Subject: Questions & Answers

Well a team losing 10positions in the league. Gaining 6% otr compared to me that placed 1st again, with a increase of 15%~ otr.

Who of these should get the biggest increase in sponsormoney? Now we both got about -0% change. I can buy the fact you want to even things out but this is just wierd. How can you say that this is not a change towards trading? Position 1-10 dosent matter for the increase/decrease of offer? This makes trading, relative to winning, more lucrative. I just think thats the wrong way to go.

you cannot compare your last season's contract to this one. Coefficients have changed. After this season, you will be able to do that and you will see the change in the sponsor offers.

its not problem that you have less now,problem was that you had too much before,simple as that,system was wrong from the beginning they just want to make it more fair now,no one can assure me that is ok that in season 1. one team from first league can spend 16 mil on players and build all facilities while teams from league 4. have 750k per week

Theres one english phrase about assumpition and thats what your doing, assuming a couple of things.
Those are the paramethers you see (HR, OTR, position) but your not counting that they changed the coefficients about positions where top places got decrease and low positions got increase in value thus your offer seeming the same but actualy you would get poorer deal if you didnt rise the stuff that you mentioned.
Thats also why the team that lost several places got the same offer also as he iproved also a little bit but position on table got more value than before.

Ok just use the other manager as example then. Position 1-10 just dont matter. One of us stayed at first placed and gained alot more otr, the other fell 10 positions in the league and gained less otr. Still the same deal. This just showes how imporant winning is.

Thats why I say, trading, is now in relative terms the way to go if you want money.

Don't forget that you will play in ChL and next season you'll get more OTR.

Many things have been said already, but I really think it's still important which place you end up - I'm pretty sure you're still getting more money than the other guy, right?

You are talking about the relative increase I guess. And this has been reduced due to the tweaking of the numbers. But this effect you will see just once. Next time, when you are first and have more OTR and HR, you will see the effect again. This is basically a one-timer.

What has been done is giving teams that end up lower a little bit more money and take that away from the ones on top of the tables. One can like that or not but the goal is reasonable.
What I don't get is your point that this pushes the use of trading. Some lower teams profit from this change and might in this way be less depended on trading.

"What I don't get is your point that this pushes the use of trading." No big difference ending 1st or not, therefour winning is less important.

I think you're not right with this.
First, only this season you see the relative decrease of sponsor money, because they just made the changes. So you should not judge by this seasons decrease or increase.
Second, again, I'm pretty sure that you still get much more money (in absolute numbers) than the other guy. So even now, being 1st pays of for you.
Third, the position still has influence on sponsor money, only less. So winning is still important.
And last, with winning comes OTR, and that is and remains one of the most important factors.

Bla bla bla, you complain so much because you lost some money compared to last season. SO what, next season you will get more again.
This is the season they introduced changes. SO this is point zero.

Biggest effect of this changes is reducing the difference between 1st and last team in a league. The example you are offering of the club loosing positions relative to last season is actually proof that PPM team did exactly what they announced. If they did all the same thing, but as a refference point took 1st team in the league, you would get more money, everybody else would get even more money, and you would be happy because you would see improvement relative to last season.

SO conclusion is that you are just a big baby. YOu dont listen, you dont read, you refuse to understand what others are telling you.

Baby.

Thats abouzt it.

I get alot of money anyway, but as I said lots of times before, this game is going more and more towards trading for success not winning for it.

Thats not true. Only some ppl think so.
FOr example, regardles of how much anyone thinks that game is going towards trading, I would personally never do that, in such a volume that someone can say Im trading. Sure, few players here and there, why not if I have good ones, and I dont need them etc, but not as a tactits for a game.

ANd I know lots of managers feels the same. Ofcourse, there are some that are trading now, and will trade no matter what are the rules etc, but thats their way. I enjoy playing this game, I enjoy it all the way, If I ever win I.1 in my country, and Champions league, i will turn off the club and start again with new one. I simply like the journey much more than just being at the top over and over again.

Anyway, what I am saying, trading - someone likes it but most of ppl dont like it, and will not do it, regardles if its more profitable or not.

The less people trading the better, but making it more profitable to is bad, imo.

Of course you like this change, the same way people in my county that dosent work votes for the ones giving out more money to non-workers.

Unfortunatelly I would also get more money if the rules didnt change, probably around 20% more than I did.

But I still dont dislike the change. Why? Because I know this change will make more clubs more competitive. Games will be more interesting, ppl will spend more time online, more ppl will come etc etc.

No. Dont you read and understand? You bad teams will get more money relative to better teams just to make it fun. Just read what vlady wrote about this earlier