Well then, that's all 18 votes. We have a majority 10 votes for the following: Mandatory Delisting (inc Retirements) - Prior to the PSD, and regardless of any other activities, each team must reduce the number of players on their list, such that they have a mandatory minimum number of picks in the PSD. Delisting of retired players (or AFL delisted players) will be included in the quota, its only open spots on the team list that matter. So it looks like we're all going to have a few picks in the PSD from now on. The next question is, exactly how many that "few" will be. The general consensus is that 4 appears to be the best number. I'll put together another poll shortly to finalise this. In light of this, does we want to see a poll for increasing list sizes at the same time? Or should we be a little less like the AFL, and only change one thing at a time?
For something that's going to change the future of FU maybe we need to do a poll at each step of the way to make sure we get an outcome that everyone buys in to. I might be over thinking but my vote would depend on what list sizes are going to be so I'm thinking the next poll would be something along the lines of : List size remains the same, delist x players Increase list size by y, delist y players Increase list size by y, delist y+z players The next poll could then be on how many to increase list sizes by (if that gets up) and then a poll on how many to delist.
@JPK Can I just clarify, can teams reduce the number of players on their list by trading some out or must they be delisted? This was a point of discussion last week and if there was a poll on it I think I missed it.
You can clarify. You can also muddy if you like Sorry, seriously for a minute: Yes, teams can trade out to achieve their quota. The last point "its only open spots on the team list that matter" is the important bit. Coaches trading in players (net increase) will have to delist more. Coaches trading out players (net decrease) will have to delist less. Either way, prior to the PSD, all teams will have to have the same number of players on their list (or less) to achieve the minimum number of PSD picks required - which is dependent on the other poll...
@JPK ...So we're looking at a maximum list size prior to the PSD, I thought the discussion was x number of delistments irrespective of how many we trade out or not. For example if I swap 2 players for picks I would still have to delist 4 (example only) before the draft meaning I will have to take 6 picks rather than just delist 2 to take 4 picks. I think we need to clarify whether we're looking at a maximum list size or a minimum delistment number.
How I see it. If our squad size is 28 and we agree on mandatory 6 delistments, then all squads must be at a maximum of 22 players come the start of PSD. If we agree squad of 26 with 3 delistments then a max of 23 is needed etc etc. How you get there either trading, delistments, unequal trades, doesn't matter, you just need to get to the required max number of players in your squad, as it's only open spots on your team that matter Open to corrections as I already made a mistake once...........
Minimum number of draft picks. How you get there is up to you. That's the option as worded that the majority have voted for. Mandatory Delisting (inc Retirements) - Prior to the PSD, and regardless of any other activities, each team must reduce the number of players on their list, such that they have a mandatory minimum number of picks in the PSD. Delisting of retired players (or AFL delisted players) will be included in the quota, its only open spots on the team list that matter. I kinda hoped that everyone read the descriptions before voting, and was clear on each one - this was why I asked in the opening statement if I had explained the options well enough, or if I missed an option that someone thought should be there.
That works fine for me, I just thought the idea was to get more better players into the pool to help equalise the comp. I guess it's similar either way but it does favour the teams with more trading currency by allowing us to get there however we want.
As I pointed out last week, it certainly does make a significant difference how you get to the required number. If teams with stronger lists are allowed to trade players out to reach the required number, then clearly they will not be weakened in any way at all. To me it would completely undermine the purpose of the whole exercise, which was to even the competition. Clearly I misunderstood the option, as I took mandatory delisting to literally mean delisting and from e_e's comments I'm not the only one. In hindsight it seems the option of actual forced delisting wasn't available to vote for. As always I'm happy to go with the majority but I believe the effects of this are gonna be far different from what is intended - it wont help the lower sides in any way at all.
Clearly im confused to, I also took mandatory delisting to mean cutting X amount of players but included retirements. Mandatory Delisting (inc Retirements) - Prior to the PSD, and regardless of any other activities, each team must reduce the number of players on their list, such that they have a mandatory minimum number of picks in the PSD. Delisting of retired players (or AFL delisted players) will be included in the quota, its only open spots on the team list that matter. the wording "regardless of any other activities" i took as you can trade players all you like but you must delist X amount of players as voted on
Tylo, if you trade x players out to get to the required number, in an equal trade you will trade x players in. You then will have to delist x number of players to get to the required number. Now if you trade x players out for equivalent Picks in the next 2 upcoming drafts then you won't need to delist. But I'm assuming that the players you trade out will have value otherwise no one will trade with you, so that weakens your team for now, all dependant on who you pick up in the next 2 drafts with those picks.
If we agree on say 4 de-listments from our confirmed squads of 28. then we all must have no more than 24 players on our lists prior to the PSD. Then every team has 4 picks in the PSD to take our teams to 28 max.
choppers, the part I highlighted is exactly the point. The stronger teams have players outside their starting 15 that are valuable enough that they can trade for decent picks. The lower teams don't have that same depth of players so they don't have that value to trade with. That's why I think actually forcing teams to delist will hurt stronger sides more than weaker sides.
If I was to be selfish (not saying anyone else is) then I would want a maximum squad size with no caveat on how I get there; however if we are serious about equalisation then I think we should have a minimum delistment number that way teams are forced to put players back into the pool. For example if I trade out two players for picks and we have a maximum squad size of 22 then I only have to delist 2 more to achieve this and I then take 4 picks. If however we have a minimum number of delistments, eg. 4, then I would have to take 6 picks to fill my list. I honestly think this is the best, although toughest, way to get some equalisation and give every team a chance, albeit after a couple of years. I also think if we have a mini draft of 2 players each we should take back to back picks to help even things up. How much of a difference is player 27 & 28 going to make to a top 4 team versus a bottom 4 team. This does assume however that everyone's drafting ability is equal. To be totally transparent I voted for an increase in squad size to 28 with a minimum draft number of 6. This will at least give some value to rounds 3 onwards of the draft which at the moment very few of us participate in. That's my 5 cents (rounded up from 2 cents for relevance).
@JPK just to clarify my understanding of the vote, I assumed mandatory list turnover to be how ever we want to get to out desired list maximum and mandatory delistments to be precisely that, mandatory delistments. That is also why I voted to exclude retirements as they put nothing back into the pool and effectively favour the teams with older lists.