The way trade vetoes are done needs to change
This past weekend at the trade deadline, I had made a deal with the 5th place team for my 6th place team to trade Austin Ekeler (who the other owner preferred) Philadelphia's defense (who was my backup defense to Baltimore and his was on a bye this week) and I threw in the backup RB for TB who was off ,this week and would never play magain om my team after this trade, but
the depth was needed on the other team, for his Christian McCaffrey.
The other owners in the league did not veto the trade until the last minute on Saturday night before it processed on Sunday morning.
When I brought it up, 3 of the owners below us in the standings stated they had not vetoed the trade, so clearly a couple of the 4 teams we were trying to improve our teams to catch, merely the vetoed the trade to prevent us from fairly being able to improve our teams to pass them and get into the playoffs.
By making the vetoes so easy by only needing a couple of owners needing to vote, you take what is supposed to stop collusion *which RARELY ever happens) and just make the veto a tool for owners to create an imbalance of fairness in the league.
If Yahoo doesn't remove this poorly constructed rule, or adjust it to needing 6 out of 10 teams to vote on a veto, I'll have to leave Yahoo after playing in here for 25-30 years and switch to another platform which doesn't have this outdated, unfair rule ruining leagues year after year. (I've had trades blocked at the deadline, 3 out of the past 5 years beacuse of the same petty BS)
Anonymous
shared this idea