GST Rule

[Roylion]

Everyone does this anyway. But Roylion is being penalised for having too many?

As I understand it, I've got just over eight hours to trade 4 GST players (to a maximum of three possible teams) or they will be delisted.

In the event they are delisted, I still don't know whether I still pay for their salaries or not.

 

[ShaunDuggan]

As I understand it, I've got just over eight hours to trade 4 GST players or they will be delisted. I still don't know whether I still pay for their salaries or not.

Russian is stepping in for West Coast and Mozzies, id be getting onto him to ship a few off.

 

[Roylion]

Russian is stepping in for West Coast and Mozzies, id be getting onto him to ship a few off.

And if he doesn't like my trade proposals? I can't trade for any players from those three teams that are classified as GST players. How do you reckon Lachlan Plowman for Christian Salem would go down?

 

[ShaunDuggan]

And if he doesn't like my trade proposals?

Those teams need your players as much as you need them gone so as long as the deals are fair youll be right.

 

[Roylion]

Those teams need your players as much as you need them gone so as long as the deals are fair youll be right.

What if they're not fair for me?

 

[ShaunDuggan]

What if they're not fair for me?

I'm sure Russian will be fair. You arent be held to ransom.

 

[Roylion]

I'm sure Russian will be fair. You arent be held to ransom.

Effectively I am. I'm being penalised for having a balanced squad in the first place. Why do I have to delist (or trade against my will) four required players when I'm way under the salary cap and maximum list size?

 

[sante]

Effectively I am. I'm being penalised for having a balanced squad in the first place. Why do I have to delist (or trade against my will) four required players when I'm way under the salary cap and maximum list size?

I would argue the point of someone like Palmer to not be classified as a GST player. I'm not sure who the others are but maybe Russian will allow this?

 

[Roylion]

I would argue the point of someone like Palmer to not be classified as a GST player. I'm not sure who the others are but maybe Russian will allow this?

Goalkicker
Joe Daniher
Rhys Palmer
Josh Hill
Aaron Black
Cameron Pedersen
Ryan Schoenmakers
Stopper
Jake Lever
Harris Andrews
Lynden Dunn
Jake Carlisle
Sam Reid
Tapper
Ivan Maric
Tom Campbell
Trent West

14 in that list. Sam Reid has been traded out which leaves 13, but it says 15 Adelaide Lions players in the updated post at 5.09 pm this afternoon. So no idea who the other two are.

"Have 15/11 GST players - allowed to trade the extra players to Mozzie Bites/Rottnest/West Coast, otherwise will be forced to delist for nothing"

 

[sausageroll]

Then we might as well classify every player (aka Dreamteam and Supercoach) and remove all doubt. I wouldn't be opposed to this by the way, but understand that it is extra work.

This is done in another game I'm involved in and it works well. Although I'd rather see some flexibility in the positioning to allow positions where players are actually playing this season as per actual AFL selections as well as where they played last season.

Having played a few games of these types (I'm in two others apart from this one and that's not counting Dreamteam and Supercoach) there's three main types of AFL players in my view. Tall key position players, running players and rucks. Running players tend to be your midfielders and flanks. Maybe the odd back pocket. The others are self explanatory.

There are also forwards and defenders. Hibberd plays in defence, not up forward. We've got actual players, not types of players. Hibberd isn't a "running player", he's a running defender. He is not a forward. That is an undeniable fact. In my opinion, playing a fulll time defender or mid in the forward line should be done when there is absolutely no other option. If you have someone available who actually plays up forward, under no circumstances should Hibberd be selected ahead of him in that position.

Yes, true. My point is that there are plenty of players that could qualify as GST players without having to set a maximum. The minimum could be lowered as well.

I don't think the GST works at all in it's current form.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. Given the lack of specific classifications for every single player, there should be some reasonable flexibility.

Midfielder type players should realistically be named in the C, on the wings, HBF, HFFs, RKR and RO and maybe in the FP or BPs.
Tall defenders could realistically be named at CHB, FB and BPs
Tall forwards could realistically be named as FF, CHF, both FPs and maybe in the RCK
Rucks could realistically be named in the RCK, at RKR, FPs, BPs and maybe in the key positions.

I try and trade/draft in players who actually have that flexibility. For example, most of my small forwards are fwd/mids. Hurley is obviously a key fwd/def. Vickery can play fwd/ruck. But that's not the same as me playing Heath Shaw in the forward pocket because I have 5 gun defenders playing and only 3 gun forwards. That's not flexibility. That's a stretch.
S yes, we definitely disagree on this one. However, I think this is the only point we do disagree on. I'm totally on the right on this disagreement though

How should it be relaxed?

And what should I do in the upcoming draft? Do I draft Weitering or Schache with the almost certain knowledge that they will be either Goalkickers or stoppers in 2017, meaning I will have to delist another required player next year (even if I'm under the list size and the salary cap) because Ive exceeded the maximum quota of eleven? Or do I not draft them because of that reason and then find the quota has been lifted next year and I could have drafted them?

It should be relaxed so you're not penalised for building a well balanced side in the past, or at lease have the max increased by one or two. In case you missed it, I'm actually against the current GST system. But having said that, most coaches have bidded and traded according to the GST rules and would be disadvantaged if it was removed completely right now. I personally wouldn't mind if it was though.
As for drafting this year, I'd suggest you look at drafting one or two legitimate small forwards so you can play Hibberd in the position he actually plays in real life and not re-invent the player

The GST rules will definitely be reviewed for next season and I think we'd all agree that the current system won't continue in its current form.
So any drafting anyone makes will have a question mark if you're drafting for position. Just go ahead and pick the players you want to draft.

 

[Roylion]

There are also forwards and defenders. Hibberd plays in defence, not up forward. We've got actual players, not types of players. Hibberd isn't a "running player", he's a running defender. He is not a forward. That is an undeniable fact. In my opinion, playing a fulll time defender or mid in the forward line should be done when there is absolutely no other option. If you have someone available who actually plays up forward, under no circumstances should Hibberd be selected ahead of him in that position.

And Hibberd could be a running flanker up forward in the game. He's that type of player. He couldn't play in the ruck, as a key forward, or as a key defender. That's a stretch.

I'm totally on the right on this disagreement though

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as well.

It should be relaxed so you're not penalised for building a well balanced side in the past, or at lease have the max increased by one or two. In case you missed it, I'm actually against the current GST system. But having said that, most coaches have bidded and traded according to the GST rules and would be disadvantaged if it was removed completely right now. I personally wouldn't mind if it was though.

I didn't miss it.

As for drafting this year, I'd suggest you look at drafting one or two legitimate small forwards so you can play Hibberd in the position he actually plays in real life and not re-invent the player

The side I named earlier in the thread was for demonstration purposes only. He probably will play mainly on a half back flank. Maybe midfield.

The GST rules will definitely be reviewed for next season and I think we'd all agree that the current system won't continue in its current form.

Then having to delist or trade four required players under the rule (which has just been introduced) is even more ridiculous.

So any drafting anyone makes will have a question mark if you're drafting for position. Just go ahead and pick the players you want to draft.

I'm drafting as I always do. To get a balanced squad with depth in every area. Too much GST depth now attracts a penalty.

 

[sausageroll]

And Hibberd could be a running flanker up forward in the game. He's that type of player. He couldn't play in the ruck, as a key forward, or as a key defender. That's a stretch.

He could be if Essendon ever used him as a running forward, but they don't.
This game is still based on the actual AFL players. Hibberd is a defender, not a forward.

The side I named earlier in the thread was for demonstration purposes only. He probably will play mainly on a half back flank. Maybe midfield.

Fair call

Then having to delist or trade four required players under the rule (which has just been introduced) is even more ridiculous.

I don't disagree. But most coaches have made an effort to meet the requirements, so to totally scrap it at this stage isn't any better.

I'm drafting as I always do. To get a balanced squad with depth in every area. Too much GST depth now attracts a penalty.

That's what I'll be doing ...when I finally get to take a pick lol


I'll add one thing. I don't think it's fair for you to have to rely on those who have less than the GST to get a fair deal for your players.
If you can't get a decent deal from them, there are plenty of other coaches who have some GST and list/salary flexibility who could also get you under the maximums.
It make sense to try with the other coaches first, but they can fix their problems by simply drafting that type of player. You can't.
You are clearly the person most disadvantaged by this new rule.
At the very least, I'd like to see you given up to the deadline to get your list sorted.