Collusion or Nah?

#FootClan Community Forums Commish Q's
#1

Early this I was called out for collusion when I was offered a trade of which I accepted…

My Lev Bell (after all the Jets Trade Hype) and Breida (who had a great week 3 game) and Keelan Cole

For Barkley and Tyreek Hill (who did not have a good week 3 game.)

I am the co-commish of the leauge with a another commissioner who said the trade although lopsided to a degree based on names alone… said the trade looked valid and I agreed.

We do not have a leauge veto option, instead it is Commishers only veto…

The other owners did not have a problem with this rule because it gave the ability to push trades through (quicker 2 commishs agreeing vs the league) and didn’t have to wait for a veto period to go through… now they want to have the right to veto, because they feel like they need a say

Thoughts?

#2

It’s not so outlandish that I’d create an uproar over it if it was my league. You appear to be the winner for sure, but it’s a long season. Who knows what will happen – I don’t view this as problematic enough to accuse someone of collusion at all.

2 Likes
#3

Although I think this is very lopsided in your favor, it should not be vetoed. Keeping the power with the commish (assuming they’re trustworthy) is the better option in my opinion. They can veto something when there’s actual collusion and it keeps the rest of the league from vetoing something that they just think is unfair.

1 Like