WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[Adamant]

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

[GoLions]

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

If you're below the cap at the end of the trade period, then surely you'd have to cop some sort of penalty, otherwise why have the minimum cap?

[GoLions]

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

If you're below the cap at the end of the trade period, then surely you'd have to cop some sort of penalty, otherwise why have the minimum cap?

Actually Ada, I just realised what you were getting at, and I 100% agree

#scrapthecap

[RaisyDaisy]

New rule suggestion

Anything and everything to do with the cap to stay exactly as it has been this season, ending all discussions/debate/votes about it

We all got through this year just fine

[Nige]

New rule suggestion

Anything and everything to do with the cap to stay exactly as it has been this season, ending all discussions/debate/votes about it

We all got through this year just fine

Gets my vote.

[Torpedo10]

New rule suggestion

Anything and everything to do with the cap to stay exactly as it has been this season, ending all discussions/debate/votes about it

We all got through this year just fine

Gets my vote.

[Purple 77]

Oh for goodness sake!

We had that opportunity before we started discussing rules, and everyone except one wanted to discuss rules.

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

I thought people knew this when they were voting? What did people think a minimum cap was there for?

Really, really frustrating.

[GoLions]

Oh for goodness sake!

We had that opportunity before we started discussing rules, and everyone except one wanted to discuss rules.

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

I thought people knew this when they were voting? What did people think a minimum cap was there for?

Really, really frustrating.

Could not agree with you more.

[Holz]

Oh for goodness sake!

We had that opportunity before we started discussing rules, and everyone except one wanted to discuss rules.

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

I thought people knew this when they were voting? What did people think a minimum cap was there for?

Really, really frustrating.

Could not agree with you more.

I feel for you purp. It was obvious when voted on.

Some people are just lazy and complain offering no solution themselves just shooting down people putting in effort

[GoLions]

Oh for goodness sake!

We had that opportunity before we started discussing rules, and everyone except one wanted to discuss rules.

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

I thought people knew this when they were voting? What did people think a minimum cap was there for?

Really, really frustrating.

Could not agree with you more.

I feel for you purp. It was obvious when voted on.

Some people are just lazy and complain offering no solution themselves just shooting down people putting in effort

Nawww, look at all us admins getting along :')

[Holz]

New rule suggestion

Anything and everything to do with the cap to stay exactly as it has been this season, ending all discussions/debate/votes about it

We all got through this year just fine

Its not a tough rule.

Who averaged more this year shaw or kelly : kelly by 30

Who will average more next year. Most will say kelly.

Therefore kelly has to cost more or why have a cap

[meow meow]

Oh for goodness sake!

We had that opportunity before we started discussing rules, and everyone except one wanted to discuss rules.

Was that Boomz?  :P

[GoLions]

I think we jumped the gun with the cap rule, because it needs more clarity

We voted yes to being able to dip below, BUT that was under the assumption rookie picks of 100K each would now be added to the cap pre draft

You can't have teams dip below including their rookies already, because that does in fact cause a problem

If you're doing a trade that puts you say 200K under during the trade period that's fine as long as you have more than that worth of Nat pick 100K slots

Can't say the 100K now adds, AND you can dip below

Also, the ruck rule - I know you said there's still more to come but as of now I'm assuming OOP gets full score but opponent gets 50% + 10% for Pinch Hit. I'm sure that's not the case but a bit of clarity would be appreciated

So with number 4, and this kinda ties in with number 5 depending on the result there.

If I'm 250k below the cap with 3 vacancies, and B is voted in for #5, am I then considered as being 250k below the min cap still, or 50k above?

50k above

But good question.

See RD, I ask the good questions

[RaisyDaisy]

Like I said, I voted to allow teams to dip below the cap during the trade period because I thought draft picks would now be worth 100k, giving teams an extra 500k-1M in cap space in the first place meaning most teams wouldn't actually even dip below it

We might be 3 weeks into a trade period and a team with a low cap like London does a trade that puts them under by 200k. I don't see a problem with that because they still have the remainder of the trade period to do more trades to get them back above the minimum

We need to afford these teams the flexibility to trade accordingly, so if they dip below for a short period of time during the trade period than that should be fine, but they need to eventually get back over it before the trade period ends

We can either make draft picks worth 100k during the trade period (which I think is common sense), and that alone should see no team falling under in the first place, or we can let them dip below but if they don't get above by the completion of trade period then they are penalised

Personally, I'd like to see both - draft picks worth 100k increasing your cap straight away and allowing teams to dip below during the period (even with the picks added and counted) but being penalised if they don't get above before the trade period ends

There's always enough spuds going around worth a few hundred K that they could always trade in if need be to get them back above  in time. I'd be shocked if a team actually dipped below with the above new rules and couldn't get back above in time, but in the extremely remote chance that it did in fact happen then the penalty needs to be significant, because you've been given more than enough time, and more than enough of a warning. 4 Premiership points being deducted would be sufficient, and the loss of their 1st round pick. That's more than enough of a reason to tread lightly and go below in the first place

[GoLions]

Fwiw the draft picks counting as 100k shouldn't be an option. I could have 6 draft picks and 0 vacancies on my list. So let's say I'm allowed to go 500k under the cap (which would be 100k over if draft picks were 100k), then trade period ends and I'm still in the same position. Doesn't really work. Should only be list vacancies that count as 100k.