VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

7/10/25 9:28am [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 28/05/21 2:46pm
Author: D9
Subject: Facts
In reply to: GTD 's message, "LOL - did you forget that COVID happened last year??" on 27/05/21 5:18pm

Didn't think I needed to research dates to make my point. Point was regardless of whether we were one week post SL season or 8, or somewhere in the middle at 4, as some coaches that didn't make finals were, we were on break. Finish season and have a break, after a long season, before Draft starts again. Hence the lack of participation in the discussion. Hence the postponement of the discussion until new year. Which was never bought up again. Which was never concluded and put into our rules page.

You then can't say, Oh, that was decided with this discussion, and have the comment stick. That would suggest you didn't research the actual events, but I am not asking research, I am opening the discussion for consideration with a live running example in my side.

Facts are, Majority wanted the Balance that was getting peddled AT THE TIME. That was a promise that we will be flexible. My request to a mod, that Balta be allowed to fill in Ruck while Witts-ACL and Stanley-VFL was rejected, and a 50 point penalty placed on him, does not come across to me as flexible. No answer given to the question at all.

And because the aforementioned discussion was not concluded, had I have shut up on the matter, it wouldn't have been bought up. Meanwhile, coaches with similar issues, struggle on through a difficult restriction that isn't even really on. Just perceived to be on.

Are you alright with all of that?

Where is the Those wanted it tightened when they had the chance Thread? And that comment is very dismissive of our coaches right to contribute. Yes they could contribute if they are in the right place at the right time, but they may not be, so bad luck. Is that the attitude of this league now?

It is not hard to continue the way we were doing it! If something important is to be implemented, then it is put in a concise and easy to understand way, as to what the discussion has concluded the right way forward is. You mods can discuss things behind closed doors for all I care, and other coaches care I would imagine. Following a discussion of different ideas is hard to follow at times, and people go off on tangents all the time. That is not the important thing. The important thing is a summary question to the league for vote.

Should backup Ruckman be allowed to play Ruck with a 3 game minimum requirement IF AND ONLY IF the main sides Ruckman are unavailable. Put on Voy, and emails sent out, Compulsory Vote needed. And you can use my personal email for that one. Nothing comes in or out unless this is done. THAT is the way it WAS done. Are we saying that is not the way it is done now? Because what you are saying, is the league has gone from a Democratic one, to a Dictatorship. I hope you're not suggesting that.

In relation to Salary Cap, it would merely be a tool to stop top sides from getting too much gap from the bottom sides. Not sure what you mean by Balance rules would tighten to "stop people just hoarding guns" How can you hoard guns in a Salary Capped League? You do know that "Guns" attract salary, and hoarding such guns would send you OVER the salary cap. That sounds like you are arguing FOR the Salary Cap, not against it.

I bring the salary cap discussion up because of these Balance Rules. If a side had say 5 Ruckman all capable of holding down a spot in the 22, and only using 2, one in Ruck, one in a forward pocket, or FF CHF, the other three would be on a salary that the side would not be able to afford with all other considerations. It would create more need for trade. Trading out senior veterans, for young players not yet worth the salary.

And why have a Salary Cap at all ANYWHERE. If you go by your point "means coaches that draft well and do there research are worse off in the long run" would be in the AFL itself. Why should Steven Wells who did so well drafting players to Geelong, need to worry about salary caps.

And the words "Worse off in the long run", would suggest the bottom sides would be BETTER off in the long run. That's my point. I wouldn't think the Good sides would be WORSE off than others sides are now. Just to what they are now.

We are feeling confident that the sides coaches are mainstays now, but if we continue down this path of allowing coaches to steer their sides, and get them up to successful with no Salary Cap, and sticking them with penalties when they are only getting 1300-1400 scores, you are going to lose them eventually. Currently everyone is confident that they can turn their sides fortunes around, but that self belief only lasts so long, especially without a system in place that helps them the best that it can.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Forum timezone: GMT+11
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.