Comments tie in with previous thoughts I have had around trade discussions. Surely a trade should only be vetoed if:
(A) There is obvious/provable collusion between owners
(B) There is obvious distortion on the overall competitiveness of the league
(C) One (experienced) owner is clearly taking advantage of a (newer) owner
I suppose you could add
(D) the trade is extremely (and factually provably) lopsided (and in some ways this ties in with all of the above)
I have an issue where people veto trades because they feel that it is unbalanced in some way, without fully appreciating the reasons why the owners are deciding to trade this way. I understand this is generally done in the supposed best interests of the league but unless it qualifies for any the above conditions, then surely owners should be able to make the trades they wish to and deal with the consequences from there?
Rant over
Chris