PLEASE READ. boards.ie League Buying from un-managed Poll DECEMBER 2014

GT_TDI_150

AFTER YOU VOTE PLEASE JUST POST ON THE THREAD NAME AND CLUB SO WHEN WE ARE COUNTING THE VOTES TOO MAKE SURE THEY ARE VALID WE CAN FIND WHO'S WHO QUICKLY.

With a some of the recent departures from the boards.ie League stating the inability to by from un-managed clubs and the topic having started a decent bit of chatter on the main thread ...

Here's a poll on the topic...

Simply put ...buying from unmanaged is currently turned off to preserve the squads for any new interested managers to have decent squads to start with ... downside ... more managers have left than joined

Lets keep the discussion on point ...

POLL OPEN FOR 7DAYS

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

There is a lot of clubs sitting on a lot of money ...

I think if we had a 'sensible discussion' now on the merits of buying from unmanaged then depending on the outcome of the discussion ...

• People have an entire season to shift players in order to get cash to buy from the unmanaged (which might stimulate the market in it self)
  
• Players at unmanaged are not likely to go at cost price as there will be lots of competition for these players
  
• People might be more willing to sell players once they got players to cover from unmanaged
  
• We might stop loosing managers, (i believe) a few leaver now have listed not being able to buy from unmanaged as one of the factors for them leaving and still people seem to resit the idea.

Lets just say that for example Malaga were unmanaged ... Isco would be up for grabs ... I for one can guarantee that if Porto (after selling to make up the last 2m i would need ) were to come out as a winner in the bidding war that I would be moving on ATLEAST an 89 on the same position to someone (an because other than cambiasso) i dont have many aul fella's, you can be guaranteed the fella I'd let go would be young enough too... ( This scenario was not chosen to put the idea of an Isco sale back in Wilberto's Mind .... Honest )

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

There is a lot of clubs sitting on a lot of money ...

I think if we had a 'sensible discussion' now on the merits of buying from unmanaged then depending on the outcome of the discussion ...

• People have an entire season to shift players in order to get cash to buy from the unmanaged (which might stimulate the market in it self)
  
• Players at unmanaged are not likely to go at cost price as there will be lots of competition for these players
  
• People might be more willing to sell players once they got players to cover from unmanaged
  
• We might stop loosing managers, (i believe) a few leaver now have listed not being able to buy from unmanaged as one of the factors for them leaving and still people seem to resit the idea.

Lets just say that for example Malaga were unmanaged ... Isco would be up for grabs ... I for one can guarantee that if Porto (after selling to make up the last 2m i would need ) were to come out as a winner in the bidding war that I would be moving on ATLEAST an 89 on the same position to someone (an because other than cambiasso) i dont have many aul fella's, you can be guaranteed the fella I'd let go would be young enough too... ( This scenario was not chosen to put the idea of an Isco sale back in Wilberto's Mind .... Honest )

As GT said, the timing of this could not be better as if it were to be changed then at least the lower ranked teams would have a chance to sell and raise funds for a splurge or 2!!

Also I've raised that point before about big teams snapping up players from unmanaged, it's a double edge sword for them, they have more players to keep happy AND they have less funds for newly added players.....

Even if they do snap up say a 'Chadli' (they can only bid on 1 at a time, so there are others the lower ranked could bid on simultaneously) then they would be down funds and chances are they may even need to move on another squad member.....


I don't see how lower ranked tteams loose out on this, I mean as opposed to...... Continuing as is even though Jimmy has pointed out he left as one of the reasons was a viable sourse or getting players for lower ranked teams had been closed off.


For the life of me I can't understand why the D4 and D3 (even D2) clubs would not want AT LEAST THE OPPORTUNITY to nab one of these players, it makes no sense????

PerrinV2

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

As GT said, the timing of this could not be better as if it were to be changed then at least the lower ranked teams would have a chance to sell and raise funds for a splurge or 2!!

Also I've raised that point before about big teams snapping up players from unmanaged, it's a double edge sword for them, they have more players to keep happy AND they have less funds for newly added players.....

Even if they do snap up say a 'Chadli' (they can only bid on 1 at a time, so there are others the lower ranked could bid on simultaneously) then they would be down funds and chances are they may even need to move on another squad member.....


I don't see how lower ranked tteams loose out on this, I mean as opposed to...... Continuing as is even though Jimmy has pointed out he left as one of the reasons was a viable sourse or getting players for lower ranked teams had been closed off.


For the life of me I can't understand why the D4 and D3 (even D2) clubs would not want AT LEAST THE OPPORTUNITY to nab one of these players, it makes no sense????

I seen big teams swapping players when they became unhappy last season,don't see that an issue.
Down funds? I wonder what type of funds a D1 team has compared to D3/D4

If its all about the benefiting of the lower rated teams then only allow teams of a lower rating to buy from unmanaged teams

The Governor

LEFT OFF

You see one thing I don't get is when I first joined here I took over FC Basel (who had a MASSIVE cash kitty from players being sold) and the "big" teams weren't buying all around them, I got 3 89's no contest, Dynamo Kiev were crap and the manager ( I think Tonic Wine?) got a load of good players and the team went flying up, so why do lads think its gonna happen all of a sudden now?

ctrl-alt-delete

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

If at the moment the smaller clubs are losing out when new players are added to the database, i don't see any reason why they would have a chance to compete if buying from unmanaged was opened up?

I think what would happen would be . . .

The big clubs will win the auctions and buy up all the higher rated players, of which there are about 50.

Unmanaged wrote:

CARRASSO, Cédric 89
BALMONT, Florent 89
GUERRERO, Paolo 89
FERDINAND, Rio 89
BA, Demba 90
MICHU, Pérez 90
KOMBAROV, Dmitri 89
PASQUAL, Manuel 89
MELO, Felipe 89
KLOSE, Miroslav 91
BRUNO, Soriano 90
CHADLI, Nacer 89
DZSUDZSÁK, Balázs 89
SMALLING, Chris 89
CHEDJOU, Aurélian 89
QUAGLIARELLA, Fabio 89
FLAMINI, Mathieu 89
DIEGO, Ribas 90
BENAGLIO, Diego 89
KJAER, Simon 89
NALDO, Aparecido 89
PERIŠIĆ, Ivan 89
DOST, Bas 89
BARRY, Gareth 90
OCHOA, Guillermo 89
ELM, Rasmus 89
WERNBLOOM, Pontus 89
MATRI, Alessandro 89
GLUSHAKOV, Denis 89
PEPE, Simone 89
WILLIAMS, Ashley 89
VARELA, Silvestre 89
RAFFAEL, Araújo 89
KUYT, Dirk 90
PALACIO, Rodrigo 90
MEIRELES, Raul 89
DIARRA, Lass 89
BRAHIMI, Yacine 89
PYATOV, Andriy 89
PODOLSKI, Lukas 91
LAMBERT, Rickie 89
ALVES, Diego 90
PEREIRA, João 90
PAREJO, Dani 90
LENNON, Aaron 90
JONAS, Gonçalves 90
GAGO, Fernando 89
PIZARRO, David 89
COSTA, Tino 89
GIGNAC, André-Pierre 89

There should be plenty of 88 rated players to go around, but how many teams is that going to benefit?

The youngsters, I would guess the most promising will be bought up again by the bigger clubs.

Maybe the Big clubs will then sell on some players, but again I'd imagine they will only have to part with 88 rated players.

Let us take the example of Celtic, Jimmy has left a fantastic team there for division 4 (if we opened it up I'd like to think he would be back). However if he didn't, they would take a massive hit, and be left with 88 rated players being the highest at the club.

This is the bit i need confirming, but I have a feeling money tends to vanish when unmanaged clubs get taken over again, I know i left more money at Genoa than was showing up when another manager took over. Has any one else any inklings on this? or am i going mad.

You might get a few going to where they are needed, but I think they will be the likes of Barry and Kuyt.

Anyways, I feel the big clubs will get better. The unmanaged teams will get worse. If we have any chance of getting the unmanaged clubs taken over now, I think it will be a lot less of a chance after a short period of being allowed to buy from unmanaged.

After a certain amount of time, we will be in a very similar place to where we are now, except you will be allowed to buy from unmanaged but there will be nothing worth buying.

When a team that is managed now becomes unmanaged in the future, again it will be the bigger clubs with the financial muscle who will quickly hoover up the higher rated players and the promising youngsters.

Yes you can give it a year and let people build up cash, but the bigger clubs can build up more cash too.

Even if you came up with the crazy idea of only allowing division 3 and 4 clubs buy from unmanaged, you cannot police it and you cannot stop who doesn't like that idea from buying them.

On the other hand, I will say that the GW maybe needs to benefit the people playing it rather than the people who might be playing it in the future. Even with that in mind I still think it is a better idea to keep it off.

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

I think alot depends on the GW too, in the GOOD league i joined as Swindon, contacted established managers and got deals from them...

Im not attacking bayern here but its easy for a manager who had Muller, Aguerro and Higuain in his team not to be too worried if buying from unmanaged never got turn on.

It comes down to NEED.

If managers that dont need players start buying them up just because they'd be handy to trade down the line and wont move players on for tge same reason then turning on buying from unmanaged will not make a difference. How will this help the GW?

If a manager needs a striker, find a 90 at unmanaged and as a result moves on a 89-90 then how is that bad for the GW?

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

PerrinV2 wrote: »

If its all about the benefiting of the lower rated teams then only allow teams of a lower rating to buy from unmanaged teams

I'd go for that, I'd even agree with taking D2 teams out of the equation

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

PerrinV2 wrote: »

If its all about the benefiting of the lower rated teams then only allow teams of a lower rating to buy from unmanaged teams

tupac_healy wrote: »

I'd go for that, I'd even agree with taking D2 teams out of the equation

Again, I would say if the game doesnt cater for it it isnt really enforceable

Lord TSC

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Same stance as last time...

Lord TSC wrote: »

Voted no.

Reality is within 72 hours of it being allowed, the top most teams will be the ones who have gotten stronger; they will easily outbid smaller teams, take all the best players and by the time new managers join, there'll be no one left both at the teams they take over AND the teams they can buy from.

It's a nice idea in theory, but in practice will do irreparable damage...

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Needs to be public IMO, just thought I'd mention before too many vote. A mod can re do it for you, though it is a Monday night and Mac us probably drunk... same as every other night

gerp99

LEFT OFF

I'll vote in a bit. I am very 50/50.

Anything to encourage people to buy and sell is a good thing.

The problem is the 10-12 most active teams are Div 1 and 2 clubs when it comes to transfers with the probable exception of Cruziero and Rangers. I can see all the players going to the big clubs and I'll be honest if I see a good youth I want I will go for him even if I have loads already.

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

Lazio: ON like Donkey Kong!

Surely don't need to explain my stance again? He he!

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

ON like Donkey Kong!

Need to vote again

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

Also.......


If it helps the lower ranked teams, I'll state that I will abstain from buying from un-managed (unlike some previous clubs who complained about it yet dipped in for an oul RB when needed) IF the big teams will also publicly state the same....


After all the talk of keeping it off 'for the good of the gameworld' and now a long time manager has quit siting this as one of the main reasons, how far will those other managers go to do something that I've long called for..... i.e. look after the managers that we HAVE and not worry about the ones that come and go.


here is your chance, if you really care about the 'good of the gameworld' you can let managers buy from un-managed without packing out already huge squad players with 'squaddies'


So let nobody accuse me of trying to get it turned on for my own benifit, I'm saying here and now I'll not buy from un-managed IF the big boys will do the same, come on give the guys with the small budgets and lower rated players a chance at least!!!!!

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Need to vote again

Ah crap......................................


EDIT: Wait, I voted right (I think) Buying form unmanaged should be 'turned on' yeah???


I'm confused!

Mr Blobby

tupac_healy wrote: »

Also.......


If it helps the lower ranked teams, I'll state that I will abstain from buying from un-managed (unlike some previous clubs who complained about it yet dipped in for an oul RB when needed) IF the big teams will also publicly state the same....


After all the talk of keeping it off 'for the good of the gameworld' and now a long time manager has quit siting this as one of the main reasons, how far will those other managers go to do something that I've long called for..... i.e. look after the managers that we HAVE and not worry about the ones that come and go.


here is your chance, if you really care about the 'good of the gameworld' you can let managers buy from un-managed without packing out already huge squad players with 'squaddies'


So let nobody accuse me of trying to get it turned on for my own benifit, I'm saying here and now I'll not buy from un-managed IF the big boys will do the same, come on give the guys with the small budgets and lower rated players a chance at least!!!!!

Lazio are a big team now??

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

Also.......


If it helps the lower ranked teams, I'll state that I will abstain from buying from un-managed (unlike some previous clubs who complained about it yet dipped in for an oul RB when needed) IF the big teams will also publicly state the same....


After all the talk of keeping it off 'for the good of the gameworld' and now a long time manager has quit siting this as one of the main reasons, how far will those other managers go to do something that I've long called for..... i.e. look after the managers that we HAVE and not worry about the ones that come and go.


here is your chance, if you really care about the 'good of the gameworld' you can let managers buy from un-managed without packing out already huge squad players with 'squaddies'


So let nobody accuse me of trying to get it turned on for my own benifit, I'm saying here and now I'll not buy from un-managed IF the big boys will do the same, come on give the guys with the small budgets and lower rated players a chance at least!!!!!

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

I wont add my name to the list, as I think I could buy a player from unmanaged and sell 1-2 to fund it or to make space in my first 11 which might / would benefit the GW also.

having a list / pledge of non intent is not enforceable imho

Ordinary man

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I don't know how other smaller teams are fixed but my crowd are basically broke with sod all saleable assets atm so being able to buy off unmanaged won't affect me. What i'd love to see is more decent players available to loan.

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

Mr Blobby wrote: »

Lazio are a big team now??

Nope, not sure where you read that in what I said but....


just trying to show this will benefit the GW as a whole, Its been stated previously that I wanted this on for one reason or another, but before anyone can say anything, I'm stating that I will abstain from buying if other managers (I would hope from the really big clubs with huge budges and highly rated 90 players on the bench) would state the same.....


Never stated Lazio were are a big club, in fact I did state that I hoped to survive in D2 this year & that remains my only objective this year....

Lord TSC

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I will be availing of any method which let's me make my team stronger....

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Any player at Bayern that can be loaned out is available. The chairman is an ass and won't let some go but try for a few there if you want

@Tupac, my reasoning is to keep unmanaged clubs somewhat attractive to new players. I do understand what you're saying with '..look after what we have already..' but I'm still on the leave it off side

If it is turned on though, I would sign up to not buying from unmanaged if it was restricted to Div 3/4 and if all other Div 1/2 teams signed up for the same.

If someone else, say yourself for instance breaks the deal, I'm not gonna sit all high and mighty and let all the players get hoovered up while I argue with myself here for a month. If all the teams don't sign up or someone breaks the deal, with obvious caveats like someone making a mistake, then everyone should be allowed buy, I know I will be.

As with this and monitoring I believe all my decisions are for the good of the GW, whether you or others believe that or not is up to yourselves.

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Any player at Bayern that can be loaned out is available. The chairman is an ass and won't let some go but try for a few there if you want

@Tupac, my reasoning is to keep unmanaged clubs somewhat attractive to new players. I do understand what you're saying with '..look after what we have already..' but I'm still on the leave it off side

If it is turned on though, I would sign up to not buying from unmanaged if it was restricted to Div 3/4 and if all other Div 1/2 teams signed up for the same.

If someone else, say yourself for instance breaks the deal, I'm not gonna sit all high and mighty and let all the players get hoovered up while I argue with myself here for a month. If all the teams don't sign up or someone breaks the deal, with obvious caveats like someone making a mistake, then everyone should be allowed buy, I know I will be.

As with this and monitoring I believe all my decisions are for the good of the GW, whether you or others believe that or not is up to yourselves.

I think it comes down to my comment on the boards thread earlier...

its about need ... If I was to sign an 89 rated defender it will improve my first team (I have 1x90 2x89s and 1x88 as my defence), a valid need I would say ... if you by an 89 rated defender it will be as a back up to your first team or as you have said to me before to use in a trade in the future ... still a need but in my eyes not as pressing a need

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I'm 2nd from bottom, I need everything I can get...

The game is competitive. I've no problem helping out as I've shown with selling some decent players from 92 to 89/88s for cash or lesser players but if players go up for sale, I'll be bidding*

*Unless the restriction is put in place but I can't see that happening

bazarakus

LEFT OFF

My name is Baz and I voted for Buying from Unmanageds to be turned on because I believe it will make the league more fair - weaker clubs will have the chance to bid the most for players - and because it is what The Lord Jesus would want. God bless.

Wilberto

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Posts moved from The Boards.ie chat thread.

Wilberto

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

This is the bit i need confirming, but I have a feeling money tends to vanish when unmanaged clubs get taken over again, I know i left more money at Genoa than was showing up when another manager took over. Has any one else any inklings on this, or am i going mad?

No, you're spot on in my experience. When I looked at Schalke before I took them over they had over 30m in the bank. After I left Estudiantes, and was accepted into Germany, I saw that suddenly there was only around 5m left.

Furthermore, I looked at the signings that they may have made and saw that they hadn't made any in that intervening period. (Which was fairly obvious after as clubs can't sign, or sell, players within about 7 of losing their manager).




I may come back to this thread tomorrow with my own opinion on the matter but it has currently ticked over to Tuesday morning, and I really need to go to bed! :pac:

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

Can we see who voted for what on this?

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

tupac_healy wrote: »

Can we see who voted for what on this?

Yup. Think there's one suspect vote at the mo

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I make it 7-6

The Governor

LEFT OFF

All those votes are valid I think from looking at their posts.

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

There's one on left off that has no posts in the forum as far as I can see, on my phone and can't see the name though

I was wrong, 7-7 looks good I think

king size mars bar

LEFT OFF

Can't make up my mind on this subject, on one side I would to see cash transfers happen more as at the moment most transfers are part exchange or nothing but on the other hand if we wanted to attract new managers the unmanaged teams must have some sort of decent team to make it worth while.

Colemania

LEFT OFF

I voted to turn buying from unmanaged on in the optimistic hope that it'll kick-start more cash deals and that if any manager comes in to take over a depleted squad, people will do cash deals with them. If I bought an unmanageds best player, I would tend to do a cash deal with whatever manager came in

ctrl-alt-delete

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I don't think it will build up a cash reserve for the next manager who takes over the club.

There is evidence to suggest that SM make money go missing, whether the club sign players while unmanaged or not.

I think it needs to be voted on in terms of how you feel about the GW.

Either you want to try and stop people leaving and try and make it more competitive for people playing now.

Or you want to try keep the unmanaged clubs attractive for those who may want to play it in the future.

I don't think it can be sold as giving the little guy a chance, although there will be a few exceptions to the rule, for the majority of the deals it will make the big clubs bigger.

It can't be sold as a trial either, as the damage will be done. It really won't take long for it to be a very similar situation to now, the difference being you can buy some 88's from unmanaged clubs.

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I would love to see a list of what teams voted what because from what I can make out its the top teams promoting turning it on and the small clubs defending keeping it on..
you see most top clubs are using this auld chestnut "it will benefit lower clubs" when in fact all they care about is improving their own squad which was already stated by a few top clubs..
Alot of people seen buying from unmanaged clubs in celtics reasonings and came in their pants screaming "polls,polls,turn it on" purely thinking about improving their own team and not about the fact it was a small club that cudnt improve his squad..
So if people are looking to keep players in the game they need to sort out a better plan that will benefit small clubs because even stevie wonder can see that turning this on will only benefit top clubs

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I don't think it will build up a cash reserve for the next manager who takes over the club.

There is evidence to suggest that SM make money go missing, whether the club sign players while unmanaged or not.

I think it needs to be voted on in terms of how you feel about the GW.

Either you want to try and stop people leaving and try and make it more competitive for people playing now.

Or you want to try keep the unmanaged clubs attractive for those who may want to play it in the future.

I don't think it can be sold as giving the little guy a chance, although there will be a few exceptions to the rule, for the majority of the deals it will make the big clubs bigger.

It can't be sold as a trial either, as the damage will be done. It really won't take long for it to be a very similar situation to now, the difference being you can buy some 88's from unmanaged clubs.

If after all the talk and points back and forth it all boils down to the above, which in all fairness it looks as though that really is the bottom line of it all....


For me it has to be looking after the lads that are here, we've seen that managers have taken the lower down clubs for a few days/weeks and left, if someone seriously wants to do what the regulars have done (i.e. stay about long term) they can take a club and use it as a stepping stone to something bigger, so that option is still open, for me we simply have to look after the lads that made the gameworld what it is

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

I would love to see a list of what teams voted what because from what I can make out its the top teams promoting turning it on and the small clubs defending keeping it on..
you see most top clubs are using this auld chestnut "it will benefit lower clubs" when in fact all they care about is improving their own squad which was already stated by a few top clubs..
Alot of people seen buying from unmanaged clubs in celtics reasonings and came in their pants screaming "polls,polls,turn it on" purely thinking about improving their own team and not about the fact it was a small club that cudnt improve his squad..
So if people are looking to keep players in the game they need to sort out a better plan that will benefit small clubs because even stevie wonder can see that turning this on will only benefit top clubs

Stevie would want new glasses as I was the one that called for the debate to be re-opened (I DO NOT class my team as a top team) and I was also the one that said I would abstain from buying IF others would follow.....


And the reason people did call for 'polls' polls' over the 'Celtic reasoning' as you put it is because he clearly sited it as a reason as to why he left the gameworld, what more do you want!

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

I would love to see a list of what teams voted what because from what I can make out its the top teams promoting turning it on and the small clubs defending keeping it on..
you see most top clubs are using this auld chestnut "it will benefit lower clubs" when in fact all they care about is improving their own squad which was already stated by a few top clubs..
Alot of people seen buying from unmanaged clubs in celtics reasonings and came in their pants screaming "polls,polls,turn it on" purely thinking about improving their own team and not about the fact it was a small club that cudnt improve his squad..
So if people are looking to keep players in the game they need to sort out a better plan that will benefit small clubs because even stevie wonder can see that turning this on will only benefit top clubs

click on the blue number beside the coloured bars (not on the mobile version) it will show you the voters

I think you'll find it isnt Big vs Small clubs in the voting ....

Nordicgael

LEFT OFF

PSV div 3 manager here and i voted to turn it on .have only being playing boards league for a few months - psv got relegated last season, almost impossible to strengen squad and kept getting offers for my best players- why would i sell my best players when getting offered lesser players in return and some cash? cant do much with cash at the moment except buy young players that might develop over time - not much use for current season- anyways i did think about leaving but so far stuck with it - i will follow this poll with interest to see what the general feeling is .

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

Stevie would want new glasses as I was the one that called for the debate to be re-opened (I DO NOT class my team as a top team) and I was also the one that said I would abstain from buying IF others would follow.....


And the reason people did call for 'polls' polls' over the 'Celtic reasoning' as you put it is because he clearly sited it as a reason as to why he left the gameworld, what more do you want!

You do not class your team ad a top team yet you say you will not bid if other top teams follow suit, so how does that work? Your not gonna bid even though your a small club?
You see your trying to insinuate im opposed to the poll by picking and choosing words from my comments like a cheap tabloid newspaper wen im stating that some top teams are delighted that these polls are coming about as they see it as a way of further strengthening their team, wen surely the key debate should be how to help struggling teams

also stevie wonder wudnt need new glasses as this will only benefit top teams and thats a fact.. the gap between top and bottom teams will get wider

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

You do not class your team ad a top team yet you say you will not bid if other top teams follow suit, so how does that work? Your not gonna bid even though your a small club?
You see your trying to insinuate im opposed to the poll by picking and choosing words from my comments like a cheap tabloid newspaper wen im stating that some top teams are delighted that these polls are coming about as they see it as a way of further strengthening their team, wen surely the key debate should be how to help struggling teams

also stevie wonder wudnt need new glasses as this will only benefit top teams and thats a fact.. the gap between top and bottom teams will get wider

There is your fault, I never said the 'other' teams, i.e. placing myself among that bracket of top clubs buy using that ter, you used it....

not me

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

There is your fault, I never said the 'other' teams, i.e. placing myself among that bracket of top clubs buy using that ter, you used it....

not me

Tupac lets call a spade a spade you know and I know your a top team

anyway back to the real issue

ctrl-alt-delete

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

If after all the talk and points back and forth it all boils down to the above, which in all fairness it looks as though that really is the bottom line of it all....


For me it has to be looking after the lads that are here, we've seen that managers have taken the lower down clubs for a few days/weeks and left, if someone seriously wants to do what the regulars have done (i.e. stay about long term) they can take a club and use it as a stepping stone to something bigger, so that option is still open, for me we simply have to look after the lads that made the gameworld what it is

You need to then split the looking after the lads that are here argument.

The reason it has come up again is because of the Celtic manager leaving and citing it as part of the reason he has left.

If we want to help these type of managers I don't believe allowing the buying of unmanaged players to be a massive help.

It will give them a chance, but the odds are stacked against them. Of course we won't know for sure here and now, but I feel the gap in quality between 'big' & 'small' will widen.


What I will say to any managers of lower teams who might be struggling and reading this, is try become more active on here and in chat.

There are some genuine nice lads who have before and will again help out those who need it most. We've seen it with the auctions and there have been other occasions too.

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

Tupac lets call a spade a spade you know and I know your a top team

anyway back to the real issue

You may look at it that way mate, but I 100% certainly do not, and that is the truth, I've a good first 11, in fact I just played Fiorentina with my first 11 (bar Dodo) and I had him beat ratings wise in 2-3 places, man for man he has a better team in the division and look at say Bayern, look at the bench!


That for me is the mark of a top team, I'm lucky to have 3-4 87's on the bench and after that it is youngsters.....


I've a good 11, by no means a top team, but I agree, back to the issue at hand

bazarakus

LEFT OFF

1. I can tell yous definitively that the clubs with the poorest rating squads will be able to bid the most for any player available by making buying from Unmanageds possible. I did this in THE GOOD LEAGUE a few seasons back – turned it back on after a season or two and the clubs which benefitted were the ones with weak squads. They could bid the most. They have to have the cash to bid of course. It coincided with a lot of cross pollination from boards so any managers around THE GOOD LEAGUE at the time will be able to tell you. The average strength of your squad dictates the max amount you can bid because your chairman will NOT allow you to overbid for a player he doesn’t tink you need. Upshot – it will not help Big Bad Bayern!

2. The reason cash is disappearing from clubs without managers is this: you get about five days grace when you quit a club during which time they don’t buy any players and the cash balance is left alone. If however you leave them Unmanaged for much longer than that the balance will reset to a few million. You can of course avoid this by spending all your cash on players before you leave. The downside of this is that if you take a club over too quickly you get stuck with their debt. Just took over a club in English 2 and inherited a 3m debt. Lovely.

3. In my opinion “Gentleman’s Agreements” (such as the idea that only clubs in Divvy 3 or 4 can buy from Unmanaged clubs are a nonsense. You can’t police it and you can’t stop folk either abusing it or (more common) breaking the rule by mistake. Less rules not more people! The vote isn’t to allow buying from Unmanageds for Divvy 3 and 4 it’s across the board(s). You don’t need to police it, the system is set up (see point 1) to benefit the weakest.

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

Who does 8-10 manage????

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

tupac_healy wrote: »

Who does 8-10 manage????

And Techniques07.

I think DH2k9 is Anzhi but I could be wrong

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Just check their soccer manager posts, if they've none then chances are they don't play, vote is void. If they do have posts here, check them and see who they manage

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Just check their soccer manager posts, if they've none then chances are they don't play, vote is void. If they do have posts here, check them and see who they manage

Cool, prob best waiting till the poll closes so and go though the lot in one swoop?