Buying from unmanaged clubs rule review

tonic wine

As the boards.ie GW is getting closer to the end of the season, how do people think the rule change has gone not been able to buy from unmanaged teams?

Has it attracted managers to come in and take over with a vacant team where someone else left off?

Or has it prevented smaller teams from been able to compete with big clubs to sign quality rated players for cash? leaving the new manager not been able to build or progress from the position they took over and getting bored and packing it in.

IMO, managers only want to part exchange any players >=90 as it too hard to try and replace these players for cash. Therefore leaving it impossible for smaller clubs the get these players. At the end of the day, its been in a position to sign quality players that makes the game exciting. It's the transfer market and signing players that most people enjoy.

Been able to sign players for cash from unmanaged clubs made it a level playing field for all clubs to sign these players, giving smaller clubs the opertunity to sign 90 rated players.

Been only able to offer px deals for the top players is just keeping the big clubs swapping and changing between themselves because let's be honest, no one wants to swap two 88's, or sometimes two 89's for a 90 rated player. Smaller clubs don't have these players at their disposal and will find it impossible to sign the best players without the option to sign them for cash from unmanaged clubs.

The other side of the coin is, the unmanaged club will get all its best players taken, but it leaves the club with a big bank balance to replace these players with the cash when the next unmanaged club becomes available.

Without this option, all I can see is managers taken over the smaller clubs, finding it impossible to sign any decent players and leaving again.

The Governor

Cash has a value without buying from unmanaged clubs

Have to agree with you, haven't seen any benefit so far. Actually remember one or two newbies complaining they found it hard to get players. When I joined I bought most of my Basel players from unmanaged, if I couldn't I'd have hardly stayed.

Even now with more experience under my belt its hard to get a good player, you need to be able to swap a couple 89's for a 90 or maybe some young prospects, this is detrimental to smaller teams as number one they can't afford to be losing players and two they haven't much cash to buy prospects to trade.

And I'm sorry but this there's plenty of 88's at externals is rubbish. Take a look and 90% of them are old and most likely due a drop in ratings, buying a couple of thse is not gonna help you compete to bring in better players.

Btw is the poll supposed to be multiple choice as I did that?

The Governor

Cash has a value without buying from unmanaged clubs

tonic wine wrote: »

The other side of the coin is, the unmanaged club will get all its best players taken, but it leaves the club with a big bank balance to replace these players with the cash when the next unmanaged club becomes available.

Just to add on this point. I took over FC Basel and they had a hefty bank balance from selling players. Their highest rated player was 86. Within a few weeks, they had 2 89's and 8 88's plus a bunch of 87's

The 89's and most 88's were bought from unmanaged clubs.That FC Basel squad is currently in a playoff position in div 4. So if a club like that can be turned around with buying from unmanged allowed, any can.

tupac_healy

The rule change benefits all clubs in the transfer market

The Governor wrote: »

Have to agree with you, haven't seen any benefit so far. Actually remember one or two newbies complaining they found it hard to get players. When I joined I bought most of my Basel players from unmanaged, if I couldn't I'd have hardly stayed.

Even now with more experience under my belt its hard to get a good player, you need to be able to swap a couple 89's for a 90 or maybe some young prospects, this is detrimental to smaller teams as number one they can't afford to be losing players and two they haven't much cash to buy prospects to trade.

And I'm sorry but this there's plenty of 88's at externals is rubbish. Take a look and 90% of them are old and most likely due a drop in ratings, buying a couple of thse is not gonna help you compete to bring in better players.

Btw is the poll supposed to be multiple choice as I did that?

I did say almost exactly that word for word when the talk of introducing this first surfaced... How anyone could see anything else OTHER than this is beyond me but hey...



At the end of the day, it harms the market and benifits big clubs, always has... Always will.....

tonic wine

The rule change benefits all clubs in the transfer market

The Governor wrote: »

Have to agree with you, haven't seen any benefit so far.

Btw is the poll supposed to be multiple choice as I did that?

Yes, it's multiple choice. If you agree, you forgot to vote to change back the rule for next season :pac:

And I like you would never had a hope in hell in getting Kyiv promoted to the first division and challenging for a top 4 finish without been able to buy from unmanaged clubs. It's the only way smaller teams can have any chance of getting quality players IMO.

ctrl-alt-delete

Change it back for next season

The thing for me is that it would not take long for the unmanaged clubs stock of higher rated players or talented youngsters to be depleted if we choose to open that flood gate.

That leaves the unmanaged club with cash that they will spend trying to buy back any real life players at the club that they can, a feature built into the game.

That then leaves them with less money and then depending on the time period, they will find themselves in a position not too far removed from the current situation in terms of trying to obtain high rated players.

The only hope then would be waiting for someone to quit or get a better job, and then they will still face much more competition for any higher rated players at those clubs.

Seaneh

Change it back for next season

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

The thing for me is that it would not take long for the unmanaged clubs stock of higher rated players or talented youngsters to be depleted if we choose to open that flood gate.

That leaves the unmanaged club with cash that they will spend trying to buy back any real life players at the club that they can, a feature built into the game.

That then leaves them with less money and then depending on the time period, they will find themselves in a position not too far removed from the current situation in terms of trying to obtain high rated players.

The only hope then would be waiting for someone to quit or get a better job, and then they will still face much more competition for any higher rated players at those clubs.

This x 1,000,000.

the people arguing against the rule as it stands are the ones who are eyeballing 89 and 90 rated players at unmanaged clubs licking their lips waiting to strip the carcasses of the clubs.

KERSPLAT!

Change it back for next season

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

The thing for me is that it would not take long for the unmanaged clubs stock of higher rated players or talented youngsters to be depleted if we choose to open that flood gate.

That leaves the unmanaged club with cash that they will spend trying to buy back any real life players at the club that they can, a feature built into the game.

That then leaves them with less money and then depending on the time period, they will find themselves in a position not too far removed from the current situation in terms of trying to obtain high rated players.

The only hope then would be waiting for someone to quit or get a better job, and then they will still face much more competition for any higher rated players at those clubs.

Exactly. A few teams will get a few 88s and 89s now but the team they strip are left baron with nothing but crap players and alot less money than if a manager had sold them on or got a part ex deal. We already struggle to get managers. A manager coming into a team with an average of 86/87 and pennies to spend won't last long and to be honest they're not getting a fair chance

I'll just add a note here, any league I set up will always have this rule in place. Others would be up for debate but giving a new manager a fighting chance is the least I'll do.

Jimmy Rabbitte Snr

Cash has a value without buying from unmanaged clubs

Was this classed as a vote on reversing the buying from unmanaged clubs rule?

KERSPLAT!

Change it back for next season

It was multiple choice and the main ones of leave it on or turn it off show votes of 8-3...

Too many options IMO, should be a case of On or Off if there is a vote

I will be sticking with On for the various reasons I have pointed out before.

It's a lot easier to build a team when you have a couple of decent players to start with. Turn it off and in a few moths you'll have all the unmanaged teams stripped and no one willing or stupid enough to take them over. At this stage they wouldn't even have any 87s never mind 88s!!

Lord TSC

The problem for me is simply that there's no way to regulate and make sure the teams that would need those players actually get them.

Over on the Good league, I am Drogheda. When the rule was turned off there, the reality is it was the biggest teams who snapped up most of the talent; as a small team with a low budget, I wasn't able to compete with anyone for the players. And I'd nearly put real money on that happening here too; the small teams will think it's a great idea until the teams with 70-80m in their bank start snapping up the good players and/or outbid them constantly on their targets. And that's ignoring that it pretty much make those teams utterly useless after they've been stripped bare.

KERSPLAT!

Change it back for next season

I've 65m ready to go and about 30 youths to trade if it is turned off but I'd rather it stay on

hufpc8w3adnk65

Change it back for next season

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I've 65m ready to go and about 30 youths to trade if it is turned off but I'd rather it stay on

Did someone say youths???

KERSPLAT!

Change it back for next season

MrMac84 wrote: »

Did someone say youths???

You're a stickler for the young boys

Yep, most of my youth are for sale bar the obvious

Wilberto

Change it back for next season

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

You're a stickler for the young boys

It's a surprise that he didn't go for that Swiss club right from the outset. It would have been so appropriate.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Change it back for next season

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

You're a stickler for the young boys

Yep, most of my youth are for sale bar the obvious

I'll buy them ALL

circadian

The transfer market has improved as a result of the rule change

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

The problem for me is simply that there's no way to regulate and make sure the teams that would need those players actually get them.

Over on the Good league, I am Drogheda. When the rule was turned off there, the reality is it was the biggest teams who snapped up most of the talent; as a small team with a low budget, I wasn't able to compete with anyone for the players. And I'd nearly put real money on that happening here too; the small teams will think it's a great idea until the teams with 70-80m in their bank start snapping up the good players and/or outbid them constantly on their targets. And that's ignoring that it pretty much make those teams utterly useless after they've been stripped bare.

I've found that managing a smaller team is a challenge when the rule is on. Over on the GL I've managed to get Derry from the bottom of Div 4 for to potential promotion to Div 1. The small income means the budget needs to be balanced so your squad can't be too big and you need to be savvy in the market. I personally enjoy this particular challenge.

In worlds where the rule is disabled I have struggled with a lower income team. The main issue is it seems that the top teams have 70+ players of a decent rating. It's tough to get your hands on these guys, even if they might be half decent youngsters without doing a p/e or paying a lot more than the value.

A few lads in general were helpful, and I'm grateful for that but I just felt that I wouldn't survive on deals like that. I enjoyed searching the market for decent rated little known players and weighing up just on the stats alone.

For me the rule would be better if there was a squad cap in place, it would mitigate clubs building huge squads encouraging more trade of lower rated players.

KERSPLAT!

Change it back for next season

Can't implement a squad cap at this late stage. Some teams have nearly 200 players, some probably have more

Jimmy Rabbitte Snr

Cash has a value without buying from unmanaged clubs

I just think the poll, used as a vote is very flawed. A vote is a yes or no option. Too much ambiguity IMO. It may very well be true that unmanaged would get stripped if the rule is turned off but I think that problem begins with a flaw in the game. I believe player concerns being more accurate would solve a lot of problems. If you go a whole season without playing a player you would imagine he would be more than level one slightly concerned. I know there is nothing can be done about that, just think it's something Soccer Manager could improve on! And that my friends is Jimmy's two cents.

tupac_healy

The rule change benefits all clubs in the transfer market

Lads going to keep this short and sweet...

I reckon it should be turned off as 7 days is enough time to recruit IMO...


But, that's not the important issue, I think we really need to concentrate on the login time as that has been agreed (somewhat) and needs to be implemented before kick off of the season!!!

KERSPLAT!

Change it back for next season

7 days is enough time to recruit a new manager?

tupac_healy

The rule change benefits all clubs in the transfer market

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

7 days is enough time to recruit a new manager?

I think so, but to be honest, I know this is the wrong thread to post on but I believe the main focus should be on the login time...

I know I'm in the very very minority here so I'd not be too pushed on this. I'd hate to see this thread gather pace and the login time loose pace with such a short window of change upon us...

Just my thoughts, but yeah for what its worth I do think 7 is bags of time.

KERSPLAT!

Change it back for next season

OK, I'll leave it at this so

We have 10 free teams... pretty obvious that they won't be filled any time soon. They were stripped and now lay idle. What will happen when other teams are stripped? That's a rhetorical question, we all know the answer

ctrl-alt-delete

Change it back for next season

For me it is not about the time to fill a job, but keeping that job as attractive as possible for however long it takes for the job to take someone's fancy .

KERSPLAT!

Change it back for next season

I just realised how loaded the poll questions are. As Ctrl-Alt-Delete said, it's about keeping a club as attractive as possible. Nothing to do with the transfer market at all. Of course this rule being on isn't great for the transfer market, that's obvious but you have to weigh it up against having a league with F all managers cause all the clubs are being stripped

Seaneh

Change it back for next season

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only people who are trying to have this rule reversed are the people eyeing up the good players at these clubs who only think about themselves and couldn't give a crap about keeping the game world attractive to new managers.

The Governor

Cash has a value without buying from unmanaged clubs

Can I just say something in that if you want an accurate idea of how lads feel you'd want a simple should it be turned off yes or no vote. Also with that you'd want to send out a mass GW PM like when a team applications are on.

A lot of lads might not check the forum and spot a thread with a vote newly made, for instance I have the main threads followed and I just check them with the my threads tab.

This goes for all different votes really.

ctrl-alt-delete

Change it back for next season

The above was never a real vote, even though it is multiple choice it is confusing and not in a format we could take a result from.

We have had other votes on this;

Season 2: 02/01/2014 : Thread Link

Season 2: 04/01/2014 : Thread Link


The second one was a public Poll.

There is no decision to make here.

If people feel strongly about having another poll that is an option for next season, but as always Poll's must be public and for an issue like this have a simple yes or no to hold sway.

I will say though, that we had a vote on another issue, the login thing, that does have an outcome and was never changed to what people voted for.

If we are going to ignore votes then there is no point having the poll's,

which is why i set up this thread

The Governor

Cash has a value without buying from unmanaged clubs

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

The above was never a real vote, even though it is multiple choice it is confusing and not in a format we could take a result from.

We have had other votes on this;

Season 2: 02/01/2014 : Thread Link

Season 2: 04/01/2014 : Thread Link


The second one was a public Poll.

There is no decision to make here.

If people feel strongly about having another poll that is an option for next season, but as always Poll's must be public and for an issue like this have a simple yes or no to hold sway.

I will say though, that we had a vote on another issue, the login thing, that does have an outcome and was never changed to what people voted for.

If we are going to ignore votes then there is no point having the poll's,

which is why i set up this thread

I know it wasn't a real vote of sorts. Thats what I'm getting at, to get a proper idea on this issue you'd want it set up properly as you can't take an opinion either way from whats voted above.

How do you propose an official vote? I might do it for this issue after the next season, it will have given every manager two full seasons of it and be a good time to see if opinion has changed or remained the same on it.

Also in fairness to Mac, is it not a case of he can only only change so much a season and had to wait to change the login till this new season?

ctrl-alt-delete

Change it back for next season

The Governor wrote: »

I know it wasn't a real vote of sorts. Thats what I'm getting at, to get a proper idea on this issue you'd want it set up properly as you can't take an opinion either way from whats voted above.

How do you propose an official vote? I might do it for this issue after the next season, it will have given every manager two full seasons of it and be a good time to see if opinion has changed or remained the same on it.

Also in fairness to Mac, is it not a case of he can only only change so much a season and had to wait to change the login till this new season?

Ahh yeah I am not getting at Mac, not in the slightest.

Tupac raised the point that any changes need to be made soon, the login one was voted on but i don't think Mac wants to go with the outcome - which is fair enough, i think 10 days is too short too.

An official poll can be set up by anyone i suppose, but if you are starting a poll you need to ensure that it is set to a public poll so we can see the names of people who have voted and ensure that it is only the managers playing the games votes that are counted.

GT_TDI_150

Change it back for next season

Gov, if lads dont check tbe forum then their opinions dont count. It is the boards.ie league afterall