Grits and Shins Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I have an owner in my league that has not yet paid his entry fee We have a rule that locks an owner out from ANY kind of transaction other than submitting his lineup until entry fees are paid. Additionally delinquent owners are ineligible for the weekly monetary prizes (owners that have $30 in unpaid transaction fees are also disqualified from the weekly categories). So this dead beat owner has been taking zeroes and has still managed to go 6-2 through 8 weeks of the season and remained in the playoff hunt (if the playoffs were today he'd be in). He drafed Matt Leinart and Jay Cutler ... so now it looks like he will take a zero for two to three weeks at his QB position depending on the severity of Cutler's injury. He may be dropping out of the playoff race shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 We dont let anyone in without paying no exceptions. We rather play with 10 or 11 (never happened before) than allow a 12th non paying guy in. It may ruin the league. I hate people who do that BTW. Hopefully it all works out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 You're always quick to chime in when it comes to idiot owners, commishes, or leagues. This is about the dumbest thing I've read from you, and I've been reading your posts for years (except for the year I had you on ignore because you got excessively annoying). You're 9 weeks into a league and an owner hasn't paid? That's absolutely flipping idiotic and r*tarded, with all due respect to r*tards. Those lock out rules are stoopid as well. Simple, no pay, no play. You should have replaced him before the season started. Bush league. :shakeshead: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy n Dirty Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I guess it depends on the league, but it does strike me as pretty unusual that you find yourself in this situation. if it's a small money online league, I guess I could see this happening. But for a local league, I don't get it. Typically local leagues don't have too much turnover from year to year, and if they do then someone already in the league recruits a buddy and they don't recruit anyone who is even remotely likely to be a deadbeat. It just seems odd to me that you could end up in this kind of a bind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 It's really quite simple. Either you play with friends whom you know, eventually will pay, or you play with guys you sort of know and everyone kicks in at the draft. I don't really understand the problem. I'm a league with old friends. The first year we didn't have a policy and the winner got his money trickled in after the SB. That sucked so we put in a rule where you're locked from waivers and lineup changes after week 8. Every year somebody drags ass and doesn't get to pick up a player or change his line-up. He gets pissed and then finally scratches a check. I can't fathom anyone just bailing out on paying completely. After all, $100 is hardly worth disgracing yourself in such a manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 I guess it depends on the league, but it does strike me as pretty unusual that you find yourself in this situation. if it's a small money online league, I guess I could see this happening. But for a local league, I don't get it. Typically local leagues don't have too much turnover from year to year, and if they do then someone already in the league recruits a buddy and they don't recruit anyone who is even remotely likely to be a deadbeat. It just seems odd to me that you could end up in this kind of a bind. It is a long time local league that started in '92 with a bunch of co-workers. We have a core about 6 owners that have been with the league since the early 90's. Another 3 or so that have been with the league 6+ years. This particular owner was brought in by one of the original '92 owners and has been in the league going on his 3rd year. As I recall he was tardy with his payment last year as well and the rules about locking out all transactions was put in place specifically to address his tardiness. He won't be invited back next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 It is a long time local league that started in '92 with a bunch of co-workers. We have a core about 6 owners that have been with the league since the early 90's. Another 3 or so that have been with the league 6+ years. This particular owner was brought in by one of the original '92 owners and has been in the league going on his 3rd year. As I recall he was tardy with his payment last year as well and the rules about locking out all transactions was put in place specifically to address his tardiness. He won't be invited back next year. I give your league a 4.2352351923859135 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 It's really quite simple. Either you play with friends whom you know, eventually will pay, or you play with guys you sort of know and everyone kicks in at the draft. I don't really understand the problem. I'm a league with old friends. The first year we didn't have a policy and the winner got his money trickled in after the SB. That sucked so we put in a rule where you're locked from waivers and lineup changes after week 8. Every year somebody drags ass and doesn't get to pick up a player or change his line-up. He gets pissed and then finally scratches a check. I can't fathom anyone just bailing out on paying completely. After all, $100 is hardly worth disgracing yourself in such a manner. Yes ... in year's past money often comes in late but has always come in with a few exceptions. I can count on 10 of the owners to be relatively prompt with their payments. I put the rules in place to encourage the other two owners to be more prompt with their payments. This particular owner has fofeited at least $30 in weekly prize money he would have won had he paid his fees ... which is just about half of what his entry fee is ($65). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 I give your league a 4.2352351923859135 Fortunately I don't require a rating from you or anybody else on my league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Fortunately I don't require a rating from you or anybody else on my league. Since when did anyone require your ratings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Good call ignoring my post, it makes you look like a moran, I won't argue with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 Good call ignoring my post, it makes you look like a moran, I won't argue with that. I didn't see a lot of value to your post ... thus I ignored it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Well, I predicted back in August that this would happen. I just thought that with the owner changes and the heavy usage of this guy last year that he would be late to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Since when did anyone require your ratings? Dare I say "snap"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I have an owner in my league that has not yet paid his entry fee We have a rule that locks an owner out from ANY kind of transaction other than submitting his lineup until entry fees are paid. Additionally delinquent owners are ineligible for the weekly monetary prizes (owners that have $30 in unpaid transaction fees are also disqualified from the weekly categories). So this dead beat owner has been taking zeroes and has still managed to go 6-2 through 8 weeks of the season and remained in the playoff hunt (if the playoffs were today he'd be in). He drafed Matt Leinart and Jay Cutler ... so now it looks like he will take a zero for two to three weeks at his QB position depending on the severity of Cutler's injury. He may be dropping out of the playoff race shortly. didn't you throw a hissyfit when I prevented someone in my local from making a trade because he hadn't paid up or attempted to make any sort of contact ?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I didn't see a lot of value to your post ... thus I ignored it. So you disagree? You're a smart guy, no doubt, but the fact that you let an owner get into the 9th week without paying is completely beyond me. And the things you have in place to prevent him from managing the team only compromise the integrity of the league. Did you ignore it because it points out the fact that you failed miserably as a commish in this instance? Just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 Since when did anyone require your ratings? I only rated the teams when owners asked for it ... what is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 didn't you throw a hissyfit when I prevented someone in my local from making a trade because he hadn't paid up or attempted to make any sort of contact ?... The point was you allowed the trade once it was modified despite the fact that he hadn't been paid up ... so it really wasn't the reason you disallowed the trade. You disallowed the trade because in YOUR opinion it was "not fair" and you used the fact that the owner was in arrears as part of the reason for the veto. Then you turned right around and allowed the same owner to make the trade as long it it was modified to meet your definition of "fair" even though he STILL had not paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 So you disagree? You're a smart guy, no doubt, but the fact that you let an owner get into the 9th week without paying is completely beyond me. And the things you have in place to prevent him from managing the team only compromise the integrity of the league. Did you ignore it because it points out the fact that you failed miserably as a commish in this instance? Just asking. This is a local league ... maybe you don't play in one of those ... where the owners all know each other. We have actually met each other, sat in the same room and conducted our drafts in person. His first year in the league he paid on time, last year was his second year in the league and he paid late. This year rules were put in place to encourage him (and one other) to pay in a more timely fashion. Since '92 we've had occassional problems with temporary owners not paying minor transaction fees and not returning the next year. Last year was the first year where payment of league entry fees became an issue. As to rules "that prevent him from managing the team compromising the integrity of the league" ... well transactions in our league cost money so if I was to allow him to make transactions it would only result in him running up a bigger tab. I presume, were it your league, you would have allowed him to run up a tab and short the super bowl winner even more money. That or you would have kicked him out on draft day and been a team short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 The point was you allowed the trade once it was modified despite the fact that he hadn't been paid up ... so it really wasn't the reason you disallowed the trade. You disallowed the trade because in YOUR opinion it was "not fair" and you used the fact that the owner was in arrears as part of the reason for the veto. Then you turned right around and allowed the same owner to make the trade as long it it was modified to meet your definition of "fair" even though he STILL had not paid. no...he paid up...thanks for telling me what happened in my own league... once he realized I wouldn't let the trade through, he paid up and I stated this.. thanks, try again next time... the fact that the 2 were buddies only proved more collusion because theywere trying to get one team into the playoffs and have the league dues off-set by one persons winnings... not to mention he admitted to helping him out being that it was the guys 1st year in fantasy... but when money is on the line....helping via trade is illegal.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 This is a local league ... maybe you don't play in one of those ... where the owners all know each other. We have actually met each other, sat in the same room and conducted our drafts in person. His first year in the league he paid on time, last year was his second year in the league and he paid late. This year rules were put in place to encourage him (and one other) to pay in a more timely fashion. Since '92 we've had occassional problems with temporary owners not paying minor transaction fees and not returning the next year. Last year was the first year where payment of league entry fees became an issue. As to rules "that prevent him from managing the team compromising the integrity of the league" ... well transactions in our league cost money so if I was to allow him to make transactions it would only result in him running up a bigger tab. I presume, were it your league, you would have allowed him to run up a tab and short the super bowl winner even more money. That or you would have kicked him out on draft day and been a team short. I'm in a local. We've been doing it for 7 years now. I consider most of them friends. However, the money is due before the draft. No money, we get a new owner. If someone who had paid every single year showed up and forgot his money, we'd let him draft, but then he'd be expected to pay pretty much the following week. I certainly wouldn't wait until it was week 9. That's just pretty f*cking stoopid. If he didn't pay within a day or two of the draft, he would be replaced. I mean, we are all adults here that are accountable for our actions. Now if you're playing with pre-schoolers,perhaps little more leniency might be in order, but even with children I wouldn't have waited until week 9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bricktop Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 God I love this forum!!!! Its better than any soap opera or show on television. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 God I love this forum!!!! Its better than any soap opera or show on television. You watch soap operas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha-z Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 This is good stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 God I love this forum!!!! Its better than any soap opera or show on television. Have you ever watched the movie Snatch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.