Probably not as most teams will lost their inactive ones so not really a team you would want anyway

I would like the number of games reduced as well to 6 instead of 8 for FCL and teams of 12 rather than 14. I know this is far too radical for most though

12 is a bit extreme I would say mate, we should try 14 then see how we get on there then if 12 is still sought then maybe try it?

Just think 16 -12 is a little too drastic in 1 move.

drop clans to 10..

10 solid players...reliable too.

then im sure there will be a bigger league..full of reliable teams.

like it or not..just a suggestion

thinkt it should remain at 16 players, especially to help clans who dont have many reliable players.
And i dont think there would be many more clans if the number drops to 12 or 10 players, the problem isnt finding players, its finding captains

I don't think finding Captains is an issue at all as everyone believes they are capable to be one. I think the issue is players would like the title but not the actual responsibility. It's not difficult to co-ordinate anything as long as you keep your focus and stick to your goals.

Having reliable players is fundamental to a successful team and you don't need to be categorized as that just through winning trophies.

Players are easy to sign up, remembering that players join voluntarily and don't appreciate people barking orders at them will only encourage them to disappear, not be reliable, in a way rebel.

So I completely disagree with the comment 'Captains are hard to find', absolute nonsense. Finding dedicated ones is the issue.

i think 14 a good idea and worth a try

I think cutting clan sizes is rewarding failure, but 14 wouldn't be such a hammer blow.

I actually think to an extent that having larger clan sizes is rewarding some who don't like a bit of competition or don't like losing. Only some I might add.

Having 16 players does not help lesser clans either as they still end up with the most defaults. Either they have 16 and many are unreliable or they cant get near 16 because some players dont want to play for such clans whilst others would rather be associated with better ones even if they aren't getting many games. Its the nature of the clan world.

In reality the only clans it does help are the better clans.

But the "better" clans became the better clans in this format. Maybe not Pro's, but ourselves, UB's and Phoenix started out at the bottom. Starting with a team of free agents and clan noobs and working our way to the top kind of justifies the time and effort involved in doing so. Any clan can do it. Doesn't cutting numbers to give players to the "lesser" clans reward the people that have put in less time and effort to build their teams?

can u tell whose a reliable player when u sign them some times players just go awol for no reason i tell them if ur offline let me know and well keep ur place open not a lot to ask and give them a week to come online if they havent let me know there gonna be offline or i get rid of them

i think cutting clan sies will give more defaults as if players go offline uve got less subs

Some times it's the same few players though: inactives who say they'll get on more now and don't, clan hoppers who need 2 or 3 moves to settle and the serial deactivators/players who get banned/fake newbies who get bored very quickly.

That is a fair enough approach cke, but some times real life gets in the way and can make getting on to say you won't be available is impossible.

i can understand that but how else do u keep a reliable clan if u keep guys in clan offline for 14 days etc with out contact

Having less players and by now, should really be apparent who is reliable and who isn't would benefit teams and reduce defaults. The Captains will have that little bit of added confidence in ALL their players with completing all matches by a set deadline. IF players prove to be unreliable then its down to their Captain to act accordingly, maybe a 2 strikes you're out rule.

Not only does it waste own teams time but oppositions too, players join teams voluntarily and that's where some teams lose their players through barking and demanding things from them. I try to be one step ahead of any possible eventuality, in other words have subs pre arranged when fixtures come out.

Biggest problem at the moment is new accounts being made so to decipher the reliable ones is tricky but their identities are soon obvious or revealed.

Having less players and by now, should really be apparent who is reliable and who isn't would benefit teams and reduce defaults. The Captains will have that little bit of added confidence in ALL their players with completing all matches by a set deadline. IF players prove to be unreliable then its down to their Captain to act accordingly, maybe a 2 strikes you're out rule.

Not only does it waste own teams time but oppositions too, players join teams voluntarily and that's where some teams lose their players through barking and demanding things from them. I try to be one step ahead of any possible eventuality, in other words have subs pre arranged when fixtures come out.

Biggest problem at the moment is new accounts being made so to decipher the reliable ones is tricky but their identities are soon obvious or revealed.

ok if players stay but when they leave how do u know new signings are reliable and will not go awol for weeks on end no way to know u have to give them a chance

^^^ I was reading the first bit of that, and was like, this does not sound like cke!!!

Then I realised he had just replied to Ash's post, without using the reply button lol

had to take the quote out lol

when will there be clarification on the number of players in a clan ?

When it has been discussed and decided

likes