Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Commissioner Question


satelliteoflovegm
 Share

Recommended Posts

He will most certainly have a leg to stand on. In the previous trade (where the precedent was set) one owner paid all the transaction fees associated with the trade. That is NOT the same as one owner paying another owner money over and above the transaction fees associated with a trade. There is no slippery slope here.

 

Owner A and B agree to a trade

 

Owner A owes $X for his part of the trade

Owner B owes $Y for his part of the trade

 

Owner A agrees to give up player C and pay both $X and $Y

Owner B agrees to give up player D

 

All the money goes into the kitty and Owner B does NOT recieve a financial payment.

 

 

I have learned as commish of my local that people love to look for loopholes and will do anything to get an unfair advantage..he will open up a hugh can of worms and headaches for himself if he does this..You will have guys saying Ill pay your next 10 transactions if you trade me player A for player B..They will say who said the payment of transactions is only limited to the one regarding a single trade ? Its a hugh 2 dollar headache waiting to happen..You can make logical arguments till you are blue in the face and they may make perfect sense but its a future pain in the ass waiting to happen..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have learned as commish of my local that people love to look for loopholes and will do anything to get an unfair advantage..he will open up a hugh can of worms and headaches for himself if he does this..You will have guys saying Ill pay your next 10 transactions if you trade me player A for player B..They will say who said the payment of transactions is only limited to the one regarding a single trade ? Its a hugh 2 dollar headache waiting to happen..You can make logical arguments till you are blue in the face and they may make perfect sense but its a future pain in the ass waiting to happen..

 

We will have to disagree then. You are making a mountain out of nothing. If a commissioner can't distinguish between owners paying the transaction fees for the current transaction only then IMO he isn't much of a commissioner.

 

There is no slippery slope here, as hard as you are trying to ice one up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will have to disagree then. You are making a mountain out of nothing. If a commissioner can't distinguish between owners paying the transaction fees for the current transaction only then IMO he isn't much of a commissioner.

 

There is no slippery slope here, as hard as you are trying to ice one up.

 

 

Im not making a mountain out of this trade I am looking forward to other people trying to do this on a bigger level..If the commish is willing to deal with that and feels this is no big deal then he should let it fly. I think by starting the thread he realizes that its a little iffy..Im not trying to ice anything up. He asked for advise and I am laying out possible future scenarios that ISMHO are not worth 2 bucks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people may see the offer of payment as an incentive to making the trade..Thats where things can get hairy..

 

I realize its 2 bucks but its the principle

 

and where is the problem in that? say someone needs a kicker for bye week fill in, offers you a fair kicker trade. Why would you want to lay out the cash to help one of the opposition on a bye week? make em pay for the trade! it happens all the time in our league and is not an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not making a mountain out of this trade I am looking forward to other people trying to do this on a bigger level..If the commish is willing to deal with that and feels this is no big deal then he should let it fly. I think by starting the thread he realizes that its a little iffy..Im not trying to ice anything up. He asked for advise and I am laying out possible future scenarios that ISMHO are not worth 2 bucks

 

What is a "bigger level"

 

In our league transactions are between $5 and $9 ... so if I swing a three way trade where

 

I send Kurt Warner + Brandon Jacobs to Owner A

Owner A sends Jay Cutler and Brandon Jacobs to Owner B

Owner B sends Joseph Addai to Owner A

I send Selvin Young + Roy Willams to Owner B

Owner B sends me Tom Brady

Owner A sends me Housh

 

Is that big enough? Now let's assume that we each were required to pay $9 for our transaction.

 

I still do NOT see a problem if, as part of the deal, I offer to pay the $27 in transaction fees to make this trade happen. Owner A did not receive any money, Owner B did not receive any money ... I put $27 into the kitty. $27 that was going into the kitty one way or another.

 

Please explain how that hurts the integrity of the league or violates any principles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you pay for someone elses transaction fees you are admitting there is more then meets the eye to the transaction or you wouldnt do it in the first place. If the trade is on the up and up there should be no reason to pay for it in its entirety.I have given many examples of what it can lead to..A guy down the line may offer a borderline trade and entice it with cash..Is that how you want trades done in your leagues ? That is essentially what is happening with this deal..Its a kickback..Today its a meaningless kicker..Tomorrow its Ill give you Marshawn lynch for Tomlinson and Ill pay your next 10 transactions..If it is commonplace in your leagues then my argument may not stand ..In this thread it doesnt seem like it is and the commish felt iffy on it..

Edited by whomper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is a "bigger level"

 

In our league transactions are between $5 and $9 ... so if I swing a three way trade where

 

I send Kurt Warner + Brandon Jacobs to Owner A

Owner A sends Jay Cutler and Brandon Jacobs to Owner B

Owner B sends Joseph Addai to Owner A

I send Selvin Young + Roy Willams to Owner B

Owner B sends me Tom Brady

Owner A sends me Housh

 

Is that big enough? Now let's assume that we each were required to pay $9 for our transaction.

 

I still do NOT see a problem if, as part of the deal, I offer to pay the $27 in transaction fees to make this trade happen. Owner A did not receive any money, Owner B did not receive any money ... I put $27 into the kitty. $27 that was going into the kitty one way or another.

 

Please explain how that hurts the integrity of the league or violates any principles?

 

 

I am unclear from your example but I will say this..If owner A doesnt have to pay anything then its semantics..He didnt receive any money but he didnt have to lay out any either..He seems to have 27 dollars in his pocket that he shouldnt have..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta agree with Grits on this one....My league does this sometimes but only for the associated fees of said trade...there is no I will pay for your next 10 transactions or entry fee or stuff like that. But if the other owner pays only the associated fees there is no slipery slope!! if both owners agree to said trade and there is NO collusion whats the problem.....

 

 

It seems your league has a rule in place that it is only for associated fees and it dissallows the chance of a slippery slope so I can see why you may not agree with me. I dont think the question is this thread has those important details

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so simple.

 

As a commish, you accepted a different standard of conduct than anyone else in the league. Anything that you do has to be above reproach.

 

You either make the trade & pay the $2 yourself, or you don't make the trade. You don't invite even the appearance of impropriety, even in a matter this insignificant.

 

+1

 

Someone down the line may look to pay someone more then 2 dollars and if that causes a stink and goes to the commish and it was the commish that accepted the 2 dollar payment that got the ball rolling he wont have a leg to stand on in refusing to let another team do it..

 

Your point is an excellent one. I can see Grits' argument that, in the original deal described, it seems like no big deal to make the deal go through.

 

But suppose this deal is offered, as Whomp descirbed:

 

Owner A gives up LT.

Owner B gives up Marshawn Lynch, and offers to pay all Owner A's transaction fees for the rest of the year.

 

In the deal I described, all fees are going into the kitty, so the point of someone actually receiving a cash payment is moot. It is obvious that Owner B is offering a financial incentive to Owner A.

 

As a commish, you are required to set the standards for your league. By allowing someone to pay your $2 transaction fee in a trade, you are essentially saying that financial incentives are allowed in order to make a deal happen, no matter how small they may be. But by allowing small incentives, you are inviting bigger incentives to be offered until someone inevitably crosses the line.

 

As commish, you must abstain from , and disallow, this type of unethical behavior....unless you explicitly put a rule in place that states "Owners may cover the transaction cost of other owners for just the associated trade".

Edited by i_am_the_swammi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My league does this sometimes but only for the associated fees of said trade...there is no I will pay for your next 10 transactions or entry fee or stuff like that. But if the other owner pays only the associated fees there is no slipery slope!! if both owners agree to said trade and there is NO collusion whats the problem.....

 

Is there a rule in your bylaws that states this exactly the way you descibe? I don't think the original psoter has a rule in place, so theya re asking how to deal with it mid-season.

 

You also state "there is no I will pay for your next 10 transactions or entry fee or stuff like that"...YOU may not do a trade like that, but suppose another owner would...suppose another owner said you trade me LT, and I will pay your league entry next year....would you be against it? for it? do your rules address it?

 

This is the sliperry slope Whomper to which Whomper is referring....original poster has no rules in place regarding this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you pay for someone elses transaction fees you are admitting there is more then meets the eye to the transaction or you wouldnt do it in the first place. If the trade is on the up and up there should be no reason to pay for it in its entirety.I have given many examples of what it can lead to..A guy down the line may offer a borderline trade and entice it with cash..Is that how you want trades done in your leagues ? That is essentially what is happening with this deal..Its a kickback..Today its a meaningless kicker..Tomorrow its Ill give you Marshawn lynch for Tomlinson and Ill pay your next 10 transactions..If it is commonplace in your leagues then my argument may not stand ..In this thread it doesnt seem like it is and the commish felt iffy on it..

 

By definition when a trade occurs teams value the players involved differently. By your line of reasoning NO trade should be allowed that isn't a straight up one for for one trade of players of exactly equal value ... or "there is likely to bemore than meets the eye to the transaction or the owners wouldn't do it in the first place". And certainly there could NEVER be trading of players today for picks in the future based on your line of reasoning.

 

You are intentionally ignoring the stipulation that any fees paid by one owner for another owner are only the fees associated with the (current) trade on the table. Future transactions and their associated fees are NOT on the table. Why are you intentionally ignoring this factor? You are ignoring this factor because it undermines your position.

 

The money associated with the transaction is simply another item which may be negotiated by owners. Its not about kick backs it is about removing a road block to a trade an owner would normally make if he didn't have to pay any associated fees.

 

Please go back and refer to my example and explain to me how anybody got a kickback or how league integrity was violated or tell me what principle was violated. In that example 3 owners were involved in a trade. Each owher was obligated to pay $9 for their part of the trade. One of the owners really wanted to make the trade happen and the other two owners were amiable to the trade but balked at the transaction fee. So the owner that wanted to make the trade work included the other owners transaction fees as part of the trade. The kitty was due $27 ... the kitty was paid $27. No owner received a cash payment from anybody and no owner received a promise of future payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems your league has a rule in place that it is only for associated fees and it dissallows the chance of a slippery slope so I can see why you may not agree with me. I dont think the question is this thread has those important details

 

 

You are intentionally ignoring the stipulation that any fees paid by one owner for another owner are only the fees associated with the (current) trade on the table. Future transactions and their associated fees are NOT on the table. Why are you intentionally ignoring this factor? You are ignoring this factor because it undermines your position.

 

 

Please go back and refer to my example and explain to me how anybody got a kickback or how league integrity was violated or tell me what principle was violated. In that example 3 owners were involved in a trade. Each owher was obligated to pay $9 for their part of the trade. One of the owners really wanted to make the trade happen and the other two owners were amiable to the trade but balked at the transaction fee. So the owner that wanted to make the trade work included the other owners transaction fees as part of the trade. The kitty was due $27 ... the kitty was paid $27. No owner received a cash payment from anybody and no owner received a promise of future payments.

 

 

 

I wasnt addressing it because the person who started the thread indicated that that is not the terms this trade would be made under and that was not a rule in his league.(associated trade only no future transaction fees allowed).When someone did say that there was a rule in place for just the associated fee in their league and no future transactions were allowed to be paid you can look at my response above where my stance softened..Your example was so confusing it made me rupture my achilles but now that you broke it down in the above post I will say that yes 27 is 27 to the Kitty but when 1 person paid the whole fee for the 3 he didnt actually hand them 9 each but he let them keep the 9 that by rights they should have been charged for the trade..If your league and examples are based on an associated trade only clause and you have a rule for no future transactions being paid then while I am still not crazy about it I wont argue against it..The huddler who started this thread didnt state that so I laid out the possible pitfalls..

Edited by whomper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information