WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[Holz]

So once again the majority vote that the minority should get the say over the majority.

[Torpedo10]

So once again the majority vote that the minority should get the say over the majority.

It sure is weird!

[meow meow]

So, 17 out of 18 teams have voted.

I didn't vote because I was told that we can't change shower until next year, when I protested about something.

Something like this...

2018 salaries
Average                       $10,059,444.44
MAX = Average +5%    $10,562,416.67
MIN = Average -15%    $8,550,527.78

WXV Club New Delhi Tigers Dublin Destroyers Berlin Brewers Beijing Thunder Moscow Spetsnaz Pacific Islanders Christchurch Saints Toronto Wolves Seoul Magpies New York Revolution Cairo Sands Cape Town Cobras Buenos Aires Armadillos    Tokyo Samurai Mexico City Suns London Royals Rio de Janeiro Jaguars PNL Reindeers

Current Cap $11,082,000    $11,017,000 $10,942,000 $10,887,000 $10,796,000 $10,750,000 $10,574,000 $10,554,000 $10,393,000 $9,930,000 $9,735,000 $9,406,000 $9,366,000 $9,231,000 $9,208,000 $9,153,000 $9,128,000 $8,918,000

CAP CHEAT!!! CAP CHEAT!!! CAP CHEAT!!! CAP CHEAT!!! CAP CHEAT!!! CAP CHEAT!!! CAP CHEAT!!!

Let's keep this fresh in the mind until next off season thanks folks.

[Levi434]

Ban those cap cheats! Horrible and disgusting!

[Holz]

I didn't vote because I was told that we can't change shower until next year, when I protested about something.

You want to remove all the retired guys, but you have all these rookies coming in who are valued at 100k but will score.

I guess if you want to do it that way then you could increase the number to 10% above cap if you do that.

2018 salaries
Average                       $10,059,444.44
MAX = Average +10%    $11,065,388.88
MIN = Average -15%    $8,550,527.78

WXV Club New Delhi Tigers Dublin Destroyers Berlin Brewers Beijing Thunder Moscow Spetsnaz Pacific Islanders Christchurch Saints Toronto Wolves Seoul Magpies New York Revolution Cairo Sands Cape Town Cobras Buenos Aires Armadillos    Tokyo Samurai Mexico City Suns London Royals Rio de Janeiro Jaguars PNL Reindeers

Current Cap $11,082,000    $11,017,000 $10,942,000 $10,887,000 $10,796,000 $10,750,000 $10,574,000 $10,554,000 $10,393,000 $9,930,000 $9,735,000 $9,406,000 $9,366,000 $9,231,000 $9,208,000 $9,153,000 $9,128,000 $8,918,000

CAP CHEAT!!!

[Purple 77]

Lol meow :P

But just to be clear, the trade vote always happens in December/January, and I only tacked on the Rookie Promotion thing because I forgot to do it in the last lot... or it didn't happen yet... one of those.

[meow meow]

So do we get 4 emergencies now or what?

[Purple 77]

So do we get 4 emergencies now or what?

You'll have to remind me with the context, but no? With a couple of long weekend exceptions.

[meow meow]

So do we get 4 emergencies now or what?

You'll have to remind me with the context, but no? With a couple of long weekend exceptions.

4 emergencies named in AFL squads now.

[Ringo]

So do we get 4 emergencies now or what?

You'll have to remind me with the context, but no? With a couple of long weekend exceptions.

4 emergencies named in AFL squads now.

Fair question given the latest AFL Tweak.

[Holz]

So do we get 4 emergencies now or what?

You'll have to remind me with the context, but no? With a couple of long weekend exceptions.

4 emergencies named in AFL squads now.

Fair question given the latest AFL Tweak.

4 emergency seems a no brainier. there are 4 positions and unless you have DPP players on your emergency bench your going to be leaving one position empty (most likely a ruck)

[Purple 77]

Oh I see.

Hmm, my gut reaction is no, but I could be swayed. I tend to think we play with 5 emergencies anyway, given our utility spots. I also think a 15-3 ratio compares with the new afl 22-4.

Teams rarely have a second ruck available, and if they do, well, put them in as an emergency I say. I'd also prefer to not have anymore rule changes for the time being.

So overall, I'd prefer no, but await the feel of the consensus

[Holz]

Oh I see.

Hmm, my gut reaction is no, but I could be swayed. I tend to think we play with 5 emergencies anyway, given our utility spots. I also think a 15-3 ratio compares with the new afl 22-4.

Teams rarely have a second ruck available, and if they do, well, put them in as an emergency I say. I'd also prefer to not have anymore rule changes for the time being.

So overall, I'd prefer no, but await the feel of the consensus

Most teams have a handcuff.

So say your number 1 ruck is under a late withdrawal cloud or worse a unexpected late withdrawal. Its better to have your back up ruck at e4.

If no e4 thrn you need to sacrifice a mid, fwd or def.

Does it even have to go to a vote? I cant see why anyone would not want it. Dont other comps all have it?

[iZander]

Oh I see.

Hmm, my gut reaction is no, but I could be swayed. I tend to think we play with 5 emergencies anyway, given our utility spots. I also think a 15-3 ratio compares with the new afl 22-4.

Teams rarely have a second ruck available, and if they do, well, put them in as an emergency I say. I'd also prefer to not have anymore rule changes for the time being.

So overall, I'd prefer no, but await the feel of the consensus

Most teams have a handcuff.

So say your number 1 ruck is under a late withdrawal cloud or worse a unexpected late withdrawal. Its better to have your back up ruck at e4.

If no e4 thrn you need to sacrifice a mid, fwd or def.

Does it even have to go to a vote? I cant see why anyone would not want it. Dont other comps all have it?

Yeah have 10 emergencies as far as im concerned, you dont wanna see donuts
Wont matter for Dillos though, we struggled naming 3 last year

[GoLions]

Oh I see.

Hmm, my gut reaction is no, but I could be swayed. I tend to think we play with 5 emergencies anyway, given our utility spots. I also think a 15-3 ratio compares with the new afl 22-4.

Teams rarely have a second ruck available, and if they do, well, put them in as an emergency I say. I'd also prefer to not have anymore rule changes for the time being.

So overall, I'd prefer no, but await the feel of the consensus

Most teams have a handcuff.

So say your number 1 ruck is under a late withdrawal cloud or worse a unexpected late withdrawal. Its better to have your back up ruck at e4.

If no e4 thrn you need to sacrifice a mid, fwd or def.

Does it even have to go to a vote? I cant see why anyone would not want it. Dont other comps all have it?

I change my vote to stick with 3 emergencies