Is this collusion? PLEASE HELP

[Kanos]

Person A is going to give Germaine Gresham to Person B. In return he gets Ahmad Bradshaw (who is currently on person B's bench because he has great running back depth). After a week they will trade back. Keep in mind, person B already has Scott Chandler, ranked number 7 in tight ends on ESPN this week.

I find this to be collusion an feel I should veto it.

The trade is one-sided, and aren't one week bye trades frowned upon? It's a ten-man league so everyone has a good player or two on their bench, wouldn't it be bull if we all worked together to make the best teams every week?

What do you think?

Thanks,

Kanos

PS - I posted this in Football Talk when it probably should have been posted here. Sorry.

[Hags888]

Absolutely. It's the very definition of collusion. "Borrowing Players" should not be allowed, and this trade should be veto'd immediately. Gresham for Bradshaw straight up is already a trade that should be veto'd. But then you add in the fact that they are just going to trade back the players after the BYE week? WHAT? You can't borrow or lend players in FF. Period.

[Kanos]

That's exactly what I thought.

I would still like to hear some more opinions of why it is or isn't. (trying to gain evidence to show the people the veto went against.)

BTW SKOL VIKINGS.

[Johnny Blood]

It is also collusion because they are sharing roster space, forming a super-team/alliance. If you're allowed to do this with n players you are allowed to do it with n+1 players. Therefore they could share every player on both rosters, floating them back and forth to serve whatever shared purpose they have. It's textbook collusion.

You get a set number of roster spots, you don't get to store your players on other team's rosters.

[stomperrob]

That's exactly what I thought.

I would still like to hear some more opinions of why it is or isn't. (trying to gain evidence to show the people the veto went against.)

BTW SKOL VIKINGS.

Def collusion - see: viewtopic.php?t=524568