-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Talking Trades
- Thread starter knobby
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Danoz
Dananananananana Statman (òÓ,)_\,,/
*haveA break would of been a better result
ShaunDuggan
🤎 🦍 🤎
Danoz
Dananananananana Statman (òÓ,)_\,,/
No, this is much more real. You're just showing your true colours budWe aren't in the SFA here flog.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
sante
Emu
Jesse White is on the table for a draft pick
- Moderator
- #132
Andrew Walker is up for trade.
Marklar_33
Brownlow Medallist
Best draft pick, to a maximum of 79k, wins for either Michael Apeness or Connor Menadue
ShaunDuggan
🤎 🦍 🤎
Anyone interested in Menzel? The troy variety.
Also looking to turn picks 36 and 38 into 1 pick in the 20s
Also looking to turn picks 36 and 38 into 1 pick in the 20s
Marklar_33
Brownlow Medallist
Scrap Apeness, he's untradeable
sante
Emu
If anyone needs a tapper/goal kicker one of Casboult or J White are up for trade fairly cheaply
Danoz
Dananananananana Statman (òÓ,)_\,,/
So what was the ruling on number of GST players? Definitely max 11? Think I have 12 :/
ShaunDuggan
🤎 🦍 🤎
Danoz
Dananananananana Statman (òÓ,)_\,,/
To be a bit lax on the rules this year as an introduction. Thought he was talking about under but may have been talking about over.
Marklar_33
Brownlow Medallist
I do believe not many people really understood GST. That's why there's been so many applications, and it's taken teams over the limit
Danoz
Dananananananana Statman (òÓ,)_\,,/
My feeling was that if a guy wasn't named as a GST, he couldn't play in a key position. But including smalls really confused me. What benefit does having small GST players have? Small defenders, guys like Harbrow, Wood, Griffen I'm not going to complain if they're named as back pockets, but they aren't stoppers. Small forwards I can sort of understand as you shouldn't be allowed to just load up with mids in the forward line. But I don't understand why they should fill your GST quota. I'm going to have Boomer, Josh Green, Charlie Cameron, Hogan, McKernan and JRiewoldt in my forward line, and I don't think I should be penalised for having them in my 40.
sante
Emu
Russian said somewhere that GST players had nothing to do with naming them in a key position spot. Or it was more so all teams would have players in that position on their list?
Marklar_33
Brownlow Medallist
Yes, but he did say that after applying had started. It's all a bit odd to me, especially with the "Darren Minchinton" types being Goalkickers, but not solving the KPP issue
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Danoz
Dananananananana Statman (òÓ,)_\,,/
I thought the intention was brought in because players who weren't KPP were being played in key positions. This is where having smalls included confused me. I understand that having a minimum is important so teams have enough to get through the season (barring disaster), I understand that having a max is important so there is enough to go around, but IMO, it's a teams own fault if they don't have enough. Go out and find more. When I name a team, I'll have at least 4 KPPs and a ruckman. Others won't and I see that as a problem.
ShaunDuggan
🤎 🦍 🤎
Majority of coaches have been around long enough to realize you need to name a realistic line up consisting of key forwards and backs etc. A team shouldnt be penalized for having a wealth of KPPs. The responsibility should be on the other coaches to ensure they have enough of those type of players to meet the requirements of naming a team
Marklar_33
Brownlow Medallist
(We're in the wrong thread here, but anyhow...)
I'd be more welcoming of a % penalty for players out of position. If I name Matthew Boyd at full forward, then he'd probably only have 50-70% of his normal production in that spot. It would reduce intentional out of position naming, and make it fairer for the opposition when a team has no choice but to play the only 18 they have
I'd be more welcoming of a % penalty for players out of position. If I name Matthew Boyd at full forward, then he'd probably only have 50-70% of his normal production in that spot. It would reduce intentional out of position naming, and make it fairer for the opposition when a team has no choice but to play the only 18 they have
I'd be happy for it to be 0 to be honest. Maybe a % if it's a marginal one.
Marklar_33
Brownlow Medallist
I'm ok with that if there's a viable alternative, if it's a case of this is all they have, then a %. Especially if all teams now have abided by GST requirements
