Did we ever have a vote in regards to Option 1 keep mandatory delisting Option 2 let coaches do as they please
We don't have mandatory delisting and never have. Mandatory delisting would actually be a useful rule making it harder for strong teams to horde players. What we have is mandatory list turnover, which in my mind is pointless as you can simply trade a player for another of equal value so doing nothing to equalise the competition.
Apples and oranges , same same but different. Once again hording of players raises its ugly head. We have debunked this so many times wth actual stats, we need to move on and be more flexible
Yeah. I haven't got the numbers. But I feel like even a 2nd round pick on average does better than player 27 on a team.
@Tylo we’ve gone over mandatory delisting a lot already, and there have been plenty of chances to dig into it in earlier threads if you want to revisit those discussions. We also debunked the idea of mandatory delisting with stats — most coaches already take around four picks in the main draft, plus picks in the MSD, so forced delisting doesn’t really solve the problem people think it does. My bigger concern is that policies meant to rein in top teams actually end up hurting bottom teams more. Lower-ranked teams rely on higher draft picks, and mandatory delisting can make it harder for them to hold onto speculative picks for a year or two to see if they develop.
A quick look at this year's delistments seems to disprove what you're saying. A lot of the higher ranked teams have delisted less than 4 players, whereas most of the lower ranked teams have delisted 4 or more. So the evidence or "stats" don't seem to be saying what you think they are.
To put it into stats, 1 of the top 9 teams delisted 4 players 6 of the bottom 9 teams delisted 4 players, 3 of them delisted more If you forced each team to delist 4 players, where do you think the higher quality players would return to the free agent pool from? The higher ranked teams or the lower ranked teams? And of course it's the lower ranked teams that get first crack at drafting those players. It's pretty basic logic really. I'm not saying it would make a huge difference. But there's no doubt it would be at least slightly beneficial to lower teams. Obviously the higher the delist number, the more effect it has. edit - I didn't dig as deep as to include retirees, I'm guessing they're roughly evenly spread
I agree with you @Tylo. I’ve always advocated for list changes rather than delistings, but I feel that list changes doesn’t really deliver the desired outcome. Sitting in between, including trades, does not help to equalise the comp. The best teams turn over their aging stars and top up with high picks. I think there should be no rule or it should be mandatory delisting/maximum squad sizes pre-draft, as it is in the other leagues. With the squad size rule, it makes picks in the third and fourth, even fifth, rounds, more relevant. It would extend our draft, but we could do something around the time limits or in-draft trading to pull it back.
It's not high quality players that will be dropped. It's the dregs. Who's making a team where players 25-28 are better than what they can get in the draft?
I like your thinking, its time to try a new direction !!! I also believe no one has thought of this, top teams may take less picks in the draft giving bottom teams even more talent to select.
Exactly!! It’s pretty easy to wear rose tinted glasses and slant “stats” to favour the argument you’re making.. all the while ignoring trades, retirements, positional changes and age profiles and strategies of each team. What fresh did was fantastic, accurate, and non-biased with a maximum sample size. Those were facts
I'm actually starting to lean towards the minimum list size pre-draft. I think drafting is fun, and it would definitely add more value to later picks in the draft (which are often ignored). I know this would be a huge shift in what we currently do, and people tend not to like change.... but its where my personal opinion is headed right now. (Don't worry, I can separate being a coach and being a DICKtator)
If everyone has to take 4 (or maybe even 6, just throwing numbers out there) picks into the draft, then back end PSD picks become more valuable, and every coach is vested deeply into the draft. Seeing as we have in-draft trading, I'd actually see this becoming a tactic, where coaches could then trade some of their active picks for players on other lists, which would count as a new player, so would offset the need to take a pick. We could then have a much longer period for the draft, to accommodate selection windows (real life influences), and time taken to draft and trade 72+ players. Coaches being forced to make players available in the FA pool is a good thing for equalisation. Quite often (and I believe Fresh did a decent analysis on this last year) its not the first-year players that are actually the best draft picks, but rather the 2nd-4th year players who have been averaging 40-50ppg, and now break out to become solid keeper league scorers. There should be more of these available if coaches are forced to drop their fringe players. Those that like to pick and hold, and watch career growth can still do so. With 15 players in a side, plus 2 spare defenders, 2 mids, 1 ruck, and 2 fwds, thats only 22 players, so dropping op-to 6 (including retirements in that, another personal preference of mine) still provides heaps of opportunity to watch players grow, while giving other clubs a chance to pick up potential break-outs, rather than taking a punt on a bloke pick in the 60's in the AFL draft. "Moving the needle" is making coaches make changes to their teams. You get to keep the core, plus the spares, and mess around with the smokies. Giving a coach the option to not make a change for a year, rewards them for research done the previous year, picking a great kid, or just being plain lucky on a break-out player, but doesn't promote league activity or give the struggling clubs any better chance of improving. If anything it holds the needle steady for more teams.
ambivalent about most of these points with the exception of “promote league activity”. Nothing will change that, short of removing certain coaches. That vote didn’t pass, so we move on, no worries. Just don’t expect anything different in terms of conformance to rules (ie. match reports and naming teams) or general forum contribution.
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. “Moving the needle” shouldn’t mean forcing coaches to make changes — it should mean improving competitive balance. Mandatory turnover doesn’t automatically achieve that. Change for the sake of change isn’t equalisation; it’s just churn. If a coach has built a list well through research, development and patience, why should structural rules be designed to undo that? On the equalisation point — I don’t agree that forcing players into the FA pool necessarily benefits struggling teams. In practice, stronger teams are usually better positioned to capitalise on those opportunities. They tend to have clearer list structures, more trade leverage, and a better understanding of breakout profiles. So increasing supply doesn’t guarantee the weaker clubs are the ones who win those acquisitions. There’s also a contradiction in saying forced delisting helps bottom teams, when bottom teams are typically the ones relying on speculative or slow-burn players the most. Contending teams can afford to recycle fringe players because their core is already established. Rebuilding teams need time variance — they need the ability to hold a 2nd–4th year player who might pop. Removing that flexibility narrows their strategic pathway, it doesn’t expand it. Equalisation is usually about giving struggling teams advantages, not about taking stability away from everyone. League activity is important — but activity driven by opportunity (trading, drafting, strategy) is different from activity driven by obligation. One promotes smart management; the other enforces uniform behaviour regardless of list position. That’s why I’m not convinced mandatory turnover actually moves the needle — all it does is redistribute fringe depth without meaningfully shifting competitive balance.
When it's all said and done, I will go with whatever the majority votes for. The equalisation argument I don't agree with. Have a look at how my team has travelled over the years (thanks @fresh) FU Stats - 10 years in the making | TooSerious There has been no equalisation in place over the last 10 years but I managed to take my team from bottom to top through active list management, research and some luck. I have had to let go of top line players in their prime to build an overall list. It sucks when you cannot field a team each week due to injuries or bad luck or bad trading and you are getting flogged by 600+ points. When coaches are down the bottom and are hoarding 35 year old's coz they dont want anyone else to get them is close minded and you need to cash in your chips sometimes and engage with all the other coaches and make a trade! Last thing I will say is if we have to delist 4 players then there should be a penalty on coaches that have not met their ORFFU requirements on doing weekly score reports etc. If you are required to do 12 a year and do less than 5, then your 3rd and 4th round picks go to the back of the queue. If they are late (we are all guilty here) then no issues, but less than 5, then you get penalised. I agree with the lack of engagement, especially when it only takes 10 minutes to type up some friendly banter which most enjoy reading!
I’ll make one last appeal before this is decided. If you’re on the fence, this is one of those votes that feels minor now but will shape how every rebuild you ever do looks. We’ve already shown with stats that most coaches take around four picks in the main draft plus MSD selections anyway. Natural turnover already exists. So this isn’t about fixing inactivity — it’s about enforcing uniform churn. I started at the bottom of this league. I built a list, won three premierships, and now I’m rebuilding again. That cycle happened through patience, risk, good calls, bad calls, and backing my own research. Not because the rules forced someone else to make players available for me. I’ll be honest — the idea that struggling coaches need their hand held through “equalisation measures” is a bit insulting. We don’t need artificial assistance. We need opportunity and flexibility. If you’re undecided, think about your own list. Think about that 2nd or 3rd year player you’ve held because you believe in them. Now imagine being forced to cut them just as they’re about to break out. Not because you mismanaged your list — but because the rules demand churn. Rebuilding teams need time variance. Contenders can absorb forced turnover much easier because their core is already set. Mandatory delisting doesn’t level the field — it compresses strategy and removes one of the few advantages patient list builders have. This league has thrived because different coaching styles coexist — aggressive traders, pick-and-hold developers, draft purists. Once we start forcing everyone into the same list cycle, we lose that diversity. If you’re voting with the majority just to move it along, I’d ask you to pause. Momentum isn’t the same as merit. This isn’t about protecting the top. It’s about protecting every future rebuild — including yours. Think long term.