SCSUL RULE CHANGES - Discussion

[Goodie's Guns]

Hi gents, I've been weighing this one up for a while across the first three seasons of the SCSUL and after coming up with quite a simple potential fix/adjustment in the recent months I thought I may as well put it to the group to see where anyone else sat.

ADJUSTED TRADE DEADLINE FOR 4TH CONTRACT (UNRESTRICTED) FREE AGENTS​

As very much a traditionalist when it comes to dynasty/keeper leagues, and a lover/enthusiast of building a list to compete for the ultimate prize, Premiership Glory, it somewhat breaks my heart every year when at Round 16 SCSUL we see clubs replace multiple players within their Best 22 for the final few games of the H&A season and into finals. Usually this involves trades between clubs where 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents who are in the final year of their contract are moved on to flag/finals contenders.

Now don't get me wrong, my club has absolutely without doubt has done this, you almost have needed to in order to be able to compete at the pointy end of the season.

My proposal would be that we have Two Trade Deadlines:

• Completion of SCSUL Round 9 - Deadline for Deals Involving 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents Only
• Completion of SCSUL Round 16 - As Per Normal - Excluding 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents

Under this proposal, 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents that are traded at the Round 9 Deadline would be on their new clubs list for at least half the H&A season. This just seems to sit a little bit better in my eyes from the perspective that the player becomes a touch more 'apart of the fabric' at their new club, for want of a better term, you know what I mean.

Trading would continue up until the traditional SCSUL Round 16 Deadline, for draft selections, 1st and 2nd Contract Players, as well as 3rd Contract (Restricted) Free Agents.

Additionally, the earlier deadline imposed on these 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents may slightly alter the outlook on the importance/usefulness and value of these players. At Round 9 there is still very much a long way to go in the H&A Season, with many sides still (usually/hopefully) fancying themselves to make the Finals. This may see sides slightly more inclined to hold some of their upcoming out of contract players, with an overall outcome resulting in a more even spread of strength/scoring across the competition for the back-half of the season compared to what we have at times seen across the first three years.

Alternatively, if traded, given the earlier deadline and greater availability (e.g. 9 H&A matches compared to 3 H&A matches, if traded on the deadline), the overarching perceived value of these players across the league may increase(?). Again, example, strong scoring player who is coming out of contract waltzes into new clubs best side in exchange for a (probably) unused 5th Round selection. It's something that I haven't loved the aesthetics of, and yes, my club has been involved on both sides of those sort of deals at times, which I don't like but have had to do to either stay with the competition or get some value out of the player.

As I've said, the possible refinement of the Trade Deadline was an idea that I came up with over the last few months to address something that has slightly bugged the traditionalist in me for the last few years. I think there's many positive outcomes that such a change would have, whether it be traded players become are apart of their new team a little more, trade value refinement, or strength of the competition throughout. Not withstanding an easing of the work load on @KLo30 come Trade Deadline Day as he rushes to update all the spreadsheets!

Interested to hear everyones thoughts, I hope I have at least put forward my ideas and reasoning in a way which is understandable.

 

[Diabolical]

Hi gents, I've been weighing this one up for a while across the first three seasons of the SCSUL and after coming up with quite a simple potential fix/adjustment in the recent months I thought I may as well put it to the group to see where anyone else sat.

ADJUSTED TRADE DEADLINE FOR 4TH CONTRACT (UNRESTRICTED) FREE AGENTS​

As very much a traditionalist when it comes to dynasty/keeper leagues, and a lover/enthusiast of building a list to compete for the ultimate prize, Premiership Glory, it somewhat breaks my heart every year when at Round 16 SCSUL we see clubs replace multiple players within their Best 22 for the final few games of the H&A season and into finals. Usually this involves trades between clubs where 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents who are in the final year of their contract are moved on to flag/finals contenders.

Now don't get me wrong, my club has absolutely without doubt has done this, you almost have needed to in order to be able to compete at the pointy end of the season.

My proposal would be that we have Two Trade Deadlines:

• Completion of SCSUL Round 9 - Deadline for Deals Involving 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents Only
• Completion of SCSUL Round 16 - As Per Normal - Excluding 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents

Under this proposal, 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents that are traded at the Round 9 Deadline would be on their new clubs list for at least half the H&A season. This just seems to sit a little bit better in my eyes from the perspective that the player becomes a touch more 'apart of the fabric' at their new club, for want of a better term, you know what I mean.

Trading would continue up until the traditional SCSUL Round 16 Deadline, for draft selections, 1st and 2nd Contract Players, as well as 3rd Contract (Restricted) Free Agents.

Additionally, the earlier deadline imposed on these 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents may slightly alter the outlook on the importance/usefulness and value of these players. At Round 9 there is still very much a long way to go in the H&A Season, with many sides still (usually/hopefully) fancying themselves to make the Finals. This may see sides slightly more inclined to hold some of their upcoming out of contract players, with an overall outcome resulting in a more even spread of strength/scoring across the competition for the back-half of the season compared to what we have at times seen across the first three years.

Alternatively, if traded, given the earlier deadline and greater availability (e.g. 9 H&A matches compared to 3 H&A matches, if traded on the deadline), the overarching perceived value of these players across the league may increase(?). Again, example, strong scoring player who is coming out of contract waltzes into new clubs best side in exchange for a (probably) unused 5th Round selection. It's something that I haven't loved the aesthetics of, and yes, my club has been involved on both sides of those sort of deals at times, which I don't like but have had to do to either stay with the competition or get some value out of the player.

As I've said, the possible refinement of the Trade Deadline was an idea that I came up with over the last few months to address something that has slightly bugged the traditionalist in me for the last few years. I think there's many positive outcomes that such a change would have, whether it be traded players become are apart of their new team a little more, trade value refinement, or strength of the competition throughout. Not withstanding an easing of the work load on @KLo30 come Trade Deadline Day as he rushes to update all the spreadsheets!

Interested to hear everyones thoughts, I hope I have at least put forward my ideas and reasoning in a way which is understandable.

Your proposal sounds fair and reasonable to me. I would vote in favour of such a change.

 

[Darkie]

Thanks Tim - this is well put, and I can see the benefits in a change.

One thing I wanted to check: could we limit it to players in the last year of their contract?

As you mentioned, it was really the free agents in their final year that got traded en masse (list below).

Selling coaches are prepared to bear salary for that final year, because they’re going to bear it anyway and get little out of it if they think they’re already out of the hunt, and buying coaches are generally happy to pay for the salary support, in order to have a crack.

Once it becomes a >1 year contract, the seller doesn’t have the “little to lose” argument, and the buyer isn’t taking a low cost swing, they’re taking on a multi-year commitment (for better or worse). I know that this is less appealing - I had some guys with 2 years left that I was open to trading to restructure my side at that time, and there was very little appetite to acquire them … even when they were better scorers and in some cases potentially even cheaper than the 1 year guys who did change hands!

Limiting the rule to players with 1 year left also satisfies your “part of the fabric” element … if anything it strengthens it significantly, since the buying coach would own them for at least 1.5 seasons 🙂

Pre-deadline free agent trades last year appear to have been based around:

Sidebottom 1 year
Keays 1 year
Hall 1 year
NicNat 1 year
Swallow 1 year
B Crouch 1 year
Ziebell 2 years (traded alongside Crouch)
D Rioli 2 years
Ceglar 1 year
J Cameron 1 year
Preuss 1 year
Hurn 1 year
Danger 1 year
C Guthrie 1 year
Boak 1 year
Cox 1 year
Lobb 1 year
Ward 1 year
Barrass 1 year

[I think I’m right in saying that the only post-MSD trade of any type not listed above is one for Tom Powell, who the rule wouldn’t apply to anyway. He also went at a pretty solid valuation for the selling coach, so this trade seems quite different to me.]

So out of 19 free agents traded late in the year, 17 were on 1 year contracts (and an 18th was paired with one of those 17).

I think we can narrow the scope of the rule to 1 year players, and achieve what you’re trying to achieve, without restricting trading more than we need to.

Does that seem reasonable?

 

[Bomber18]

Hi gents, I've been weighing this one up for a while across the first three seasons of the SCSUL and after coming up with quite a simple potential fix/adjustment in the recent months I thought I may as well put it to the group to see where anyone else sat.

ADJUSTED TRADE DEADLINE FOR 4TH CONTRACT (UNRESTRICTED) FREE AGENTS​

As very much a traditionalist when it comes to dynasty/keeper leagues, and a lover/enthusiast of building a list to compete for the ultimate prize, Premiership Glory, it somewhat breaks my heart every year when at Round 16 SCSUL we see clubs replace multiple players within their Best 22 for the final few games of the H&A season and into finals. Usually this involves trades between clubs where 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents who are in the final year of their contract are moved on to flag/finals contenders.

Now don't get me wrong, my club has absolutely without doubt has done this, you almost have needed to in order to be able to compete at the pointy end of the season.

My proposal would be that we have Two Trade Deadlines:

• Completion of SCSUL Round 9 - Deadline for Deals Involving 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents Only
• Completion of SCSUL Round 16 - As Per Normal - Excluding 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents

Under this proposal, 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents that are traded at the Round 9 Deadline would be on their new clubs list for at least half the H&A season. This just seems to sit a little bit better in my eyes from the perspective that the player becomes a touch more 'apart of the fabric' at their new club, for want of a better term, you know what I mean.

Trading would continue up until the traditional SCSUL Round 16 Deadline, for draft selections, 1st and 2nd Contract Players, as well as 3rd Contract (Restricted) Free Agents.

Additionally, the earlier deadline imposed on these 4th Contract (Unrestricted) Free Agents may slightly alter the outlook on the importance/usefulness and value of these players. At Round 9 there is still very much a long way to go in the H&A Season, with many sides still (usually/hopefully) fancying themselves to make the Finals. This may see sides slightly more inclined to hold some of their upcoming out of contract players, with an overall outcome resulting in a more even spread of strength/scoring across the competition for the back-half of the season compared to what we have at times seen across the first three years.

Alternatively, if traded, given the earlier deadline and greater availability (e.g. 9 H&A matches compared to 3 H&A matches, if traded on the deadline), the overarching perceived value of these players across the league may increase(?). Again, example, strong scoring player who is coming out of contract waltzes into new clubs best side in exchange for a (probably) unused 5th Round selection. It's something that I haven't loved the aesthetics of, and yes, my club has been involved on both sides of those sort of deals at times, which I don't like but have had to do to either stay with the competition or get some value out of the player.

As I've said, the possible refinement of the Trade Deadline was an idea that I came up with over the last few months to address something that has slightly bugged the traditionalist in me for the last few years. I think there's many positive outcomes that such a change would have, whether it be traded players become are apart of their new team a little more, trade value refinement, or strength of the competition throughout. Not withstanding an easing of the work load on @KLo30 come Trade Deadline Day as he rushes to update all the spreadsheets!

Interested to hear everyones thoughts, I hope I have at least put forward my ideas and reasoning in a way which is understandable.

Thanks Tim - this is well put, and I can see the benefits in a change.

One thing I wanted to check: could we limit it to players in the last year of their contract?

As you mentioned, it was really the free agents in their final year that got traded en masse (list below).

Selling coaches are prepared to bear salary for that final year, because they’re going to bear it anyway and get little out of it if they think they’re already out of the hunt, and buying coaches are generally happy to pay for the salary support, in order to have a crack.

Once it becomes a >1 year contract, the seller doesn’t have the “little to lose” argument, and the buyer isn’t taking a low cost swing, they’re taking on a multi-year commitment (for better or worse). I know that this is less appealing - I had some guys with 2 years left that I was open to trading to restructure my side at that time, and there was very little appetite to acquire them … even when they were better scorers and in some cases potentially even cheaper than the 1 year guys who did change hands!

Limiting the rule to players with 1 year left also satisfies your “part of the fabric” element … if anything it strengthens it significantly, since the buying coach would own them for at least 1.5 seasons 🙂

Pre-deadline free agent trades last year appear to have been based around:

Sidebottom 1 year
Keays 1 year
Hall 1 year
NicNat 1 year
Swallow 1 year
B Crouch 1 year
Ziebell 2 years (traded alongside Crouch)
D Rioli 2 years
Ceglar 1 year
J Cameron 1 year
Preuss 1 year
Hurn 1 year
Danger 1 year
C Guthrie 1 year
Boak 1 year
Cox 1 year
Lobb 1 year
Ward 1 year
Barrass 1 year

[I think I’m right in saying that the only post-MSD trade of any type not listed above is one for Tom Powell, who the rule wouldn’t apply to anyway. He also went at a pretty solid valuation for the selling coach, so this trade seems quite different to me.]

So out of 19 free agents traded late in the year, 17 were on 1 year contracts (and an 18th was paired with one of those 17).

I think we can narrow the scope of the rule to 1 year players, and achieve what you’re trying to achieve, without restricting trading more than we need to.

Does that seem reasonable?

I think this rule change is worth the discussion but I feel as currently proposed, it probably unduly restricts trading. Agree with the suggestions proposed by Darkie.

To go one further, if the concern is more bottom sides trading away draft picks for players in their final contract year, perhaps that’s what the rule change should be targetted towards? (eg from R9 onwards, bottom 2 or 3 sides cannot trade their players with one year left to a top 6-7 side?)

I would think it’s better to give teams at the top flexibility to trade amongst each other to perhaps adjust the makeup of their lists for injuries etc. The rule change I suggested might also promote more of that, which might make things more interesting!

 

[Jordan's Jets]

I like the idea in general, it has become a bit of a free for all the last couple of deadlines. I still wonder if it might be a bit too restrictive though, I’ve got a sort of halfway option.

Firstly I think it should definitely only apply to expiring players/players in the final year of their deal.

Secondly, this might get a bit complicated/hard to track, but what about each team can only acquire 1 expiring player via trade after RD9 or whatever early deadline we land on? That way we avoid most of the deadline rush but still allow some movement.

If we still feel it’s too much can always revise for the following season as well

 

[Goodie's Guns]

I think we can narrow the scope of the rule to 1 year players, and achieve what you’re trying to achieve, without restricting trading more than we need to.

Does that seem reasonable?

Yes, I think that’s a very good suggestion actually. I would definitely agree/alter the proposal so that it was only on expiring/final year players.

To go one further, if the concern is more bottom sides trading away draft picks for players in their final contract year, perhaps that’s what the rule change should be targetted towards? (eg from R9 onwards, bottom 2 or 3 sides cannot trade their players with one year left to a top 6-7 side?)

I would think it’s better to give teams at the top flexibility to trade amongst each other to perhaps adjust the makeup of their lists for injuries etc. The rule change I suggested might also promote more of that, which might make things more interesting!

I’m not quite sure I follow here, wouldn’t the proposal to start limiting what teams can trade expiring players between each other be more restrictive?

I’m definitely not against seeing expiring players being traded, as Jordy sort of alludes to as well, I think we just need to find the right balance. With Adrian’s refinement to the proposal, all we’d be doing is bringing forward the deadline on expiring players. With this happening at a point in the season where the the decision to trade out a player likely becomes a little more interesting/difficult to weigh up as there’s still half the H&A season to go, which I think will coincide with more reasonable trade values for these types of deals.

I like the idea in general, it has become a bit of a free for all the last couple of deadlines. I still wonder if it might be a bit too restrictive though, I’ve got a sort of halfway option.

Firstly I think it should definitely only apply to expiring players/players in the final year of their deal.

Secondly, this might get a bit complicated/hard to track, but what about each team can only acquire 1 expiring player via trade after RD9 or whatever early deadline we land on? That way we avoid most of the deadline rush but still allow some movement.

If we still feel it’s too much can always revise for the following season as well

It seems everyone so far is in agreement with Adrian’s suggested refinement that an earlier deadline would be only for expiring 4th Contract FAs, which I agree with and wish I’d thought of that piece of the puzzle myself when typing it up.

I don’t mind that idea, it probably isn’t too hard to monitor. Personally I’d still probably prefer that expiring players were set to an earlier deadline to ensure that they were on their clubs list for ~1/2 the season. But it’s worth considering for sure.

 

[Bomber18]

Yes, I think that’s a very good suggestion actually. I would definitely agree/alter the proposal so that it was only on expiring/final year players.



I’m not quite sure I follow here, wouldn’t the proposal to start limiting what teams can trade expiring players between each other be more restrictive?

I’m definitely not against seeing expiring players being traded, as Jordy sort of alludes to as well, I think we just need to find the right balance. With Adrian’s refinement to the proposal, all we’d be doing is bringing forward the deadline on expiring players. With this happening at a point in the season where the the decision to trade out a player likely becomes a little more interesting/difficult to weigh up as there’s still half the H&A season to go, which I think will coincide with more reasonable trade values for these types of deals.



It seems everyone so far is in agreement with Adrian’s suggested refinement that an earlier deadline would be only for expiring 4th Contract FAs, which I agree with and wish I’d thought of that piece of the puzzle myself when typing it up.

I don’t mind that idea, it probably isn’t too hard to monitor. Personally I’d still probably prefer that expiring players were set to an earlier deadline to ensure that they were on their clubs list for ~1/2 the season. But it’s worth considering for sure.

Sorry if unclear but my suggestion was somewhat similar to Jordan’s but just that rather than sides being only able to acquire 1 expiring player after R9, they just wouldn’t be able to acquire any expiring players from a botton 2-3 side (but could acquire them from a finals contention side (ie top 6-7))).

I’m happy with Jordan’s suggestion too but thought perhaps the rule change should be limited to the concern identified - there hasn’t been much trading between finals contention sides from what I recall, thought it might keep things interesting to keep that option open and unrestricted.

 

[Diabolical]

Sorry if unclear but my suggestion was somewhat similar to Jordan’s but just that rather than sides being only able to acquire 1 expiring player after R9, they just wouldn’t be able to acquire any expiring players from a botton 2-3 side (but could acquire them from a finals contention side (ie top 6-7))).

I’m happy with Jordan’s suggestion too but thought perhaps the rule change should be limited to the concern identified - there hasn’t been much trading between finals contention sides from what I recall, thought it might keep things interesting to keep that option open and unrestricted.

I am not sure that I would agree with a rule that restricts trading based on ladder position. I think any rules for trading should be equal across the board.

 

[Deeman1]

I will go with the majority on the rule change, but sort of agree with @Diabolical.

A bottom three team (maybe it's just me because I'm one) is unlikely to be in serious contention for 2-3 years (if ever). What is wrong with them trying to get a leg up on a re-build by trading a player whom is of little value in one year (the remainder of their 1 year remaining for early draft picks in future years?

I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm not going well and seems like the top teams are trying to 'protect' themselves from other top teams getting a leg up just prior to finals.

With the randomisation of the first 4-5 draft picks (not just on direct reverse ladder position). It's seems that the bottom teams are already restricted in trying to make improvements via the preseason draft.

I don't know maybe it's just me.

As I said I will go with the flow, so these are just my thoughts.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

I am not sure that I would agree with a rule that restricts trading based on ladder position. I think any rules for trading should be equal across the board.

Yeah I agree with this as well.

 

[Diabolical]

I will go with the majority on the rule change, but sort of agree with @Diabolical.

A bottom three team (maybe it's just me because I'm one) is unlikely to be in serious contention for 2-3 years (if ever). What is wrong with them trying to get a leg up on a re-build by trading a player whom is of little value in one year (the remainder of their 1 year remaining for early draft picks in future years?

I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm not going well and seems like the top teams are trying to 'protect' themselves from other top teams getting a leg up just prior to finals.

With the randomisation of the first 4-5 draft picks (not just on direct reverse ladder position). It's seems that the bottom teams are already restricted in trying to make improvements via the preseason draft.

I don't know maybe it's just me.

As I said I will go with the flow, so these are just my thoughts.

I have to admit that I have never really understood the ballot system for draft order. I know it is a common thing in American sports, but from the outside it looks to me that the only teams with anything to gain are not the lowest ranked teams. I just figured money talks and it is designed to give strong (money making) teams in professional sport a chance to stay strong and not bottom out. It probably hides behind a stop tanking guise but I have never been able to work out how it is fairer than straight reverse order.

 

[Deeman1]

I have to admit that I have never really understood the ballot system for draft order. I know it is a common thing in American sports, but from the outside it looks to me that the only teams with anything to gain are not the lowest ranked teams. I just figured money talks and it is designed to give strong (money making) teams in professional sport a chance to stay strong and not bottom out. It probably hides behind a stop tanking guise but I have never been able to work out how it is fairer than straight reverse order.

I agree, I believe the interntion of it is to restrict the temptation to 'tank'.

I have made so many bad selections/purchases my team does not need to tank to get bad results, I can get them without trying to get them, lol.

 

[Philzsay]

I'm a bit in two minds here.

On one hand I don't like the way Gun players change hands at the back end of the season from teams out of contention to those at the pointy end. It doesn't happen in AFL.

But on the other hand it was as a bottom side last year a handy way to salvage something from the year to gain a bit of draft capital.

If it does go though as a change, I do agree with Darkie's suggestion, and agree with Diabolical's point re not restricting trading due to ladder position.

 

[Bomber18]

I am not sure that I would agree with a rule that restricts trading based on ladder position. I think any rules for trading should be equal across the board.

I will go with the majority on the rule change, but sort of agree with @Diabolical.

A bottom three team (maybe it's just me because I'm one) is unlikely to be in serious contention for 2-3 years (if ever). What is wrong with them trying to get a leg up on a re-build by trading a player whom is of little value in one year (the remainder of their 1 year remaining for early draft picks in future years?

I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm not going well and seems like the top teams are trying to 'protect' themselves from other top teams getting a leg up just prior to finals.

With the randomisation of the first 4-5 draft picks (not just on direct reverse ladder position). It's seems that the bottom teams are already restricted in trying to make improvements via the preseason draft.

I don't know maybe it's just me.

As I said I will go with the flow, so these are just my thoughts.

Yeah I agree with this as well.

I’m comfortable with any rule change applying across the board too - just think the change shouldn’t go beyond what the concern is and end up restricting most types of trades.

Perhaps something along the lines of what Jordan suggested (ie only 1 expiring player can be acquired after R9) but make this apply between each club? So eg after R9, a finals contention club could acquire one expiring player from each of the bottom clubs if they wanted but couldn’t stack 2-3 expiring players from one single club.

This would also promote more trading (which I think is a good thing) and balances the trading benefits across all of the “out of contention” sides.

 

[lappinitup]

Thanks Tim - this is well put, and I can see the benefits in a change.

One thing I wanted to check: could we limit it to players in the last year of their contract?

Love the idea Tim, and agree with Darkie's amendment.

I have been on either end of this last two years, and don't like the trading of expiring contracts for virtually nothing.

 

[KLo30]

Let's finalise the proposal in regards to expiring contracts before putting this to the vote. I've slightly changed the wording to reflect the discussion. Also, there is no difference between RFA and FA for the receiving team, so there is no need to limit the rule to FA only.


TRADE DEADLINE FOR FREE AGENTS ON EXPIRING CONTRACTS
Free agent players (RFA and FA) whose contract expires at the end of the current season are eligible to be traded prior to the commencement of SCSUL Round 10. All other players are eligible to be traded prior to the commencement of SCSUL Round 16.

If coaches are happy with the wording, I'll put out to vote by the weekend.

 

[Bomber18]

Let's finalise the proposal in regards to expiring contracts before putting this to the vote. I've slightly changed the wording to reflect the discussion. Also, there is no difference between RFA and FA for the receiving team, so there is no need to limit the rule to FA only.


TRADE DEADLINE FOR FREE AGENTS ON EXPIRING CONTRACTS
Free agent players (RFA and FA) whose contract expires at the end of the current season are eligible to be traded prior to the commencement of SCSUL Round 10. All other players are eligible to be traded prior to the commencement of SCSUL Round 16.

If coaches are happy with the wording, I'll put out to vote by the weekend.

Many thanks Ken. Understand the thinking with RFAs but I’d prefer them not to be captured, as I think they are generally different types of players to the FAs (eg usually younger). I also think the RFA rights do have some value and can be valuable to rebuilding teams as well (unlike the pure expiring FA players).

Just my 2 cents though.

Edit: I’d also be happy to vote yes to the proposal if the RFA players are removed, otherwise, will need to give some more thought to it

 

[lappinitup]

Thanks Ken.

I am happy to vote Yes for current proposal, however do agree with the above. I do place some value on having the optionality around RFA's in future year.

 

[KLo30]

Once a RFA contract expires they become a free agent. Currently, they hold no more value than a FA whose contract expires.

We have flagged, when devising the rules, the concept of the team who has had the RFA player on the list from Rookie 1st contract, 2nd Contract and RFA that they would receive a "loyalty" discount (2.5-5%) if they won the bid for the player at the Free Agent Auction or PreSeason Draft.

If a team trades a RFA the receiving team will not get the right to the "loyalty" discount.

The proposal is covering the period from after the PreSeason Draft and Signing period to the commencement of Round 10 for RFA and FA expiring contracts.

 

[Bomber18]

Once a RFA contract expires they become a free agent. Currently, they hold no more value than a FA whose contract expires.

We have flagged, when devising the rules, the concept of the team who has had the RFA player on the list from Rookie 1st contract, 2nd Contract and RFA that they would receive a "loyalty" discount (2.5-5%) if they won the bid for the player at the Free Agent Auction or PreSeason Draft.

If a team trades a RFA the receiving team will not get the right to the "loyalty" discount.

The proposal is covering the period from after the PreSeason Draft and Signing period to the commencement of Round 10 for RFA and FA expiring contracts.

As I was typing my response, I now realise that I had completely misunderstood what you were suggesting and agree that this should also apply to the 3rd contract players (initially thought you were talking about 2nd contract players ie those players who had RFA matching rights).

Suspect YRA might’ve had a similar misunderstanding.

Agree that the rule should apply to both 3rd and 4th contract players (but not 1st or 2nd contract players)