Select a country: |
![]() |
USA |
I'd like to see markets that are not so "open". I think the market should be open only for one week a season for all the bidding to take place. In addition, one team can only purchase up to 3 players per season. This way, even if one team shells out 1 billion for a player, there will still be other good players out there available to teams that are not as rich. Pair that up with the OTR idea above and you get a way to take money out of the game.
And again it will work in top teams advantage. They will still get all the cherry on top of the cake, and prices will sky rocket again.
Yes, but unlike now when they buy everybody, there will still be players available for the rest of us. If you pair that up with the OTR drops mentioned on the last post of the previous page, then you got a fairly consistent way to take money away from top teams and yet allow them to enjoy for some time the fruit of their success.
That might inflate the action during a "transfer/market" window though....I think it is a good idea, but it would worry me to see a short period of time where every active manager is focused on every quality player. At least some of us lower managers can steal some players late at night or something, etc. Some of my best market pickups were for $10k at awkward US times...Just saying.
It's definitely tough when you think of how many managers there are in Europe. I guess we're damned either way. heh.
What if they put the number of players allowed under contract before the penalty takes effect onto a scale. League I in each country only gets 25 players, League II gets 30, League III gets 35 and so on. They could also increase the penalty for having too many players to 20% of the combined salaries.
that's a really good idea mmessner. IMO they should also increase the penalty scale so as to limit business of the player brokers.
None of this really matters tho. They aren't going to change the system based on the postulations we have here.
None of this really matters tho. They aren't going to change the system based on the postulations we have here.
Why not create another league where lets say the top 5% play instead of the regular leagues. If all the best international teams are beating up o n eachother all season incomes shpuld go down aswhen teams finnish in the bottom part of the rankings
To create a balanced game that have a bit more turnover at the top you need a jojo-effect in economy. Since facilities are fixed costs, and very unlikely to back down that is not s good regulator candidate. instead the only option I see is player (perhaps also staff) salaries. By having a steeper scale a team in top would have to selectively choose which players to keep when salaries rise. Or run with a low salary team for a while so that it can later run with more expensive players at an unsustainable salary level for a few seasons while aiming for the top spot!
This would also be a possible regulator for the transfer market. if a super player fetch way too high salary their price or worth would go down. One can argue that good young trainees would rise in price, but then up and coming teams could go for the "overtrained" players cheaper. This would allow several strategies to the top. currently I see only one way to top with the best players that have too low salaries, so no other alternative strategies exist, and thus no teams can catch up. and there is no mechanism or teams in the top to run down in economy such that they might be forced to take a breather and rebuild their team/roster.
Either that or put in other mechanisms that allow fully alternative strategies to the top. right now the strategies are extremely fixed. 1 other radical change is to only allow 1 type of training at a time. thus only goalie or only passing etc. team then have to buy in other positions or plan longterm to create a balanced competitive team. I might prefer this idea, it would also allow for more players out of proportions and raise their salaries way above their team worth allowing sinks that can create more turnover in teams if they are not managed well.
This would also be a possible regulator for the transfer market. if a super player fetch way too high salary their price or worth would go down. One can argue that good young trainees would rise in price, but then up and coming teams could go for the "overtrained" players cheaper. This would allow several strategies to the top. currently I see only one way to top with the best players that have too low salaries, so no other alternative strategies exist, and thus no teams can catch up. and there is no mechanism or teams in the top to run down in economy such that they might be forced to take a breather and rebuild their team/roster.
Either that or put in other mechanisms that allow fully alternative strategies to the top. right now the strategies are extremely fixed. 1 other radical change is to only allow 1 type of training at a time. thus only goalie or only passing etc. team then have to buy in other positions or plan longterm to create a balanced competitive team. I might prefer this idea, it would also allow for more players out of proportions and raise their salaries way above their team worth allowing sinks that can create more turnover in teams if they are not managed well.
What!?!? But you just sold all of those studs for a billion. And you only listed him for 100M?
That's going to be weird seeing you Buckley-less. Is Zakopal the new goalie? *adds to scouting*
That's going to be weird seeing you Buckley-less. Is Zakopal the new goalie? *adds to scouting*
Glad to see you still here. I slipped in the backdoor and made it up to here by beating a defunct team.
Your favorite threads
Newest posts