Essendon Saga in British xv

[Spite]

I think this is complete and utter crap Ringo.

We have had Dayle Garlett on our list and we lost him with no compensation after he quit. I understand that.

We have Josh Thomas as one of our starters and he get suspended for drugs and misses last season. I asked you about potential compensation and you tell me we have to hold him and we get no compensation and BAD LUCK.

Now Essendon players get the same 2 year sentence (1 year backdated) as Josh Thomsa and NOW everyone gets bonus picks?!? Isn't it BAD LUCK?

I would like either one of these 2 things to happen.

1) No one gets anything. Bad luck, move on.

2) We get a replacement pick for Josh Thomas for next season as well as all the people getting compensation pick for the Essendon players. By his averages he would slot into 4th on Dave's list behind Stanton.

I feel the precedent has been set and we should select option 1, and I say this as the owner of Stanton and one of the hardest hit by the suspensions.

[kilbluff1985]

4th on Dave's list? ur dreaming

more like 7/8th

he wasnt even guaranteed best 22 at the Pies yet

[Spite]

4th on Dave's list? ur dreaming

more like 7/8th

he wasnt even guaranteed best 22 at the Pies yet

In the pies 22 is irrelevant (even though you're incorrect), he was a 90+ averaging forward in BXV at time of his suspension and that includes vest games. Not including his 3 greens, he was well over 100+ (although it is a 10 game sample size, 2013 he played 19 games though). According to that, he'd be around 4th, especially coming from a team that couldn't field a forward line some weeks this year. (and then there would be the compensation of missing out on a top up player for an entire year?!)

[iZander]

4th on Dave's list? ur dreaming

more like 7/8th

he wasnt even guaranteed best 22 at the Pies yet

In the pies 22 is irrelevant (even though you're incorrect), he was a 90+ averaging forward in BXV at time of his suspension and that includes vest games. Not including his 3 greens, he was well over 100+ (although it is a 10 game sample size, 2013 he played 19 games though). According to that, he'd be around 4th, especially coming from a team that couldn't field a forward line some weeks this year. (and then there would be the compensation of missing out on a top up player for an entire year?!)

you're not getting josh thomas over hooker, hurley ect.

[Pkbaldy]

Me and Spite don't exactly get along. But he sort of has a point... I wouldn't get compensation if Scott Pendlebury or Patrick Dangerfield done an ACL today at training and missed the entire season. Crosby didn't get compensation when Jackson retired pretty much mid year for 0 reasoning. So do we really need compensation picks for players we all knew COULD of been banned for an extended period of time? I'm losing Cale Hooker (D1 or F2) and Travis Colyer (F4). So i'm losing 2 of my best 15... And I wouldn't be dirty if we just lost them for the year and just treat it like a LTI... In saying that, no way in hell that Josh Thomas would be worth more than Hooker anyway. haha :P.

I know it's going to hurt some people more then others... Like Nige will go without a Captain option for the whole year and SR doesn't have a ruckmen (Probably should have a better R2 than Derickx). But I cannot see a fair way to do this, without someone cracking the showers and wanting to quit.

[nrich102]

 I see a fair bit of difference between 2 players (Does Lachie Keeffe even count?) and a whole team being suspended.

[Pkbaldy]

I see a fair bit of difference between 2 players (Does Lachie Keeffe even count?) and a whole team being suspended.

How so? We've known for 3 years that these players could be suspended for anything between 3 months - 2 years..

If anything the Josh Thomas thing was less expected, because it came out of no where and happened so quickly.

[Nige]

without someone cracking the showers and wanting to quit.

You're damn right.

If I'm losing my captain and best Essendon player (and one of the better players) in the comp and don't get any form of compensation, I'm done.

The difference between the situations isn't that hard to understand.

Sure, we've known about the Essendon situation for longer, so flowering what? Half their team got suspended. I'm not gonna be like "oh dearing flower me, Dyson Heppell is gonna get banned, better delist or trade him!" Nobody is/was gonna do that, that's stupid. In this scenario, they're actually getting top up players. We're all about emulating the actual comp, so we should be too.

Collingwood didn't get any top ups after Thomas and Keeffe got done with whatever substance in their system, Hawks didn't get compo because Garlett messed up. Essendon, on the other hand, are getting top up players, therefore affected BXVs clubs should as well.

Also, Dave's ranking factored in more than just average, you cannot possibly argue that Josh Thomas is the 4th best player other than purely on average, which is not how this is being ranked.

[Pkbaldy]

without someone cracking the showers and wanting to quit.

You're damn right.

If I'm losing my captain and best Essendon player (and one of the better players) in the comp and don't get any form of compensation, I'm done.

The difference between the situations isn't that hard to understand.

Sure, we've known about the Essendon situation for longer, so flowering what? Half their team got suspended. I'm not gonna be like "oh dearing flower me, Dyson Heppell is gonna get banned, better delist or trade him!" Nobody is/was gonna do that, that's stupid. In this scenario, they're actually getting top up players. We're all about emulating the actual comp, so we should be too.

Collingwood didn't get any top ups after Thomas and Keeffe got done with whatever substance in their system, Hawks didn't get compo because Garlett messed up. Essendon, on the other hand, are getting top up players, therefore affected BXVs clubs should as well.

Also, Dave's ranking factored in more than just average, you cannot possibly argue that Josh Thomas is the 4th best player other than purely on average, which is not how this is being ranked.

But if Pendles or Danger do an ACL today, am I entitled to compensation also? This is what i'm talking about. Either way you look at it. Someones going to think it's unfair.

[Nige]

without someone cracking the showers and wanting to quit.

You're damn right.

If I'm losing my captain and best Essendon player (and one of the better players) in the comp and don't get any form of compensation, I'm done.

The difference between the situations isn't that hard to understand.

Sure, we've known about the Essendon situation for longer, so flowering what? Half their team got suspended. I'm not gonna be like "oh dearing flower me, Dyson Heppell is gonna get banned, better delist or trade him!" Nobody is/was gonna do that, that's stupid. In this scenario, they're actually getting top up players. We're all about emulating the actual comp, so we should be too.

Collingwood didn't get any top ups after Thomas and Keeffe got done with whatever substance in their system, Hawks didn't get compo because Garlett messed up. Essendon, on the other hand, are getting top up players, therefore affected BXVs clubs should as well.

Also, Dave's ranking factored in more than just average, you cannot possibly argue that Josh Thomas is the 4th best player other than purely on average, which is not how this is being ranked.

But if Pendles or Danger do an ACL today, am I entitled to compensation also? This is what i'm talking about. Either way you look at it. Someones going to think it's unfair.

This isn't an LTI though. We already have a procedure that we follow when a player does an ACL. We pretty much just do exactly what the AFL does and elevate a rookie (in the comps that actually have rookie lists, we just abolished it here).

I'm usually on the "suck it up, bad luck" side of the argument, but not this time. And that's just because I'm one of the worst affected (obviously slight bias but whatever). It's going to negatively affect the comp to be like "hey, sorry about your damn luck but we're gonna sit and let you struggle for the next 6 months".

How is a team going without a ruck a good thing for the comp? Yes, SR should probably have adequate back up, but at least the better proposal actually gives him a chance to pick one if we have the mini draft with top up players where we pick like for like based on positional needs caused by the suspensions.

[Ringo]

Spite does have a point in that he was refused a compensation pick when Thomas was suspended, 

However in these case we have more than a third of a team suspended effecting the legitimacy of the competition.  Main reason for saying this is for two reasons:

1) Some teams have 3 players involved and others 2
2) A couple of teams will lose legitimate Captain options.

The alternative as I see it is we run a free agency similar to other competitions and forget about compensation and then coaches have the choice of whether to de-list a player and acquire another via the free agency or just hold the players. This may be the way to go if we agree.

Another idea I have and you can poo poo or not is in this second trade period allow future draft picks to be traded eg Jobe Watson for my future draft Pick 1. or conversely Future Draft pick 1 for Player X. 

[Nige]

I honestly do not understand this whole need to do delist a player either though. Free agency is basically first in best dressed which is stupid because half the coaches in this comp only show up when necessary and will get flowered over by that. At least organising a little mini draft means they've got an order and need to be on to take their pick.

Draft a top up player to replace the suspended player in the position you need and he's automatically delisted from your team at the end of Round 23 of the AFL season.

[Rids]

I am totally against doing a draft to replace the banned players. At the end of the day it is bad luck. Luck is and always has been a huge factor when it comes to AFL fantasy comps.

Maybe just give the affected teams additional list movements and they can trade accordingly to cover those guys eg: if a team has 2 banned players they get 2 additional list movements.

[Ringo]

Free agency is not giving you the opportunity as to whether you want to delist or not.  You can elect to keep Heppell and run with a list of 44 or delist and have the full 45 players.  Your choice.

I am taking Spites comment on board he was not given a compensation pick when Thomas was suspended (although disagree with his suggested order) and as a precedent has been set just looking at alternatives as well as a mini draft. 

[Rids]

There is no reason to over complicate things. The last thing we want to do is make a bad situation worse by implementing a bad rule.

We have big squads to cover injuries and suspensions. People need to use this to cover. Increasing affected team's movements will allow them to trade to cover if needed.