JACKATTACK

I'd like to hear from the club about this trade. Not some soft statement about thanking a player for their service. If Gysberts had a bad attitude then say so, if we didn't think he was gong to physically up to it then let's hear the truth. From the outside all I see was a player I was really excited about this time last year go for 1 bad year.

Jack <mumbles> FitzGimeWatRove

Apologies if it has been posted already. Watch from 2:40 for some footage of Jesse

The dees better improve next year; just so the keyboard heroes have something more positive to focus on.

A yes from me.

Trade him. Take out his games against teams in the bottom 4 and he's clearly no good. Would probably dominate in a team with quality mids.

Yep, keepers to be decided in the week leading into the draft.

If you believe that it isn't in the spirit of the game then I'll accept that. Personally I think the trade is okay, (other than the fact he said he did it because he was quitting next year).

Just so we're all clear, vetoeing is only there to protect against trades that are not 'in the spirit of the game'. It should not be used as a competative advantage to give your team a leg up. We all seem to have varying degrees of what 'in the spirit of the game' means. So vote according to your understanding, vote honestly and if you have a trade vetoed, accept it and move on. To answer a couple of questions: I can't change the trade deadline. My other league settings are almost the same. Except that we have fewer players, no utility and a league of 16 (not 18). Which I personally think works better. When it comes to it next year I might sound everyone out about what they would prefer. Our league has 4 backs 5 centres 4 forwards a ruck and utility. My other one has 3 backs, 4 centres, 3 forwards and a ruck.

He'll be back. He's just upset and being dramatic.

Fixed my post, iphone didnt allow editing. I think my fixed post addesses what you were getting at about it swinging both ways. I respect that fact it was vetoed, but we need to do it for the right reasons. As for the now vetoed trade, I am discounting rpfc's veto because he has admitted that he did it to 'win', and I am vetoeing it myself because you admitted that you did the trade because you were expecting to quit next year so didn't care to keep ablett, which I believe is outside the spirit of the game. DD, the coaches have spoken and you're just going to have to try and win WITH Ablett.

The keeper idea is great, it is working perfectly in another league I run, and I have heard of several others that report no problems with it. I do agree that it has been controversial, but it is only as controversial as we allow it to be, and a bit of heated warmed debate is not a bad thing. I suspect that it is a result of running a league entirely over a forum. I never have the chance to meet everyone and explain a rule, or discuss a trade, and so there is confusion at times. And while I do my best to explain everything here as much as possible it is impossible for everyone on here to read everything. Also people just behave differently behind an internet name.

You've been added to my list DD. Just one more threatening to leave because things aren't going your way. That said I think the trade veto is disappointing because I don't believe it was against the spirit of the game. I only veto when I think it is not in the spirit of the game, never to better my position in the league. And do should everyone else. But here's the kicker; it is up to Individual coaches to determine whether an particular trade is outside 'the spirit of the game'. And apart from rpfc, who has admitted it was for his own benefit, all voting coaches have vetoed in the right spirit.

I'm too depressed to respond. What was that talk earlier in the year about priority picks?

This has nothing to do with the keeper league concept, we had the same problem last year, sans-keeper. It is a regrettable fact of fantasy footy that has almost no bearing on the end result. Playing JLH is a bye anyway, regardless of him setting his team. I have run and been involved in all sorts of fantasy footy and this league is the one that has the least amount of problems with this, and has the most amount of complaints. Nothing practical can or will be done about it, we just need to accept it and move on.

The reality of fantasy footy is that sometimes clubs just don't field a team. I can't enforce interest in the game so we'll have to put up with it. There won't be a committee, it's just not practical. But I will do my best to consider everyone's point of view and set the rules accordingly.

He'd double our medical bill for they year.

OMR said it better.

I've said it before but I'll say it again. The rules are at this stage staying the same. However the rookie keeper will have a year added to their cutoff. Which means 1991 players, whom you are allowed to keep for next year, are not able to be retained as a rookie keeper, but 1992 and younger will. This is as the rules were devised. I'm not saying their won't be further revisions to the rules, if there is sufficient support. But it's. It my it's thin to change anything at this stage.

Terrible turnover. Improving as a player though.

Autocracy at the least, but I'm aiming for banana republic. As for the vote we can't wait for everyone and there was a vote or two that have been changed to the rookie choice since the initial poll. Moreover, the more I thought about the 2 + 2 >100, the more I realised that it would be a little bit of a pain given that the rankings are moving targets and therefor trading for those 2 keepers during this year would be a bit like trying to guess which players would have the closest rank to 100 without going under. I quite like the rookie keeper idea, surely being all melbourne supporters we can appreciate the obsession we all have with first and second year players. In regards to a question brought up earlier about what happens after next year. My thoughts are that the rookie keeper cutoff just goes up a year each new year, 1991 for this year, 1992 the following. That said, tweaks are always possible but I am loath to change rules mid season again so any changes would be made pre-draft.

##########IMPORTANT############ I'm going to tie a know in this episode. After roughly 100 posts of sometimes heated debate, a poll, more debate and finally an acknowledgement on my behalf that it is what everyone wants and is therefore in the best interests of the league, I am making the following official rule change: As was always the case, you will have the option of retaining 4 players (keepers) from this year's list to be taken into next year's list. These players will be chosen in the lead up to next year's draft. The change as voted on by everyone is: 2 of your 4 keepers must have a birthday in 1991 or later (ie. young), the other 2 remain unrestricted and can be anyone from your list. A far as i'm concerned this is the end of this saga. The rules will not change from here and you may strategise your trades and signings accordingly. Thanks for everyone's input, if apathy is the death of fantasy footy then the last week has taught me that our league is alive and well. I'd also like to extend my appreciation to the Ararat Prison Project for understanding the importance of the part I play in this league by shutting down for the last few weeks to allow me to dedicate my time to setting things straight. My final word on the issue: FFS guys be positive about this thing, there is a lot to like about what is going on here and the amount fo fun we have here is limited by the restricutions we place on ourselves. I can't keep everyone happy, sometimes you lose, sometimes you win, over the long run everyone will benefit equally and we'll all have fun.

If I had my way MM it would be 4 open keepers, and next year I would have considered making it 6. I completely understand your thoughts about how you have drafted and how the mid season change disadvantages some people. But I wouldn't do it if I didn't think it was in the interests of the 18 coaches. The disappointing and frustrating thing from my point of view is the consistant need for people to come on here and take pot shots at how I choose to run the league. I would like to think I embrace everyone's opinions and promote open and honest discussion, but I have my limits. Perhaps it is just a vocal minority due to fact it is an Internet forum but I have run another keeper league for years now and it has been nothing but a complete success. And that league is played for cash and has much harder luck stories than he ones on here. As for the YOB being 1992, I can't agree. If anything I say it should be 1990 but 1991 seems to represent the view of the comp more so I'm happ to concede. And honestly I am not setting these rules out of self interest, i'm in a difficult position being a particiant and administrator. You will just have to trust me.

Thanks for your input but the keeper league is staying.

**sigh** JCB, you're going over so many things that have been covered in the posts above. Understand my point of view here, I'm trying to keep 18 coaches happy here and you're not helping by complaining about something that has already been covered. If you're not prepared to read the rules as they have been set out then you have no basis to complain. Yes it's frustrating to have rule changes in the middle of the year for all the reasons I also brought up, and you would know that i brought this up if you had been bothered to read any posts. Despite my feelings on the issue I agreed to take a vote so everyone could have their say and I could set the rules in the best interests of the league. And those interests are: At the beginning of next year you will have the opportunity to select 4 keeper players from your list as it finishes up this year. (this rule has always been known and has been discussed many times from inception and throughout the year). The recent change as was agreed on via the poll on the Ufooty league page is that 2 of your 4 keepers must be 'rookie keepers' where a rookie keeper is a player who's year of birth is 1991 or later. Given this change you may choose not to take 1 or both of your rookie keepers, in which case you will just have to draft an extra player at the end of the draft. Now you're up to speed. And 1 more thing, the next person to threaten to leave will lose a [censored].