this is getting us no where lol

not sure thats true. Most people have agreed on a reduction to 6 games per fixture already. We're mainly just talking about whether clans should be reduced to 10 players or not.

does making clan smaller going to make a dirreance because unlsess u have ur core players ur doomed how many people u say is the max i say cut a mixed game out and doo see how we goo sure things can only get better from this point even reducing players wont make new ones

You're right, in the end it probably wont make much of a difference. But the bigger clans like D&C and TD can probably get 10-12 good reliable players if they really need them. Maximizing this at 10 would be a good way to avoid starving the smaller clans out.
But most clans in the middle did not have 12 reliable players anyway, so wouldnt make much difference. It just makes sense to cut clan sizes if we bring the number of games down to 6. A clan that cant get 6 regulars together should not be a clan.

true

ok, let's start with something then.

Have we all agreed that we will be dropping the number of games down to 6 per fixture? I'd like to go with the following format:
arc
reg
orig
carom
power
mixed (2 arc/reg/orig)

The Cup gets dropped down to 5 games in a fixture, the remainder of that format staying the same. So all games will be 1 each of arc, reg, orig, carom, and power.

^If all that is ok, we have to decide whether to drop the clan sizes down to 10 or keep them at 12.
I'll leave until Tuesday night for any further discussion, then we'll do a vote (one person per active team):
D&C
Total Domination
Nocturnal Assassins
Dirty Dozen
Snooker Legends
Funkysnooker Devils
Sharpshooters
Anger Management

Keep the same clan size. Even if it reduces to 10 players the two i will remove would be the less active players i have who have been off more than 10 dayrs, which will help none of others clan. So i say better to have 12 to resist the season than 10.

Edited at 23:11 Sun 09/11/14 (GMT)

no good for us! the only way we can continue is if clan sizes go down so more players become available from the other clans cos we have too few

I like having a killer leg in the fixture but it is the one to drop. Could we have a killer cup like in pool and make it part of the overall standings but maybe on a different schedule. If the killer was off set by a week it would be easier as it would'nt coincide with getting any league games played on the final 2 days of the fixture which is always busy. I think 12 per team is ok. It isnt really going to help as Eri said if the players he releases arnt active anyway.And that would be the same for the other 3 bigger teams.

Let me say this though. Its ok having 10,12 or 16 in a team if players will join. The constant abuse Beth got for not having subs to play games got out of hand. The same can be said for Stephen. They were both doing their best to get players to play to guarantee the bigger,better teams maximum points from their fixtures. You keep all the best and reliable players.........just as well we only play for fun. Just dont come screaming and shouting when we havent got the players to play you when YOU require it. Two way street here people.

I agree, Jamie, it's much more difficult for the 'lesser' clans to deal with. I really don't want to see killer dropped but c'est la vie, killer was a great team game to play, and also gave some of us a chance to take some well needed points .. However, it became such a hassle, considering only 2 or 3 players from each clan were required it became increasingly difficult to organise a time where sufficient players of each clan were online.. Which made it more of a burden when it really oughn't have been since people are stating each clan has atleast 6 active members. Basically it came down to bad organisation and people simply couldn't be ar5ed.

i say yes to the format i did like the killer tho as it was fun for me to do as i played in nearly all of them last season but 6 games i think is more than enough as for clan size id have to stick with 12 myself just means u have 6 different players for 2 fixtures also means 6 subs even wed of have had more chance to get them played

just logged in to give my input before it closes.

i would say reduce to 10 as its not a major change but you could lower the minimum required so you dont need to have 12 but have 6 or above

10 per team doesnt go far enough, when last season teams were teams of 6/7/8 members.

The teams need to reduce further, and id vote for 8 with 5 or 6 games

Putting teams at 10, will make absolutely no difference, because players will still join 'the big team'.

Lets take TD as an example.....

adam_147 (Captain)
mattywellie (Vice)
_wales_lad_
borini_2103
brettavit01
diamond_v1
dvz
heart_beat
i_am_blessed
pirate_steve
r1p0m4n_v2
sarah

Arguably they have 10-12 players that are active. So thats 4-5 active unused players.... which 1 or 2 of those players joining another team would help them

And thats the point. You need active players. And the active players need to be spread out, and not be consigned to 2 or 3 teams.

Thats why 8 players in a team is a fair amount

10 will have no effect at all.

Lets go with a Snooker Legends example for next season

m_wood (Captain)
dbno
garethclin
horse10000
onevisit

Nobody joins... because they are making up the numbers in other teams, causing my team to fold.

Edited at 15:12 Mon 10/11/14 (GMT)

Yes i do see your point. However you must also agree that as a half decent team you will only be looking to recruit half decent players. You are within your rights to hold out for "quality" players but they are thin on the ground. This means taking on mediocre players which in turn decreases your chances of winning anything. Then the better players move on to a better team with more quality and chances to win.

You cant expect the other bigger teams to now hand over their good players to fill up your team because you won't take mediocre players.

I reakon a fair way would be to take all the players in the league. Seed them based on performance from the last 2 years. Have 3 pots and draw teams out that way. It would be a level playing field and a very much more exiting league.

It wont happen. The big three are more than happy dishing out scraps from the high table while the rest struggle

Nobody is making up the numbers in my team for example, and tbh i see no reason why they should join Legends only because u cant sign anyone atm

I disagree. Borini, matty, heart_beat, imran, wales_lad, i_am_blessed, pirate_steve were barely on last season other than for clan games. The only reason TD got all their games bar 2 frames played was because I have all my team either on facebook or whatsapp with the exception of dvz who gets his done. The difference between that and the other clans is that if one of my players is offline 6 days I know why, and I know when they are due back and I know that they know about their game. For other clans, if a player vanishes they have no idea when they are due back or if they even know there are games to be played. I know other captains like Seb put a huge amount of time into chasing up their players to make sure they are on top of games. I think some of the newer captains would be surprised just how many messages are sent to our players behind the scenes.

And the thing about the gap between the 'top' teams and the rest is irrelevant. New players come in in the smaller clans, get league experience, improve and move to 'better' clans. This is generally how leagues work. I started off scrapping for a place in the Hustlers B team, worked my way into the A team after a while and now captain a clan who have played 3 seasons and won 3 league titles and 3 cup titles. Things don't happen overnight!

I presume the point of cutting clan sizes is to try and create more teams. Why not cut clan sizes right down to a maximum of 7 which is half of the current allowance. This would double the amount of teams in one hit. Teams would be more selective in who they picked so it would probably be slightly less than double but it may force clans to not pick unreliable players.

3 games per fixture (Arc, Reg & Ori) or even 3 games of mixed. You could release double the number of games per fixture set. With 4 games per set, plenty of games to go round. Twice as much games and with the small number of frames per game, the chance of upsets is far greater than it is currently.

Might spice the league up enough that other players show an interest and might make others create teams as a group of friends for example due to the small number of players required.

Here's the problem with your scenario. It will work for maybe 2-4 weeks. People will get their games done and it will be interesting because it's new. Then a few people will realize they're on a losing team and either quit playing their games or simply leave!
Who captains the teams? I certainly do not want to make loads of effort into chasing players I don't know will be reliable or not. Will transfers be allowed? What about free agents who arent drawn at the beginning of the season because they only show up later? Right away the balance disappears.

It sounds nice on paper but is unrealistic I think.

The main point is to make sure we have solid teams that will not struggle to get games done. More teams would be a welcome side effect.
Current thinking is that if you cut it down to 6 games, clans only need 6 active players, while still keeping it at a format which people dont consider mickey mouse.

Why does it need 6 games to be classed as 'not mickey mouse'. The fewer games there are the more likely there will be upsets thus it should be more competitive. Which should mean it is far less mickey mouse than watching TD or D&C beating everyone and the rest making up the numbers as cannon fodder as per the current set up.