have your say.

[Scrads]

Just had another idea guys.

Going on my idea before about having for example 5 players with contracts (i.e. a player with a 5 year contract, a 4 year contract......... player with 1 year contract) where every year you replenish by giving someone a 5 year contract, and the term of your other contracts decrease by 1 and so these contracted players could not be traded/delisted until their contracts have been carried out.

The point of it was to try and limit trading i.e. it would be expected your above-good players would get contracts and thus you wouldn't be able to vastly alter the core of your team via trading (it would also promote 1-team players and the like).

Now, the main worry was that coaches might give their contracts to spuds to enable them to still trade their gun players. However, I think I have a solution which will fix this.

The rule of a contracted player also means that every game they are fit (i.e. playing in the AFL) they MUST be named in your EXV side. So that means if Broughton is contracted for me, he must play in my side EVERY week unless he is injured/suspended/dropped from GC. This will surely prevent people from contracting anyone close to spuds.

Thoughts ?

[CrowsFan]

Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).

I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)

[Scrads]

Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).

I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)

Yeah but what you would do is wait until Patton is say 23 or something before giving him the 5 year contract.

Or maybe the rule is you have to play 4 out of 5 contracted players (giving you room to leave one out ?) idk, still might need some tweaking but just trying to get some discussion happening. Limiting trading to like 5 list movements won't stop people from trading their guns/the core of their team haha.

[Holz]

Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).

I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)

Yeah but what you would do is wait until Patton is say 23 or something before giving him the 5 year contract.

Or maybe the rule is you have to play 4 out of 5 contracted players (giving you room to leave one out ?) idk, still might need some tweaking but just trying to get some discussion happening. Limiting trading to like 5 list movements won't stop people from trading their guns/the core of their team haha.

yes but im thinking of just doing it to limit say the number of players you can trade who have played say 7+ games for your team the year before.

[Ricochet]

Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).

I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)

Yeah but what you would do is wait until Patton is say 23 or something before giving him the 5 year contract.

Or maybe the rule is you have to play 4 out of 5 contracted players (giving you room to leave one out ?) idk, still might need some tweaking but just trying to get some discussion happening. Limiting trading to like 5 list movements won't stop people from trading their guns/the core of their team haha.

yes but im thinking of just doing it to limit say the number of players you can trade who have played say 7+ games for your team the year before.

Maybe a total of games for the club instead of the year. Like say A.Swallow is injured and out for the year, we would still have restrictions on him because he's played 150 games for the Bashers.

[Justin Bieber]

Holz, how is the rivals being worked out? Same rivals as last year?

[Holz]

Holz, how is the rivals being worked out? Same rivals as last year?

I will review it when im making the fixture.

I did intend on it staying the same but with the new coaches I may look at changing it, who did you want as your rival?

[Justin Bieber]

Well I did want scrads, not sure if he wants me lol.

[The F.A.R.K.]

Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).

I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)

Yeah but what you would do is wait until Patton is say 23 or something before giving him the 5 year contract.

Or maybe the rule is you have to play 4 out of 5 contracted players (giving you room to leave one out ?) idk, still might need some tweaking but just trying to get some discussion happening. Limiting trading to like 5 list movements won't stop people from trading their guns/the core of their team haha.

yes but im thinking of just doing it to limit say the number of players you can trade who have played say 7+ games for your team the year before.

Maybe a total of games for the club instead of the year. Like say A.Swallow is injured and out for the year, we would still have restrictions on him because he's played 150 games for the Bashers.

Yeah for the club

A player might play 20 games in a year and get traded in real afl but how often does a player who has played 150 games get traded

It makes it more like the afl

We can split lists into tiers like 40+ games 30-40 games 10-20 games 1-10 games and 0 games

You can trade 1 x 40+ gamer 2x 30-40 gamer 3x 10-20 gamer 4x 1-10 gamer and unlimted no gamers

Your 40 gamers will be players like pendles selwood
30-40 gamers will be injured premiums like mitch robbo
-20-30 gamers will be  mid pricers like cyril rioli ect
10-20 and 1-10 will be developmebt prospects or potential break out players like dan nicholson

Having lots of these potential break out players being up for trade can allow lower teams to build for 2-3 years time and hopefully find a few gems.

Sorry this is all a bit messy im on my phone so cant put it all together right but hope you get the general idea

[Ricochet]

Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).

I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)

Yeah but what you would do is wait until Patton is say 23 or something before giving him the 5 year contract.

Or maybe the rule is you have to play 4 out of 5 contracted players (giving you room to leave one out ?) idk, still might need some tweaking but just trying to get some discussion happening. Limiting trading to like 5 list movements won't stop people from trading their guns/the core of their team haha.

yes but im thinking of just doing it to limit say the number of players you can trade who have played say 7+ games for your team the year before.

Maybe a total of games for the club instead of the year. Like say A.Swallow is injured and out for the year, we would still have restrictions on him because he's played 150 games for the Bashers.

Yeah for the club

A player might play 20 games in a year and get traded in real afl but how often does a player who has played 150 games get traded

It makes it more like the afl

We can split lists into tiers like 40+ games 30-40 games 10-20 games 1-10 games and 0 games

You can trade 1 x 40+ gamer 2x 30-40 gamer 3x 10-20 gamer 4x 1-10 gamer and unlimted no gamers

Your 40 gamers will be players like pendles selwood
30-40 gamers will be injured premiums like mitch robbo
-20-30 gamers will be  mid pricers like cyril rioli ect
10-20 and 1-10 will be developmebt prospects or potential break out players like dan nicholson

Having lots of these potential break out players being up for trade can allow lower teams to build for 2-3 years time and hopefully find a few gems.

Sorry this is all a bit messy im on my phone so cant put it all together right but hope you get the general idea

or a point system with a cap like the WAFL.

 AFL listed player/ Rookie or allocated player â€" 0 points
 Local District (Non League) top up players â€" 0 points
 Local District Player â€" 1 point
 AFL delisted Local returnee â€" 1 point
 International player non zoned â€" 1 point
 Non District â€" no WAFL League games â€" 2 points
 Non District â€" 1 to 25 WAFL League games â€" 3 points
 Non District â€" 26 to 50 WAFL League games â€" 5 points
 Non District â€" 51 to 100 WAFL League games â€" 7 points
 Non District â€" 101+ WAFL League games â€" 10 points (see adjustments for
service below)
 Interstate Non Category 1 comp â€" 5 points
 Interstate Category 1 comp â€" 5 points (played Reserves, TAC Cup or SANFL
U/18s only)
 Interstate Category 1 comp â€" 10 points (played League at VFL/SANFL)
 Non District AFL delisted â€" no AFL games â€" 8 points
 Interstate AFL delisted â€" 1 to 50 AFL games â€" 10 points
 Non District AFL delisted â€" 1 to 50 AFL games â€" 12 points
 Interstate AFL delisted â€" 51 to 100 AFL games â€" 10 points
 Non District AFL delisted â€" 51 to 100 AFL games â€" 13 points
 Interstate AFL delisted â€" 100+ AFL games â€" 12 points
 Non District AFL delisted â€" 100+ AFL games â€" 14 points

Obviously we can't use this exactly, but maybe something similar.

[The F.A.R.K.]

Ill add

It probs means you can trade 3-5 players from your starting tean

Like this year we only have 4 original starters onfield from 2012

Couldnt give a flower about bench players people can trade bench players as much as they like but starters is what concerns me thats what we have to cap we wanna reduce the amount of best 15 players being exchanged

[Justin Bieber]

I think from starting I had... Umm... Kieran Jack, Ivan Maric and Nathan Grima lol.

Actually Maric was a bench player.

[PowerBug]

Finally some sense. What needs to happen, both suggestions above are on the right tracks, is limit the amount of starters moving clubs. The depth, they can be traded, that is where the trading should be, but the main 15 needs to be limited to stay as similar as possible. So great work FARK (Must be the first time i've said and meant that) and Scrads, thinking on the right track. :)

[Ziplock]

I think we should consider some form of substitute rule- like, you name your sub, and then if any of your players are green vested, you can sub them off. Only 1 sub per team per round though, I dont think it should count for red vests, and I dont think it should matter if your sub has played or not already.

but you can only sub off green vested players before they play.

[Justin Bieber]

I think we should consider some form of substitute rule- like, you name your sub, and then if any of your players are green vested, you can sub them off. Only 1 sub per team per round though, I dont think it should count for red vests, and I dont think it should matter if your sub has played or not already.

but you can only sub off green vested players before they play.

We tried to make something like this in Asians, but we failed as it was too complicated. Think about the person doing the figures.