BigBlue7 0 Posted October 7, 2009 Our league has had an issue with the league veto 2 years in a row now. The problem is: people use it as a tool to make sure that they don't think that one team is getting too strong (if that makes sense) I've recently made a trade with a team that is 1-3 and is ready to blow his draft apart. Teams look like this: His team QB Rivers WR Jennings WR D Jackson RB Tomlinson RB Turner TE Z Miller W/T L Evans / A Bryant W/R F Jackson My team QB Burger WR R White WR T O RB MJD RB K Smith TE C Cooley W/T V Davis W/R S Slaton The trade was offered Chris Cooley for Greg Jennings in a 1ppr league. It was helping both of our teams. However it seems as though it was viewed as my team becoming too strong. Do leagues use the veto as a tool for parity? I'm curious to hear other stories and possible solutions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FenixTx972 2 Posted October 7, 2009 league vetoes are often misused just like this. nothing you can do besides talk to everyone about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stewburtx8 67 Posted October 7, 2009 This is the exact reason that league votes to veto should not be allowed. Trades should only be vetoed if two teams are in collusion. If both teams are making the trade in good faith and think that it improves their team, then it must be let go. As long as you let the league vote on trades, they will continue to get voted down. You have to do away with it for this to ever change. Search this site though and you'll find a million veto threads that go the exact same way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,085 Posted October 7, 2009 If you are gonna have the league veto rule then each owner can vote how they focking want. Whether it's a stupid reason or not. That's the league rule. You have to deal with, then propose that the league veto garbage be done away with next season. If it's not, then find a new league next year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mzf5c5 0 Posted October 7, 2009 If you are gonna have the league veto rule then each owner can vote how they focking want. Whether it's a stupid reason or not. That's the league rule. You have to deal with, then propose that the league veto garbage be done away with next season. If it's not, then find a new league next year. I agree with this. Personally, the league I run you just need three other owners to approve the trade and it is good. We never have people not agree to it and we move on, so never an issue. Seems we have been lucky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigBlue7 0 Posted October 7, 2009 If you are gonna have the league veto rule then each owner can vote how they focking want. Whether it's a stupid reason or not. That's the league rule. You have to deal with, then propose that the league veto garbage be done away with next season. If it's not, then find a new league next year. I think you're right. Even though it's a league i've been part of for 8 years...it might be time to move on if we can't get rid of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sirwinzalot 1 Posted October 7, 2009 Bottom line is it's Cooley for Jennings, the rosters should not make a difference. I wouldn't veto it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicewolf64 0 Posted October 7, 2009 the only reason to have league vetoes is so that teams can protect their own interests Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ambroc 0 Posted October 7, 2009 the only reason to have league vetoes is so that teams can protect their own interests 12 team league, takes 6 to make a veto (which is the majority if you assume two owners involved in the trade and the commissioner is not allowed to vote.) Once "vetoed," the trade goes to the commissioner who has the final decision. In a sense, we use the veto system as a red flag; the commissioner must have the final say. I highly recommend this system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigBlue7 0 Posted October 7, 2009 12 team league, takes 6 to make a veto (which is the majority if you assume two owners involved in the trade and the commissioner is not allowed to vote.) Once "vetoed," the trade goes to the commissioner who has the final decision. In a sense, we use the veto system as a red flag; the commissioner must have the final say. I highly recommend this system. That's a really good system. I like it. I just found out that our league is set to the Yahoo default...33%. One owner said his reason was that the owner trading Jennings for some reason doesn't see Jennings' future potential. I quickly pointed out that it's not his job to manage another guys team. Crazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madd futher mucker 36 Posted October 8, 2009 I think you're right. Even though it's a league i've been part of for 8 years...it might be time to move on if we can't get rid of it. Yep, I agree....if you can't get your league members to see the light on this, it is time to move on and play fantasy football with guys who have an idea of when a veto is or is not appropriate. In numerous leagues over about 10 years, I can recall a veto only happening ONCE and it was to a trade of mine and in my first year in that league. I posted a 'tirade' on the league message board, clearly outlining what the veto did to any incentive to trade in the future or to be part of that league. That was about 5 years ago. There have been no vetoes since. The way to discourage any trades being made in a league is for trades to be vetoed for such asinine reasons as "I just don't see Jennings' future potential." I don't mind a league veto system as long as the league members all believe that there is no such thing as a 'fair trade" and it is NOT their job to decide what is or isn't fair. If you have a league veto rule, it should require at a minimum, 75% of the league members not involved in the trade to vote a trade down. I suggest you do the same. Feel free to paste this URL on your message board along with your comments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pczarapa 0 Posted October 8, 2009 I've seen the same thing in my leagues, I've pulled it in the leagues I run but have to deal with it in leagues where I'm not commisioner. Can be frustrating for sure. Our league has had an issue with the league veto 2 years in a row now. The problem is: people use it as a tool to make sure that they don't think that one team is getting too strong (if that makes sense) I've recently made a trade with a team that is 1-3 and is ready to blow his draft apart. Teams look like this: His team QB Rivers WR Jennings WR D Jackson RB Tomlinson RB Turner TE Z Miller W/T L Evans / A Bryant W/R F Jackson My team QB Burger WR R White WR T O RB MJD RB K Smith TE C Cooley W/T V Davis W/R S Slaton The trade was offered Chris Cooley for Greg Jennings in a 1ppr league. It was helping both of our teams. However it seems as though it was viewed as my team becoming too strong. Do leagues use the veto as a tool for parity? I'm curious to hear other stories and possible solutions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
