Would you have taken this deal from your opponent?

[detlef]

Congrats on using what is quite possibly the most feeble argument in FF. Well, hell, any player could get hurt on any down in any game. I guess that means that no one who has the slightest risk aversion should ever think of playing in anything other than free leagues, since you could just be putting up good cash only to see some players hurt during the season and finish out of the money. Wait - losing money when players don't perform like projected happens to the overwhelming majority of owners in any money league, doesn't it?

If that was the lamest argument in FF, congrats for topping it. Dude, he was in the drivers seat and had the enviable position of not having to worry about what happened to Vick. Are you saying someone shouldn't hedge their bets? Say you go to Vegas for the weekend and, on Friday night, decide to buy a huge parlay. Everything covers and you've only got Monday night left. If your last bet covers, you win $1000 on $10 bet. Would it be "wrong" to go in and drop a few hundred the other way? That means you either win $700 or $300 in stead of either winning $1000 or nothing.

 

Would you not allow your friend to do this? It's his freaking money. That is basically what is going on here only with a much less expensive hedge.

[Bronco Billy]

What's the correct side? That it's ghey? No argument here if your league has rules against that.....

 

I think it's ironic that anyone would say "should know better" when talking about how 2 people disperse cash amongst themselves that is THEIRS, not yours or anyone else in the league anymore. So what is the "correct" course of action? That you should meddle in something that has nothing to do with you?

 

If the two owners submit a legitimate lineup to play for the championship (and honestly it makes no difference to me if they don't; By getting this far, they have every right to make a decision that only affects the parties in agreement. If money concerns them more than a championship, then that's their choice), but what they do after that is their own deal.

 

Like I said earlier, if he didn't want other opinions than those who praised him for being a weenie and changing the payout rules of the league, he shouldn't have asked it here.

 

This kind of deal absolutely has an impact on the rest of the league, as it is two owners predetermining a course of action between only them that benefits each in a way and leaves the rest of the league out of it. That's getting perilously close to collusion. The league contributed their money with certain expectations established before the money was paid. Do the league bylaws have a rule stating that owners in the finals can change payouts any way they see fit? If not, then why not put the deal out for the rest of the league to see instead of asking for opinions here? It's been my experience when someone asks for public opinion in a matter like this, it is because they know they are doing something wrong and are looking for unscrupulous others who will back their play.

[Bronco Billy]

If that was the lamest argument in FF, congrats for topping it. Dude, he was in the drivers seat and had the enviable position of not having to worry about what happened to Vick. Are you saying someone shouldn't hedge their bets? Say you go to Vegas for the weekend and, on Friday night, decide to buy a huge parlay. Everything covers and you've only got Monday night left. If your last bet covers, you win $1000 on $10 bet. Would it be "wrong" to go in and drop a few hundred the other way? That means you either win $700 or $300 in stead of either winning $1000 or nothing.

 

Thanks for bringing up a whole different feeble argument that doesn't apply to the circumstances at hand.

[delusions of grandeur]

You're saying that if an owner pays money into a league that they should have no say when underhanded deals go down? It's partly his money that he willingly contributed that's being divvied up. It's not too much to ask leaguemates to act with some moral backbone. The deal he would have agreed to when he entered the league and paid his money would be that the winner gets $700 and second place gets $50. He has a right to see that expectation carried through even though he isn't involved in the awards, or at a minimum to have any 11th hour backdoor deal disclosed for the rest of the league to see. If the owners were worried that maybe they weren't doing the right thing, they easily could have put it up for consideration from all the owners who put the money up in the first place and aren't getting any back this season.

 

Why do YOU think they didn't go to the rest of the league about the deal?

 

Have you never played poker before? It isn't like splitting the pot is something that's uncommon.

 

See, you seem to think that it's still your money when you go out. I disagree. You pay to play, and you get paid if you make it far enough, but once you're eliminated, then you can no longer make ANY claim or decision over that cash. It's not yours anymore. It's THEIRS, and like detlef said, if you want to put in a rule to prevent it, you will only force them to hide such a deal. It will not prevent it, and could actually make for a more shady situation, where the two made a legitimate deal, but because it was private, it couldn't be verified by anyone.

 

I've split the pot and told everyone in the league. I didn't rub it in their face at the time, but I'm not going to hide it like I've done anything wrong. It was my championship berth, and my choice. If you don't think I should have done it, then be in the championship game to stop me.

[detlef]

You're saying that if an owner pays money into a league that they should have no say when underhanded deals go down? It's partly his money that he willingly contributed that's being divvied up. It's not too much to ask leaguemates to act with some moral backbone. The deal he would have agreed to when he entered the league and paid his money would be that the winner gets $700 and second place gets $50. He has a right to see that expectation carried through even though he isn't involved in the awards, or at a minimum to have any 11th hour backdoor deal disclosed for the rest of the league to see. If the owners were worried that maybe they weren't doing the right thing, they easily could have put it up for consideration from all the owners who put the money up in the first place and aren't getting any back this season.

 

Why do YOU think they didn't go to the rest of the league about the deal?

First off, you need to actually explain what is "underhanded" about this. Nobody is being cheated. Nobody is being taken advantage of. It's not like one of those shady trades where one guy gives is 4 best players for a ham sandwich and you have to wonder about whether they've made some deal to split the winnings if the now stacked team wins it all.

 

As for whether you should have a say. Why should you? Like I said in my first post, there should be exactly as many rules as needed to simply make sure that nobody gets hosed. You know, to keep honest people honest. There should not be rules that are put in place so guys can tell other guys what they should and shouldn't do because it doesn't seem right to them. That would fall into the category of, "worry about your own chight"

[Qball86]

If you read the entire thread, you'll see that's not what's happening here. The current loser is offering to give up the major prize money for $50 regardless of the result. He isn't tanking, he's trying to add $50 to what he expects to get.

ok I did and I don't see what you are assuming but maybe I'm wrong. And before the "he didn't want an ethics leason" bs we all know these threads take on a life of their own and spawn many different discussions. Like, would you sell your shot at the title for $50. So even if his buddy wins tonight this guy still wins the title? I for one wouldn't want to win that way so to answer the direct question in the title of the thread, No

 

he offered me the victory if I paid him

offered the victory, not the money

 

1st place gets 700 2nd gets 50...so giving him an extra 50 im still coming ahead 650 and now dont have to worry about anything

 

Again, if it were just money wouldn't he still be worried about winning the bragging rights to the title? I would, the money aside I want to win for the sake of winning.

[Bronco Billy]

If you read the entire thread, you'll see that's not what's happening here. The current loser is offering to give up the major prize money for $50 regardless of the result. He isn't tanking, he's trying to add $50 to what he expects to get.

 

I'm up by 33 with vick and akers to go..and hes got Matt Ryan, Harvin and Celek...He clearly thinks he lost because he offered me the victory if I paid him the 2nd place + $50....and no matter the outcome I win the jackpot...what you think?? I dont need to stress out for the next 2 days now...

 

I guess that pretty much says it all. He's being offered the victory, regardless of outcome, and then changing the payout structure of the league.

 

Don't you think the league ought to know how its rules are being manipulated? If it's their money, after all, then there shouldn't be any problem with disclosing this deal, and the rest of the league should be supportive despite the changing of the rules without their consent.

 

FWIW - If I were playing in a league with these guys and they had come to me asking about this kind of deal before the games are decided, I would have supported them and agreed that the money situation at this point in the season is between them - and would have publicly supported their decision and voted in favor of it. After all, they could just take the moneys as awarded ahd then worked out their little deal afterwards - and I couldn't control that. But they aren't doing that, are they?

 

My position is that it is the league's money right now and continues to be so until the outcomes of the games are final, and there are league rules. Take it to the league, explain the situation, and get their blessing. I could support that 100%

Edited December 27, 2010 by Bronco Billy

[detlef]

Like I said earlier, if he didn't want other opinions than those who praised him for being a weenie and changing the payout rules of the league, he shouldn't have asked it here.

 

This kind of deal absolutely has an impact on the rest of the league, as it is two owners predetermining a course of action between only them that benefits each in a way and leaves the rest of the league out of it. That's getting perilously close to collusion. The league contributed their money with certain expectations established before the money was paid. Do the league bylaws have a rule stating that owners in the finals can change payouts any way they see fit? If not, then why not put the deal out for the rest of the league to see instead of asking for opinions here? It's been my experience when someone asks for public opinion in a matter like this, it is because they know they are doing something wrong and are looking for unscrupulous others who will back their play.

And like I said earlier. Maybe he was simply looking for advice on whether people thought it was a good deal or not.

[Qball86]

You know, to keep honest people honest.

 

Just have to laugh at the irony of this...rules don't keep honest people honest, they do that themselves. Rules define boundries and set punishment for the unethical and immoral.

[delusions of grandeur]

offered the victory, not the money

 

 

 

Again, if it were just money wouldn't he still be worried about winning the bragging rights to the title? I would, the money aside I want to win for the sake of winning.

 

NO, he offered the money, not the victory. You have it completely backwards. Whoever wins is still the winner. It only has to do with the cash involved, which is THEIRS to disperse. Would it still be wrong if the winner offered an extra $50 out of the goodness of his heart??

 

I guess that pretty much says it all. He's being offered the victory, regardless of outcome, and then changing the payout structure of the league.

 

Don't you think the league ought to know how its rules are being manipulated? If it's their money, after all, then there shouldn't be any problem with disclosing this deal, and the rest of the league should be supportive despite the changing of the rules without their consent.

 

Again, it's not your money anymore. You were eliminated. The only reason you determine payouts is so that you are guaranteed that IF you make it that far, you can be paid X. But if you don't make it that far, then seriously, it ain't your money to worry about.

[Bronco Billy]

Have you never played poker before? It isn't like splitting the pot is something that's uncommon.

 

See, you seem to think that it's still your money when you go out. I disagree. You pay to play, and you get paid if you make it far enough, but once you're eliminated, then you can no longer make ANY claim or decision over that cash. It's not yours anymore. It's THEIRS, and like detlef said, if you want to put in a rule to prevent it, you will only force them to hide such a deal. It will not prevent it, and could actually make for a more shady situation, where the two made a legitimate deal, but because it was private, it couldn't be verified by anyone.

 

I've split the pot and told everyone in the league. I didn't rub it in their face at the time, but I'm not going to hide it like I've done anything wrong. It was my championship berth, and my choice. If you don't think I should have done it, then be in the championship game to stop me.

 

That's where you are wrong. The money is the property of the community right now, and continues to be so right up until after the last second runs off the clock Tuesday night. Why would you think otherwise?

[detlef]

ok I did and I don't see what you are assuming but maybe I'm wrong. And before the "he didn't want an ethics leason" bs we all know these threads take on a life of their own and spawn many different discussions. Like, would you sell your shot at the title for $50. So even if his buddy wins tonight this guy still wins the title? I for one wouldn't want to win that way so to answer the direct question in the title of the thread, No

 

 

offered the victory, not the money

 

 

 

Again, if it were just money wouldn't he still be worried about winning the bragging rights to the title? I would, the money aside I want to win for the sake of winning.

Maybe it's just the guys I've played FF with, but the "bragging rights" only go so far. As in, not really very far at all. If some dude wins it a few years in a row, they makes sure everyone knows it next time everyone's drunk enough to say stupid things or at the draft. If you buy something nice with the money, you mockingly "thank" everyone for the new toy and they give you the obligatory "screw you". And then, after about 15 minutes, you realize that it doesn't really matter at all and you've got more important "scoreboard" issues to worry about. Like your job and/or general status in life.

 

To me, FF was always an entertaining game and the money was a nice carrot for doing well. But anyone who takes any lasting pride in being "champion" of it, values things far differently than I do. So, I guess I can't understand the notion of feeling the title was "cheapened".

[delusions of grandeur]

The money WAS the property of the community, but DOES NOT continues to be so right up until after the last second runs off the clock Tuesday night. I would think otherwise, because it is NOW THEIR money to play for, disperse or whatever.

Edited December 27, 2010 by delusions of granduer

[detlef]

Just have to laugh at the irony of this...rules don't keep honest people honest, they do that themselves. Rules define boundries and set punishment for the unethical and immoral.

It's a phrase. You know, like fences and locks. They keep people from doing things they know they shouldn't. Someone who doesn't give a crap will bust the lock or jump over the fence.

 

Point is, someone hell bent on cheating will always find a way.

 

Honestly, that phrase had little to do with my point anyway. My point was this. You have deadlines for setting your roster so nobody can cheat and change theirs after they see a guy goes off. You have the ability to kick guys out for making some deal where they pool their best players onto one of the teams and split the pot. Because that is unfair to everyone else. There's a ton of other cases that are very much borderline but are fairly argued about because they do affect other team's chances of winning, and perhaps unfairly so.

 

This, however, is simply not such a case at all. Every team but the two splitting the pot have already been eliminated.

[Ursa Majoris]

ok I did and I don't see what you are assuming but maybe I'm wrong. And before the "he didn't want an ethics leason" bs we all know these threads take on a life of their own and spawn many different discussions. Like, would you sell your shot at the title for $50. So even if his buddy wins tonight this guy still wins the title? I for one wouldn't want to win that way so to answer the direct question in the title of the thread, No

 

 

offered the victory, not the money

 

 

 

Again, if it were just money wouldn't he still be worried about winning the bragging rights to the title? I would, the money aside I want to win for the sake of winning.

I see what you're saying but at some point in the thread (and, no, I would rather not read it again) it became clear that the current losing party was merely seeing if he could get an extra $50 by offering the rest of the prize money regardless of actual result (in other words, if a miracle occurs and he does win, he will get only $50 instead of the full $700). I can see how the phraseology might make you think otherwise, though.

[detlef]

That's where you are wrong. The money is the property of the community right now, and continues to be so right up until after the last second runs off the clock Tuesday night. Why would you think otherwise?

So, would you have an issue with these two guys allowing the league to award the money to each of them as put forth in the rules and then just have them pay each other out with that money once it's "theirs"?

[BearBroncos]

I'm up by 33 with vick and akers to go..and hes got Matt Ryan, Harvin and Celek...He clearly thinks he lost because he offered me the victory if I paid him the 2nd place + $50....and no matter the outcome I win the jackpot...what you think?? I dont need to stress out for the next 2 days now...

 

If Vick fails because you brought bad mojo on him, I'm gonna hunt you down like a dog... Nah, probably not!

[BearBroncos]

ROLF, I just realized what I did there!

[Bronco Billy]

So, would you have an issue with these two guys allowing the league to award the money to each of them as put forth in the rules and then just have them pay each other out with that money once it's "theirs"?

 

That's not the situation here, is it? Did you read my reply above regarding my opinion?

 

This is a matter of circumventing a contract between all players of the league to pay to play in the league and abide by its rules. Unless the rules say otherwise, this money is not their money yet and they shouldn't be making side deals as to what to do with it unless the rest of the participants in the contract participate also.

 

My question is there to be answered again, since it wasn't answered when I first asked it a while ago - what happens if the games don't go well for our self-determined "winner", he by some miracle ends up losing (next to impossible, but not in the realm of entirely impossible) and the other guy decides to take the whole $700 paid by the commish/treasurer/financial manager? You think he ought to go to the league then and whine about getting screwed by the other guy?

 

It also has nothing to do with that this guy has his hands around the throat of the $700 and doesn't have the cajones to squeeze.

[Furd]

IMO there's nothing wrong with the two owners in the championship game making an agreement about the payout. It will be their money. They don't have to tell anybody about it if they don't want to. It doesn't effect the league in any way. The champion is still the champion. The runner up is still the runner up.

 

If the other owners find out, its their duty to bust balls.

 

I didn't read the thread thoroughly. I'm not sure what "conceding a victory" means. An agreement that effects a lineup or outcome of the game is something completely different, and impermissible.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Furd

[delusions of grandeur]

That's not the situation here, is it? Did you read my reply above regarding my opinion?

 

This is a matter of circumventing a contract between all players of the league to pay to play in the league and abide by its rules. Unless the rules say otherwise, this money is not their money yet and they shouldn't be making side deals as to what to do with it unless the rest of the participants in the contract participate also.

 

My question is there to be answered again, since it wasn't answered when I first asked it a while ago - what happens if the games don't go well for our self-determined "winner", he by some miracle ends up losing (next to impossible, but not in the realm of entirely impossible) and the other guy decides to take the whole $700 paid by the commish/treasurer/financial manager? You think he ought to go to the league then and whine about getting screwed by the other guy?

It also has nothing to do with that this guy has his hands around the throat of the $700 and doesn't have the cajones to squeeze.

 

All you are doing is proving why there shouldn't be any rule against it, because it could only allowfor shadier behavior by hiding it. That's why I would absolutely tell the league or commish about the arrangement.

 

The only contract that you've entered into is that, absent another agreement from the parties involved, you are guaranteed that cash in writing... What the two parties have agreed to now is no different than detlefs example of hedging the last game in a parlay, so you walk away with cash either way, even if it is less cash. It's no different than going to a bank to work out a loan while you're waiting for a guaranteed check to get into your account.... Or do I have to check with the writers of that check first, since it's still technically their money, even though it's guaranteed to be paid later?

 

So again, would you make a fuss if the winner decided to give an extra $50 to second place, just out of the goodness of his heart? The outcome would be no different, other than waiting until the cash was physically in hand, rather than just guaranteed to the both of you.

 

I can see why you might not like it, but I'm astounded how you can't understand that it has nothing to do with you, and is not something you should even attempt to prevent.

Edited December 27, 2010 by delusions of granduer

[Qball86]

NO, he offered the money, not the victory. You have it completely backwards. Whoever wins is still the winner. It only has to do with the cash involved, which is THEIRS to disperse. Would it still be wrong if the winner offered an extra $50 out of the goodness of his heart??

I'm just going by what the OP said in his first post. He offered me the victory if I paid him. I don't have it backwards it's plain english.

 

I see what you're saying but at some point in the thread (and, no, I would rather not read it again) it became clear that the current losing party was merely seeing if he could get an extra $50 by offering the rest of the prize money regardless of actual result (in other words, if a miracle occurs and he does win, he will get only $50 instead of the full $700). I can see how the phraseology might make you think otherwise, though.

The clear part is debatable. It wasn't made clear by the OP. It was never stated it was a money only deal in any of his posts. Maybe others have determined it was about the money but this whole discussion is just one assumption after another. As a matter of fact everything the OP has said has implied the opposite. That he paid for the victory and now has "nothing to worry about".

[delusions of grandeur]

I'm just going by what the OP said in his first post. He offered me the victory if I paid him. I don't have it backwards it's plain english.

 

 

The clear part is debatable. It wasn't made clear by the OP. It was never stated it was a money only deal in any of his posts. Maybe others have determined it was about the money but this whole discussion is just one assumption after another. As a matter of fact everything the OP has said has implied the opposite. That he paid for the victory and now has "nothing to worry about".

 

It was nothing but a poor phrasing. Let me change one word in the context of his statement, and bold some key points to make it more clear.

I'm up by 33 with vick and akers to go..and hes got Matt Ryan, Harvin and Celek...He clearly thinks he lost because he offered me the CASH PRIZE if I paid him the 2nd place + $50....and no matter the outcome I win the jackpot...what you think?? I dont need to stress out for the next 2 days now...

 

Now, if he was saying the other guy was going to take out the players he has going and tank, then that would be offering victory. But he's playing the exact same lineup he was when he was playing to win, and is only conceding the cash, since he thinks he's going to lose anyway.

 

The OP said "no matter the outcome I win the jackpot", not no matter the outcome I win the title. Nobody in their right mind would allow that.

Edited December 27, 2010 by delusions of granduer

[Bronco Billy]

All you are doing is proving why there shouldn't be any rule against it, because it could only allowfor shadier behavior by hiding it. That's why I would absolutely tell the league or commish about the arrangement.

 

Took a while, but now you finally seem to get it.

 

 

I can see why you might not like it, but I'm astounded how you can't understand that it has nothing to do with you, and is not something you should even attempt to prevent.

 

You're astounded that I wouldn't approve of circumventing a league's rules like this unless getting approval of the league to do so? Now I'm the astounded one.

[delusions of grandeur]

Took a while, but now you finally seem to get it.

 

 

 

 

You're astounded that I wouldn't approve of circumventing a league's rules like this unless getting approval of the league to do so? Now I'm the astounded one.

 

I totally agree. It should require 100% consensus from all owners... who still have a vested interest in the cash prizes.

 

 

You're confusing concrete rules with a separate agreement for how the parties involved wish the payouts to occur; Key word is parties involved, which is now down to 2.

 

Cash prizes are completely irrelevant and seperate from the rules. Thus is why payouts can change every year without changing how you play the game at all. The distribution of cash has zero bearing on who will be named the champ in the rest of the league's eyes. The outcome is the same, as far as they're concerned.

 

Payouts are merely side prizes as awards for excelling in that game, not a part of the game. What you choose to do with your share of those prizes, that's up to you.