WXV Rules Discussion 2018

[meow meow]

Pick 1 should be worth 500k. Pick 2 480k. Picks 11-20 lose 10k instead of 20k The three year rule should apply. Highest value is counted as in real cap or draft cap.

Chumps who average or are priced at less than 60 shouldn't be counted in the cap as they're just shower and collecting them to get above minimum cap is not productive. Libba won't be free as his cap value is higher than 60. Ed Richards won't be free as he's in his 3 year draft pricing.

[Levi434]

We should be able to pay players what ever we want.

I'd much rather pay Cripps 1 million and take 5 draft picks to get to 1.5 mil then have to fill my list with spuds like Nick Smith, Josh Walker, Hayden Ballantyne to get over the cap.

[meow meow]

Those spuds should cost nothing!

[Purple 77]

Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.

Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.

If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.

So would you rather they trade one of their picks for nathan brown to get over instead? Which is what has happened in the past. And personally I'm planning on trading pick 1 anyway (hmu fellas), but regardless of whether i have pick 1 or if ada does, i just think they should be worth a bit more than your later picks.

Absolutely I would. Because in reality those clubs aren't trading a top 20 pick (with extra cap as you propose) for a spud, it's 4th,  5th rounders if at all, else they get drafted in the rookie draft. And EVERY single year, a few of those spuds gets up and does something, improving that team.  So I'm against any initiative that makes it easier for teams to get above the min cap, thus decreasing the chances of that happening.

I understand the sentiment though, as bigger picks should be worth more. And they are - through the trade market. Cap values and trade values were never meant to reflect one another, so it's through the trade market that top 20 picks get priced appropriately.

My point was that if a club wants to get above the min cap, they can do so via those showerty trades or drafting rookies with extra cap. The extra 50k (max, due to avg going up) here wouldn't really impact that.

But yeah, literally the only reason I brought it up is simply because I think Pick 1 should be worth more than Pick 90.

Given that everyone needs to have the same list size, then under your proposal, it stops coaches trading in cap spuds in favour of spuds that just cost 100k.

For example, a team that has 3 first rounders gets a 200k or so cop out from getting above the minimum cap. Instead of previously being forced to trade in that extra 200k (because you have to be above the minimum before the draft), they'll now be forced to pick up (because of list size)  100k spuds in the draft, whom are more unlikely to play afl, and thus less likely to improve your team.

Draft picks aren't even worth 100k. Players that have played less than 10 games over 3 years are, and draftees meet that category. The trade market is supposed to be the governing body on draft pick worth, the salary cap is supposed to value players on performance, and given first rounders haven't yet performed, I think it's premature - unfair even - to allocate extra cap value to them.



I really appreciate this conversation and your input GL! It leads to an informed decision by those voting against us :P

[RaisyDaisy]

Here's a quick summary of what's been suggested so far

- Mid Season Trade Period
- Rivalry Round
- Resting Bonus increase from 10% to 20%
- Scrapping Rookie draft and using the scrubs to top up lists end of NAT/PSD
- Loopholing - both VC and EMG
- Leadership Groups
- Flood/Attack and option for Ruck vs Scrap all together
- Trade Voting Process (Team A/B wins or Neutral)
- Does voting need to be mandatory? Option "D" to pass
- First Rounder Rookies being worth more than 100k
- Yearly Cap Talk which won't result in anything lol
- Live Trading of Picks

EDIT: Leadership Groups added

[Purple 77]

Thanks RD :)

Also Leadership Groups.

[Holz]

Trading future first rounders.

gives people great flexibility of the long term direction of their team.

[meow meow]

Trading future first rounders.

gives people great flexibility of the long term direction of their team.

Voted on and squashed last year.
What's stopping teams from trading their future first rounders, then going hard in the trade period?
Ringo might trade his future first (pick 1) then somehow get Ablett, Danger, Kelly, Docherty, Laird, Buddy etc. The trade for pick 1 might have been fair at the time, but it can easily turn into pick 14 in one trade period and become unfair. Works in reverse too.

[meow meow]

- Yearly Cap Talk which won't result in anything lol

Surely retired players get removed from the cap this time around!

[iZander]

- Yearly Cap Talk which won't result in anything lol

Surely retired players get removed from the cap this time around!

Hope there is no cap changes, each solution just opens up new problems or diminishes the reason for the cap. Cap talk should be off the table :P

[meow meow]

Is my compo pick 1 or four seasons of auto 100 at D4? I've provided evidence why it has to be one or the other, need to know which it's going to be.

[GoLions]

Is my compo pick 1 or four seasons of auto 100 at D4? I've provided evidence why it has to be one or the other, need to know which it's going to be.

I vote for the latter

[GoLions]

I still reckon it'd be better that if you played an OOP ruck, he doesn't get penalised, but the oppositon ruck gets a 50% bonus

.... Now pretend I didn't say that as the owner of Gawn :-X

What about both; 50% penalty for OOP and 50% bonus for oppo ruck. OOP ruck would get smashed against an actual ruck irl, hence the 50% penalty, and actual ruck would destroy, hence the 50% bonus.

[GoLions]

How about we scrap the captains

[GoLions]