of a drastically one-sided deal, got called out on it, the trade went through (auction keeper), but he always held a grudge because he knew he was caught red-handed. He wanted us to all go "Gee, you were so smart!" What we said was... "This probably isn't legit, but you suck so bad we'll take it out on your team."

[TD Ryan2 316]

But I guess from now on I should just do what's best for me first, right? Because what I'm hearing is that's the way most people would do, so it must be the right way...

 

seriously Shakespeare. Cut out the Sir Lancelot act here... this is part of why you're getting killed in this thread.

we get it, it's tough for you to post while you're nailed up to that cross thereby saving your league.

 

spill it. give up the facts.

 

you'll either get a better idea of what to do

OR

you won't

 

and either way, the board will be cruel and unforgiving because, that's the way it is. If you are really the martyr you're claiming to be, you'll take that hit to save your league.

[kilroy69 1,251]

we get it, it's tough for you to post while you're nailed up to that cross.

I heard that kinda hurts.

[ffdomino 0]

I heard that kinda hurts.

 

Is it Easter already? Did I win my league?

[mobb_deep 920]

Is it Easter already? Did I win my league?

 

Nope, I did. Sure am glad I got to keep LJ and Fitz. I told you that Tiki trade was a bad idea!

[Arsenal 3]

When I first read the title of this thread, I thought it said "Owens threatens to quit the league"

 

 

Lol, same here - way to get my hopes up!

[luckdogg17 0]

if almost everyone in the league does what is best for the league, then why is the vote a 50/50 deadlock? isn't what is best for the league an obvious answer?

 

threatening to quit makes someone look like a crybaby but he is just saying how he feels. i guess you can call it a threat but it is also informative. it is another factor to consider. if blank happens then he'll quit. something else for the rest of the league to consider. will it change anyone elses' vote? maybe. everyone still has to make a decision and vote however and live with the consequences.

[Red White and Blue 81]

I left a league over something like that but in reverse. We'd always done a redraft which was fine by me, because I always ended up with a good team. I'm not bragging - it was an office league and not too competitive. Anyway, the commish and a friend of his both ended up drafting a couple of late round steals - this was a long time ago and I can't remember who the players in question were. But the point is, this commish decided to change the rules so that you could keep any player you wanted from the year before provided you forfeit the pick in the round you'd originally drafted him in. Basically these two guys decided to change the rules so that they'd end up with a handful of first round talents by giving up 10th and 11th round picks.

 

I thought it was bullsh1t and I left. So I don't blame the owner in your league, except that he should've just quit. Sending an email trying to blackmail the league into not changing the rules is poosay.

[mobb_deep 920]

I left a league over something like that but in reverse. We'd always done a redraft which was fine by me, because I always ended up with a good team. I'm not bragging - it was an office league and not too competitive. Anyway, the commish and a friend of his both ended up drafting a couple of late round steals - this was a long time ago and I can't remember who the players in question were. But the point is, this commish decided to change the rules so that you could keep any player you wanted from the year before provided you forfeit the pick in the round you'd originally drafted him in. Basically these two guys decided to change the rules so that they'd end up with a handful of first round talents by giving up 10th and 11th round picks.

 

I thought it was bullsh1t and I left. So I don't blame the owner in your league, except that he should've just quit. Sending an email trying to blackmail the league into not changing the rules is poosay.

 

Haha, well that's a little more cut and dry to me. I really don't think this is a case where someone is intentionally trying to cheat. Lots of league's allow trading of draft picks, keepers, etc. so I can see how these rules can be misinterpreted by some people. In your case you had two guys who knowingly cheated so they could have a dstinct advantage going into the next season.

 

We decided to switch to a keeper in my long time league last year as well. At that time the commish made it clear that we would be keeping players starting with the 2006 draft and not our current rosters.

[shasha 0]

I really don't get how a questionable trade rule requires a complete roster dump and redraft from scratch. I didn't agree with the original idea of threatening to leave at first, but looking at it with what little facts we have here and looking at it from his standpoint, hell I would probably opt out as well. Especially this close to the draft and with so much to lose.

 

Fix the issue with the trade rule and the apply that to the trade that happened or suck it up and let the trade stand and let everyone know that it was a one time loophole thing. Stuff like this happens in court all the time, new laws are passed or ammended to close them. One trade does not require a league to be started over from scratch.

 

Put it up to the owners in a vote, if a decision can't be made than ask for suggestions from everyone and take another vote. If it still can't be decided than tell them that it will be a commisioner based tie breaker. Nobody likes those, but after being the commish for several years, that is part of the job sometimes. Your number one responsibility is to run the league, you have to do a lot of extra work and you are the manager, your voice should always carry more weight when it comes to a deadlock. I don't see anyother way. But you had better be sure that your decision is based on the best interests of the league and take into account everyone's opinion.

 

But if it gets to that than something is really wrong with the choices, there shouldn't ever be a decision that is more than a 70/30 split on anything.

[shasha 0]

I left a league over something like that but in reverse. We'd always done a redraft which was fine by me, because I always ended up with a good team. I'm not bragging - it was an office league and not too competitive. Anyway, the commish and a friend of his both ended up drafting a couple of late round steals - this was a long time ago and I can't remember who the players in question were. But the point is, this commish decided to change the rules so that you could keep any player you wanted from the year before provided you forfeit the pick in the round you'd originally drafted him in. Basically these two guys decided to change the rules so that they'd end up with a handful of first round talents by giving up 10th and 11th round picks.

 

I thought it was bullsh1t and I left. So I don't blame the owner in your league, except that he should've just quit. Sending an email trying to blackmail the league into not changing the rules is poosay.

Yeah, I was in a similar situation except I had the great picks and thought that it would be a good idea (obviously). No one wanted to do a keeper until about 3 years later and we did what mobb deep said, state it prior to the draft and start it the following season.

 

It effects your entire strategy and it wouldn't be fair. That is why the idea of throwing it out is so bad IMHO. The guy in question really did his homework and probably took a flier on a few guys in the process. He may have lost the league last year to load up for this year, where is the pay off if you take his keepers away?

[ironore 0]

I hate when keeper leagues re-draft. It shouldn't be allowed.

[Ray_T 753]

well, this seems to be a problem with almost every league I've ever been in.

 

someone wants to change a rule, and someone inevitably gets screwed.

 

what I think is fair:

 

rule changes in mid season should be avoided at all costs, but sometimes this is unavoidable if there is a serious enough issue. if you have to pass a rule mid season or at the start of the season for the current year, it should pass by more than a 2/3 vote(minimum). (ie. 7 out of 10 or 8 out of 12)

 

rule changes that totally change things in a major way should be voted on like normal, but take effect the following season.

 

so for example, if a rule was changed that affects keepers, we vote on it at this draft with the intention to implement it for the next season. so things stay as is for this year and people have adequate notice and can plan for the future.

 

to change what you can do with keepers on 2 or 3 months notice isnt fair to a lot of guys.

 

some are big enough men to take the hit for the good of the league, but I'd say that lots are not.

 

and the bottom line is.... the league has to be accomodate all of its members.

 

the fact that this guy is being difficult could be due to various reasons.

 

if hes just whining because his team wont be as good, you should dump him. he'll always be this way and guys like this destroy the morale of the league.

 

if hes pissed because of the way it was done, that is another matter. I quit a fantasy hockey league a couple of years ago because they kept changing rules in midseason and/or with very little notice to allow teams to plan for the change. In this case, the change helped my team and it woulda looked as though I'd have a good chance to win, but I didnt like the way this (and other past changes) were done and I was really fed up with it.

 

if something like this is the case, hes a good member standing up for a cause he believes in and its a good thing hes making this an issue.

 

in this case it just sounds like hes whining because his team was hurt by the change.... but I dont know the whole story so I wont say more.

[Tusekan Raiders 0]

This is hilarious, are some national secrets contained in the by-laws of this league? WTF? Explain the situation or don't ask for opinions, muchless get self-righteous when no one sees your side based on a half-assed explanation.

 

Voting on rules and changes in the off-season is fine, but this is yet another example that you absolutely, positively don't do it on something like trades during the season and simply need a strong commish everyone trusts to interpret the rules and sole authority to make decisions during the season. Even in your holier-than-thou league, at least one guy was guided by self-interest. Shocking.

[Raging Storm 0]

I run a similar league where we take everything to vote. In our league in order for a major change to happen (in changing the rules) we need a 2/3's vote of acceptance for a rule to pass. Majority doesn't rule as I want more then that to change a rule.

 

THis has worked really well as the rules that have passed have really made the league better. The majority of the rules change suggestions don't pass (maybe 1 to 2 a year pass).

 

With that in mind, I'd be interested in what was so drastic of a change in a keeper league that would warrant throwing back all of the players? Is there anything else you can figure out that would be fair?

 

Also, any owner that throws out an ultimatum shouldn't be let back in the league. It sets bad precedence. What happens next year if an owner doesn't like a rule change? THey could in turn do the same thing. As much as it might pain you...I think you've got to let your vote stand whichever way it goes and let the owner choose what he wants to do.