While I'm here: Not sure about this. For example, coolwater and snookerkidda ran a successful clan for 2 seasons despite not having any experience beforehand (I think). I would say they can try, since they have to make it through the preseason friendlies anyway.

yeah i know, im still 50-50 on it thats why i put it up for discussion, considering negativity already its safe to say its a bad idea

Straight knockout, so much easier as there is just 1 game and winner/loser. Groups would complicate it so much as there will likely be a couple outstanding games that have affects on the top placings.

coolwater had been in clans for ages before that but snookerkidda hadn't i think

yeah he was in goodfellas.

oh right, i meant he hadnt captained a clan before, although it was before my time anyway.

i think the month rule should only apply when season starts, as its pre season friendly it generally means before the league actually begins

another point, do we need the 1 month rule during transfer window or not?

how long do seasons usually last?

couple of months.

this time if all clans stay in...

League - 5 games = 3 fixtures = 6 weeks
Cup - 3 fixtures = 6 weeks
transfer window = 1 week

so roughly 13 weeks for whole thing but maybe 12 or less if final clan fixture and cup final is being merged.

The one month rule only applies once the season has started. The season starts with the first fixture (I thought I had put something else somewhere in the rules but couldn't find it now, so let me know if you see something different). This would mean that 1-month rule applies during the transfer window as well.

for pre season friendlies do you think that 9 games completed should be a shaky pass or maybe declined at league runners discretion.

12 or above completed should be a pass but obviously all clans need to go to default staff discussion even if you completed all games.

seb?

9 games is low james, only 1 weeks worth of games.

id say more like 12+ , if they cant get that many done with subs theres something wrong, especially when they know they need that amount to get in!

edit: some clans only have 9 games tho dont they, i.e one fixture?<i cba to look lol

nah everyone has 2, ah yeah forgot it was 18 yeah 12 seems right.

12 seems ok, although we should really look at who is at fault for not getting the games done. If players from certain clans make a lot of effort (and would get games done against others), that should be ok. 12 is a fair number though I think

between 9-11 it will have to be reviewed i think

Regarding discussion about the disconnection rule (from results thread). I've added a bit to the rule to cover more scenarios. I haven't changed the substance of the rule (which has been in place for the last 2 seasons). It now reads:

"14.
a) If a player leaves during a frame (unless due to clear unintentional internet problems), the frame will be awarded to the opponent (opponent's discretion- the opponent may decide whether to claim the frame, award it to the disconnected player, or replay it).
b) If the disconnected player had effectively won the frame at the time of disconnection (ex. opponent needed snookers), he will be awarded the frame. Clan league runners will only intervene in case of clear unintentional disconnection or to award the frame to the disconnected player."

Suggestions?

seems fine.

should we count breaks in these friendlies or not, what i mean is for highest break table (not bonus league as season's not started yet).

No, everything is counted once the season starts.

Is b) really needed? I think it could cause more arguments than it solves (you know the sort of thing ... "but I could have got the snookers needed!" etc.). I know a failed connection (especially when you are winning) is a pain but we all know that there will be people who will abuse it (i.e. get a lead and disconnect 'unintentionally' so as to eliminate the possibility of a comeback).

In addition the 'clear unintentional internet problems' must only relate the situation where a huge number have been logged out (as has happened in the past), in which case the fairest solution would be to void the frame and have a rematch.

I see what you're saying, but I think once a player has a lead where the other person needs snookers, he will not disconnect on purpose. I just want to completely eliminate the possibility of a 125-0 lead being replayed because of disconnection. In some cases where snookers are needed (and would possibly be achieved), the result will be the same. This is a sacrifice in the rules I was willing to make to avoid the scenario I described before.

With that phrasing I meant to describe any disconnection where the player (most likely) didn't do it on purpose. For example, if the score is 1-0, a player that disconnects is probably not doing it on purpose.

Phrasing may need some work.