Gentlemen of the ORFFU, I hope everyone enjoyed the AFL Grand Final (I'm not sure if we've got any Swans fans in our mix). During the offseason we can have a little discussion about how we want to see the list change rule progress in the future. The (slim) majority of voters to an earlier poll, said that the current 4 player list turnover each season needs to be changed. (vote was 10 to change the rule, 8 to keep it the same). http://tooserious.net/forum/threads/the-vote-list-change-rules.91587/ I understand that many coaches won't be sticking their heads into TS regularly, which is fine, you're not obliged to. For those that are here, we can have a little chat about where the list change rule could possibly go. It was never going to be implemented for the 2025 season, simply because some coaches had already made trades for future picks based on the rules that existed at the time, and they shouldn't be disadvantaged (or advantaged) by a rule change. So unless everyone agrees to change the rule for 2025, it will be staying as is, with any new rule to be implemented for the 2026 season. I guess the options for change are (but we're open for discussion here, so please let me know if anyone sees different) as follows: No restrictions - let coaches do what they want. Less mandatory turnover - ie less than 4 new players each year. More mandatory turnover - ie more than 4 new players each year. A minimum number of draft picks - coaches must take at least X number of picks each year (or every 2 years to allow more flexibility). A minimum number of trades - coaches must trade in, out, or both, a minimum number of players each year. Any change counts - it doesn't matter if its being fired or retired, a change is a change. Only players added to the draft pool count - so retired players fall outside the count of mandatory list turnover. I can put up some polls as we go, to see where the general consensus falls. Hope everyone is doing well!
Retired players didn't already count? Also, great win from the Lions, hopefully will teach the media about writing off teams too early.
Hello Legends, Here is my 2 cents worth. When I voted yes to change my thinking was this. We need more players in the pool that can help my team finish off the rebuild. If we didn't have to to delist players and my four list changes could just be me and one other coach swapping 4 players, then it would not achieve the aim of getting more 1-3 year players into the free agents list. The size of our squads are big enough that we should be able to have a full playing team, a few reserves and a couple of development players. Having 4 or 5 rucks in your team or 12 development players I think is not helping balance the overall ORFFU competition. I love trading players and the negotiations around doing so. I know this is not for everyone, but the more we all do it, the easier and more fun it could be. Here is what I recommend we implement from 2026 onwards: On completion of the MSD delist period, every coach must have delisted a minimum of 4 players from their teams. This can be in the form of 3 players delisted and one traded player. So, you can delist 4 players at the start of 2026 and then pick up 4 in the PSD, you are good to go for the rest of the year to do what you want. or, You can delist 2 players at the start of 2026 and 2 more in the MSD; or You can delist 3 players between PSD and MSD and make 1 interclub trade. Gives coaches the chance to draft and trade or just draft and you have the whole year to plan it! Yeah, I know ditching players can suck, I got rid of James Peatling not that long ago!
Yeah sorry, what I thought was going to be a nice quiet month, didn't turn out that way, and I got to GF week and thought to myself "sh!t, I promised to do this in Sept, and I haven't done anything on it yet", so yes, sorry.
I think the difference is Marty is proposing mandatory delist of minimum 3 players. At present it is just 4 list changes/movements isn’t it? So you could theoretically delist 0 and just trade 4 to satisfy. marty is proposing delist no less than 3 every calendar year
Well then, consider me very-much mistaken! I was reading 'delist' as 'list change', but the focus here is actually putting the players into the draft pool. The question still remains: should delisting players no-longer on and AFL list (through retirement or delisting) count towards the four? I know this has been a sticking point for other coaches in the past.
Here's a crazy idea that I've got: Lets increase the list size to 30, but now eight list changes have to be made every year. So you've got your starting 15 (4 DEF, 4 MID, 4 FWD, 1 RUC, and 2 INT "randoms"), plus two backups on each major line (2 DEF, 2 MID, 2 FWD) and 1 RUC - this gets you to 22 core players. If absolutely nothing changed year-on-year, then these 22 players would remain in every team - but we know that this isn't the case, so there'll always be a couple of new players added to this core 22, and a couple removed, for each team. The next 8 players on your list would have to be turned over each year. Depth is being stretched, so there's probably 1-3 players per team who get no games each year and are an easy drop. One day these players might make it (the late bloomers), or they get cut by their AFL clubs (everyone can think of some examples here). The rest, as we do now, can either be traded or drafted - however a coach chooses. My thinking is the following: There's still a solid core group of players in each team - the "Keepers". Coaches will become less attached to some of their players, making it easier to turn them over. The value of later draft picks will increase, making trading easier too (who trades for a 4th or 5th round pick right now? but if you need that many new players then the value of that pick becomes higher, and is more likely to be used as currency). The extra list spots (ie from 28 up to 30) are only to accommodate more keepers and more turnover. This doesn't have to be included. Larger lists reduces the risk of not being able to field a full 15 players each week. Trading and drafting is fun - but some coaches enjoy certain aspects more than others, and this helps to cater for everyone's taste. It'll keep everyone more active, especially during the trade / draft periods. I'm open to having this shot down by everyone else... fire away!
Yeah, that is correct. Get development players back into the pool and older players on their last year as well!
There might be a sweet spot between the 3 delistments and 8 which includes increasing team size. Maybe 6 list changes which must include a minimum of 4 delistments and 2 trades. This can also include players who are delisted/retired. Maybe increasing the squad size by 2 making it 30 each would make it work. If we all delist 4 players, then 100% the 4th round PSD becomes very relevant. Already this year I am not looking past PSD3. If I need to draft 4 players next year, then I will be making sure I get 4 picks as early as I can!
Oh, and another thing. If we do increase list size. Then there needs to be a cap on how many Rucks we each have. No more than 2 would be my vote. And if both of your rucks are out, then you can put anyone in that line, maximum 4 times per year.
Increasing list sizes to only further increasing delists isn't really moving the needle, just hoarding more to have to just move them on, to me sounds counter intuitive. From the previous discussions the two points that resonate with me were 1. Let coaches do as they please. 2. Less restrictions than we have now ie. 2 mandatory changes
I agree with these also. If coaches don't want to delist players, then they won't be taking part in any drafting (unless they are aggressive traders). At some point, a coach making minimal changes each season will end up with quite an old and uncompetitive team.
I’d prefer to see the original rules stuck to; if coaches aren’t TooSerious and are contributing nothing then they get moved on. adding list sizes or new rules and restrictions which the active people don’t want doesn’t seem logical, as what the two learned gentleman above state coincides exactly with this sentiment; “a coach making minimal changes each season will end up with quite an old and uncompetitive team“… plus, because I like to call a spade a spade, I’d also add that if people do 2-3 match reports a year, take forever to respond to PMs and trade enquiries and generally bring zero to the community, then why is that ok? Its in direct opposition to the inaugural rules, which everyone agreed to.
Cheers. Im certainly not perfect when it comes to match reports, but like to think im usually all over responding and often starting trade requests. The ruck discussion is a tougher solve. Hopefully the AFL moves to a 5 on the bench model. Many clubs have flagged they would likely go back to 2 rucks if that happened.
My two cents would be to not lose sight of why we are having this conversation. To be fair I have forgotten exactly what did actually bring us to this point but as far as my memory serves me it was a tool to try and make the competition more even because the theory goes that if more coaches have a more regular chance at feeling like they have a shot at success they will be more engaged and get more enjoyment out of the ORFFU experience. In that light, I just cant see how increasing delistments achieves that purpose. If insider had to delist Harvey Thomas, Tyler Sonsie & Tyler Sellers this year is that really going to mean we have a better chance at bridging the gap of this season? Is it possible that whatever rules we put in, some coaches are just better at identifying talent and managing squads? Instead of just shooting down ideas, let me propose a left field alternative. My preference would be to scrap list changes and allow coaches to engage as they would want. But if increased enjoyment through increased engagement is a goal then what if we attempted to remove a potential blocker to participation in trading? What if there was a time period (24, 48 hours or whatever we chose) after a trade was decided for the teams to recieve alternate offers? Different to an auction that seem pretty useless in our league, you'd post the agreed trade and then teams have the time window to have further discussions. Would be harsh on teams who like to trade a bit more and have done all the hard work but you could have caveats like the original team always has a final right of reply to improve on a new offer but it could help remove that barrier for teams who don't normally trade to at least have a crack. If that fear isn't a problem then it's probably a waste of time and like I said, would be very frustrating to have done all the work and then get pipped at the post but could be for a greater good of more engagement and movement.
I like the concept of alternative offers for posted trades - there's been a few times when coaches have said something to the effect of "I didn't even know that player was for sale". It will probably create some animosity if a coach gets trumped on an offer, but may create more trading, especially for those who aren't skilled in the arts of conversation and negotiations, but can act in a near-silent auction. Having said that, I'm starting to see this as just an extension of a coach saying "X player is available", then fielding multiple separate enquiries and playing them off against each-other, only this is a little more public, as the "starting point" is clear (yeah, its more like the auctions). The more I think about it, and write this response, the more I like the idea.
Thought about introducing mandatory 1 trade a season with mandatory 3 delistings? If coaches don’t do this then harsh penalties like losing premiership points That’s one way of getting trading going Personally trading for me isn’t a priority to developing my list, but if some coaches aren’t happy with the current trend of trading then that’s something to think about. For what it’s worth my vote is to keep it as is. @wrightbrendan could be right, simply put some coaches are better at the game then others.