I hate the idea of having an A and B team for the FCL league.. but have to admit that this is potentially the only way for us to have a proper league again...

8 players in a team (16 players per clan) with 5 v 5 matches is a possibility.

Yeah same here. Even when running the league is was very much against changing it but that was under different circumstances i guess as the number of clans was never really an issue then.

Eight on a team and a five versus five could easily work, the only issue i would see is activity especially if your relying on three subs to stay consistently active as well as the five guys that are playing.

Could always do this to make the FCL feel like a good, long league again and then make the FBL the "big" team league where the whole clan plays as one team.

Take the FBL format back to 8 v 8 with

2 x 8us
2 x 9us
2 x 8uk
2 x str

Don't know about you guys, but I dont hold much interest for a 2 fixture FCL league again. Felt way too short. Wouldn't mind a 2 fixture FBL league though.

I think it felt short as was 2 fixtures and 4 weeks = 8 weeks but normally 4 fixtures and 2 weeks = 8 weeks so same ratio but i could make a suggestion of playing each other three times instead of twice, Would make it 4 weeks longer so would be 12 weeks (3 months).

However with clans as they are i would only recommend playing twice to test the interest and new clans, then make it larger the following season.

Understand what you're saying though but league was on the verge of folding so start small and work to larger goals

Edited at 10:22 Sun 09/10/16 (BST)

A lot of people would be happy if the format stayed the same i reakon. I for one liked the 3 week format last season. It was only changed because of the need to accomodate the captains and players that couldnt get 8 games played in 3 weeks against 3 teams . Joke as far as im concerened. It could be 2 weeks if they just stopped doing what they do and just played the games allotted to them with no tactical subs.

Fixtures were 4 weeks in duration and the first 3 weeks nothing could be done to assist with completing any fixtures apart from removing a listed player which had consequences and impacted on fixtures already released

The whole 4 weeks is too long, tedious and only encourages inactivity on this great site. Then ever likely and no wonder the franticness happens with the Deadlines nearing. Panic stations are Alarmed, Captains look and see how many days their opponents players have been online and then base/make their judgement on whether to play the fixture/make effort in the Final week. It's wrong...first and foremost we should be getting all matches completed.

IF fixtures were 2 weeks in length, we could not only encourage players to play but have an equal opportunity to make subs in the second week....only if absolutely necessary. IF we can get matches played...then surely we could incorporate further fixtures and maybe have some fun along the way. (Captains Cup etc, Supreme Underdog etc)

I don't buy into that tactical subs nonsense buckjam...there was 1 team who made subs continuously throughout and because they underperformed overall imo no one battered an eyelid. You only have to look at the Subs threads to see who I'm referring about. Subs are required and should only be made....if absolutely necessary to complete all fixtures and it shouldn't matter WHO.....as they REPRESENT the same TEAM!

Yeah you can argue and say Captains shouldn't select inactive players but at the same time you can say, Captains shouldn't just base whether to complete a fixture solely upon one person from a group of players' inactivity.

We all want to list and play our best, we all want to try and win as much as possible. We all want the best possible lineup to be available and having fixtures over a 4 week period (28 days) there's nothing to stop us from assuming or expecting our 8 listed players being available some times during 28 days. (1 month nearly)

We/I could easily make more rational and sensible decisions over a 2 weekly fixture than a 4 weekly one. If a players inactive before a fixtures been released then fine...they are best to be a sub and not waste anyone's time for week one. Also they will be aware when they're expected to help their team too.

4 weeks was great at first as there was no rush but over time it's been slowly killing clans imo and only encouraged 'politics over playing'.

I don't buy into that tactical subs nonsense buckjam

I said above that this conversation should be kept amicable. The above statement is a lie. Its total bull. You have shown on many , many occasions your adversion to subbing in other players for players like legend_pot, davy or 2pac. Why? Because they are your strongest players. However, not necessarily those players, the reasons for you not subbing out or trying to sub someone out and a better player in is tactical. You are famous for it.

Now im not suggesting that you stand alone in the practise, but we cannot move forward and devise procedures to stop it and remove the biggest argument driven problem on here without people putting there hands up to doing it.

I think its the subs and swaps that need to be dealt with from the start. Take away the options for captains and there will be no more rows.

Well it can't be uprising can it, considering they will sub their best out without any hesitation, something you haven't got the balls to do yourself unless you really have 2.

You don't buy into the tactical subs nonsense, but your vice does tho doesn't he? He subbed himself out for Davy against us, that was 100% tactical and no doubt you had a say in it...

Ash

Well its the Captains fault knowing they may not have the time, You may want to play your best, everyone does but except for some Uprising and Slimeball (One Fixture) cases no one else did. I hate to keep fetching it up but you kept putting Fresh in even though he was off a minimum of 14 days each fixture, When that happens, you give opponent the ammunition to say "We will take it to default" or "You have to abide by our times". If you select Activity over Quality clans wouldn't have this problem. The blame is on the Captains who select them rather than a rule what is suppose to punish inactive clans in some way.

I agree four weeks is too relaxing and two would be better but the sub restriction has to stay to discourage putting inactives in at the start like you can on Snooker but on Snooker we sub responsibly and have none of this politics crap, We only sub if we hear of a problem but we have had issues with some clans subbing later than required.

IN Cup Final Anger are leading 12-8 in last game and trying our best to complete without subbing as we have no subs but i wouldn't want to sub Richie out as we need one frame and Carsten doesn't want to sub out Kili as hes their best remaining and a sub from either team could cost them the Cup and i understand that entirely. We had banter as Rich needs one frame and won FCL for Uprising so we had a joke about it and this is how clans should be.

Why are you? Even feeling the need to address me personally? Did I too you?

No, this is a League Discussion thread...I posted my views and how we can possibly move them forward. Please refrain from directly messaging me...it's not the Discuss Ash thread.

Your post was too long and you wrote the conversation correct? so as your post was too long, i couldn't quote so i put "Ash" in Bold instead of Quote. I was just posting my reviews on your question not attack you personally but when i post and i mention Phoenix, i guess i should have expected it.

again a genuine reply turned sour... Just saying if Captains chose Activity over Quality then clans would have no issues and in case you didn't read my post, i put Uprising and Black Scorpions in their as well.

Good Day

While we're on this subject notice you singling me out as you always do but others has posted the same views as me but you single me out, why? because i put Ash instead of a Quote?

Im afraid it becomes personal when the biggest culprit in previous seasons is yourself. I am not condoning any attack on one person at this point and would stress that these discussions need to start and remain amicable. Again though i stress the importance for honesty and taking some responsibility for previous arguments and the cause for them.Putting your hands up and saying " it wasnt me" or "i dont do that" only puts peoples backs up.
We need to remove subs from the equation. Only then can the common cause for 90% of strife be removed.

I take responsibility for my actions...I have already stated I was too hesitant to remove players I consider to be top ones and also tried to avoid making any subs which could ultimately impact other released fixtures.

Yeah I did select a few players who unfortunately did appear to have an inactive trend and that I will try to eradicate next season. I'm not perfect...I know that and my main aim is to try and complete all fixtures regardless of a players activity.

Wish others would follow that premise but they'd much rather cross the finish line with a default win than utilising their whole team.

Agreed, either that or add a Completion Bonus but Pool's always preferred Wins over Frames (nothing wrong with that but makes politics stronger).

You still need Swaps though on chance of timezones, Both Captains would have to agree to a Swap.

Second alternate is keep the current meta but can only sub early if Both Captains agree.

Either way though i feel we can't go back to how things was as Subs/Swaps would be kept reversing (usually for good reason) so need to keep the sub restriction somehow or do something to promote completing matches over the overall victory.

Frames + Completion Bonus worked well on Snooker for years however and if games went to default, Panel could decide to give a clan that bonus. Only one case in six years has a game gone to default and both got the bonus in a rare case.

Thank you Hope you understand when i posted about Fresh, it wasn't a personal attack at you or the clan (seemed like it) but by posting where people went wrong, they can acknowledge their mistakes (everyone makes them) and then learn from those mistakes and then do better in the future.

This can apply to anyone as well.

I probably make mistake of being over aggressive in forum at times when i could do it offline but do it when people make me mad. Was calm today though

Wish others would follow that premise but they'd much rather cross the finish line with a default win than utilising their whole team.

If by utilising their whole team meant that they had to sub in a player like Seb or Dvz then you would make it as difficult as possible for that sub to happen. If it was ferretlady or cabbie then your happy for the sub to go ahead at best speed. Thats what has to change. We have some awesome players on this site and they are used as pawns to win fixtures by all means possible. Its supposed to be a team game where different quality players add some spice to results.

You are not the only one to use tactical subs, i realize that. We all have to agree that although part of the game it should not prevent games from happening. And thats what causes the rows

Correct and agree, solution, kick all robots

Nah but how would you counter this? only way i can think of is Completion Bonus of 4 points (or 20 points if Frame Count).

I know this would never happen but Bonus has to be better than Maximum Points/Frames then players may drop robots to try for Bonus as 4 is better than 3 and no defaults = 4 for both teams. If a game is defaulted you take the risk of not getting the bonus then you're worse off than playing. Unless a clan was at 100% at fault then politics could be used but Clan A would have to do all the effort and Clan B literally no effort so a 15-0 basically.

^ We utilised our entire team by subbing out a player with connection issues who already had 2 unfinished fcl games to complete, and subbing in harry. At which point Alex subbed himself out and subbed Davy back in. And then there was a 2 day argument from phoenix about us being tactical rather than the game getting played which it could have on the Saturday evening. Is it any wonder games go to default.. Considering we had about 4 defaults throughout all leagues combined all season I'd say defaults weren't our goal. We wanted the games played

But I suppose "utilising the entire team" only counts when the sub is approved by phoenix as not being a high quality player.