McBoog Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) For it to be "collusion", both players have to get something out of it. Unless you can prove that the second place team is giving some kickback from winnings, etc. it is not collusion. It may be going around the standard way players are moved, AND if this is DEFINED in your WRITTEN and agreed to league rules, there is no way it should have been stopped. I don't play in leagues without a written, DETAILED rule book if there is more than $100 on the line. I don't play in leagues that veto trades. Unless this is a $100+ league, take a chill. Edited November 21, 2012 by McBoog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 For it to be "collusion", both players have to get something out of it. Ah, no...that would be a fair trade wouldn't it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 The dumping team doesnt have to get anything out of it for it be collusion, nor can you prove if they did or didnt. What matters ia that theyre pooling players, and his team isnt getting any benefit, as he admits. Thats collusion, and very likely the other team could have offered to split the winnings. So at very least grounds to overturn, if not remove the owners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 For it to be "collusion", both players have to get something out of it. Unless you can prove that the second place team is giving some kickback from winnings, etc. it is not collusion. And how exactly do you propose to prove that a team is getting a kickback? Short of a confession, apparently collusion does not exist to you - unless of course a league is prepared to hire a PI and a forensic electronics specialist, and then promote some breaking & entering. How about this: 4th place team traded McGahee to last place team for Woodhead this past week. Got vetoed, including a veto vote by me, which I've never done in any league before, as well as my nastygram to both owners. Okay with you for last place teams to trade away for players with literally no FF value? He may as well have sent Woodhead over for a stick - no, wait, the stick would have more value for the rest of the FF year than McGahee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 For it to be "collusion", both players have to get something out of it. Unless you can prove that the second place team is giving some kickback from winnings, etc. it is not collusion. I would think that most cases of collusion involve one of the teams getting almost nothing. They are helping a "buddy" out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I would think that most cases of collusion involve one of the teams getting almost nothing. They are helping a "buddy" out. Unless I am reading him wrongly, McBoog is saying that does not qualify for collusion. I believe his position is that collusion only occurs if the owner who is appearing to get very poor to no return in the trade instead gets something outside the parameters of play in the league - like part of the payout or a blowjob from the other owners girlfriend, for example. Please correct me if I'm wrong, GB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted November 26, 2012 Author Share Posted November 26, 2012 Can I ask how old these geniuses are? The only reason I ask is that I am assuming them to be young punks, because I cant imagine a working man with the responsibilities of an older gent doing this for $300. I mean, its not like their running a scam that's subtle and no one sees it. Maybe I am naive. The people in the league that were making the trades are all right out of school. Its a $30 leage that I only joined cause they needed another player. But I am still going to play to win. Either way its nothing to lose sleep over. I am in a $200 league with $5 tranny fees - 12 guys, 10 year old league and we have never had any issues with anyone. Thanks for all the replies. Its nice to see both sides to arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Unless I am reading him wrongly, McBoog is saying that does not qualify for collusion. I believe his position is that collusion only occurs if the owner who is appearing to get very poor to no return in the trade instead gets something outside the parameters of play in the league - like part of the payout or a blowjob from the other owners girlfriend, for example. Please correct me if I'm wrong, GB This! I f'n cyin' over here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 The people in the league that were making the trades are all right out of school. Its a $30 leage that I only joined cause they needed another player. But I am still going to play to win. Either way its nothing to lose sleep over. I am in a $200 league with $5 tranny fees - 12 guys, 10 year old league and we have never had any issues with anyone. Thanks for all the replies. Its nice to see both sides to arguments. That's what trannies are going for these days? Tough economy for everyone I guess. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) That's what trannies are going for these days? Tough economy for everyone I guess. I'm told they mainly work on tips... Edited November 26, 2012 by Delicious_bass 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joessfl Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Come on. You had to use the "So I've been told" line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I would think that most cases of collusion involve one of the teams getting almost nothing. They are helping a "buddy" out. No... IF defined as an illegal trade in the WRITTEN RULES, that would be cheating. "Collusion" needs to be proven, a very hard thing to do and serious accusation considering it is often illegal. Have a rule book people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 No... IF defined as an illegal trade in the WRITTEN RULES, that would be cheating. "Collusion" needs to be proven, a very hard thing to do and serious accusation considering it is often illegal. Have a rule book people! Either that or play with honorable people and don't be afraid to use the smell test when someone breaks the "code of honor". Frankly, I find it a bit insulting to put everyone through a super-detailed list of things that are against the rules. We're all adults and this is supposed to be for fun. I sign enough contracts in real life, I don't want to have my lawyer look over my FF by-laws as well. As far as a rule book is concerned, and especially in something like FF, I would expect that there are a number of understood rules. One of those being for situations like this. You don't need to actually find a smoking gun of money exchanging hands or some such to realize that these guys are stacking rosters. There are borderline situations where you can say that one guy was just stupid, and you have to let those go. Then there's cases like this, where I believe the guy has even admitted to "helping a friend out". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 No... IF defined as an illegal trade in the WRITTEN RULES, that would be cheating. "Collusion" needs to be proven, a very hard thing to do and serious accusation considering it is often illegal. Have a rule book people! If the Supreme Court can define pornography without explicit detail in writing what exactly constitutes pornography, and therefore allow enforcement laws against pornography; I think FFers can determine what collusion is without each league having to explicitly spell it out. I know collusion when I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 If the Supreme Court can define pornography without explicit detail in writing what exactly constitutes pornography, and therefore allow enforcement laws against pornography; I think FFers can determine what collusion is without each league having to explicitly spell it out. I know collusion when I see it. He shoots, he scores. 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.