When does a commish have the right to give an owner the boot?

[Duchess Jack]

When is it alright to give the owner the boot?

 

I believe it’s a commish’s job to make a league as fun and competitive as it can be.

 

You’ve got to pick the right people and I believe two biggest factors are an owner’s knowledge and his involvement.

 

I think I rather take an involved owner over a knowledgeable one as an involved owner can follow a top 250 his first year and learn on the job. It might take the league voting on trade his first year but once he gets it – he’ll be an asset to the league and add to the fun for years to come.

 

The knowledgeable absentee owner doesn’t really add all that much.

 

I’ve kicked 2 owners out of my leagues over the years.

 

The first was involved, but it was in a belligerent manner. He didn’t make it a feel good place. He’d pass horrible trade offers to dang near every owner every day and call them stupid when the did not take it and he’d bitch and wine about dang near everything.

 

That cat had to go.

 

The other person I kicked out was just a really, really uninvolved owner. He was a friend of a friend. He hadn’t replied to a league email in over a month and I had a chance to fill his spot with a really great addition.

 

Well here are two situations I have now… both regard a 12 team dynasty league entering its third year.

 

Owner No. 1 didn’t pay this year. Its kind of my fault but I trust everyone. I only take check and paypal so a mistake cannot me made. I require a non-refundable deposit before the rookie draft, before free agency and before roster cutdowns. An owner can pay in full at any point. This owner didn’t pay. He was told he didn’t pay. He didn’t get back to us for a couple weeks. He didn’t apologize but said he’d get a check in the mail. That was a couple weeks ago. I know he’ll pay – but he is really taking our friendship for granted. He’s also not active on the board and when he is – the comments are kind of cutting. Lastly… he doesn’t really follow the rules we have for maintaining rosters.

 

I think this is a no brainer. I can do it with a clear conscience and if he’s being honest with himself – he’ll get over it.

 

The second owner is a little tricky as he came in second place in the first year and first place this year. Thing is – buggers team isn’t even that good. Just had a lucky playoff run the last couple years.

 

This guy has never posted on the board in over two years. Comment here and there – but not too much. He also made no effort to manage his roster over the year. At one point we needed to cut a bunch of players from his team.

 

Granted – the FA commish should have caught this – but the posts the FA commish use to manage these things needs to be made by the player. You just assume that people will do what is expected of them. This is especially true when you see every other owner doing it throughout the year - and - this is your second year doing this. We’ve since put a second FA commish on the job.

 

If he hadn’t come in second place the first year and first place last year I think I could give him the boot without remorse and add a player that works to make the league run better and makes it a better place.

 

Should this matter?

 

And… when does a commish have a right to kick an owner out? Its really tough to put effort into something for people who do not put out effort in return. Does a commish have a right to get the most out of his investment of energy?

[untateve]

I understand that some leagues will take a league-wide vote and set a percentage necessary to expel an owner. This may be the best way to go.

[Grits and Shins]

Clearly non-payment = boot.

 

But booting an owner that has finished in the top two in his two years because you don't like the level of his involvement

[Hat Trick]

But booting an owner that has finished in the top two in his two years because you don't like the level of his involvement

 

Yeah, seems to stink of jealousy. Some people are just lucky.

[Duchess Jack]

I understand that some leagues will take a league-wide vote and set a percentage necessary to expel an owner. This may be the best way to go.

I considered that - but I don't want to make a spectacle of it.

 

Its a wierd position to put owners in.

 

I believe its the right thing to do - but worry about the bad feelings it could cause and I think the damage I worry about causing would be the same with a vote - even if folk voted to keep him - maybe worse.

 

If I am going to cause bad feelings anyway, I might as well just do it.

 

So - for me the issue is - should I or shouldn't I.

 

I considered starting a thread to ask owners for what they think is a bootable offenses for future years - with the understanding that our objective is to make the league the best it can be and see what came of it.

[Duchess Jack]

But booting an owner that has finished in the top two in his two years because you don't like the level of his involvement

 

That's exactly my problem. It has nothing to do with that and that is the only thing holding me back.

 

This isn't about his not posting on the message board but rather his not making an effort to take care of his rosters. He knew he had to do it last year and he did it. The rules were the same for this year. Every time he would have signed on to MFL he would have seen others doing it. He simply didn't do a thing. We found the problem in week 10. He ended up getting in as a wild card and went on to win the Superbowl.

 

This thought process began in week 10. I had to wait for the season to end before I did anything. He just happened to win the Superbowl.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Duchess Jack

[Duchess Jack]

the more I think about it, the more I think coming up with a list of bootable offenses is the best thing to do.

 

if we would have had something like this last year - I would not be in this position now.

 

at worst it puts him on notice.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Duchess Jack

[1st&punt]

Involvement level is a little sketchy considering he has been winning. But every owner has his own idea of how much involvement is sufficient even if it doesn't match yours.

payment + timely lineup insertions are the main factors for dismissal, everything else is circumstantial.

[Duchess Jack]

Involvement level is a little sketchy considering he has been winning. But every owner has his own idea of how much involvement is sufficient even if it doesn't match yours.

payment + timely lineup insertions are the main factors for dismissal, everything else is circumstantial.

 

Once again - the lack of involvement on the chat board has very little to do with it. It simply adds to the broader picture.

 

His lack of involvement in managing his own roster allowed him to carry additional players through several games. These issues were not caused by an 'oversight' or math error on the owners part but because he simply did not manage his roster as it was required of every owner. Its not because he didn't know he had to because he did it the year prior and there is no way to ignore other owners doing it.

[cdrudge]

Quit managing his team for him. If he doesn't submit a valid lineup, he forfeits that week. If he carries too many players, drop the lowest rank one that doesn't force his team to be invalid. And so on. Obviously this should be spelled out in the rules and approved by the majority of the league. I'd put him on notice this year, and if it continues, give him the boot this time next year.

[1st&punt]

I understand the frustration with owners. We all want to be involved with a great FF league and in most cases they are with the exceptions to the rule. Every league has one owner that sucks, so we deal with it.

Have a set of rules in place and have them constantly evolving as problems arise. I probably would look to give the negligent owner the boot on many factors based on your accounts and one big factor is he sounds like an ass.

[Sturphy]

Quit managing his team for him. If he doesn't submit a valid lineup, he forfeits that week. If he carries too many players, drop the lowest rank one that doesn't force his team to be invalid. And so on. Obviously this should be spelled out in the rules and approved by the majority of the league. I'd put him on notice this year, and if it continues, give him the boot this time next year.

This sounds like good advice.