League Vetoing Issues

My issue is this: my trades keep getting vetoed after they are accepted by the other party. We have a three day veto period and only need 7 people of the 14 not involved in the trade to veto. 

After week 1, I tried to trade Welker and Spiller for Megatron. This week I tried to trade Welker, Spiller, and Michael Bush for Arian Foster, DeSean Jackson, and Santonio. 

Same thing happened, accepted by other party, then vetoed by the league. 

The reasons others are giving is that they don't want me trading two "back up RB's" for Foster. Other reasons are the teams in my division don't want me getting Foster(I have Brees as my QB and would wind up with 2 of the top 6 guys drafted in the league). 

This is bull shit and are not valid reasons to veto my trade. There is absolutely no collusion or shady dealings in any of my trades. 

My question is: Is there anything I can do? I did agree to the terms of the leauge, and our veto policy has been in place every previous year I have been in the league. Veto's have never been a problem before. I love playing in this league because of it's competitive nature and friendly banter. But this is affecting my chances at winning this league and it's getting frustrating. 

I think you're right tundra. Doesn't look like I can do to much. I'm posing these issues on the league message board and I will have to wait and see what type of reaction the league has. 

I do have problems with commissioners don't I Manram?

There are GMs out there looking out for themselves and strategically vetoing, which may be "unethical" but you can't hold it against them. The end prize is the ultimate reward and when money is involved, every man for himself so to speak.

The "no collusion" commandment in itself is only a commandment. Not a rule!

Thanks Kiwi. 

I actually have an issue with the no collusion thing though. I know I am going to sound hypocritical for saying this: I actually colluded with another player in my very first year in the league. The league called bull shit on us and voided our deal. 

Now in hindsight I agree with what the league did and understand why each owner voted for that. However, If collusion wasn't allowed back then, why should a different form of it be allowed now? 

The fact is that people trade to "improve" their team. It is also a fact that as a competitor, do you really want to see your competitors improve. Natural instinct is that if you're not involved in a trade, you'll gonna veto it. It happens! 

Personally, I'm not a fan of trades. I believe that a competent GM should come out of the draft knowing he did a good job and should look forward to the season with confident. The "let each GM do their own thing" and as long as there are no collusion, let trades through, I'm not a fan of - hate me for it, but I'm a strategist and I do what I need to do to win (and feel that people who needs to trade see weakness in their team - even although their team may still be competitive). And I'd hate to be a GM that "rips" someone off, not my style! 

You're right.  I over looked the fact that it's a 16 team league.  I've never played with more than 12.  You would get no veto from me.  It's already been said but even if those guys are voting for the wrong reasons,  there's nothing you can do about it except call them unethical.  Money = motivation