Theoretically, you would have to be in different clans for different leagues to be able to do that. In practice, a player wouldn't play for more than 3 clans (one for each league).


It isn't always that simple though, a lot of the time players say yes without giving a good amount of thought to things. People can be completely different in the day to day running to what they are in the recruitment process - it makes sense to be more polite and persuasive when you try to recruit someone and people can be too agreeable or unaware of other options they have.

As for the 3 options, that is a very good point - there is no right or wrong option. It's a choice made and thought very well about and would need excellent reasoning to change because the potential effects could still be drastic.

Transfer window - fewer players deactivating, higher risk of clans folding.

No window, exceptions allowed - few players deactivating, low risk of clans folding.

No window, no exceptions - more players deactivating, low risk of clan folding.

The current system is very much the compromise between the two extremes with the lowest risk. There is no perfect system, so there will always be bugbears. There has been relatively few with this system though, and even when there is a window there are exceptions to the window which has been used in the past. With a transfer window, poaching will become the new hot topic and the lesser clans will be the victims of that system. People seem to want a system which doesn't lean towards top clans until it effects their own clan.

The one month rule has been, correctly, relaxed to during the season. If a clan is seriously struggling, then an exception can be made (which Chris did utilise the option of).

Revolution have 16 players, 4 can be considered inactive/unavailable. That isn't a number they will struggle to get through sets with.

2 or 3 players moving clan against their original clans wishes is hardly causing havoc - consider how many players clans will lose to general inactivity and those 2 players are just a drop in the ocean. Each clan is likely to have 4-5 inactive players at least at some point in the season, some even go right the the bare bones of the clan. Blowing things out of proportion won't force the changes to happen.

If you look at the clans reasoning, that is just as if not more childish at times. The players involved have tried doing things reasonably at first. Can't say that a player isn't allowed to be childish but a clan can. If a player doesn't want to play for a clan, why does a clan need to try and restrict a player. The mentality is if they won't play for us they shouldn't play for anyone and we'll do our best to minimise the games they get.

Chris used this same system, fairly certain he wouldn't have acted any differently and you have no basis for saying otherwise.

It would depend entirely on the circumstances of the individual situation, there is no way of getting around that.

It's not playing god, it's using some common sense and not bowing down to whoever kicks off the most. It is about making the most reasonable decision.

Where exactly is the discrimination, which group is being victimised?

If the only thing different was that it was a UB player going to BS, then it would've been the exact same. UB have less active players than BS, so if they'd dropped down a player or two more then a move might've been blocked but the same goes for if BS had a couple more inactive players. The actual clan doesn't matter and makes no difference, clan numbers may have an impact though and whether an agreement can be made between the player and the current clan - so being reasonable often makes all the difference. Where a move is blocked, often the captain acts unreasonable - so the player simply doesn't play for them anymore and what good does that do anyone?

He isn't trying to keep a team afloat, he is allowing a situation where a clan may keep numbers up - he isn't doing the chasing up. A responsibility of a runner is to minimise clans folding, because a clan folding takes the shine off a season for everyone.

Poaching will always exist in some form, that is just the nature of clans. It is a captains job to recruit players and keep players. To be fair, no player agrees to commit to a clan for the entire season. They are approached to join a clan, a specified length of time has never been given (in my experience at least). A player joins until he is no longer happy at a clan or able to play, if that happens mid-season then it is not breaking any contract or agreement for a player to leave. I'm not tied in to Uprising, i've not committed to them for the season. Same as every player.

Obviously Black Scorpions are being victimised... We may not be as bad as UB but we are struggling for players and activity too. To prioritise UB over BS just shows a clear bias from the league runner - at the end of the day - league runners shouldnt intervene unless absolutely necessary and this was not one of those cases.

The player in question was being played in MOST games, despite him being apparently "mistreated and unhappy", and then asked huts and hoolahan to take him out of the games because he didnt want to play due to huts not wanting to - rightly - let him go until they had found a replacement. This "spitting the dummy out of the pram" and consquential threatening to deactivate anyway, has then had a reaction from horse who has decided to play god and decide which clan he would prefer to support and help stay afloat.

Zante your always posting replies on subjects that a league runner needs to reply too , meaning keith . You can have your say but i wish u would allow the actual league runner himself to address isues as hes the only person who can change things .

That statement just defies all rules. If we go off this statement does that mean a player can literally change clans whenever he feels like it, no release from the captains necessary?

Pretty sure this isn't written in the league rules.

there is so much debate here, regardless of the wrongs or rights

A transfer window looks to be the solution
so why not just put it a vote for next season

That is not the silly problem, it is an effect of the problem which is a player being held prisoner and a lack of reasonability between players and captains. It is not a major problem at all, it is melodramatic to say so. Where are the issues now with the mirr occurence of this? they're now non existential.

It is the common sense rule that time and again you ignore and suggest that rules are broken when it is written in the rules that there are exceptions. Fairness works both ways, we have to be fair to the player as well as the clans.

The transfer window idea is just not thought through at all. You don't want players to move clans because it unfair to them, so you want to implement a window to give clans no say in the matter and allow players to be able to move without a restriction and allowing clans to be picked apart.

There is childish behaviour on both sides, players not accepting a restriction and captains being unreasonably restrictive and authoritarian because a player no longer wishes to play for them.

A vote rarely works in clans. Last time a vote was offered, the runner ended up being criticised for making changes even though they were all majority decisions.

no need for a vote, regardless of the result, keith has chosen not to put it in. I much prefer the 'one free pass' per player where they can move without restriction. Then they are tied to that clan unless the player and captains reach a mutual choice to release.

Huts - Zante is posting from a Runner POV, Its nothing that Keith would say already.

The way you talked to Keith (if true) was unacceptable regardless of decisions made. I feel your pain that members shouldn't jump during seasons but if theirs justifiable reasons then maybe its best to let them go. They could easily be replaced and you and the other clan would be a member up not a member down.

Personally i disagree that you should move during the season but if players from a clan i ran wanted to go then i would let them. I don't have that problem though because players are loyal.

In fact on Snooker, i have had roughly the same team for many seasons and only need to sign one or two players per season but we try not to poach robots or class from other clans as we want a competitive season.

Sites are going downhill, On Snooker we barely got the season going due to numbers and on Pool arguing over who is moving where. What happened to the active and loyal site i used to love

When has a player been blocked from joining BS? that would be discrimination. If the roles were reversed the outcome would be the same so there is no discrimination. The 2 options are allow a player to leave BS and join UB, or the player leaves BS. The league runner tried to convince the player to stay at BS, and it was made clear that because of the captain's poor attitude towards the player meant he was no longer playing for BS. The player left of his own accord, the league runner didn't allow that because he has no say in the matter. It's either give one clan a hand, or give none. The reasonable thing is to give one clan a hand.

As klien said above keith shouldnt be playing god and getting involved with clans that are not his concern . The problem here is keith is allowing players to sod off when they like to other clans and giving no time for replacements/ cover especially if your low on numbers already.

I told keith that people will lose interest if this continues down this path as its making clans NOT fun .

Unfortunately I work all day so have limited access apart from on my phone, thanks zante for responding to the queries, I couldn't have answered them any better myself.

I'm part of the team, and if I have the time to give an answer then what is the problem? If Keith disagrees with what I say, he will say so when he has the time. I'm not preventing him from posting here, and any decision he makes he is likely to have discussed with his team.

A debate can cut right through things, and makes it easier for a runner to decide and remain impartial.

If that statement defies all rules, then are you saying that people who do not play out the entire season for a clan are breaking some sort of league rule?

I never said it was a league rule, can you point out to me where I said that please?

It is referring to clans in general, as an entity independent from the leagues. A player can join every clan concurrently if he so chooses to, it isn't against site rules. It wouldn't stand in the leagues, but as a principle it demonstrates what a player actually agrees to. They do not contractually commit to a clan for a season. You cannot retrospectively say that a player has committed to a clan for a season and shouldn't be allowed to move because of their commitment.

Those players are "sodding off" anyway, nothing to do with any runner influence. That is the real issue you have.

How have you not had time to get a replacement? You don't have a full clan, so if you were in any danger then surely you would recruit more players before you reach that point where one lost player has such a huge impact? You could lose a player at any time through other causes, so why are you not already adding to the clan if you are already low on numbers?

It's not Keith's fault that you're low on players. Go out and recruit them. You only need to take a look at Ash, he's had a few players leave or go awol (emma, lfc, etc) and he's gone about and found replacements.
Legend Killers folded not so long ago, so you could always ask some of their reliable old players to join you or ask people on the game server.

If a player wanted to leave a clan, I think the all the other captains would say fine and good luck...but you've made it awkward for two people from yours to leave.

I think, as I've said before and James as mentioned above, that the 'free transfer card' would probably be the better solution instead of a transfer window. When Topguns were about, they had 4 or 5 players leave for other teams and when that happens, it's very hard for a team to carry on. If a player is going to move using the transfer card, though, they should be made to complete the games they still have left to play.

Yeah if the card comes in place maybe some protection for the clan they are leaving? (e.g. no more than two players from same clan can use their cards each set).

I wouldn't have thought we'd need any protection, the majority of players will stick with their clans if they're happy there. If they're not, they'll move. But if a load of people from one clan are moving because they're unhappy, then the captain needs to take a look at themselves as to why.

I think the only rule needed in place if this were to happen is that they make it known a few days before the next fixture set comes out and that they complete any outstanding games they're in.

. The transfer window idea is just not thought through at all. You don't want players to move clans because it unfair to them, so you want to implement a window to give clans no say in the matter and allow players to be able to move without a restriction and allowing clans to be picked apart.

With the current situation the clans can be picked apart anyway. As long as a team is short of players its ok to "knock up" a player from another team and enroll his services if he demands to be released from his current team. We have no say in that and by the sound of it never will.

As for not being tied to one team. I thought that was what a commitment was. When i ask someone to play for us i expect it to be for the season. Not till they feel like sodding off. Thats what a commitment is in my book.