Rule Changes?

[Russian]

While the off season is reasonably fresh in everyone's minds, is there anything you'd like to see changed for next year?

A few thoughts I've had:
1) Add a bit of relevance to the PSD by moving it (and the rookie draft) to after the NAB Cup.
knobby: maybe rookie, leave PSD
sausageroll, Pie: leave it, get lists finalised ASAP
loopy: like, might encourage lower ranked teams to keep PSD picks instead of used on bidding
Continstar: don't mind either way

2) There's a lot of long term deals that look a reasonable chance of having to be paid out in a few years time, some of which I believe are by coaches who know they probably won't be around when that time comes. How do we discourage this?
knobby, flaps, Continstar: 2 year max over 30
sausageroll, loopy: case by case judgement on coach changeovers
sante: scrap bad contracts inherited from previous coach
sausageroll: new coach can use a veteran spot to pay out an inherited bad contract
Roy, fightingfury: amnesty for 1 player when new coach takes over
knobby: no amnesty, it's part of the challenge of the game living with previous coach's decisions
flaps: every team gets 1 amnesty at the end of 2012 to use whenever they like, newbies get an extra 1
Pie: new coaches can only offer 2-3 year deals, then after say a season make it 4 year max deals and after two seasons it can be 5 year deals

3) Firesale rules will be changed to make it less predictable and manipulable. Open to suggestions on how, although I probably won't tell you the decision because that's the easiest way to avoid it being manipulated.
knobby: no firesale, draft pick penalties instead
sausageroll: if coach changes give the replacement an extra week
sausageroll, flaps, Pie: everyone can post bids on whoever and coach chooses which ones he takes to get under
loopy: on top of firesale, coaches should be penalised for next year
Marklar: Highest paid player (or player closest to bringing cap under control) cut. No bidding, no compensation. Player enters draft, not necessarily on same contract
Marklar: Highest paid player is suspended for x number of games. x = salary cap breach / (player salary/number of rounds)... not a great deterrent IMHO
Marklar: Player bids/trades rejected at a certain number over cap. Extremely hard to police

4) We still have 104 players left on AFL lists who aren't on TM lists. Is this something we are happy with? If not what can be done about it?
knobby: mid year draft
sausageroll, Continstar: increase lists to 40
sausageroll, flaps, Roy, knobby: academy list, can't be used in season, promote or delist at end
Marklar, sante, loopy: no issue, makes next year's draft more interesting
Gee Dub: free agency bid for rookie spot
Pie: academy list, F/S bid process to promote
knobby: If a draft would take too long what about an allocation based on their draft position (ND priority, then PSD, then RD, then those already on AFL lists but not taken up in this game) in reverse ladder order ??
flaps: Could work in some way to correlate to the father son (eg, I have Essendon) so you'd pick up the players that your club has (i might get 3 players, another person might get 6). Don't know if that's the fairest way, but just an idea.

5) I'd like to see contracts be able to be 'front-ended', even after bidding finishes, to encourage good list management and reward those who stay under cap. (Marklar)
sausageroll, fightingfury, Continstar: Like
flaps, loopy, Pie: Like the idea but complicated
sausageroll, flaps: if it's going to be set, it has to stick and cant be changed after it's set
sausageroll: new front loading can be applied if offered a contract extension
sausageroll: front loading can be applied to contracts once the list is complete for first year only, the rest split over the remaining years
knobby: must be specifically for younger players
knobby: lot of work for Russian

6) One marquee player per club outside cap (Roy)
knobby: similar to stalwartifying but no restriction on years of service or salary level. But only one marquee allowed and he must remain marquee for 2 seasons ?? Marquee salary only counted as 50%

 

[knobby]

Right off the top of my head and I have only played 1/2 a season
1. Maybe the rookie draft but psd should stay where it is.
2. 2 yr max contacts to players over 30yo ?? (or turning 30 during life of contract i.e. 28 yo can only receive 4yr contract max, 29yo, 3yrs)
3. No firesale, penalize player over cap by removing draft picks, 3rd round pick <100k over, 2nd round $100k - $200k, 1st round $200k +, move up scale for repeat offenders
4. Mid year draft ?? No salary cap during current year, but included the next

 

[sausageroll]

1. Leave it where it is. When the drafts are on I just want to draft players right away. Get everyone's lists finalised as soon as possible.
Being able to pick players after you've seen them play in NAB cup is too much of a disadvantage to those who already have a full list. Reward those who do some research and leave an element of luck in these drafts.
Besides, we don't want to run the risk of still finishing off drafts when the season starts.

2. Difficult one. It's not fair for a new coach to be stuck with someone who's delisted/retires on a big contract because of another coach's short-term desires.
It probably needs some kind of fair payment reduction depending on the circumstances. Maybe one where you need to make your own judgement on a case by case basis.

3. The team can't go into the drafts over their salary cap so players need to go. Firesale is unfortunately the only way really.
Not fair on a new coach who has replaced the person who screwed up though. The new coach should have an opportunity to trade for an extra week to fix the problem.
Maybe a process where other coaches can bid on any player on the list and the coach of the team can assess all bids and choose the favourable trade(s) that gets them back under the cap.

4. Maybe increase the senior lists to 40? That'd knock 1/3 off those numbers.
...and/or introduce academy players or something like that where each team drafts until the players are gone. Use a snaking draft for this. A few teams will get an extra player but they'll be the least wanted players in the comp so it's not a big problem. This draft needs to be done immediately after the rookie draft otherwise it becomes too much of an advantage if NAB cup has started.
Academy players can't actually play that season but can be automatically promoted to any vacant senior (base salary for 1-2 seasons) or rookie (treated as 1st year rookies) positions the next year otherwise they're delisted.

 

[Marklar_33]

Regarding 4. I don't see it as an issue. Of those players, maybe 10 will play this year, maybe 2 will star. Just gives teams a look to draft next year. I think that adds a dimension to future drafting

 

[sante]

Regarding 4. I don't see it as an issue. Of those players, maybe 10 will play this year, maybe 2 will star. Just gives teams a look to draft next year. I think that adds a dimension to future drafting

Agreed. Always interesting to find out which players we all missed out on. I remember a couple years back, no one drafted Broughton and I'm sure the following years draft every coach had their eye on him.

Everything else is fine IMO, long term contracts is a tough one to fix especially if its a new coach taking over, if it seems like it was a short term approach by previous coach, scrap contract IMO. Or we have to look at reviewing length of contract to maybe maximum 3/4 years or make 5 year contracts a lot more expensive than it is currently.

 

[Marklar_33]

I'd like to see contracts be able to be 'front-ended', even after bidding finishes, to encourage good list management and reward those who stay under cap.

I refer to the case of Dustin Martin. Russian, Elite Pete and myself all set aside money to bid here, but only one will be successful. It means two sides may be left with a huge sum of money and nowhere to spend it. I think it would be great to eat into the contracts of some higher paid players, much the same way we can pay out delistings.

I have Matthew Boyd at 620 (4). If I had 100k left over, I could split Boyds contract into 720 this year, and 587 for the remaining 3 years

 

[sausageroll]

I'd like to see contracts be able to be 'front-ended', even after bidding finishes, to encourage good list management and reward those who stay under cap.

I refer to the case of Dustin Martin. Russian, Elite Pete and myself all set aside money to bid here, but only one will be successful. It means two sides may be left with a huge sum of money and nowhere to spend it. I think it would be great to eat into the contracts of some higher paid players, much the same way we can pay out delistings.

I have Matthew Boyd at 620 (4). If I had 100k left over, I could split Boyds contract into 720 this year, and 587 for the remaining 3 years

I like this idea

 

[fightingfury_88]

Yeah, I am a fan of the front loading (or back loading) of conracts idea.

 

[flaps]

I like knobby's idea for players over 30 and only 2 year contracts.

Or even players like I got stuck with (Palmer on a 5 year massive contract) when I took over the team.

Sausage had a good idea of the bidding on players you had for fire sale.

Front ended contracts again are good in theory but I guess it depends on how a person manages it. Back ended are dangerous for leaving a team and going gung ho for a year and ten quitting. As for the front end, not so much a problem but I think if it's going to be set, it has to stick and cant be changed after it's set. eg, player A is on 3 years for 1.5mil. First year 750k, 2nd year 500k, 3rd year 250k or a certain percentage difference each year. So in the 2nd year there should *not be an option to change the contract (to suit each salary cap per team) as it's already set.

In regards to the extra 100+ players, perhaps we can do a draft over the course of the first few weeks, or half a year (or as soon as the rookie draft is finished) and instead of extending the salary cap to make them all fit in, place them (approx 4-5 players each TM team) on each list but make it so they can only be "upgraded" to a list the next season. So i guess it means you have the rights to a player, or let them go back in to the 100+ player pool the next season (available to be taken by another team).

So maybe they are all on 1 year contracts and can't be selected (or upgraded until the end of the season) for the team?

Something else that would be good is for rookie drafts and have the option to select 1 player (if you keep a spot open) later on like late February (much like Richmond and Hawthorn did in 2011).

 

[sausageroll]

Front ended contracts again are good in theory but I guess it depends on how a person manages it. Back ended are dangerous for leaving a team and going gung ho for a year and ten quitting. As for the front end, not so much a problem but I think if it's going to be set, it has to stick and cant be changed after it's set. eg, player A is on 3 years for 1.5mil. First year 750k, 2nd year 500k, 3rd year 250k or a certain percentage difference each year. So in the 2nd year there should *not be an option to change the contract (to suit each salary cap per team) as it's already set.

I agree. Front ended only and once a player's salary has been set in the year the contract was 'signed' it can't be changed in the future (unless they're offered a contract extension under that rule, at which time any new front loading can be applied).
Any front loading can be applied to contracts once the list is complete and added to the first year of the contract only of a player on a minimum of 3(?) years, maybe 4? Then the remainder of the salary is divided over the rest of the contract duration.

In regards to the extra 100+ players, perhaps we can do a draft over the course of the first few weeks, or half a year (or as soon as the rookie draft is finished) and instead of extending the salary cap to make them all fit in, place them (approx 4-5 players each TM team) on each list but make it so they can only be "upgraded" to a list the next season. So i guess it means you have the rights to a player, or let them go back in to the 100+ player pool the next season (available to be taken by another team).

So maybe they are all on 1 year contracts and can't be selected (or upgraded until the end of the season) for the team?

Pretty much exactly what I was trying to say with regards to "academy players"

 

[sausageroll]

Another possibility for the older players on long and risky salaries

2. Use a veteran spot.
If, and only if, a new coach takes over and ends up with an old player retiring while on a long contract this player can become a veteran (subject to age limits) if that helps the coach with their salaries. This can be done even if the player hasn't played the required number of years for the club.
They might have to pay a salary to a player who might have otherwise been a eligible veteran but at least that player is still playing... hopefully!

 

[Gee Dub]

Maybe a free agency type system for the extra 100 players where you can bid on them to go onto your rookie list.

 

[loopy_cam]

While the off season is reasonably fresh in everyone's minds, is there anything you'd like to see changed for next year?

A few thoughts I've had:
1) Add a bit of relevance to the PSD by moving it (and the rookie draft) to after the NAB Cup.
2) There's a lot of long term deals that look a reasonable chance of having to be paid out in a few years time, some of which I believe are by coaches who know they probably won't be around when that time comes. How do we discourage this?
3) Firesale rules will be changed to make it less predictable and manipulable. Open to suggestions on how, although I probably won't tell you the decision because that's the easiest way to avoid it being manipulated.
4) We still have 104 players left on AFL lists who aren't on TM lists. Is this something we are happy with? If not what can be done about it?

1) I'm a fan of this idea. Would add an extra dimension for the bottom teams too. They mad choose not to bid on players with their first picks so they can use a live PSD pick.

2) Case by case basis as Sausageroll said.

3) As well as firesale, I think that coaches who are in charge of their side for the whole trade/draft period and go over should be given penalties. Whether this is a lower salary cap next year or loss of draft picks, I don't know but it shouldn't be accepted.

4) I don't mind it.

 

[loopy_cam]

Also, I like the front-ended idea but it'd be very hard to find a system that works.

 

[Roy boys]

Just a thought especiially for new players taking over lists which were potentially mismanaged prior to them taking over. How about much like the NBA you are aloud to amnesty 1 player, that way it gives new players some flexibility in trying to improve their lists and limits the potential damage coaches on short term plans can make.

 

[fightingfury_88]

Just a thought especiially for new players taking over lists which were potentially mismanaged prior to them taking over. How about much like the NBA you are aloud to amnesty 1 player, that way it gives new players some flexibility in trying to improve their lists and limits the potential damage coaches on short term plans can make.

I was going to mention something like this too. An amnesty clause for one player for new managers. Players delisted like this can then be bid on by other managers or picked up in the National or Pre Season Drafts.

 

[knobby]

Don't mind the front loading or back loading (but must be specifically for younger players) or even mid loading, i.e. 4 yr contract you can pay 15%, 35%, 35%, 15%, could work work players like Dangerfield who now is not a heavy scorer but promising and you also have that flexibilty at the end if that promise is not fulfilled !

Could even work for LTI players such as Menzel as well.

Imagine this would be a lot of work for you though Russian !

Not sure about the amnesty clause, after all the game is about building your list, whether by trading or drafting or both, for new coaches there will be a bit of pain early caused by their predessors (sp ?) but I think personally that is what the game is all about and is very similar to what real AFL list management is about ?

 

[Roy boys]

Your right Knobby it does make it like a proper AFL list but they take potentially 6-8 years to change and really i doubt anyone wants to be uncompetitive for that length of time. At the end of the day its a great game which we all play to enjoy, i'm probably the most inexperienced of everyone on here i just think giving poor sides an oppurtunity to quickly evolve and allow that flexibility to do alot of trading will entice a guy to stay on and enjoy the game for a longer period of time.

I know this being my first off season and receiving a pretty poor list i wanted to make alot of changes and because of this i spent alot moree then i should of without really realising so i think if i was able to realease 600k off my list it would of made things alot more flexible.

 

[sante]

BW transformed the worst team into a top 4 team in one off-season IIRC so it it possible...I think if a coach walks into a rabble then so be it, I've been in this for a few years now and no coach has left a team an utter rabble, where turning the club around has been impossible.

 

[flaps]

I think the amnesty clause is a great idea. I know I'd use mine on Palmer. Lol.

Perhaps give every manager 1 clause option at the end of 2012 (or if not taken, it could be carried over to the next season)? New managers might get 2 (is that too generous) to try and get their team tuned around.

Ultimately it will make the players paid what they're worth.

Roy boys is right with the rebuilding. No one can foresee any type of long term user sustainability apart from ourselves. 6-8 years is a east of time.

 

[Pie 4 Life]

1. Leave PSD and rookie draft where it is
2. Maybe new coaches can only offer 2-3 year deals, then after say a season make it 4 year max deals and after two seasons it can be 5 year deals or something like that
3. I like SR and flaps' idea of everyone can bid on players and the coach picks which ones he likes most to get under the cap
4. Supps list perhaps, where we draft out a certain amount of players (maybe 5-6?) and they can become a preference for that coach in the draft should they elect to take them (kinda like a father son) Eg. they bid a certain pick to get them, another coach has to raise above that to beat them.
5. Yeah I'm happy with front-loading contracts providing it doesn't get too confusing.

 

[flaps]

Back to point 3. I think the only way the bidding will work is if a coach knows he will be over the cap by the end of the trade period. Otherwise if he's over by say 600k, then not everyone will able to afford such a player. Obviously a player may not be worth that much, but it wouldn't be fair to leave about 300k in your salary out just in case someone did actually go over the cap.

I think we'd have to know about a week before trade deadline who was under the pump for bidding (or a list of 10 players from that club that are elegible) or it kinda makes the trade period a bit of a waste for some part.

 

[Marklar_33]

Point 3 ideas (none I particularly like...)

A) Highest paid player (or player closest to bringing cap under control) cut. No bidding, no compensation. Player enters draft, not necessarily on same contract
B) Highest paid player is suspended for x number of games. x = salary cap breach / (player salary/number of rounds)... not a great deterrent IMHO
C) Player bids/trades rejected at a certain number over cap. Extremely hard to police


As you can see, I'm struggling

 

[sante]

Point 3 ideas (none I particularly like...)

A) Highest paid player (or player closest to bringing cap under control) cut. No bidding, no compensation. Player enters draft, not necessarily on same contract
B) Highest paid player is suspended for x number of games. x = salary cap breach / (player salary/number of rounds)... not a great deterrent IMHO
C) Player bids/trades rejected at a certain number over cap. Extremely hard to police


As you can see, I'm struggling

Your first point was how we dealt with it prior to the game expanding and bringing in the bidding period etc.

 

[fightingfury_88]

To be honest, even though I've only been involved for one off-season, I'm pretty happy the way things are running now.