2017 British XV Discussion

[Ringo]

Another rule to consider and for discussion:

Currently we have no formal rule regarding de-listing of players and technically a team may be kept in tact for the following year although rarely happens.
Considering a rule where clubs have to delist a minimum of 5 players from their lists each year. Rules similar to AFL.

[Rids]

Is it 5 mandatory list movements (traded out players + delistings + retirements) or 5 mandatory delistings (delistings + retirements) seperate to trades?

[SydneyRox]

Another rule to consider and for discussion:

Currently we have no formal rule regarding de-listing of players and technically a team may be kept in tact for the following year although rarely happens.
Considering a rule where clubs have to delist a minimum of 5 players from their lists each year. Rules similar to AFL.

Not sure I like this one. As long as it is a choice and not just a coach being absent/silly, making us delist a certain number seems likely to punish the teams with good depth (which is where I am trying to head)

[GoLions]

Another rule to consider and for discussion:

Currently we have no formal rule regarding de-listing of players and technically a team may be kept in tact for the following year although rarely happens.
Considering a rule where clubs have to delist a minimum of 5 players from their lists each year. Rules similar to AFL.

Not sure I like this one. As long as it is a choice and not just a coach being absent/silly, making us delist a certain number seems likely to punish the teams with good depth (which is where I am trying to head)

Agree with this. And probably kind of along the same line as Rids was going, if you trade the guys you were going to delist to free up some room for picks, then you shouldn't be forced to delist a further 5 players as well.

[Nige]

Not a fan of that (even though I'll probably be making at least 5 retirements/delistings this season anyway :P) at all for the reasons the others have stated above.

[Ringo]

In answer to questions the intention is you must have 5 vacancies on your list at start of drafts.

trying to equalise the competition similar to AFL requirements to de-list players each season.

[LF]

Another rule to consider and for discussion:

Currently we have no formal rule regarding de-listing of players and technically a team may be kept in tact for the following year although rarely happens.
Considering a rule where clubs have to delist a minimum of 5 players from their lists each year. Rules similar to AFL.

Yeah I don't like the fact teams would be forced to delist a minimum amount of players
It would definitely punish teams that have managed to get some good depth whether it's through drafting or trading
And besides most teams usually end up with at least 5 players to delist here once retirements and AFL teams do their delistings anyway.

[GoLions]

In answer to questions the intention is you must have 5 vacancies on your list at start of drafts.

trying to equalise the competition similar to AFL requirements to de-list players each season.

But what's wrong with, for example, trading your picks for good players?

For example, let's say I'm able to trade pick 2 and 4 for 2 young guns (will say Taranto and SPS as an example), will I also be forced to make a further 2 delistments in order to use 2 supplementary picks in the draft?

[kilbluff1985]

Any rule change should come into effect next year, not for a draft in a few months time.

[Ringo]

In answer to questions the intention is you must have 5 vacancies on your list at start of drafts.

trying to equalise the competition similar to AFL requirements to de-list players each season.

But what's wrong with, for example, trading your picks for good players?

For example, let's say I'm able to trade pick 2 and 4 for 2 young guns (will say Taranto and SPS as an example), will I also be forced to make a further 2 delistments in order to use 2 supplementary picks in the draft?

Technically you would have had to de-list 2 players to take picks 2 & 4 anyway. Thought I simplified it by saying you need to have 5 vacancies on your list at Start of National Draft. Most teams would have this number anyway based on the last 3 years.
Just trying to formalise a rule to put in place because as it stands if I wanted to I could not delist anyone (assuming no retirements) and not take part in draft. Is this a good or bad thing for the competition as a whole not sure.

[LF]

If someone doesn't want to take part in the draft then they'll just trade their picks away anyway
imo it's solely up to the coach if they want to take part in the draft or not

[GoLions]

In answer to questions the intention is you must have 5 vacancies on your list at start of drafts.

trying to equalise the competition similar to AFL requirements to de-list players each season.

But what's wrong with, for example, trading your picks for good players?

For example, let's say I'm able to trade pick 2 and 4 for 2 young guns (will say Taranto and SPS as an example), will I also be forced to make a further 2 delistments in order to use 2 supplementary picks in the draft?

Technically you would have had to de-list 2 players to take picks 2 & 4 anyway. Thought I simplified it by saying you need to have 5 vacancies on your list at Start of National Draft. Most teams would have this number anyway based on the last 3 years.
Just trying to formalise a rule to put in place because as it stands if I wanted to I could not delist anyone (assuming no retirements) and not take part in draft. Is this a good or bad thing for the competition as a whole not sure.

Yeah but if I didn't have picks 2 and 4 because I traded them, then maybe the only other pick I want to use is pick 23 or whatever, and I would prefer to keep my remaining squad rather than delist any other players to use later draft picks.

It's completely up to the coach. If they wish to stick with their current squad because they believe their depth is better than what they can draft with the picks they have available, then I'm perfectly ok with that.

[Ringo]

OK another controversial possible change to consider for next season and bear in mind I float some of these to engage discusssion and whether to pursue:

We reduce lists to 42
All Players on an AFL list go into a pool.
We have a midseason draft based on ladder positions from the list - You would have to de-list players though to participate.

So basically you get the opportunity to draft a player that may have been overlooked when drafting.

Proposed to do the mid season draft over bye periods.

[iZander]

OK another controversial possible change to consider for next season and bear in mind I float some of these to engage discusssion and whether to pursue:

We reduce lists to 42
All Players on an AFL list go into a pool.
We have a midseason draft based on ladder positions from the list - You would have to de-list players though to participate.

So basically you get the opportunity to draft a player that may have been overlooked when drafting.

Proposed to do the mid season draft over bye periods.

Probably a no from me :P

[GoLions]

OK another controversial possible change to consider for next season and bear in mind I float some of these to engage discusssion and whether to pursue:

We reduce lists to 42
All Players on an AFL list go into a pool.
We have a midseason draft based on ladder positions from the list - You would have to de-list players though to participate.

So basically you get the opportunity to draft a player that may have been overlooked when drafting.

Proposed to do the mid season draft over bye periods.

I'm not sure I entirely understand. List sizes are currently 45. So are you saying that this mid-season draft would increase list sizes to 45, or you would need to delist and then get back to 42?

I feel like this would destroy the rookie draft, as any mid-season draft would do. Personally, I prefer the rookie draft.