Idea to stop deadbeat owners

renman · Post by **renman** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:26 am

double,

I am glad you did this. Because it flat out shows the sequence of events in a thread and proves I am not in any way the problem.

I came into the thread with little more than a message saying "this is a worthy topic to discuss, lets throw out some ideas..."

Flex then, in a pretty adversarial manner, explained that quitter teams are good for fantasy football and Greg and Tom don't care and wont do anything about it. This is something I respectfully disagreed with (which is allowed I think).

Him bringing up Tom/Greg is an example of HIM NOT GETTING MY POINT... so I again, explained my point is that I think the topic is worth discussing and whether Greg/Tom plan on dealing with the problem has nothing to do with my point.

My being forced to repeat this 3 times in a completely NON hostile way is a clear example of how I am not the problem.

After flex on multiple occasions went off on tangents that had nothing to do with my point (but directed them at me) I was forced to respectfully say I didn't understand his point and would struggle to discuss this topic with him if this continued.

He continued to hound me and say this is a non topic. Resulting in my asking why he is posting in the thread and outlining that he is coming off angry.

After about 5 posts of this routine, I finally sarcastically ask if I may have permission to discuss the topic I want... which was followed him saying "no." Which flat out proves who is being purposefully disruptive and who is trying to fuel reasonable football discussion.

Your above post could not prove my position more right if you tried to prove me right.

Now this silliness is the exact thing that bores me on this message board. If you have interest in discussing the topic of owners who quit on leagues and hurt the competitive integrity of the league, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you. If you don't (and I am pretty sure you don't) please understand I will not respond to any more of your posts.

If the topic is fantasy football, I am interested. If the topic is me personally, I am not interested, nor is anyone else.

[ November 13, 2011, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Renman ]

Sandman62 · Post by **Sandman62** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:31 am

From the movie Bedazzled (the world's most sensitve man):

renman · Post by **renman** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:35 am

Followed by sandman mocking to pander to the mob....lol

Ladies and gents... I present you the culture on the NFFC message board...

Time to go enjoy some NFL... it is good to be reminded why this forum is so dead any more...

Have your fun guys...

Ps. Hey Tom, how has this "discussion" been going on the topic of ways to help keep quitter teams more involved?

[ November 13, 2011, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Renman ]

Money · Post by **Money** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:36 am

Time to move on fella's. This has gotten off topic and will probably be shut down soon.

Sandman62 · Post by **Sandman62** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:39 am

No James, I'm not pandering to the mob. But geez, you just don't know when to quit and that's how you come across.

abruski17 · Post by **abruski17** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:03 pm

I find it ironic that I've seen discussion over whether or not WED or FRI FAAB runs are better, which has practically no bearing on league outcomes because it's uniformly implemented.

Meanwhile, something that impacts win/loss records and prizes is a taboo topic.

Ironically, I could've cared less about this two weeks ago. But it's kind of like watching a trainwreck. This seems so open and shut and there is a massive groundswell of keeping this arbitrary luck factor involved.

But folks are going to go to the mat over WED or FRI FAAB runs.

particra · Post by **particra** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:04 pm

We have an owner in the Ultimate that has spent 0 FA $$ this year and today started 3 WRs who were on their bye this week. He also has Brandon Jackson and Terrell Owens and 3 Defenses on his roster.

This is a $5,000 league. If you can't stop deadbeat owners here, you can't stop them anywhere.

CoMoHusker · Post by **CoMoHusker** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:10 pm

Originally posted by Hells Satans:
We have an owner in the Ultimate that has spent 0 FA $$ this year and today started 3 WRs who were on their bye this week. He also has Brandon Jackson and Terrell Owens and 3 Defenses on his roster.

This is a $5,000 league. If you can't stop deadbeat owners here, you can't stop them anywhere. Unbelievable. You might expect that in an OC league but wouldn't think that would ever happen in a Classic or Primetime event, let alone in the Ultimate. That guy must wipe his a$$ with hundred dollar bills.

Eddiejag · Post by **Eddiejag** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:26 pm

Originally posted by Hells Satans:
We have an owner in the Ultimate that has spent 0 FA $$ this year and today started 3 WRs who were on their bye this week. He also has Brandon Jackson and Terrell Owens and 3 Defenses on his roster.

This is a $5,000 league. If you can't stop deadbeat owners here, you can't stop them anywhere. Thats really amazing,most of the guys in those leagues just dont do that.Dont tell me its the poker player again as that would really suck.Just no reason to have a team with 3 or players on byes or out of football.

BLACKHAND · Post by **BLACKHAND** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:12 pm

Originally posted by CoMoHusker:
quote:Originally posted by Hells Satans:
We have an owner in the Ultimate that has spent 0 FA $$ this year and today started 3 WRs who were on their bye this week. He also has Brandon Jackson and Terrell Owens and 3 Defenses on his roster.

This is a $5,000 league. If you can't stop deadbeat owners here, you can't stop them anywhere. Unbelievable. You might expect that in an OC league but wouldn't think that would ever happen in a Classic or Primetime event, let alone in the Ultimate. That guy must wipe his a$$ with hundred dollar bills. [/QUOTE]No excuse for that. total disrespect for the others in the league. i dont care if he is rich or not. the old saying : a man should make money. money should not make a man.