League Issue Question

Can the league veto a trade even though the trade on paper is FAIR, but it would make the other team be super good.

What should be the scenarios for veto trade. Like if someone pays up for a stud and the trade on paper is fair, but he would have the best team by far, should that be allowed? I mean he had the players to pay up.

Thanks for your opinions.

If you’ve got it setup to a league vote, it doesn’t really matter. The league has the final say. In my main league, I am the commissioner and have the final say. The only way I would veto a trade is obvious collusion, i.e. Gurley for Larry Fitzgerald.

If the trade helps both teams, there’s no reason to veto, and if other players feel like they have a weak team, they need to start trading themselves.

What players were involved in the trade? I don’t like vetoing but it’s not really fun when players make dumb trades that ruin the competitiveness.

a veto is allowed if there is no collusion in the voting. as long as everyone who veto’ed it independently came to the conclusion to veto and voted on their volition, then the rationale for it happening doesn’t matter. not saying that doesn’t make it annoying at times, and if literally every trade is getting veto’ed, then a league discussion on it is warranted to find out what the deal is.

I agree with @Singleton5, the veto is just to prevent one sided trades. If the trade benefits both teams then it should go through. But i also know some people will veto just to veto, hopefully no one does that in your league.

Do not play in leagues with league-wide vetos. It is the stupidest thing in all of fantasy football. Every manager will vote for their own benefit, not what they think is fair or not.

The ONLY time a veto should be allowed, and only be commissioner, is when the trade is collusion. I.e. 2 players working to the benefit of one player at the detriment of the other. And this is very hard to prove. AN example would be like someone giving up like a 1st round draft pick for a 2nd round draft pick in dynasty or something. Or like giving up a starting QB for a 3rd string QB.

The concept of a fair trade from a subjective nature shouldn’t even really come too much into play. One sided trades shouldn’t even result in a veto tbh.