Kilroy1872 wrote: Matthias wrote:
J_rob_the_ Baller wrote:MAYBE with a 7/10 vote, i would consider allowing the veto.
MAYBE with 7 of the 8 teams not involved in the trade caring enough to object you'd consider allowing the veto? Wow. That's amazingly democratic of you.
The problem with being "democratic" is that chickens**t owners use the veto for no other reason than they don't want their opponents teams to improve.
Have any of the owners that have vetoed the trade given any reasoning why they did so?
thats why we took out veto trades, where if mroe then half the owners vote against it, it doesnt go thru, but it was done discreet, so if the first place team is making ANY kind of trades to improve no matter how fair, they are voted against, and you never know WHO or WHY they vote against it....
but why do u see this trade as lopsided? i can look from both angles and see why they would at least want to make the trade, im sure you might see one end who looks better, but i think you just have to act as if you were both owners, would it make sense to make that trade, or would you see ANY reasons why they would want those players over who they have