Hi guys, Food for thought on our trading process. We want coaches to be able to trade with freedom and flare while avoiding the 'clanger trade' or coaches getting taken advantage of. What I have seen done before that works well; All trades get posted in a sub forum 'TRADES'. In separate posts, not one large one. example; 'Iron Knob and Marble Bar trade' within the thread is a run down of the trade and if its a big blockbuster type deal with marquee players a brief explanation by each coach on why they are doing it. One coach posts the trade. The second confirms. example; Lenh - Marble Bar sends Jeremy Cameron to Iron Knob for their 5th round pick in the MSD 2014 Jim - Confirmed After this the 3 commitee members have 24h/48h to 'approve' or 'reject' the trade. They also can post reasoning if they feel its required. NO OTHER COACHES can comment. If the trade is accepted all good. If it is rejected by 2 or more members then its no big deal - its back to the 2 initiating coaches to rework and repost a fairer deal which is then re-evaluated all over again. The committee members decision is above reproach. Cry all you want, if your trade is rejected you need to rework it. Thoughts?
Also the thought of having each trade as a separate post will make it easier to track trades and rework or revisit them later.
+1 from me, only small change I would have is a committee of 5 so if 2 committee member strike a deal there are still 3 to adjudicate
I say no, even though I dislike the veto system. I think if necessary an explanation for a trade will be put out, if the coach understands what he/she is doing then leave it go. If they don't understand they are blatantly being robbed then kick it out. I don't think for every trade there should be a vote. Will just cause controversy and inconsitencies. Thats my opinion anyway
I think this premise has some real value. My only issue would be if we didn't get an overwhelming majority of fellow coaches in favour of the concept. There'd be few things worse than having a structure in place and coaches - because they don't believe in it - hating it or whatever. It would have to be carefully thought through and carefully put in place. And it would probably need a light touch too - the balance between 'This is the coaches' decision' and 'What a shit trade, veto' is a careful one. And we'd all have to be happy with the people on the committee.
I understand your concern Fitzy, but we are already starting to see inconsistencies and controversy. Wouldn't it be better to have them handled by our official trade committee rather than all coaches have their differing points of view in public? some say veto, some say its ok, some say its awful etc etc. I think it creates certainty if the 3 (or 5 - but 3 works better, best the other 2 be 'backups') weigh in and either flat out reject or accept the deal. In a lot of cases the rejects will simply be 'rejected - please add a bit more from Venus Bay' etc and thats probably what a lot of other coaches here think of the 2 trades yesterday. If the trades the other day had gone via the TC I believe the TC may have asked for them to be slightly better weighted - the 2 coaches go away, have a think about it, and come back with an updated deal (like Chris ended up doing on his own accord anyway, but unsure if that was passed?) I only bring it up because of what I saw the other day and because I was a TC member in a previous sport/league/decade and it worked very well with the right TC members.
I prefer this idea of approach in some ways, but I am of the opinion that a trade should only be denied if it is deemed to be cheating/collusion. Everyone here is capable of making decisions for themselves, if you get it wrong or trade poorly, Caveat Emptor. From your post above Jim you have a mind for it (a TC) as some form of trade equalisation mechanism, I wouldn't like that (trade poorly bad luck for mine), but if it's role was to be the umpire when someone calls foul I would be a lot more in favour of it... Gee position of power though, so may need to be rotated and subject to scrutiny itself?
I think it's a good idea in theory, and could work quite well, but I do prefer the current veto system, which gives everyone a vote. Also, I'm with Len on the point of equalisation. If there was a committee, I wouldn't want them looking at every trade, suggesting to even them up. I think that may get a bit messy, and it's unfair on the coaches involved, who most of the time had already been negotiating for ages. But, JB, you've seen the system in action and can vouch for it, so that's a pretty good positive IMO. I don't really mind either way, but prefer veto system we've got, and believe we would need a good consultation period for all to discuss parameters of the system, if its decided we go with it.
jimbowan wrote: I think it creates certainty if the 3 (or 5 - but 3 works better, best the other 2 be 'backups') That works for me, but I think the TC should only rule on trades that are brought into question... let's say if more than 4 other teams object to the trade?
They way I see it 90% of trades would just be auto accepts by the TC, its only the lopsided ones that get reviewed and brought up. Veto works fine too, I just think it turns into a bit of an attack on coaches when the majority dont like the trade, like we saw this week. I actually felt bad for Gravenger, what should have simply been a 'please rework this a little guys' turned into a personal questioning of whether he knew what he was doing or knew what was good for his team. Everyone has a different approach guys, some value draft picks above all else, others just want to win now or improve year to year. Each coach should have the freedom to choose his own way, as long as it doesnt unbalance the league with 1 or 2 coaches seemingly always coming out like bandits. (not targeting you bandit ) which is where the TC can help.
As I read thru this thread, I seriously started leaning to yep, lets have a TC. But whilst that does give 'some' power to a few to help alleviate controversy, what it really does is take power away from the masses....the ORFFA owners. And to me......that's just not worth it. Yes.....having 18 voices all talking at once is harder to hear than listening to 3.....but the masses have always 'eventually' succeeded over the dictators....I mean, the few. Sowhilst the idea is a good one, 18 voices can be heard.......it just takes a bit longer. And I don't think anyone is too thin skinned to hear critique of a trade; let em explain it.......hell, they'll probably enjoy talking about. Collusion cant be hidden. It'll be so obvious its not funny. Ascertaining worth of a player ina trade is just speculation.
Appreciate the idea Jim, and everyone has their opinion, but I just don't see the reason as to why a trades should be reversed. People don't need 'help' with their trades. It's their team, they are the coach. If they feel like they may be getting ripped off and/or the trade will cause controversy, don't do it. If two coaches agree on a trade, then they obviously think it will benefit their team in some shape or form. So, if that's the case, why strip someone of their priority? I am just failing to see the whole reasoning behind setting up a TC or having a VETO system in place. Everyone is aware of the risks involved with trading, so do so at your peril. There's my 2 cents.
I think Jimbo's idea has some merit. That said, I for one want to be clear on the rules of the current 'veto' system to be able to compare it to what is being proposed here. From TiB's prompting in the trades thread, I went on an archeological dig for the rules around the ORFFA trade veto system. This excavation may not be by any means thorough but here is what I have found. Most of what I could find was buried in the ORFFA thread (around page 4-5). TiB had posted a swag of (then) current ORFFA rules which needed further discussion and feedback from coaches (8 or 9 points were up for consideration) Point 6 related to trades and vetos. The original rule was: <p style='text-align: left;' dir='ltr]Trading works on the 50% Veto system. If 50% of the non-involved teams veto said trade, trade does not go through. Teams will have roughly 48 hours to veto a trade proposed. <p style='text-align: left;' dir='ltr] <p style='text-align: left;' dir='ltr]In this thread TiB was suggesting: Point 6. Danny di Veto. From memory, ORFFA seems a bit more trusting. How about all trades have to posted for 48 hours and will automatically come into effect after that time provided a minimum of 3 vetos are not posted? Respond with Point 6 please. The response from most coaches appeared to support TiB's suggestion of min 3 vetos within 48 hrs. However I cannot find any reference to suggest that this rule revision was adopted. TiB has now recently posted in the trades thread that: <p style='text-align: left;' dir='ltr]Trades can be vetoed if a majority of 5 non-participating coaches cast a veto vote. Coaches will have roughly 48 hours to veto a trade proposed. <p style='text-align: left;' dir='ltr] <p style='text-align: left;' dir='ltr] <p style='text-align: left;' dir='ltr] <p style='text-align: left;' dir='ltr]Can anyone out there confirm which veto rule we are currently working under?
I assumed it was Danny.. <img class='ForumImage' src='http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7371/3oqw.jpg[/img]
Normally you can rely on the most recent statement (5) as it comes directly from ORFFL rules (I know, I know, we don't have to necessarily follow ORFFL rules). What I suspect is that ORFFL can change/modify their rules following internal debate and we are none the wiser. So 5 is currently the go, but it is a fairly moot point at the moment because we really didn't get to 3 or 5. What I suspect is more important is the spirit behind the veto system, as I outlined in the draft thread ('Whoa back there'). It is there for that purpose, but it is also there to stop collusion. Such collusion could occur when a coach decides he/she has had enough of draft league (without declaring it) and raffles off all the good players to his/her mates. That sort of thing. Can happen. The current system is designed to give each and every coach a say, even the self-styled 'Supreme Leader' from Manhattan. Try the scenario, Ben Cunnington for Gary Ablett Jnr, to veto or not to veto?
Thanks TiB, yeah agree with the concept and and its intended use. To clarify the majority 5 rule. Does this mean that a minimum of 5 non-participating coaches must vote 'veto' in order for a trade to be rejected? or Does this mean that the votes for 'veto' must exceed the vote for 'not veto' by a majority of 5? The term 'majority' has me confused.
This is a problem. We adopted most of ORFFLs rules when we started, but both comps' rules have evolved since then. If ORFFL change their rules, it doesn't mean we automatically follow them. Or does it? I wouldn't have thought so. Clearly, we need a spot for our own rules, and update it over time as we make changes. i am happy to draft up the rules and post them in a thread on their own. Is that ok if I do that? Any objections?
Minimum of 5 Grav. But should it cop 5, the two traders can immediately modify their proposal (e.g., toss in a draft pick or Zac Dawson) and it is then a new proposal, provided they are still within the stipulated dates for the draft period. Yeah, ant, not a bad idea. I think the only major variance at the moment is squad size. Also, if we do end up varying the finals format, that also would justify having our own dedicated thread. My only concern (minor) is that we don't get into prolonged debates on changing the rules while many of our coaches are 'not in attendance', despite my earmarking this period for discussion. Maybe we need the discussion now and then set a NAB date for passing into law? Am aware that 'no. of delistings' is still bubbling away out there.
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines too TiB. i would just draft them up as (I believe) they currently are. Then, I think that every member of the Association would have to 'sign off' on it, before they can be considered fact. Then some time before the next season, we could make any required amendments.
anthak wrote: i am happy to draft up the rules and post them in a thread on their own. Is that ok if I do that? Any objections? Does that mean we all have to play by your rules then? I'm rarely partial to such arrangements