- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/28/11 at 10:23 pm to GynoSandberg
The veto option isn't there ONLY to prevent collusion. Then it would be called an anti-collusion-vote. You get the option to veto trades that are unfair to the rest of the league.
I've seen people on here say "you cant veto if someone is stupid and the other one takes advantage of it" or "only veto if its obvious collusion."
No, i disagree. You can veto for a myriad of reasons, and in this case: one team is getting WAY stacked while the other gets no real benefit other than RB depth. Did you see the part where two of his STARTING three receivers will be Mike Thomas and Malcom Floyd?
It's unfair. Therefore, a veto should be allowed.
I've seen people on here say "you cant veto if someone is stupid and the other one takes advantage of it" or "only veto if its obvious collusion."
No, i disagree. You can veto for a myriad of reasons, and in this case: one team is getting WAY stacked while the other gets no real benefit other than RB depth. Did you see the part where two of his STARTING three receivers will be Mike Thomas and Malcom Floyd?
It's unfair. Therefore, a veto should be allowed.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News