vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
I just don't think "games" is an appropriate currency, TBH.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Contract System?
- Thread starter Mr Mxyzptlk
- Start date
Hoggy31
Well-known member
Yeah, at 50 FC wickets you should reach level C, at 150 level B, etc.
FaaipDeOiad
Well-known member
I should add, the whole idea of the rankings is that they are based around contract negotiations. A player can request to be, say, a B, but they won't necessarily get it, particularly in a stronger team or one with more long-term players. If they get an offer for a B position and the seniority and expectation of more first team matches at another club, that's their incentive to move.
And of course, you'd expect that A and B ranked players wouldn't move that often and would probably be signed to longer deals. That'd be entirely up to the players in question though.
And of course, you'd expect that A and B ranked players wouldn't move that often and would probably be signed to longer deals. That'd be entirely up to the players in question though.
FaaipDeOiad
Well-known member
It's a sim. The whole process effectively means nothing. Unless we institute wages (bad idea IMO), the contract rankings are just a symbolic system by which players can judge their own significance in a team and negotiate for contracts.
And of course, they should reflect the value to the team and the number of games played. You wouldn't expect a player with an A level contract to be sitting out half the matches in a season. I just don't think it should be a concrete system where X player must play X games, because it would interfere too much with selection.
Loony BoB
Well-known member
Maybe I'll draw up something with a training/coaching/nets system involved where the longer you stay with a team, the more coachins sessions you can get (and therefore the faster your simming stats can improve)... or something.
I just don't see the point of establishing contracts without a purpose. I thought the point of this entire thing was to establish incentives in order to stop people from constantly changing teams. I just don't see how a ranking system would allow for that. If anything, it might cause people to switch sides more often!
Another random idea would be to degrade someone's form when they moved teams, showing that they have to get used to playing with their new side - a "gelling period" if you like. Either that or have them sit out a certain amount of games regardless of when their contract is up should they change sides.
I just don't see the point of establishing contracts without a purpose. I thought the point of this entire thing was to establish incentives in order to stop people from constantly changing teams. I just don't see how a ranking system would allow for that. If anything, it might cause people to switch sides more often!
Another random idea would be to degrade someone's form when they moved teams, showing that they have to get used to playing with their new side - a "gelling period" if you like. Either that or have them sit out a certain amount of games regardless of when their contract is up should they change sides.
FaaipDeOiad
Well-known member
I don't see that as the purpose of contracts at all. People can change teams every season if they want. The purpose of contracts is to make the system make sense. Captains will have some idea when a player is coming out of contract and might leave, and can work to keep players at the team, and players will have more control over their own future and more of a meaningful connection to a particular club. It's just to add another layer of realism to the sim, not to stop people from doing anything in particular.
Obviously it will stop people from suddenly leaving a club without any notice and leaving the team in the lurch (eg CW Black after last season), but that's it.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Well-known member
Aside from, as you said, making sense, the purpose of contracts is to ensure that half the team doesn't leave for a new club at the end of each season. A musical chairs situation such as that takes away from the realism of the sim and also isn't fair on a given team.
FaaipDeOiad
Well-known member
Right, but not to stop individual players from leaving each season. Presumably with a contract system a captain could sign a fair chunk of their squad on multiple season deals and be assured of keeping a reasonable number of players as steady squad members for a while.
Loony BoB
Well-known member
See, that's the thing. I don't see anywhere in anyone's system but the one I've proposed that would stop this happening. Everyone has said "...but of course if a player wants to leave then he can."
If the intention of contracts is to do absolutely nothing but formalise everything, then I don't see the point of ranks - we should instead just have contracts that mean you are unable to leave during that contract - effectively formalising what we have right now. The ranks wouldn't make a difference at all.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Well-known member
That's the main point. To allow a captain to keep the majority of his (or her?) squad intact at the end of a season. It makes things a whole lot easier for all involved.
Loony BoB
Well-known member
Another proposal, this time incorporating ranks, but with a specific relevance.
'A' Players - In a squad, the most played six players in a season must see out the rest of their contract. If they do not have any more seasons left on their contract, they must leave for a longer contract or sign a new contract with their existing side.
'B' Players - The next most played six players in a season must see out the rest of their contract. If they do not have any more seasons left on their contract, they can leave for any other contract or sign a new contract with their existing side.
'C' Players - The rest of a squad's players can leave at the end of the season regardless of how many games they have played or how long their contract goes on for.
This allows for people who are rarely played to look for new contracts where they feel they must be played. It also means the "big guns" of the league should not be moving every single season. For example...
If a player plays 32 matches a year and is contracted to stay with the side, they would have no choice but to stay on for the next season. I doubt many people would have a gripe with this.
If a player plays 32 matches a year and is not contracted to stay with the side for the next season, they could...
1) Look to find a longer contract than the one they just completed at any club.
2) Sign on for one more season so they can then (once their single-season contract is up) look to sign on to any other club for a shorter length of time.
3) Sign on for more than one season with their existing club should they wish to stay.
If a player plays, say, 18 matches a year and is contracted to stay with the side for the next season, they would likely be a 'B' player. They would have to remain on contract with their existing side.
If a player plays, say, 18 matches a year and is not contracted to stay with the side for the next season, they would likely be a 'B' player. They could...
1) Look to find a new contract of any length at another club.
2) Sign on for more than one season with their existing club should they wish to stay.
If a player plays, say, 10 matches a year and is contracted to stay with the side for the next season, they would likely be a 'C' player. They would be entitled to a 'get out clause allowing them to sign with a new team at the end of the season, regardless of how many seasons they are still contracted to play for.
If a player wishes to break contract with their club, they would be forced to sit out a certain amount of matches, and would not be able to pay against the club they broke contract with for the remainder of the season.
This way 'big gun' players will be forced to sign longer contracts than most, while players who struggle for gametime (eg. Gooljar) would have an easier time moving to a side where they feel they might get more games, which I think is only fair. Also, if a 'big gun' did leave a side, hopefully their new teams would have a much better idea of how long they would be signing them for. A player who finishes a one-season contract as an 'A' player and wishes to move on would be forced to sign their new contract with another side for at least two seasons.
It would need a bit of touching up, but this will allow for the ranks that Fuller is going after with a bit more purpose as to how it would affect a contract.
Obviously, this would have little affect on selections, which I think was Fuller's main problem with my previous proposal.
'A' Players - In a squad, the most played six players in a season must see out the rest of their contract. If they do not have any more seasons left on their contract, they must leave for a longer contract or sign a new contract with their existing side.
'B' Players - The next most played six players in a season must see out the rest of their contract. If they do not have any more seasons left on their contract, they can leave for any other contract or sign a new contract with their existing side.
'C' Players - The rest of a squad's players can leave at the end of the season regardless of how many games they have played or how long their contract goes on for.
This allows for people who are rarely played to look for new contracts where they feel they must be played. It also means the "big guns" of the league should not be moving every single season. For example...
If a player plays 32 matches a year and is contracted to stay with the side, they would have no choice but to stay on for the next season. I doubt many people would have a gripe with this.
If a player plays 32 matches a year and is not contracted to stay with the side for the next season, they could...
1) Look to find a longer contract than the one they just completed at any club.
2) Sign on for one more season so they can then (once their single-season contract is up) look to sign on to any other club for a shorter length of time.
3) Sign on for more than one season with their existing club should they wish to stay.
If a player plays, say, 18 matches a year and is contracted to stay with the side for the next season, they would likely be a 'B' player. They would have to remain on contract with their existing side.
If a player plays, say, 18 matches a year and is not contracted to stay with the side for the next season, they would likely be a 'B' player. They could...
1) Look to find a new contract of any length at another club.
2) Sign on for more than one season with their existing club should they wish to stay.
If a player plays, say, 10 matches a year and is contracted to stay with the side for the next season, they would likely be a 'C' player. They would be entitled to a 'get out clause allowing them to sign with a new team at the end of the season, regardless of how many seasons they are still contracted to play for.
If a player wishes to break contract with their club, they would be forced to sit out a certain amount of matches, and would not be able to pay against the club they broke contract with for the remainder of the season.
This way 'big gun' players will be forced to sign longer contracts than most, while players who struggle for gametime (eg. Gooljar) would have an easier time moving to a side where they feel they might get more games, which I think is only fair. Also, if a 'big gun' did leave a side, hopefully their new teams would have a much better idea of how long they would be signing them for. A player who finishes a one-season contract as an 'A' player and wishes to move on would be forced to sign their new contract with another side for at least two seasons.
It would need a bit of touching up, but this will allow for the ranks that Fuller is going after with a bit more purpose as to how it would affect a contract.
Obviously, this would have little affect on selections, which I think was Fuller's main problem with my previous proposal.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
I like Fuller's proposal really. It's simple, and IMO, effective.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
I'm pretty sure plenty of players would commit for longer amounts of time.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
You can commit with the understanding of a certain amount of playing time. If that doesn't happen, you can be freed from your contract.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
I don't think we'd be ridiculously strict as captains. I know that at least I would allow someone out of their contract if they specifically requested it due to little or no game time.
I just think you're making things much too complicated in each of your proposals. I think something simple, yet somewhat effective is more in the spirit of the Dev League than something so ridiculously complicated it takes away from the fun of the Captains and Vice-Captains.
I just think you're making things much too complicated in each of your proposals. I think something simple, yet somewhat effective is more in the spirit of the Dev League than something so ridiculously complicated it takes away from the fun of the Captains and Vice-Captains.
new_age_ar
Well-known member
Can't see contracts working TBH, also i don't really see the need for them. What is so bad about players moving from club to club.