In a league with a bunch of co-owned teams. Is it, or is it not reasonable for the commish to treat a team as 1 entity?
Specific Dispute:
This is a face to face league (everyone knows each other, it's not an internet faceless league).
The timing of the WW system was changed by the commish because it had been set up in the system too late in the week.
Prior to the change, all teams were notified on the league website and via email that the change would take place. At least one owner from every team read the email prior to the change. Nobody replied back asking to postpone the change.
However, one "co-owner" was away on business and did not read it (his co-owner did). Came back and has complained & made accusations that it was unfair (moves had been made).
I don't want to elaborate too much more... but this owner has been "difficult" to say the least (since before the draft).
I'm sure responses will spread the spectrum... but please only reply if you have commish experience with co-owner team leagues... it is a unique animal.
If the commish had the permission of at least one owner per team, the rule should stand. This upset owner should stop bitching at the commish and start bitching at his co-owner for not notifying him earlier.
By co-owners, I am assuming it's a guy and his significant other? I'd say that if you're sure the co-owner read it, and this dude is getting upset, that if it's THAT important, his significant other should have mentioned it. Everyone got notice. Not wanting to have to pay attention to your team is not an excuse.
FatFoot wrote:By co-owners, I am assuming it's a guy and his significant other? I'd say that if you're sure the co-owner read it, and this dude is getting upset, that if it's THAT important, his significant other should have mentioned it. Everyone got notice. Not wanting to have to pay attention to your team is not an excuse.
Just for clarity... 2 people who split the fee and share a team. Not a couple, just partners on the team. The league supports this... each partner is given a seperate account for their team. These partners were not assigned or even mandatory (quite the opposite)... people requested to split a team with a friend.
Either owner can make an add/drop, WW, or trade for the team and it is binding.
Bowie wrote:If the commish had the permission of at least one owner per team, the rule should stand. This upset owner should stop bitching at the commish and start bitching at his co-owner for not notifying him earlier.
Bowie nailed it here. It's his/her co-owner that he/she should be upset at.
Bowie wrote:If the commish had the permission of at least one owner per team, the rule should stand. This upset owner should stop bitching at the commish and start bitching at his co-owner for not notifying him earlier.
Another Commish here that concurs. Majority rules in league changes. Tell him to take his menopause medicine and STFU.
Bowie wrote:If the commish had the permission of at least one owner per team, the rule should stand. This upset owner should stop bitching at the commish and start bitching at his co-owner for not notifying him earlier.
Bowie nailed it here. It's his/her co-owner that he/she should be upset at.
You made your job harder than it had to be. You need clarity on issues. You should have made it known that if one co-owner made a decision, in this case accepting the wiaver period, it would be binding. Then the upset co-owner has no beef with you. Otherwise he does have some ground to stand on, albeit very shakey ground.
What are the benefits that would prompt you to be in a league that by it's very structure has disaster written all over it? Not trying to be critical, but curious.
I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 16216
(Past Year: 848)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Yards this season: 568
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows
moochman wrote:You made your job harder than it had to be. You need clarity on issues. You should have made it known that if one co-owner made a decision, in this case accepting the wiaver period, it would be binding. Then the upset co-owner has no beef with you. Otherwise he does have some ground to stand on, albeit very shakey ground.
What are the benefits that would prompt you to be in a league that by it's very structure has disaster written all over it? Not trying to be critical, but curious.
FYI - Not everyone can afford or desires to put up an full entry fee... that is the main reason. I think many FF tournaments are structured as such (multiple people splitting fees).
What is the entry fee? Is it like Brutally Huge's $99,347 league entry fee? If it's less than $500, I would have left the league if people wanted to share teams.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Twisted Sister » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:30 am 
