WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[iZander]

Chuck 13 straight in the trash can,  no need to reward lack of mid depth.

[Nige]

Also the deletion of the trade thread really just means trade talks are gonna shift to PMs and Discord, and there'll be more fuss about the rules as they get released.

[Ricochet]

I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick. 

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent

[RaisyDaisy]

Disappointed that 13 didn't change tbh.

It would have added an appropriate amount of spice to this wonderful comp.

Wouldn't be nice if you copped a few injuries and then had to flood/attack plus have a def/fwd as a Utility, meaning you have a perfectly healthy mid as an emergency simply because you couldn't start two mids on the Interchange

[iZander]

Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick

Premiership points lol

[GoLions]

Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick

It'd need to be a consistent penalty. Can't punish via draft picks because they may have traded them all away. Would also be an inconsistent penalty, as someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N80 (extreme example I know). Could say you lose your first round pick for the following season, but again, someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N18. Premiership points is equal for everyone, so that's why it appeals to me. If someone can think of something else though, that'd be consistent across any team, then speak up, cause I can't think of anything else atm :P

[Nige]

Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick

Premiership points lol

Alright, we'll settle on termination then.  8)

[GoLions]

Disappointed that 13 didn't change tbh.

It would have added an appropriate amount of spice to this wonderful comp.

Wouldn't be nice if you copped a few injuries and then had to flood/attack plus have a def/fwd as a Utility, meaning you have a perfectly healthy mid as an emergency simply because you couldn't start two mids on the Interchange

Yeah, that was the one thing where I thought...this would flowering suck ass :P

[RaisyDaisy]

Also the deletion of the trade thread really just means trade talks are gonna shift to PMs and Discord, and there'll be more fuss about the rules as they get released.

I think meow went a little early on making that decision

Deleting the thread won't change a thing, but it will be nice to have a break from reading Vardy/Roughy posts I guess :P

No way a team will actually finish the trade period under the cap anyway. Plenty of spuds to draft in for nothing

[iZander]

I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick. 

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent

This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us  ::)

[RaisyDaisy]

Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick

It'd need to be a consistent penalty. Can't punish via draft picks because they may have traded them all away. Would also be an inconsistent penalty, as someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N80 (extreme example I know). Could say you lose your first round pick for the following season, but again, someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N18. Premiership points is equal for everyone, so that's why it appeals to me. If someone can think of something else though, that'd be consistent across any team, then speak up, cause I can't think of anything else atm :P

Good point

They lose 4 points, and then their best player is put in a pool for the rest of us to bid on :P  ;D

[JBs-Hawks]

Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above

[GoLions]

I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick. 

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent

This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us  ::)

You seem to have contradicted yourself a fair bit, is it the best or worst suggested? :P

[GoLions]

Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick

It'd need to be a consistent penalty. Can't punish via draft picks because they may have traded them all away. Would also be an inconsistent penalty, as someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N80 (extreme example I know). Could say you lose your first round pick for the following season, but again, someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N18. Premiership points is equal for everyone, so that's why it appeals to me. If someone can think of something else though, that'd be consistent across any team, then speak up, cause I can't think of anything else atm :P

Good point

They lose 4 points, and then their best player is put in a pool for the rest of us to bid on :P  ;D

;D

[iZander]

I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick. 

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent

This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us  ::)

You seem to have contradicted yourself a fair bit, is it the best or worst suggested? :P

The best, because its suggested that it be future first rounders not current first rounders. But still dont like it haha