League Ethics Question

Hey Footclan! need your help figuring out if collusion happened in one of my leagues or not. We have a funky waiver system where waivers only runs on Wednesday morning at 7 in the morning, but after that it’s first come, first serve (commish made this to have players check the league more often). During the season, one player became “inactive” but instead of not setting a line up, he dropped half his after Wednesday. Another team happened to be at the right place at the right time and picked up all the players the first team dropped. The two teams also made two trades the same day where the same team that picked up the dumped players also got the rest of the other teams best players for bench players. Commish stepped in and adjusted the rosters before the roster dump and removed the inactive owner. This caused the second owner to argue that he played by the rules and was at the right place at the right time (he picked up the first player 20 minutes after the roster dump) and also stated that anyone could have offered the inactive owner a trade and that he did nothing wrong. Our league was split on how the handle the second owner as we have a no collusion rule which removes any owners guilty of collusion, but since we already lost one owner we put the second on probation and we agreed to bring it to attention after the season. So did the second owner commit collusion or not? Thanks foot clan and sorry for the lengthy message.

no collusion, but the players should go back to the inactive owners team. inactive/shady owners of teams ruin leagues.

The part I find odd is that the inactive owner dropped only half his team instead of all of them. If owner #2 was truly only in the right place at the right time then it is odd he got the other half of the best players by trade. This part makes me think there could have been some collusion.