MLB/team shilling?

[GoCrazyFolks76]

Shill bidding is Fraud and is absolutely illegal:

http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/www/...parent_id=2439

It behooves everybody here to send an email or two to MLB to let them know about these criminal activities occurring on their own websites.

auctions.mlb.com/iSynApp/manageUserEmail!showEmailContactUsForm.action?sid= 1101001

Include specific examples in your email so they have something to investigate.

[yanks12025]

Shill bidding is Fraud and is absolutely illegal:

http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/www/...parent_id=2439

It behooves everybody here to send an email or two to MLB to let them know about these criminal activities occurring on their own websites.

auctions.mlb.com/iSynApp/manageUserEmail!showEmailContactUsForm.action?sid= 1101001

Include specific examples in your email so they have something to investigate.

Ill ask you again. Please show examples of them shilling the auctions. Oh that's right, you don't have proof or anything that the teams themselves are shilling auctions.

[BirdsOnBat]

The Cardinals have all the money in the world, I highly doubt they'd risk their credibility over a few hundred dollars.

[sherbal15]

The Cardinals have all the money in the world, I highly doubt they'd risk their credibility over a few hundred dollars.

I am not by any means suggesting ownership would condone the activity whatsoever

[johnsontravis@ymail.com]

The Cardinals have all the money in the world, I highly doubt they'd risk their credibility over a few hundred dollars.

These auctions are run by people making a very modest middle class wage. If their contract renewal is based off how much they sell things for or what their auctions look like I'd think one would be VERY motivated to schill.

[johnsontravis@ymail.com]

Sometimes I bid on reserves with no intention of buying them. Some teams put the reserve at the price their inventory list has so I will bid it up a little to "help" them out.

(I do not bid on Cardinal Auctions)

[danesei@yahoo.com]

My understanding and reading of the law is that shilling is generally viewed as illegal under the UCC unless one of the following two conditions are met:

1) Disclosure. If the auction house indicates prior to the start of the auction (possibly in the Terms and Conditions of being a bidder) that they may bid on the seller's or auction house's behalf, then it has been disclosed. This is legal.

2) Reserve Auctions. This isn't as clear, but reserve auctions are auctions where the seller can withdraw the item for any reason. In the case of a reserve price auction, the reason is bidding doesn't reach the reserve price. If a transaction never occurs due to reserve conditions not being met, then no fraud has occurred.

Shill bidding is Fraud and is absolutely illegal:

http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/www/...parent_id=2439

It is illegal in most, not all, cases. In the situation described by sherbal, it doesn't seem any fraud has occurred, since no transaction occurred, and therefore no loss was realized. Also, that site is a private attorney's website. Even the wording in the text related to shilling is that it's probably illegal. It's not definitive, since that's an interpretation of the UCC and recent changes. Only a judge can really define what's illegal or not.

The only people using mlb auctions as the "go to" for market value is the teams store. So when you call about buying something they can point to the their latest auction prices as justification. So when you say "that pete Kozma jersey is not even worth $175" the response you'll get is "check our latest auction". The great koz just brought $585!

Reserve or not, the practice of shilling is dishonest. Not sure if it technically is illegal or not. Again, if I were a cardinal fan bidding on anything I would stay away from anything with a reserve. The reason it even made it to auction is because no one in the "regular customer" list wants to pay the quoted price, which is most likely the reserve price on the auction. Since nobody wants to pay the price it goes to auction and is shilled to point of "just prior to" going over the reserve price. This justifies the price to the "regular customer" and creates a false market for the item entirely.

Again, the reserve is of substantial relevancy when determining whether shilling has occurred. If the reserve isn't met, no transaction has occurred.

These auctions are run by people making a very modest middle class wage. If their contract renewal is based off how much they sell things for or what their auctions look like I'd think one would be VERY motivated to schill.

I disagree with the above comment. If my contract were based upon sales in MLB auctions, I'd do everything in my power to ensure items sold. The scenario described by sherbal15 attempts to implicate individuals in shill bidding items BELOW the reserve price. The other implication is that the reserves are above the actual market value for the items. Those actions (setting an absurdly high reserve; shill bidding below the reserve price) don't seem congruent with generating sales.

As I said, I'd do everything in my power to ensure items sold. I wouldn't shill bid without prior disclosure.

Now, this brings up a different question...

eBay's rules prohibit shill bidding. Since eBay claims to be a marketplace, as opposed to an auction house, what would happen if a seller explicitly stated in their auction that they reserve the right to bid on their own behalf to increase an item's selling price? I'm sure that they'd be banned from eBay, but legally speaking, would buyers be surrendering the right to recourse by bidding in the auction and assuming the terms are accepted and binding?

[seanbaseball]

Im surprised so many on here think that any shill bidding anywhere is ok because there is a reserve. That makes zero sense. Also just because an auction may say in small print that they may do it does that make it ok. Its like cheating on your taxes and writing on the 1040 in small print "I cheated"

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Im surprised so many on here think that any shill bidding anywhere is ok because there is a reserve. That makes zero sense. Also just because an auction may say in small print that they may do it does that make it ok. Its like cheating on your taxes and writing on the 1040 in small print "I cheated"

Not exactly. According to the UCC, it's explicitly stated that auction houses can bid on their own items, so long as they disclose it in advance. As for the reserve concern, I don't understand why anyone cares what price an auction ends at when the reserve isn't met. I think that's why I personally don't care. It's like those people who put items for sale on eBay with $100k reserves, simply because they never intend to sell and want to advertise their own stores. Since a transaction never occurred, whatever price the item didn't go for is somewhat irrelevant, if not entirely irrelevant.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

To remove any further confusion, here is the actual language of the current version of the UCC, as it applies to auctions:

Uniform Commercial Code › U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002) › PART 3. GENERAL OBLIGATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT
§ 2-328. Sale by Auction.
(1) In a sale by auction if goods are put up in lots each lot is the subject of a separate sale.

(2) A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer so announces by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner. Where a bid is made while the hammer is falling in acceptance of a prior bid the auctioneer may in his discretion reopen the bidding or declare the goods sold under the bid on which the hammer was falling.

(3) Such a sale is with reserve unless the goods are in explicit terms put up without reserve. In an auction with reserve the auctioneer may withdraw the goods at any time until he announces completion of the sale. In an auction without reserve, after the auctioneer calls for bids on an article or lot, that article or lot cannot be withdrawn unless no bid is made within a reasonable time. In either case a bidder may retract his bid until the auctioneer's announcement of completion of the sale, but a bidder's retraction does not revive any previous bid.

(4) If the auctioneer knowingly receives a bid on the seller's behalf or the seller makes or procures such a bid, and notice has not been given that liberty for such bidding is reserved, the buyer may at his option avoid the sale or take the goods at the price of the last good faith bid prior to the completion of the sale. This subsection shall not apply to any bid at a forced sale.

So, even in the event where the auction didn't disclose the right to bid, thereby enacting (4), recourse only exists to the buyer. If the reserve is never met, there's no buyer to seek recourse. This is why I keep saying it's pointless to talk about "shill" bidding in reserve price auctions where the reserve price is unmet.