Quickolas1 Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 Hope to show this to the commish so please give your input on whether or not this is fair. 32 Team League...2 Conferences of 16 teams each. Same roster pool in each conference. The two conference champs play in the Super Bowl. The League setup and commish desire is for 32 independent owners eventhough there is not a blatant conflict of interest in one owner having a team in each league (could play in super bowl and thats all, but lets ignore this). Couldn't fill a team in the AFC in time for the draft. An NFC team was given the AFC team so he has 2 teams. The commish posted it was to be a one-year fix (temporary). The NFC owner missed this and proceeded to make trades, draft assuming its his team for as long as he wants. The NFC owner now doesn't want to give up his AFC team next year. Not allowed, there will be 32 owners next year regardless. So it was negotiated between the commish and owner that he gets a freeroll...the entry for his AFC team ($250...not chump change) is refunded. If he wins money, the $250 is taken out of his winnings first. Everything above that is profit. Example: the super bowl champ gets $2,250. He would get $2,000 if his AFC team wins it all. If he doesn't win, the super bowl winner only gets $2,000. In other words, he's playing for free and the other 31 owners are footing the bill (all of the $250 is being subtracted from the super bowl winner). The owner is adamant he will not give up control for this one year because he's put time into the team (won't be bought out for a new owner at this point which is the desire of the league & commish). So like said, negotiated he gets a freeroll while everyone else pays $250 because he missed the post its a 1 year temporary ownership. The other reason why the league doesn't want a temporary owner is because that owner will not protect the team's long-term future. Meaning, that owner has no incentive to win in future years - to go for it this year. It is a dynasty + salary cap league. This issue still remains because of the negotiation made (gets to keep the team and go for the payouts). There was no discussion in advance to give the owner a refund AND let him go for payouts at no cost above that $250 - this decision was just handed down by the commish. Assuming that owner really did not see that it was to be a 1 year thing, is the freeroll and decision made fair? Quote
krizay Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 Well if "the league" doesn't want a temporary owner because of the future interest of the team. And this owner is willing to put in the time to make this squad competitve this year and the future. Then I agree with the commishes decision. Cause as it stands, if you don't want a temporary owner then you wouldn't have that other $250 anyway. The only part I don't agree with is... making him pay if he wins and not making him pay if he loses. (that is if I read the payout portion of your post correctly.) IMO he's doing the league a favor and shouldn't have to pay. With that said. I wouldn't make him pay. But the winnings would be split between him and the team he beat in the AFC championship game. Since that guy did actually pay. Quote
nobody Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 I would sooner let him have two teams forever than I would short the pot an entry fee and give him a free year. The other jacked up part is that is a friggin sweet deal. If you are going to do that, you should give other owners a crack at that deal. maybe even auction it off or something. Maybe someone pays 100 or something for the one year AFC team, but it seems like the dual owner is getting rewarded for not reading the circumstances correctly. Too me though the guy should just be on the hook. If the rules were posted, he should have to abide, but if I were him I would just mortgage the future and shoot for a championship this year. Seems like you guys are focked whatever way you go. Probably should have said he can't trade future picks or something, but probably too late now. Also, I think it's bunk that he won't give up the team. "He put in time" is a load of sh¡t if you ask me. He should have put in more time reading the conditions of taking the team. If he was so adamant about not giving up the AFC team, I'd kick off of both teams. All of his games in both conferences are forfeited this year and two new owners come in next year. Quote
Quickolas1 Posted August 23, 2009 Author Posted August 23, 2009 Cause as it stands, if you don't want a temporary owner then you wouldn't have that other $250 anyway. there is nothing stopping a new owner from coming in right now and buying the team from him. the league simply couldnt fill the team slot by draft time. The only part I don't agree with is... making him pay if he wins and not making him pay if he loses. (that is if I read the payout portion of your post correctly.) correct Maybe someone pays 100 or something for the one year AFC team, but it seems like the dual owner is getting rewarded for not reading the circumstances correctly. correct Quote
nobody Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 If you just go down to 30 teams and freeze both of his teams you are short 500 but you also take two teams out of the running. That's what I don't like about this whole shorting 250 thing. Everybody in the league put up 250 with an expected payout at the end. It's a load of crap that it's going to change midstream. If someone showed up at a blackjack table and put down a bet and then all the sudden the casino decides to change the payout for a blackjack mid-hand from 3:2 to 6:5, people would be screaming bloody murder. You have to adjust the number of teams to preserve the original payout odds or someone needs to pony up that extra 250 at the end of the year. Quote
nordwave Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 The NFC owner missed this and proceeded to make trades, draft assuming its his team for as long as he wants. If this is all true, it was the owner's fault. Information was given but not understood/ignored. I don't think the owner should get to play for free. BUT, it's up to the commish, so whatever goes down is the law. I'd probably air my grievance and then forget about it. If I were the commish, I would drastically lower the prize for the free player - say, if the freebie owner wins the championship, he/she gets $250 and everyone else gets $X back (splitting whatever is left among the other 31 teams). Quote
krizay Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 there is nothing stopping a new owner from coming in right now and buying the team from him. the league simply couldnt fill the team slot by draft time.correct correct but you said.... "The other reason why the league doesn't want a temporary owner is because that owner will not protect the team's long-term future." So if the league doesn't was a temp owner..... Quote
nobody Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Quick, I was thinking about this. Why don't you let me take over the team this year with the same conditions as the other guy with the added conditions that I can't trade future draft picks and all trades must be reviewed by 5 random owners. 3 thumbs down and the veto is in. Quote
oldguru Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I don't understand why the commish is willing to give this guy free anything. He agreed to take over the extra team last year. It was posted that it would be for one year (there should be a record of this in the archives of the message board) When the guy agreed to take over the team, what was he suppose to do with it? Not spend anytime managing it? Butcher it up? Rape the team? No, he was expected to manage it. I would show him the post about a one year fix. I would then give him two options: 1. pay the league fee....and be allowed to keep the team one more year, because of the misunderstanding. (this is not a good option, if he fails to manage the team properly) 2. Give the team up immediately to a new owner, which is preferred, and agreed to when he took over the team. But, no way does he play for free. No matter how much time he feels he invested in this team, it is not fair to the other owners that he play for free. No pay---No play. No amount of crying on this owners part, should effect the commissioners decision. JMHO. Quote
BMoney Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 the only way you should let this guy have a free team is if he lets his wife blow you every time he picks up a new player...and youre allowed to punch his kids in the face also... Quote
Quickolas1 Posted August 25, 2009 Author Posted August 25, 2009 the only way you should let this guy have a free team is if he lets his wife blow you every time he picks up a new player...and youre allowed to punch his kids in the face also... unfortunately i didnt get to offer that suggestion with owner uproar, the co-commishes came up with an agreement with the owner to split his cost. the pot is no longer reduced 1/32. he gives up team next year (still didnt fix temporary issue but good enough for the rest of us). Quote
Gepetto Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 He should have to pay for both teams this year. And then give up the AFC team at the end of they year. If he doesn't like it and/or tries to mortgage the future of the team, lock his rosters and boot him and keep his money. Let him know that's the rules. He should have read and known the focking conditions (and maybe he even did know). edit: sounds like it's too late. Oh well, I like my idea. I'm a badass. j/k Quote
gocolts Posted August 26, 2009 Posted August 26, 2009 Sounds like you just found a rule to exploit. The "I missed that part" defense. Talk about opening up a can of worms. You should find a way to use this, not to take advantage, more to prove a point, sometime this year if the opportunity arises. If there is ever something that is just posted on your league bored, you can make a big stink about it using this guy's lame ass excuse about missing that. ETA: I see the post above says split his costs??? What does that mean??? Is he paying for both, getting a discount, or what??? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.