Just a note that when we started, we had squad sizes of 26 players. To help teams avoid being unable to field a full 15, we increased squad sizes to 28 players. Four list turnovers per year is asking for those two extra spots, plus two original spots, to be churned, or made available in the free agency pool. We currently allow retirements to count towards this. A core team of 15 playing, plus backups of (for example) 2 defenders, 3 mids, 2 rucks, and 2 forwards, is 24 players. That's your keeper squad. the other 4 are the speculatives that you can play with, and bring them into the keeper squad if they earn a spot. I see it as the price of engagement and activity. You can carry 24 players for as long as you want, and just churn those last four spots every single year. It won't hurt the core squad, or the reserves, and it keeps everyone active - which to me is mroe important that winning the Premiership! or.... we could just drop the squad sizes to 24 players, and make coaches be more selective about who is in their squad. The FA pool will be deeper if we do this!
I think we’re dressing forced churn up as “engagement.” Those last four spots aren’t throwaways — they’re often the exact 2nd–4th year players rebuilding teams rely on to break out. Calling them “speculative” doesn’t make them disposable.
I'm aware of that. The thought was we go down a completely different path - reduce list sizes to 24 players, and make no obligation to make any list changes what-so-ever. My thought being that some coaches want the ability to manage their team however they want without restriction, while others want lots of trading, drafting, and list changes to be obligatory. So if we can compromise, move from our existing 28 squad size to a 24 squad size (effectively making the 4 list changes), which will increase the FA pool, and then from that each coach can manage their 15 starters plus 9 back-ups however the see fit. If they believe they have the best possible squad they could put together, then they're under no obligation to change anything, meanwhile there's still plenty of free agents for other coaches to pick up to try to improve their squads. It was just an idea. Although the more I think about it, the more I'm liking it!!!
I really appreciate you putting forward an alternative and looking for a middle ground — that genuinely means a lot. I think the idea of reducing list sizes rather than enforcing mandatory delistings is a much cleaner philosophical approach. It removes obligation while still naturally increasing the FA pool and creating movement. If I could suggest a small adjustment — maybe we consider moving to 26 instead of 24 initially. Dropping four spots in one hit might feel too aggressive for some coaches, especially those mid-rebuild or carrying longer-term projects. A move to 26 still creates meaningful change (two spots league-wide across 18 teams is 36 extra players into the pool), but it softens the immediate impact. We could then review it in a couple of years. If the league feels comfortable and engagement is strong, a further reduction could always be discussed down the track when more coaches are ready for it.