have your say.

[Holz]

Well I don't like this new period 'fix up DPP changes' and that means everyone gets 4. I get 4 too, but I lost let's SIX midfielders and most were unannounced. So cause I need SIX new midfielders, wouldn't that mean I get at least 6 new movements?

That's how I interpret it. Or everyone getting 4 even say one team doesn't have one DPP change. I want some clarification to this.

unfortunately i cant make the rule for this year as its too late.

It will be like the worlds you get 4 trades but the trades have to be done on a legitiamte unexpected dpp change. E.g. you can say you didnt expect to get so many defense changes so I will allow you to trade a back for say a mid.

If you go on to try and trade a forward for a ruck I wont allow the trade.

For those like me who basically had no unexpected trades I will not be able to do a trade unless the other person im trading with is doing it for legit DPP reasaons.

So i could trade you a mid for a back even though im not affected by DPP at all (as you are) but i couldnt trade a mid for a bakc with say zip

Holz can you please just clarify that the top line means the rest of your post doesn't stand for this year but only next year onwards ? Cheers.

Yeah can't change the rule for  this year this is all 2013

[Justin Bieber]

Rivals. Can we get new ones? Like the ones we wanted initially? With coaches and all..

[Scrads]

Had an idea about a way to maybe restrict some of the trading guys, I ran it by Holz already but the main thing is getting a positive response from everybody. This is from the pm I sent him:

'OK so everyone seems to think that there has been over-trading so far and along with lowering the trade caps I think I might have an interesting solution which might help. It was triggered by PB when he said about you giving Cotchin the 10 year contract and then trading him a few months later.

What if we enforced contracts on our players ?

My initial thinking was we all give out 5 contracts to the players of our choice. One for 5 years, one for 4 years, then 3 years, 2  years, 1 year.

So each coach selects which players will get these contracts, then as I am sure you can guess, these players CANNOT be traded under any circumstance until these contracts are filled out. Then every year, seeing as the initial 5 year contract would have 4 years left, the 4 would have 3 left etc and the 1 year contract would expire. So it means you have to give a different player a 5 year contract.

For example, I nominate:

Ebert (5 years)
Ryder (4 years)
Hartlett (3 years)
Stanton (2 years)
Broughton (1 year)

so then I cannot trade any of these 5 players as they are contracted. At the end of the season though, a year would have passed and so it would look like:

Ebert (4 years)
Ryder (3 years)
Hartlett (2 years)
Stanton (1 year)
Broughton (Contract expired)

So now Broughton is available for trade, and I have to nominate someone for a 5 year contract. Say Savage has a break-out year I might pick him and so next year my contracts would look like:

Savage (5 years)
Ebert (4 years)
Ryder (3 years)
Hartlett (2 years)
Stanton (1 year)

The main thing which I am not really sure would be best is if the new 5 year contract gets nominated BEFORE the trading period in between seasons or AFTER. I would gather before simply because it will mean it is an extra player that team has to keep.

This method I think will promote 1 club players as the best players will be under contract most of the time. The only downside is that since the new contracts are 5 years only, it really means that only players 24 or under will recieve new contracts most of the time so maybe that part could be worked on. The number of players (5 in my example) could also be worked on I jsut used it to show my point but 4 or 6 or whatever could also work.

What are your thoughts ? :)'

[Ricochet]

i dont mind this, it adds another element to consider. Teams could really be hurt by it (like giving Liam Shiels a 5 year contract and then he turns into a tagger) but its all part of the game.

[JBs-Hawks]

What's to stop people just locking a spud into a 5 year contract?

[picker_man]

I like the idea Scrads :)

As JB's post points out could be a few small probelms that would still need to be worked on but overall I think it could work.

[Ziplock]

well, what if those 5 players couldn't be targeted by expansion teams?

[Holz]

well, what if those 5 players couldn't be targeted by expansion teams?

yes thats what im looking at

[Ziplock]

but, then again, that's overly complex.

just make a smaller trade limit, like we can only have 7 list movements over the entire 3 trading periods combined or w.e

[Justin Bieber]

I shouldnt be complaining but we were allowed too many list movements

Our starting team from 2012 is nothing compared to 2013. Almost a completely new team

That is partly the coach's fault as well as they didn't have to trade out the players, they chose to trade out the players on their own free will. I like trading as well, but I don't do as much as most others which frustrates some who want my players. Before the first season I ontraded a bit, but this past trade period I didn't ontrade anybody besides a pick or two. Most should actually want to keep the same players, but as others have said it will cool down now as everybody has found a strategy they want to follow.

What if we enforced contracts on our players ?

My initial thinking was we all give out 5 contracts to the players of our choice. One for 5 years, one for 4 years, then 3 years, 2  years, 1 year.

So each coach selects which players will get these contracts, then as I am sure you can guess, these players CANNOT be traded under any circumstance until these contracts are filled out. Then every year, seeing as the initial 5 year contract would have 4 years left, the 4 would have 3 left etc and the 1 year contract would expire. So it means you have to give a different player a 5 year contract.

This method I think will promote 1 club players as the best players will be under contract most of the time. The only downside is that since the new contracts are 5 years only, it really means that only players 24 or under will recieve new contracts most of the time so maybe that part could be worked on. The number of players (5 in my example) could also be worked on I jsut used it to show my point but 4 or 6 or whatever could also work.

What are your thoughts ? :)'

I don't mind the contract ideas. Although just say you have an old player, if you give him the 5 year contract and he retires the next year, does that force you the following season to give out a 5 and 4 year contract out? Could be a loop hole if nobody on the list is there that you want to give a 5 year contract as of yet, but may be in the next season or two. Is risky, but could be done!

[JBs-Hawks]

I like the idea Scrads :)

As JB's post points out could be a few small probelms that would still need to be worked on but overall I think it could work.

Thinking a bit harder about it and keeping players away from Expansion teams would be a good incentive but would only really work on initial contracts. I was thinking maybe to win a contract they must have played at least 5 games for your team the season before/or were coming back from LTI and would be in your best 15.

[Justin Bieber]

I am like Jb said. Pick someone shower with the 5 year contract and then you can keep your good players up for trade...

Say I'll pick a player who plays lots, but scores shower. For example, Zac Dawson. Lol.

[Adamant]

I don't mind the idea, but yeah, Lez and I would just give our spuds 5 year contracts.

[Justin Bieber]

Yeah I like the idea, but Scott McMahon will probably get my 5 year contract. He's earnt it haha.

[Holz]

Yeah I like the idea, but Scott McMahon will probably get my 5 year contract. He's earnt it haha.

good than the expansion team can snipe selwood. ;)

looking at the feasibility of it, might make things too complicated but if an expansion team does come up contracts may be the way to go.