I'm in a 6-team fantasy football league with a $150 buy-in, and we're currently dealing with a pretty ridiculous commissioner situation.

Our commissioner made a trade involving Justin Jefferson and Davante Adams, but the deal also included assets outside of fantasy football.

Our league has explicitly written bylaws that identify outside incentives (money, favors, tickets, etc.) as collusion.

We also have a formal process for challenging trades:

- Any manager can challenge a trade.

- All six teams vote on the challenge.

- A majority vote determines the outcome.

- If the majority votes to veto, the trade is canceled.

- The commissioner only has final say in the event of a tie.

Four of our six managers voted to veto the trade.

Here's where it gets ridiculous.

The commissioner actually acknowledged over text that the trade was collusion. So we're not even debating whether the trade violated our rules anymore.

However, Davante Adams has since gotten injured, and the commissioner is now refusing to reverse the trade because of that injury.

There is absolutely nothing in our bylaws stating that an injury overrides a successful veto. The rules explicitly say a majority veto results in the trade being canceled.

So, to recap:

1. The commissioner participated in a trade involving prohibited outside incentives.

2. Four of six managers voted to veto it.

3. The commissioner admitted in writing that it was collusion.

4. He's now refusing to honor the vote because Adams got hurt.

To me, this is a pretty blatant abuse of commissioner authority. He's effectively deciding that the league's written rules don't apply when enforcing them would produce an outcome he doesn't like.

This is also a money league, so it's not like we're just playing for bragging rights.

Am I missing something here? Is there any legitimate argument for the commissioner refusing to enforce a majority veto because a player got injured? And what would you do if your commissioner openly disregarded the league bylaws like this?

I’m in a league where I came in last place. The rule is the first place team decides the punishment. The entire off season went by with no punishment. 3-4 weeks into the season our commissioner decided he would impose the punishment. Should the punishment be required to take place in the offseason? All of this seems to break from conventional logic.

Need some outside opinions because I'm pretty much on an island in my league on this one. Long post, sorry.
12 team yahoo keeper league, h2h 9 cat. You can keep up to 5 guys at one round earlier than where they were drafted, and picks are tradeable in yahoo. Draft order is a lottery for the 6 non playoff teams and then reverse order of finish for the playoff teams.

At the deadline last year our commish traded Markkanen, J-Will and his 6th, 7th and 12th to another guy for a 1st and 2nd that guy had gotten from another team, plus his own 3rd. Thats what went through yahoo and thats all any of us saw. Nobody vetoed it.

Turns out there was more to it in their texts. Commish was actually getting whichever first ended up higher, the one he got in yahoo or a different teams first that the other guy didnt even own yet (his trade for it was still pending and went through the same minute, approved by the commish). If the other pick came out higher they'd swap whoever got drafted with those picks after the draft.

The team that owned that other pick missed the playoffs so it landed at 1.04, and the pick commish got in yahoo was the champs so it was 1.12. So on draft night the other guy took SGA at 4 knowing he was going to commish, and commish took Donovan Mitchell at 12 knowing he was going to the other guy. Basically each of them made a first round pick for the other team. Then after the draft they put through an SGA for Donny trade in yahoo. I had no idea any of this was coming. I'm looking at the transactions the next day like why is SGA going for Donny straight up?? Only then did the side deal come out.

And honestly the other guy got fleeced either way. In the end commish has SGA, Sengun (2.01) and Trey Murphy (3.03). The other guy has Markkanen kept for a 4th (ADP around 36), J-Will kept for a 6th (ADP around 40, using the 6th commish sent him), Morant in the 7th and Ajay Mitchell in the 12th. If he'd just never made the trade he'd have SGA himself plus 1.12, 2.01 and 3.03 to use, and Trey Murphy went at 27 with about the same ADP as Markkanen. So he gave up a top 4 pick and two other early picks for two guys he could have basically drafted with his own 3rd. Even before the swap I had commish getting like 70% more value, and with SGA it's well over double.

There was also a draft order redo this year where commish said he saw a weird extra entry in the log and we let him redo it, but I dont think that matters here since one pick was always going to be a lottery pick and the other a playoff pick.

Most of the league says side deals like this have been happening for years and it's fine. Commish said he'd disclose them better going forward and the swap is going to a vote. I suggested every trade just has to be done in one yahoo transaction, no side stuff to settle later, and that went over about how you'd expect lol.

My take is that every trade should be one transaction, done and visible when it's made. If part of a deal lives in a text thread, nobody else can review it, and then what's even the point of trade review? It also stops people from trading picks they don't own yet, and from making draft picks on behalf of another team. And yahoo can't enforce a text. If one of these goes sideways, say a pick never comes through or two guys remember the deal differently, the commish is stuck refereeing it off screenshots. You can still trade players, keepers and picks, which is plenty to work with. It just has to all be in the trade.

So is this normal in your leagues? Should a swap like this stand if the league only ever saw half the deal? And is it weird the commish approved the trade that got the other guy the pick his own side deal depended
on? Curious what rules you guys use for stuff like this.

TL;DR commish traded for "the higher of 2 firsts" in a text side deal, both guys drafted for each other, then they swapped SGA for Donovan Mitchell after the draft. League never knew about it until the swap showed up. I think every trade should be one transaction. Legit or nah?

So last year me and 9 friends started a chopped league and everyone was given a $1000 in faab (the standard amount). This year we bumped it up to 15 people from 10. One of the league members suggested we bump the faab up to $1500 since we have more people, I said we will just keep it at $1000 because the amount does matter if everyone gets the same amount. Another league member is telling me I’m wrong and saying it absouletly does matter. Just looking for the fantasy worlds opinions on this.

Is there any other explanation for why I would go from 1st priority to 4th priority on a continual rolling list if I never made a waiver claim?

I have a pretty strong team and I’m going up against the commissioner this week. I’ve been sitting on 1st priority all season and finally decided to use it on Germie Bernard. When I woke up this morning it said Bernard went to the 1-5 9th place team and that I had 4th priority. I just want to make sure there’s no other explanation for it before I make an issue out of it.