Fantasy Football Ruling Issue - Page 4

Needle77 · #31 12-11-2006, 04:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deal goes through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If it was already agreed to, there's no turning back.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the TO to the Ravens deal? I'm more wondering than anything cause if the 9ers could back off from that then why can't he back off from his trade? Unless they didn't actually agree to the trade, then I have no basis and it should go through.

capone0 · #32 12-11-2006, 04:14 PM

Although Owens was eager to leave the 49ers, the 49ers asserted that Owens's previous agent, David Joseph, had missed the deadline to void the final years of his contract with the 49ers. Owens and Joseph disputed this assertion, contending that the deadline referred to by the 49ers was not the applicable deadline. On March 4th, 2004, San Francisco, believing it still held Owens' rights, attempted to trade Owens to the Baltimore Ravens for a second round pick in the 2004 draft. However, Owens challenged the 49ers' right to make the deal. Owens assumed that he would become a free agent on March 3, and did not believe that the earlier deadline was applicable. So he had negotiated with other teams in advance of his expected free agency, and had reached a contract agreement with the Philadelphia Eagles, whose fan base strongly supported Owens in his desire to play for the team. The NFL Players Union filed a grievance on his behalf.

Before an arbitrator could make a ruling on Owens's grievance, the NFL and the three teams involved in the controversy reached a settlement on March 16, 2004. The Ravens got their second-round pick back from the Niners, and the Niners in turn received a conditional fifth-round pick and defensive end Brandon Whiting from the Eagles in exchange for the rights to Owens. Owens's contract with the Eagles was reported to be worth $49 million for seven years, including a $10 million signing bonus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_Owens

I think this is a different issue. They aren't anywhere near the same issue. Fantasy Football and real Football, especially something involving Terrell Owens shouldn't be brought up in a FF thread.

Needle77 · #33 12-11-2006, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I think this is a different issue. They aren't anywhere near the same issue. Fantasy Football and real Football, especially something involving Terrell Owens shouldn't be brought up in a FF thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just got owned. Sorry, just thought maybe it was close.

Anyway, I believe the trade should go through, as it has been said before, they both agreed to it.

capone0 · #34 12-11-2006, 04:19 PM

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

MEbenhoe · #35 12-11-2006, 06:53 PM

Just to get opinions on this part of the argument:

The owner who is trying to back out of the trade has said he will likely quit if the trade is forced to go through, and the discussion came up of if people think it will be harder to get a new owner to take over a team that doesnt have a 1st round pick next year. One owner suggested giving a compensation 1st round pick to a new owner. Personally, I think this idea is BS. If we are forcing through this trade by saying it is a fair trade, then that means that the team who is giving up its 1st round pick gained enough value from the trade to make up for the loss of a 1st round pick. By giving a compensation 1st round pick it implies that the trade was unfair that you are having to institute an extra 1st round pick to make up for it. And if the trade is unfair in that way, then it should be rejected. Also, adding an extra 1st round pick hurts every team in the league other than the 2 teams involved in the trade, so it seems stupid to have to hurt all the other teams in the league because of the screw up caused by a trade between 2 teams.

Aces McGee · #36 12-11-2006, 07:10 PM

Matt, backtracking slightly, what has become of the trade? Did it ever go through, or was the fact that one of the players wouldn't be eligible for that week enough for the site to not process it?

-McGee

MEbenhoe · #37 12-11-2006, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Matt, backtracking slightly, what has become of the trade? Did it ever go through, or was the fact that one of the players wouldn't be eligible for that week enough for the site to not process it?

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

It never went through. It was up as pending and then disappeared without anyone knowing why. As of yet no decision has been made as to what to do.

Big TR · #38 12-12-2006, 10:31 AM

Now that you say this, the guy should be kicked out of the league. Who wants to play with a guy who will welch on a trade, then threaten to leave the league if the trade he agreed to goes through?

Get rid of the guy. Why waste time with somebody like this?

Aces McGee · #39 12-12-2006, 10:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Matt, backtracking slightly, what has become of the trade? Did it ever go through, or was the fact that one of the players wouldn't be eligible for that week enough for the site to not process it?

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

It never went through. It was up as pending and then disappeared without anyone knowing why. As of yet no decision has been made as to what to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it never went through, then it appears that the rules of the site you play at handle such issues in this way. Absent a separate league constitution that amends the site rules, play by the site rules -- they are what everyone signed up for. I say it doesn't have to forced through.

-McGee

Big TR · #40 12-12-2006, 12:30 PM

The trade should have gone through today if the website knew what they were doing. I can see that maybe the trade should not be in effect for the past week since it didn't meet the deadline. The parties agreed to the trade and as repeatedly stated, there is no trade deadline. The trade should stand.