FanFooty Forum
AFL fantasy competitions => BXV Archives => British XVs => XVs Competitions => 2015 => Topic started by: Ringo on August 22, 2014, 10:07:49 AM
-
Following the voting this is the process we will now follow:.
Trade for picks is open from now till Thursday 28th August midnight. AEST. Trades for picks will still be subject to approval by Administrator and will be kept up to date in this thread.
Draft can commence at 9:00am on Friday 29th August with a 24 hour rule or 2 hours on line rule in place. As draft has been randomised we do not need to await final positions.
Teams will be required to have their list of delisted players listed in this thread by Friday 5th September so that rookie draft order can be finalised prior to trade period commencing.
Delisted players to be listed in this thread.
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,97911.0.html
A couple of coaches still have unlisted players on their lists and I am not going to wipe your bums and automatically de-list them.
I have used the randomised number generator function in excel to come with the draw. Here is the draw for both Rounds.
Pick Round 1
1 Staines Steins
2 Grope Lane Giants
3 Swansea Breakers
4 Blackpool Bunnies
5 Oxford Owls
6 Liverpool Rams
7 Birmingham Dragons
8 Huddersfield Hawks
9 Hastings Hurricanes
10 Crosby Cruisers
11 Manchester Magic
12 Nottingham Hoods
13 Leeds Leaches
14 Winchester Warewolves
15 Bradford Badgers
16 Hebden Bridge Hedgehogs
Round 2
17 Staines Steins
18 Grope Lane Giants
19 Crosby Cruisers
20 Huddersfield Hawks
21 Birmingham Dragons
22 Swansea Breakers
23 Oxford Owls
24 Liverpool Rams
25 Blackpool Bunnies
Players available will turn red when picked when I get a chance to update. You will have to keep an eye on picks to ensure not already picked Friday and Saturday as I will be away for this period.
Players available from both teams are as follows;
Jobe Watson
Dane Swan
Ben McEvoy
Luke Hodge
Daniel Cross
Bryce Gibbs
Paul Chapman
Matthew Pavlich
Christian Howard
Jed Adcock
Brian Lake
Jason Porplyzia
Patrick Karnezis
Chris Dawes
Ted Richards
Taylor Hunt
Karmichael Hunt
Brent Reilly
Mathew Stokes
Jack Newnes
Tom Simpkin
Josh Hunt
Kade Simpson
Jamie Cripps
Shaun Hampson
Michael Jamison
Nick Kommer
Matthew Boyd
Jonathon Ceglar
Jack Osborn
Kamdyn McIntosh
Marcus Bontempelli
Darcy Lang
Sean Lemmens
Alex Pearce
Sam Schulz
Max Duffy
Leigh Osborne
Daniel Robinson
Peter Yagmoor
Jason Holmes
Derick Wanganeen
Rowen Powell
Neville Jetta
Marc Murphy
Grant Birchall
Andrew Gaff
Liam Shiels
Jonathon Patton
Michael Hurley
Jack Trengove
Brendan Whitecross
Jarryd Blair
Matthew Buntine
Alex Rance
Isaac Smith
Lachlan Plowman
Shane Savage
Heritier Lumumba
Clinton Young
Heath Hocking
Jordan Lewis
Brodie Grundy
Bradley Hill
Quinten Lynch
Jordan Schroder
Ayce Cordy
Matthew Warnock
Ryan Schoenmakers
Cory Dell'Olio
Sam Rowe
Maverick Weller
Mark Blicavs
Alex Woodward
Jackson Allen
Taylor Duryea
William Hams
Blayne Wilson
James Aish
Zac Merrett
Zak Jones
Jonathon Marsh
Jay Kennedy-Harris
Will Langford
James Harmes
Angus Litherland
Tim Broomhead
Alex Spina
All discussions to take place in this thread and trades posted along with picks when posted.
There are some nice gems in there and this should make the rookie draft picks interesting as well as left over players will go to Rookie Draft.
-
we/i can keep the list updated Ringo will just post it in the comments :D
-
Beat me to the punch KB but this post is reserved for trade rulings.
-
Just to be clear on trade rules for this one?
Do they need to be 1for1
Only picks in this draft available or can we include Nat/rookie?
All players available for trade.
-
With the delistings what will happen if players retire or are delisted from their team after this date.Also they or another team could pick them up in the rookie draft.
Because for example I'm not going to delist Sewell because he may retire and then he doesn't because Hawks are finals bound I don't think he'll announce anything until after that.
-
Lol knew we'd end up with the last pick. Ah well
-
With delistings you can delist as many players you wish. In your case LF and I will use Sewell as an example. If Sewell announces his retirement after the GF you then delist and will be given compensation picks at end of Rookie Draft. This will apply to all clubs that have players retire or delsited by AFL clubs after September 5th
-
With delistings you can delist as many players you wish. In your case LF and I will use Sewell as an example. If Sewell announces his retirement after the GF you then delist and will be given compensation picks at end of Rookie Draft. This will apply to all clubs that have players retire or delsited by AFL clubs after September 5th
Thank you for clarification on that Ringo :)
-
and what about SR's question do these trades need to be 1 for 1 and can we trade nat/rookie picks for these picks?
i'm guessing trades have to include a pick from this draft and we cant submit normal trades we had planned yet
-
As this is a minidraft similar to the AFL last couple of years it is only one for one only and only for picks in this draft. So as an example would be something like I give Rockliff for Pick 1 in this draft.
You are only trading picks for players in this draft You can not add national draft or Rookie draft picks here.
-
understood, thanks
-
Meant to add to my example I will give Pick 3 for Rocky gladly ;)
-
Meant to add to my example I will give Pick 3 for Rocky gladly ;)
and to think i nearly didn't get him had to make my case for the trade which was fair for you to question it but i knew Rocky was going to be a pig after the 2nd half of last year
-
I don't get why all teams don't get a second pick? Why does only a hand full do? Like we only get a depth player to start, but then these other teams get a gun and a depth player.
-
Your problem Lez if you did not read the options properly prior to voting was spelled out that option 1 was for all to get 2 picks based on finishing order and option 2 being randomised for round 1 and then randomised for 9 teams in Round 2.
-
Damn, ended up with the second last pick in the second round. :(
Should still get somebody of value and I don't think I'll trade the pick, was just hoping for one a bit earlier.
-
Ready to pick now..... :P
-
Ready to pick now..... :P
-
Your problem Lez if you did not read the options properly prior to voting was spelled out that option 1 was for all to get 2 picks based on finishing order and option 2 being randomised for round 1 and then randomised for 9 teams in Round 2.
So where's the option of all teams get 2 picks, but from 3-16 teams are randomised in the pools like they are in the first round. Never had an option, so why make a vote which doesn't have all possible options?
E.g
Then Random Draws as follows:
Picks 19- 23 (Rams Bunnies Owls Breakers)
Picks 24 - 28 (Cruisers, Hawks, Dragons, Magic, Hurricanes )
Picks 29 - 33 ( Hoods, Hedgehogs, Badgers, Werewolves, Leeches)
-
Lez you had pretty much no input while we were discussing it and now you want to complain ::) didn't see this coming at all lol
-
I was the one who brought up the idea so not sure if you are just being a dickhead or serious.
-
During the discussion it was raised how to benefit the mid range teams and this was the option that was brought up and leaving the Top 8 without a pick and that is the basis of the option put out to vote. Was not my preferred as I said but am abiding by vote. If you wanted 2 picks you should have voted for option 1 which imo was the fairest of all.
-
Yeah this way it will even out the teams as they get an extra depth player. It will be good for the competition in the long term!
-
During the discussion it was raised how to benefit the mid range teams and this was the option that was brought up and leaving the Top 8 without a pick and that is the basis of the option put out to vote. Was not my preferred as I said but am abiding by vote. If you wanted 2 picks you should have voted for option 1 which imo was the fairest of all.
The problem with option A was that teams could deliberately lose in the finals (not sure why) to ensure a higher pick.
-
During the discussion it was raised how to benefit the mid range teams and this was the option that was brought up and leaving the Top 8 without a pick and that is the basis of the option put out to vote. Was not my preferred as I said but am abiding by vote. If you wanted 2 picks you should have voted for option 1 which imo was the fairest of all.
The problem with option A was that teams could deliberately lose in the finals (not sure why) to ensure a higher pick.
There are only 4 teams left and really who would deliberately lose now they are so close to the GF so they aren`t really getting a much higher pick anyway.
-
A team would tank to NOT make the GF? :o
-
Have now heard it all :P
-
Have now heard it all :P
-
During the discussion it was raised how to benefit the mid range teams and this was the option that was brought up and leaving the Top 8 without a pick and that is the basis of the option put out to vote. Was not my preferred as I said but am abiding by vote. If you wanted 2 picks you should have voted for option 1 which imo was the fairest of all.
The problem with option A was that teams could deliberately lose in the finals (not sure why) to ensure a higher pick.
There are only 4 teams left and really who would deliberately lose now they are so close to the GF so they aren`t really getting a much higher pick anyway.
Well isn't the bottom 10 teams still fighting for positions too??
-
During the discussion it was raised how to benefit the mid range teams and this was the option that was brought up and leaving the Top 8 without a pick and that is the basis of the option put out to vote. Was not my preferred as I said but am abiding by vote. If you wanted 2 picks you should have voted for option 1 which imo was the fairest of all.
The problem with option A was that teams could deliberately lose in the finals (not sure why) to ensure a higher pick.
There are only 4 teams left and really who would deliberately lose now they are so close to the GF so they aren`t really getting a much higher pick anyway.
Well isn't the bottom 10 teams still fighting for positions too??
no, just bragging rights
see the draft thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,98155.0.html
-
During the discussion it was raised how to benefit the mid range teams and this was the option that was brought up and leaving the Top 8 without a pick and that is the basis of the option put out to vote. Was not my preferred as I said but am abiding by vote. If you wanted 2 picks you should have voted for option 1 which imo was the fairest of all.
The problem with option A was that teams could deliberately lose in the finals (not sure why) to ensure a higher pick.
There are only 4 teams left and really who would deliberately lose now they are so close to the GF so they aren`t really getting a much higher pick anyway.
Well isn't the bottom 10 teams still fighting for positions too??
no, just bragging rights
see the draft thread http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,98155.0.html
Oh my mistake, never been near the bottom.
-
Pick 25 on the table for anyone who can part with a decent def/fwd or youth mid with potential
-
Pick 25 on the table for anyone who can part with a decent def/fwd or youth mid with potential
Lindsay Thomas and Scott D Thompson are both decent. ;)
-
23 up for grabs if someone has a good midfielder/forward they can give me.
-
23 up for grabs if someone has a good midfielder/forward they can give me.
Lindsay Thomas is yours if you beat SR to it. ;)
-
Schulz, Burgoyne, Hansen are available looking to package them for a pretty high pick all 3 can go
-
23 up for grabs if someone has a good midfielder/forward they can give me.
Lindsay Thomas is yours if you beat SR to it. ;)
Haha that'd be dog, SR can decide if he wants him or not.
-
Picks 2 and 18 possibly available - inbox me.
-
Picks 2 and 18 possibly available - inbox me.
You can have SDT.
-
Picks 2 and 18 possibly available - inbox me.
would be great if you replied even if you don't like the offer
-
Picks 2 and 18 possibly available - inbox me.
would be great if you replied even if you don't like the offer
already did reply ;) I've had 122 PMs to reply to #busy
-
Just pointing out the purpose of this draft was to improve the strength of lower teams. I would expect the lower teams if they do not trade for picks to use at least their first round pick on a quality player who will play every week. Whilst rebuilding is sound you have the opportunity to acquire a number of middle aged players who you can build your team around.
If in my opinion if any of the bottom 4 - 6 teams do not select a starting player with their first pick they will forfeit their first pick in the National Draft.
Sorry to be harsh but the purpose of the selection of players was to give the lower teams a chance to get a quality player to enable them to be competitive and make the competition a little more competitiive with fewer one sided games.
I have just finshed some analysis on players available from both the Swaggers and Falcons and they have 15 players averaging over 100 8 of whom are under 30 including 3 25 yeras or under so I would expect teams to be selecting these players with first picks. Even in a rebuilding stage players under 25 should be taken as they still have have a fair career left.
If any one wants some analysis please PM me and I will provide for you.
To assist (and this may hurt me) I will list the top 15 players and averages. Age is at 1/1/2015
Player Age Average
Jobe Watson 29 139.73
Jordan Lewis 28 135.72
Bryce Gibbs 25 134.55
Matthew Boyd 32 130.44
Marc Murphy 27 128.74
Luke Hodge 30 120.76
Dane Swan 30 120.53
Liam Shiels 23 118.47
Mathew Stokes 30 118.27
Andrew Gaff 22 112.95
Isaac Smith 26 110.50
Paul Chapman 33 107.47
Kade Simpson 30 107.00
Daniel Cross 31 105.43
Grant Birchall 26 104.11
Whilst not expecting teams to select the 30+ players I would expect any rebuilding teams to at least select a player under 30 to assist with the rebuild.
National Draft and Rookie draft and trading are to be used for rebuilding not this draft which is aimed at attempting to make all teams competitive by adding 2 players to your lists.
-
Rigged
James Aish and Bontempelli like Libba/Prestia/Treloar can go from 70s (probably like 85 in sportal) first year average players to 100+ average players without an issue. I don't think we should be restricted in just 1-2 seasons players like Bontempelli and Aish WILL be averaging more than anyone on that list if things go the right way.
-
I understand what you mean but getting 29 and + aged players when rebuilding is useless.
-
Rigged
James Aish and Bontempelli like Libba/Prestia/Treloar can go from 70s (probably like 85 in sportal) first year average players to 100+ average players without an issue. I don't think we should be restricted in just 1-2 seasons players like Bontempelli and Aish WILL be averaging more than anyone on that list if things go the right way.
Exactly this ^
Bontempelli IMO is the player on the list likely to be the best and I'd compare him with A young Pendles. To be forced to not pick a future perma-captain is not fair IMO.
Also a 90 avg player (this season if u exclude his score of 10) is definitely best XV for us over guys like Crowley and Cunningham who have been starters for us this year.
-
I'm in a similar position to the guys above yet I agree with Ringo.
-
Yeah but surely you wouldn't pick 29+ year olds for rebuilding, it is just a massive waste so you can be semi competitive for a bit and go back to the bottom when they retire?
-
Yeah but surely you wouldn't pick 29+ year olds for rebuilding, it is just a massive waste so you can be semi competitive for a bit and go back to the bottom when they retire?
Trade bait Vinny
-
Rigged
James Aish and Bontempelli like Libba/Prestia/Treloar can go from 70s (probably like 85 in sportal) first year average players to 100+ average players without an issue. I don't think we should be restricted in just 1-2 seasons players like Bontempelli and Aish WILL be averaging more than anyone on that list if things go the right way.
Exactly this ^
Bontempelli IMO is the player on the list likely to be the best and I'd compare him with A young Pendles. To be forced to not pick a future perma-captain is not fair IMO.
Also a 90 avg player (this season if u exclude his score of 10) is definitely best XV for us over guys like Crowley and Cunningham who have been starters for us this year.
Ok see how you said "if things go the right way"? That means it's a risk. An unnecessary risk. You can select a 23 year old sheils averaging 118 for no risk or even a 27 year old 135 avg player.
This draft is meant to even the comp straight away, that's the purpose of it. All you are doing is picking for the future while the strong teams get stronger (hello if we get stokes for a year or two) then the gap will grow between top teams and bottom teams.
Aish isn't even guaranteed to average as high as 130, sure he's good but in a team with heaps of mids will he get enough contested ball (that's what this comp values!) to get to the 130 avg? Pointless risk.
-
Yeah I don't mean that young but having to take a 29, 30, or even 31 year old just to have him retire in two years shouldn't be a must. They aren't super high value trade bait either.
A 27 year old is great but not that old..
-
Yeah but surely you wouldn't pick 29+ year olds for rebuilding, it is just a massive waste so you can be semi competitive for a bit and go back to the bottom when they retire?
It's not like the teams down the bottom don't have any good young players though. While these older guys age then younger guys are gonna get older, improve and probably score better.
I'm keeping Boomer until he calls time on his career and he's the older guys on my list by a mile.
Plus Spite raises a great point.
-
Adding one 135 average player to my list who just retires before the rest of my team isn't going to do much in the scheme of things.
By enabling the currently good teams to get Aish/Bontempelli it's extending the gap.
I add a 135 average to my list and it'll increase my total points by what 10-20 per week? something like that. Let a top team gain Aish - they sit Aish on the side lines but in 3-4 seasons my player has retired and they've got a 135 average player for the next 10 seasons. Therefore they've gained an even bigger advantage over me in the long run.
-
Keeping older players for the sake of being competitive isn't worth it IMO, especially when you are only going to be competitive for a year or two with them.
It seems like we just want the competition to be competitive with all the teams short-term. There is literally no point in that, When a team has a bad list it will take time for them to get competitive and they'll have to trade out their older players and get younger ones and wait for them to develop, it just how a rebuild is.
The only reason AFL teams carry their older players during a rebuild is so they can mentor the younger guys and there is a certain level of experience guiding the rest of the team. It isn't like that in XVs.
-
Then why don't all you delist all your players over 24?
By the time your 18 year olds become their age and become great scorers all those guys will be 30.
-
Some of you have missed the point here
I am stating that even if you are rebuilding there a 3 25 years and under players who will be in your team for the next 5 - 6 years that should be considered rather than players who are still risks. To also give you the chance to be competitive and not wait 5 years.
-
Keeping older players for the sake of being competitive isn't worth it IMO, especially when you are only going to be competitive for a year or two with them.
It seems like we just want the competition to be competitive with all the teams short-term. There is literally no point in that, When a team has a bad list it will take time for them to get competitive and they'll have to trade out their older players and get younger ones and wait for them to develop, it just how a rebuild is.
The only reason AFL teams carry their older players during a rebuild is so they can mentor the younger guys and there is a certain level of experience guiding the rest of the team. It isn't like that in XVs.
Ok fine so explain to me this - not including people who didn't draft their initial team - why are we helping anyone for their own fault of drafting a terrible team? It was literally two seasons ago, how can people mess up so badly they need to have concession after concession? If they drafted a team with the AIM of being successful in five or so years (therefore drafting young guns) then they deserve to be at the bottom since it was their plan and they do not deserve to have these extra picks to help them out.
Any bonus for coming near last should be phased out now and not re-added to the game for atleast two more seasons.
If the recycled player draft is going to be used how it's planning to be used - I vote that it be scrapped and all players go into the NATIONAL draft. Then teams wanting young players will get more young players and everyone gets what they want.
For example - we will pick up a 22 year old, meaning a first rounder in real life will slip into the second round for steins etc to take
-
Then why don't all you delist all your players over 24?
By the time your 18 year olds become their age and become great scorers all those guys will be 30.
and some of the highest averaging players are 30. It's perfect. 30.
It's perfect you want your peak old players at 30 and your young ones at ~24-25. It's about the perfect mix.
Getting one higher averaging player is a 10-20 point boost, it isn't going to help us win more games, we'll score a total of 20 BXV points more for the season...
Get Aish we're good for 12 seasons, get one of the others we good for 4.
Got to also consider that our teams are improving with players like David Swallow, Ebert, Conca, Leuenberger and whoever else is we're on the way up.
-
Keeping older players for the sake of being competitive isn't worth it IMO, especially when you are only going to be competitive for a year or two with them.
It seems like we just want the competition to be competitive with all the teams short-term. There is literally no point in that, When a team has a bad list it will take time for them to get competitive and they'll have to trade out their older players and get younger ones and wait for them to develop, it just how a rebuild is.
The only reason AFL teams carry their older players during a rebuild is so they can mentor the younger guys and there is a certain level of experience guiding the rest of the team. It isn't like that in XVs.
Ok fine so explain to me this - not including people who didn't draft their initial team - why are we helping anyone for their own fault of drafting a terrible team? It was literally two seasons ago, how can people mess up so badly they need to have concession after concession? If they drafted a team with the AIM of being successful in five or so years (therefore drafting young guns) then they deserve to be at the bottom since it was their plan and they do not deserve to have these extra picks to help them out.
Any bonus for coming near last should be phased out now and not re-added to the game for atleast two more seasons.
If the recycled player draft is going to be used how it's planning to be used - I vote that it be scrapped and all players go into the NATIONAL draft. Then teams wanting young players will get more young players and everyone gets what they want.
For example - we will pick up a 22 year old, meaning a first rounder in real life will slip into the second round for steins etc to take
I originally suggested the players from the 2 teams should go straight to the rookie draft and not have a recycled player draft
Nat Draft should just be kept for best new young draftees and nobody else.
-
Got the best idea yet. Everyone with players 21 or younger must trade them to Memph, Nails and Vin or they're banned from BXVs for eternity. :)
-
Some of you have missed the point here
I am stating that even if you are rebuilding there a 3 25 years and under players who will be in your team for the next 5 - 6 years that should be considered rather than players who are still risks. To also give you the chance to be competitive and not wait 5 years.
They'll be good for 4-5 years.
Just as Boyd, Hartung and co. start to be any good they'll be gone. We won't be truly competitive if we can't get players developing our future. Aish is every of being a 100+ average player next season.
We'd be a LOT better off with him developing with players like Boyd, Hartung, McStay etc. than have 1 player peaking when the rest of our squad is still growing.
In the long run we're more likely to be a top 4 grand final threat with Aish than say Marc Murphy who'd just make us more likely to finish 12th instead of 15th.
End of the day I'd prefer not be competitive for another 2 seasons and then be a real threat for the premiership than feel good about finishing 12th next season.
-
Aish and Bontempelli are also every chance of becoming the next Daniel Menzel or they could possibly end up with depression and have to take a indefinite hiatus like Mitch Clark.
-
Keeping older players for the sake of being competitive isn't worth it IMO, especially when you are only going to be competitive for a year or two with them.
It seems like we just want the competition to be competitive with all the teams short-term. There is literally no point in that, When a team has a bad list it will take time for them to get competitive and they'll have to trade out their older players and get younger ones and wait for them to develop, it just how a rebuild is.
The only reason AFL teams carry their older players during a rebuild is so they can mentor the younger guys and there is a certain level of experience guiding the rest of the team. It isn't like that in XVs.
Ok fine so explain to me this - not including people who didn't draft their initial team - why are we helping anyone for their own fault of drafting a terrible team? It was literally two seasons ago, how can people mess up so badly they need to have concession after concession? If they drafted a team with the AIM of being successful in five or so years (therefore drafting young guns) then they deserve to be at the bottom since it was their plan and they do not deserve to have these extra picks to help them out.
Any bonus for coming near last should be phased out now and not re-added to the game for atleast two more seasons.
If the recycled player draft is going to be used how it's planning to be used - I vote that it be scrapped and all players go into the NATIONAL draft. Then teams wanting young players will get more young players and everyone gets what they want.
For example - we will pick up a 22 year old, meaning a first rounder in real life will slip into the second round for steins etc to take
I originally suggested the players from the 2 teams should go straight to the rookie draft and not have a recycled player draft
Nat Draft should just be kept for best new young draftees and nobody else.
I'm sorry LF it was an oversight on my behalf, I fully didn't expect the draft to go like this.
The reason I say national draft over rookie draft is because if they go in the rookie draft it will pretty much be the same how it is now as there's not much else worth picking up in that draft.
If they go into the national draft, clubs can pick whether or not they want to draft old or young depending on their needs. Since we will likely pick an older guy, that means the clubs like steins can pick an extra gun rookie or two since less teams will be taking rookies (they'll be taking the older experienced guys) so maybe this will help balance the comp?
-
I still reckon everyone wanting guys like Bontempelli and Aish should be forced to give every player over 24.
-
You could easily trade a top 5 pick for a couple best XV players that would improve your team even more and that airnt to old
-
You could easily trade a top 5 pick for a couple best XV players that would improve your team even more and that airnt to old
Nah KB, more important to use it on 18 year olds so that they can win 5 straight premierships from 2020-2024! ;)
-
You could easily trade a top 5 pick for a couple best XV players that would improve your team even more and that airnt to old
Nah KB, more important to use it on 18 year olds so that they can win 5 straight premierships from 2020-2024! ;)
Taking notes
Any more tips?
-
#beeninmoreprelimsthananycoachonFF
#knowwhatimdoing
#letmedoit
#number1coach2016201720182019
-
#beeninmoreprelimsthananycoachonFF
#knowwhatimdoing
#letmedoit
#number1coach2016201720182019
Is rarely answering messages or voting a strategic move?
-
You could easily trade a top 5 pick for a couple best XV players that would improve your team even more and that airnt to old
Nah KB, more important to use it on 18 year olds so that they can win 5 straight premierships from 2020-2024! ;)
Taking notes
Any more tips?
As soon as any players hit 25, delist them immediately so you got more picks to grab 18 year olds. 8)
Always put the C on you 90 avg 18 year old or you're pretty much tanking.
Avoid playing anyone in your XV that isn't <24
Memph, are you interested in taking over the Dinos in Euros? It's perfect for you. More kids than a playground.
#beeninmoreprelimsthananycoachonFF
That's because you run retirement homes.
-
I said 29+ for a rebuilding club not 24.. ::)
-
#beeninmoreprelimsthananycoachonFF
#knowwhatimdoing
#letmedoit
#number1coach2016201720182019
Is rarely answering messages or voting a strategic move?
I answered your message
HOURS ago
are you that flowering spastic ? look at your inbox omg
-
I said rarely are you spastic?
You said you had 122 unread messages
-
This was never going to end well due to the differences of opinions and as Administrator need to ensure the evenness of the competition.
I am hearing the arguments of both Nails and Memph with their teams improving and adding youth will assist and at the same time need to ensure no lopsided contests. Have spent some time examining the results of Giants and Steins over the year and Giants have the capabilities of producing some good scores and be competitive. They have 4 players averaging over 100 and ran the Badgers close when they had their best team on the park and scored over 1700 points. Steins are really struggling though and has only one player averaging over 100 and have a highest score for the season of just over 1500 points.
So based on these facts Steins will need to either select a quality player with first pick or trade it for a quality player from other teams, Happy for Giants to select whoever as to for other teams as looking at the results all teams are capable of scoring more than 1700 points.
-
I said rarely are you spastic?
You said you had 122 unread messages
from the last 10 hours ;)
You try and run trade talks for 5 different teams. I can only reply to x amount every hour :o
-
New idea: Force Nails and Memph to take over the Swaggers and Falcons as they are and not make any trades and put their Giants and Steins into the pool instead. If they decline, they're no longer BXVs coaches. ;)
-
This was never going to end well due to the differences of opinions and as Administrator need to ensure the evenness of the competition.
I am hearing the arguments of both Nails and Memph with their teams improving and adding youth will assist and at the same time need to ensure no lopsided contests. Have spent some time examining the results of Giants and Steins over the year and Giants have the capabilities of producing some good scores and be competitive. They have 4 players averaging over 100 and ran the Badgers close when they had their best team on the park and scored over 1700 points. Steins are really struggling though and has only one player averaging over 100 and have a highest score for the season of just over 1500 points.
So based on these facts Steins will need to either select a quality player with first pick or trade it for a quality player from other teams, Happy for Giants to select whoever as to for other teams as looking at the results all teams are capable of scoring more than 1700 points.
Ugh this isn't going to end well. Surely you can't make an exception for one team and say you cannot take this player? Seriously I think we need to re-vote and throw them all into the Nat draft. :/
-
Still reckon my ideas have been the best.
There's always going to be at least one coach unhappy with this democratic style. Ringo needs to be a dictator and make rulings on his own. :P
-
Ok I have heard all the arguments and as much as I hate going back on voting by coaches I will now put out a vote for coaches
1st Option Keep the voting as is.
2nd Option will be Annul both voting results for mini draft and trade period and replace with the following option:
There will be a draft of 2 rounds for players from both the Falcons and Swaggers, Draft to be based on finishing order on the Ladder and to be looped. Picks will not be able to be traded. Remaining Players will then go into the rookie draft.
This will be the only option to be voted on as I need to exert some authority now given the turmoil multiple options have created,
-
Option 2 all the way!
-
Option 2 all the way!
-
Ringo before you do this you might want to let me explain to you exactly what we are doing (with the potential Bonti pick) and why.
I'm just in the process of sending you a detailed PM about it now.
I think you will see that what we are doing not only WILL improve our team significantly next season but I think is in the best interests of the competition and our team going forwards.
-
tbh I don't really care...
-
Option 2 all the way!
-
tbh I don't really care...
Join the quote train or your fired. ;)
-
tbh I don't really care...
Join the quote train or your fired. ;)
Can we make this into a quote train?
-
tbh I don't really care...
Same just want to start the draft lol
-
tbh I don't really care...
Same just want to start the draft lol
Can't start it until we actually know how it's gonna work because otherwise people will dog about that too. Remember the SC Americas draft and all the drama in that? We don't need that now do we?
-
tbh I don't really care...
Same just want to start the draft lol
Can't start it until we actually know how it's gonna work because otherwise people will dog about that too. Remember the SC Americas draft and all the drama in that? We don't need that now do we?
Sure why not I'm bored
-
tbh I don't really care...
Same just want to start the draft lol
Can't start it until we actually know how it's gonna work because otherwise people will dog about that too. Remember the SC Americas draft and all the drama in that? We don't need that now do we?
Sure why not I'm bored
Hahaha, love your work KB. ;D
-
PM sent - happy reading Ringo.
-
PM sent - happy reading Ringo.
That took an hour, must have been one hell of a PM.
Curious to know what was said and why it can't be made public.
-
PM sent - happy reading Ringo.
That took an hour, must have been one hell of a PM.
Curious to know what was said and why it can't be made public.
It's a simple reason - because I was outlining deals we have lined up already this off-season with regards to improving our team and who we are thinking of taking with our picks in the mini and national draft.
Not fair to anyone else involved if I mention these deals (I trust Ringo won't tell) and we could get shafted by others if I revealed who we want to take (the Pick 1 doesn't matter as you can't do anything about it) with our second Pick in the mini draft.
-
4 pages in 3 hours
tl:dr
Any summaries?
-
PM sent - happy reading Ringo.
That took an hour, must have been one hell of a PM.
Curious to know what was said and why it can't be made public.
It's a simple reason - because I was outlining deals we have lined up already this off-season with regards to improving our team and who we are thinking of taking with our picks in the mini and national draft.
Not fair to anyone else involved if I mention these deals (I trust Ringo won't tell) and we could get shafted by others if I revealed who we want to take (the Pick 1 doesn't matter as you can't do anything about it) with our second Pick in the mini draft.
I think you might have missed my post containing something for you above.
4 pages in 3 hours
tl:dr
Any summaries?
doging over the draft.
New vote in your inbox.
-
Summary for you Lez
A lot of BS arguing one way then the other. I stepped in as Administrator and put ot another vote just with 2 options.
-
Pfft cant change a vote after its happened just gonna send the competition backwards who cares who people pick let them run there teams.
And definitely cant revote after pick orders have been shown ::)
-
You can always annul a vote which is a democratic right and then act in terms of the replacement vote. Pick orders were randomised anyway and new proposal has order defined so no reason why not.
-
I thought it was pre mature voting to start. Ringo made only 2 options to start and there should of been a lot more.
What I have a concern is that we only get 1 pick in the draft of the 2 abandoned teams and then the rookie draft comes along and last again.
So essentially, some teams get 3 picks of good players before I even get my second and when it gets to that second pick, it will be ordinary players. That was my major concern from the other day.
-
I thought it was pre mature voting to start. Ringo made only 2 options to start and there should of been a lot more.
What I have a concern is that we only get 1 pick in the draft of the 2 abandoned teams and then the rookie draft comes along and last again.
So essentially, some teams get 3 picks of good players before I even get my second and when it gets to that second pick, it will be ordinary players. That was my major concern from the other day.
That's part of the discussion above and from the other day.
Ringo was saying that teams like yours, the Hedgehogs and the Werewolves have better lists and stronger XVs which is why the order is like it is.
It's being done the way it is so teams down the bottom can improve their lists and XVs if they wish through the picking of the 'recycled' players.
-
You can always annul a vote which is a democratic right and then act in terms of the replacement vote. Pick orders were randomised anyway and new proposal has order defined so no reason why not.
Because if your defined by ladder pick is better then your random pick you vote for it
-
Pfft cant change a vote after its happened just gonna send the competition backwards who cares who people pick let them run there teams.
And definitely cant revote after pick orders have been shown ::)
Says the guy who is lined up to take first pick :P... (Also if you read the rules properly of the trading of these picks, you'll find it player for pick only - 1 for 1. So no pick 8 + player for pick 1 anyway)
The draft wasn't meant to be used for the purpose in which I first voted.
-
Didnt know I had first pick?
-
We might as well reverse* the rookie draft order so that the 'better' lists still get some players. So Giants get top 10 player, starting player and depth player while I get depth player. We want it fair, I see it evening the comp in the short term, long term the top teams will be damaged...
-
Will be locking this thread later today. 13 of 16 coaches have now voted and we have majority for option b so I will start a new Thread for the New Draft which will commence once positions 1 and 2 are decided (3 and 4 will be decided this weekend).
So we will have a 2 round looped draft for Swaggers and Falcons players with remaining players going into the rookie draft. There will be a minimum 3 round rookie draft with subsequent rounds required to bring lists to maximum 45 players. Rookie draft picks can be traded first 3 rounds will be reverse finishing order as per current rules with subsequent rounds to be decided based on list requirements following de-listings by 5th September.