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

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

Another Poll!

Controversial

The Governor

LEFT OFF

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Another Poll!

Controversial

Jesus mate, very offensive, I'd fix it before a mod spots it

Wilberto

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I voted to keep it off anyway. In an ideal world, yes, the smaller clubs would be able to outbid the smaller teams. However, realistically, it's far easier for bigger clubs to save money, even with their higher rated players, and will undoubtedly have buckets of cash to throw at players from unmanaged clubs while us smaller clubs will be throwing a few coppers.

As for swapping players (which may not even be allowed as there is an option to restrict it to cash only), I have absolutely no faith in player exchanges simply because, chances are, your chairman's valuation of your players will be greater than the other chairman, thus effectively lowering the maximum amount you're allowed to bid in the first place.


Furthermore, the blatant refusal by certain manager(s) to at least acknowledge that there is still a downside (even if they still want to turn it on) is just simply ridiculous, and would have been another reason for me to vote the way I did had I not chosen to vote that way already. There are pros and cons to both sides, I think everyone can at least agree on that.




I did have another point, but it's far too late to continue typing so I might come back tomorrow!

bazarakus

LEFT OFF

Lord TSC wrote: »

Utterly disagree; as Drogheda down in Div 4, I only managed to nab a single player when it was turned on. Even then, it was weeks later and I got lucky; it was weeks later when everyone had stopped, and I nabbed a player from Southampton by selling them one first. Meanwhile, Div 3 and 4 remain largely barron and will probably never be filled again. As a "small team", I didn't have the cash to compete, I couldn't compete on multiple fronts like other teams.

The reality is the real small teams, the Divs 3 and Divs 4, may be able to bid more, but they won't have the cash to compete. At best, they might get a single 88-89 rated player, but they won't have the room to get a 90+ player.

Trying to sell this as something to help the small teams is selling a lemon. It won't work that way.

Strong teams will get stronger and hoard more players.
Unmanaged teams get pillaged and will never be managed again.
Small teams will still find it as hard to get players.

This, I honestly feel, will not do what some are trying to paint it as. Its a nice idea in theory but in actuality, it won't work in the favour of anyone but the strongest teams.

So as Shelbyville manager, where you'd been for a while, when I turned no buying from Unmanaged teams off, how much cash had you built up in your coffers? 20m? 50m? Presumably money was no object when it came to buying those players?

Lord TSC

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

bazarakus wrote: »

So as Shelbyville manager, where you'd been for a while, when I turned no buying from Unmanaged teams off, how much cash had you built up in your coffers? 20m? 50m? Presumably money was no object when it came to buying those players?

For most of my time at drogheda, I have been in the red and have had no money. When the option came to buy from unmanaged, I think I was in debt by about 4m. I sold a fair chunk of my team to be able to bring in Rodriguez, and as I said, the reason he was still sitting in Southampton was because the team had been raided down to its minimum size, and I had to sell them a player in order to buy. And as soon as I did buy,mi was back to being in debt....

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

Wilberto wrote: »

Furthermore, the blatant refusal by certain manager(s) to at least acknowledge that there is still a downside (even if they still want to turn it on) is just simply ridiculous, and would have been another reason for me to vote the way I did had I not chosen to vote that way already. There are pros and cons to both sides, I think everyone can at least agree on that.

Yet declarations of sales to go on massive shopping had no bearing on your decision...

A bid mod not to mention that I must say

bazarakus

LEFT OFF

Lord TSC wrote: »

For most of my time at drogheda, I have been in the red and have had no money. When the option came to buy from unmanaged, I think I was in debt by about 4m. I sold a fair chunk of my team to be able to bring in Rodriguez, and as I said, the reason he was still sitting in Southampton was because the team had been raided down to its minimum size, and I had to sell them a player in order to buy. And as soon as I did buy,mi was back to being in debt....

OK so you chose to spunk your money on Jay Rodriguez instead of using it to generate more money a la St Pats. St Pats have a stadium which seats 5,340 fans.
That's just over twice the capacity of the home of Shelbyville (Hunky Dorys Park!) yet Ricky Flah's managed to buy

MESSI, Lionel
RONALDO, Cristiano
INIESTA, Andrés
VAN PERSIE, Robin
ROBBEN, Arjen
ALVES, Dani
CASILLAS, Iker
BENATIA, Mehdi
IVANOVIĆ, Branislav
ETO'O, Samuel
DI NATALE, Antonio
POGBA, Paul
RAMSEY, Aaron
MIKEL, John Obi
BADSTUBER, Holger

Am I completely out of whack here? Sure he's been in the league since it's inception but he generated the cash from scratch to be able to afford such superstars.

I gotta tell ya buddy - I'm trying to see the big picture here but all I'm seeing is a house, drawn by a three year old, stuck to a fridge.

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

Yet declorations of sales to go on massive shopping had no bearing on your deciwon...

A bid mod not to mention that I must say

Goes to show that it is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I, like everyone else with spare cash, will be out shopping if it's turned on. I still don't see the problem in saying that, it's a given.

Lord TSC

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

bazarakus wrote: »

Am I completely out of whack here? Sure he's been in the league since it's inception but he generated the cash from scratch to be able to afford such superstars.

So someone who has been in your league since it began (how long ago? Looks like the manager you're using as an example has been there for 6 years...) has managed to develop a team better than someone only in it 18 months or so? Shocking :pac:

Tell me, how many of those players were brought in when buying from unmanaged was turned off? One thing I'll say about The Good League; it's far easier to trade and swap players with other real people, but thats not whats being debated here at all..

Your point seems to be that someone in a league for years will be better able to do deals for players than someone just joining, and that the person just joining needs to develop their team over time. Can't disagree, but it goes against the idea being debated here; namely, new managers joining a league will be able to get top level players if buying from unmanaged is turned on.

Turning on buying from unmanaged will help the teams who are solidly established, not new managers trying to join, and will help teams who have had time to build cash reserves over a long time, not small teams struggling to get promoted.

EDIT: While we're at it, any chance of dropping the constant referrals to Drogheda as Shelbyville? Its tiring...

bazarakus

LEFT OFF

Lord TSC wrote: »

So someone who has been in your league since it began (how long ago? Looks like the manager you're using as an example has been there for 6 years...) has managed to develop a team better than someone only in it 18 months or so? Shocking :pac:

Tell me, how many of those players were brought in when buying from unmanaged was turned off? One thing I'll say about The Good League; it's far easier to trade and swap players with other real people, but thats not whats being debated here at all..

Your point seems to be that someone in a league for years will be better able to do deals for players than someone just joining, and that the person just joining needs to develop their team over time. Can't disagree, but it goes against the idea being debated here; namely, new managers joining a league will be able to get top level players if buying from unmanaged is turned on.

Turning on buying from unmanaged will help the teams who are solidly established, not new managers trying to join, and will help teams who have had time to build cash reserves over a long time, not small teams struggling to get promoted.

EDIT: While we're at it, any chance of dropping the constant referrals to Drogheda as Shelbyville? Its tiring...

hahahaha no chance! It's been Shelbyville to me for many many years, I'm not going to stop it for you. In fact I'm gonna make sure I use it more. Never display your weaknesses! That's forums 101 that is! heehee!

OK I'm totally out of whack - it's fine. I thought you've had plenty of time to raise cash, I thought you would have been better buying and selling young risers to build a fortune. But there's no point in posting any more on the subject - you and that other nugget have your agenda and your stance (which is fine) I won't try to change you. Takes all sorts I spose.

Tell me I'm a big club, go all Daryll Hall and John Oates on me, say I'm evil - I honestly couldn't give a monkey's fcuk. I tried to point out how turning no buying from Unmanageds off helped the market in THE GOOD LEAGUE. I'm not married to the idea. It's not my league. One man one vote and all that. And that is all I have to post on the matter. The parade will move on and we'll be where we'll be.

Stop saying Shelbyville! Brilliant!!!

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

Lord TSC wrote: »

So someone who has been in your league since it began (how long ago? Looks like the manager you're using as an example has been there for 6 years...) has managed to develop a team better than someone only in it 18 months or so? Shocking :pac:

Tell me, how many of those players were brought in when buying from unmanaged was turned off? One thing I'll say about The Good League; it's far easier to trade and swap players with other real people, but thats not whats being debated here at all..

Your point seems to be that someone in a league for years will be better able to do deals for players than someone just joining, and that the person just joining needs to develop their team over time. Can't disagree, but it goes against the idea being debated here; namely, new managers joining a league will be able to get top level players if buying from unmanaged is turned on.

Turning on buying from unmanaged will help the teams who are solidly established, not new managers trying to join, and will help teams who have had time to build cash reserves over a long time, not small teams struggling to get promoted.

EDIT: While we're at it, any chance of dropping the constant referrals to Drogheda as Shelbyville? Its tiring...

Mentioning new managers twice (where are all these new managers by the way, I keep hearing bout them but their clubs are laying idle for ages in the Boards GW....... Never mind I'm sure they will be along soon....)

What about the current managers? What about when more of them leave because of a stagnated market....


No mention of them, and its Christmas and all

ctrl-alt-delete

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

So it has descended into petty insults and arguments now.

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

Mentioning new managers twice (where are all these new managers by the way, I keep hearing bout them but their clubs are laying idle for ages in the Boards GW....... Never mind I'm sure they will be along soon....)

What about the current managers? What about when more of them leave because of a stagnated market....


No mention of them, and its Christmas and all

Two new managers yesterday...

Lord TSC

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

What about the current managers? What about when more of them leave because of a stagnated market....

I mention new managers because thats what the point I was referring back to was discussing.

As far as current managers and a "stagnated market", I simply don't believe that turning the option to buy from unmanaged clubs will work in the favour of those who need it; that the market will be massive for about a week, where all the top clubs will snap up 95% of the talent, and then the market will resort back to its stagnated form.

If we want to discuss the stagnated market, grand, lets. The problem isn't the fact that people can't buy from a relatively small pool of players (that pool being 88s-90s at unmanaged teams, the vast majority of which might have a single player each), but that people hoard players and don't want to do deals that don't work in their favour to a crazy degree. That won't change with your proposition. Big teams will get bigger, smaller teams will be at risk (they'll have to sell off half their squads to try and compete, and what happens if they don't secure a load of new players? They are left with a barebones squad unable to grow at all).

The problem of the stagnated market comes from the attitudes of the players who don't want to do deals of any sorts, not from the fact there's about 15 players who 55 teams or so will be competing for in a mad rush before everything goes back to normal.

hufpc8w3adnk65

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Lord TSC wrote: »

I mention new managers because thats what the point I was referring back to was discussing.

As far as current managers and a "stagnated market", I simply don't believe that turning the option to buy from unmanaged clubs will work in the favour of those who need it; that the market will be massive for about a week, where all the top clubs will snap up 95% of the talent, and then the market will resort back to its stagnated form.

If we want to discuss the stagnated market, grand, lets. The problem isn't the fact that people can't buy from a relatively small pool of players (that pool being 88s-90s at unmanaged teams, the vast majority of which might have a single player each), but that people hoard players and don't want to do deals that don't work in their favour to a crazy degree. That won't change with your proposition. Big teams will get bigger, smaller teams will be at risk (they'll have to sell off half their squads to try and compete, and what happens if they don't secure a load of new players? They are left with a barebones squad unable to grow at all).

The problem of the stagnated market comes from the attitudes of the players who don't want to do deals of any sorts, not from the fact there's about 15 players who 55 teams or so will be competing for in a mad rush before everything goes back to normal.

I pretty much agree 100% with this.. If the rules stay as they are then perhaps we should discuss ways too stimulate the market (realistically)

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

MrMac84 wrote: »

I pretty much agree 100% with this.. If the rules stay as they are then perhaps we should discuss ways too stimulate the market (realistically)

20 credits for each transfer completed

tommycahir

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Lord TSC wrote: »

I mention new managers because thats what the point I was referring back to was discussing.

As far as current managers and a "stagnated market", I simply don't believe that turning the option to buy from unmanaged clubs will work in the favour of those who need it; that the market will be massive for about a week, where all the top clubs will snap up 95% of the talent, and then the market will resort back to its stagnated form.

If we want to discuss the stagnated market, grand, lets. The problem isn't the fact that people can't buy from a relatively small pool of players (that pool being 88s-90s at unmanaged teams, the vast majority of which might have a single player each), but that people hoard players and don't want to do deals that don't work in their favour to a crazy degree. That won't change with your proposition. Big teams will get bigger, smaller teams will be at risk (they'll have to sell off half their squads to try and compete, and what happens if they don't secure a load of new players? They are left with a barebones squad unable to grow at all).

The problem of the stagnated market comes from the attitudes of the players who don't want to do deals of any sorts, not from the fact there's about 15 players who 55 teams or so will be competing for in a mad rush before everything goes back to normal.

MrMac84 wrote: »

I pretty much agree 100% with this.. If the rules stay as they are then perhaps we should discuss ways too stimulate the market (realistically)

These posts summarise why I voted to leave it turned off

bazarakus

LEFT OFF

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

So it has descended into petty insults and arguments now.

No it hasn't!

hufpc8w3adnk65

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Bazarakus is now on a week holiday from the entire soccermanager forum.
He stepped way over line by insulting someone personally. Apologies for the delayed response (still new too this mod thing as ye don't give us much too do here normally) now back too the civilizied debate ye were having before hand.

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

Unfortunately Mac......

Longer than that, quit....

Best of luck Baz, another of the good ones gone..

jukebox2310

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I'm at Twente and to be honest it breaks my balls trying to do transfers in this game. I can see why Jimmy left. I started with no cash and traded players on a 2 for 1 basis trying to build the squad up. I have currently about 12 miles in the bank but I know that if buying from.unmanaged is turned off that I will more than likely be beaten on every transfer by the clubs who have stashes of cash. IMO all that will happen is that the biggervclubs will get the best players and the clubs like myself will be left with the players no one else wants

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

What's the vote? 13-13?

Wilberto

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

What's the vote? 13-13?

That's what I have it as. Status quo it is then! :pac:

Wilberto

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I'm trying to figure out if there's anyone left to vote. By which I mean the regulars.

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

What's the vote? 13-13?

Count again..... I withdraw my vote.......

I have consistently argued this topic based on catering FOR THE MANAGERS WE HAVE...

If the poxy topic is going to cost more regulars then I say I want no part of it...


Like I've said ALL along.....


I want us to finally look after the managers we have, I've said this for seasons now and when the penny finally drops it will be far far too late.... It already is.


Would I rather see unmanaged turned on or Baz return....

Easy one...


Enjoy your vote lads, how it's worth it

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Why did Baz quit? Because of the ban or because of the vote. I would imagine the former, you can't insult people and expect to get away with it. So his quitting is nothing to do with the vote what so ever. Hopefully he calms down and takes on AC again, good manager who has helped me out in other leagues, would be sad to see him go.

You obviously feel strongly on this Tupac and so do I. You feel your way is best for the GW and I feel my way is, its a matter of opinion which we're all entitled to, I don't see the point in withdrawing your vote.

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Wilberto wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out if there's anyone left to vote. By which I mean the regulars.

Not a clue, its open till the 8th so not too long to go anyway

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

You obviously feel strongly on this Tupac and so do I. You feel your way is best for the GW and I feel my way is, its a matter of opinion which we're all entitled to, I don't see the point in withdrawing your vote.

What I gods honestly feel strongly about is keeping the existing managers above all else....

We've lost Jimmy, which brought up this debate again and weather Baz quit over his ban or not (I'm assuming so) is still a direct result of this debate and if this debate is to cost us managwrsz their ain't no way at all its worth that cost so I'm out, 100% out, I'll have no part of it....

I retract everything I've said on this topic, I've seen some responses mentioning me and my opinions and I don't want any sort of influence over any part of this.....

I retract everything and gracefully withdraw.....


I will say though, we as a gameworld really need to let go of this fascination of the 'incoming managers' and really concentrate on the good lads we have in the GW....


Sad day lads, I'm done on this thread, going to pop over to the main thread for happier days...


I withdraw my vote and views on this subject.

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Are you withdrawing from all debates? Anyone could quit over any disagreement. Seems ridiculous to me but sure whatever you want yourself.

Comic Book Guy

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I'm a relative newcomer to this league lads and only have experience of this GW rules.
Some very good points made by both sides of the argument.

My own feeling is that ultimately the market I think the bigger clubs are the ones that will benefit and the gap in terms of squad depths will widen between the haves and have nots.

Speaking from a purely selfish point of view I currently have a small budget, with a first team of 87s (4) and 88s (7), after that my squad depth falls of a cliff and I'm very grateful to city, roma, and arsenal managers for the 86s they loaned me. For me to get an 89-90 from unmanaged I would have to offload 2-3 88s in order to outbid the higher division clubs.

What I would love to see happen if it was opened is an NFL type draft system with the bottom team in div 4 given first choice to bid on a player with no competition in an attempt to spread the wealth but I realise this cant be enforced and would be logistically a nightmare to try and control.

On the issue of stagnation in transfer market I know I personally haven't added much to it thus far and apologise. I'm not coming from a position of strength given money and squad outlined above hence haven't really entered negotiations with other members cause I don't really think anyone else would be really interested in what I have to offer with the exception of maybe one youth and even he is only a 76. Anyways will try and make more of an effort in that regard in future!

Maldjd23

I have read through the thread and here is what i believe should happen.

Mac bans the Bayern and Barca managers.
They get annoyed and quit the league.
Buying from unmanaged is then turned on.
I buy Messi and Alaba
Everyone is happy.

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

Maldjd23 wrote: »

I have read through the thread and here is what i believe should happen.

Mac bans the Bayern and Barca managers.
They get annoyed and quit the league.
Buying from unmanaged is then turned on.
I buy Messi and Alaba
Everyone is happy.

Messi is too old for you mate

Al Capwned

LEFT OFF

Soccer Manager is a game I enjoy, one i look forward to playing when I get home from work or whatever.




But it's still a game..

Al Capwned

LEFT OFF

I'm still undecided as to the poll too btw, but I may lean towards turning it back on. if only for the craic, it might generate a bit of chat in the threads, which tbh is probably the main reason I still play the thing.

Not sure tho....

jukebox2310

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Twente have voted to keep it off. Think I'd be blown out of the water by the bigger clubs so it wouldn't benefit me in any way. Selfish I know but that's the way I see it for all clubs like me. The best players will end up at the clubs that don't need them and the rest of us will be scrapping for their 87s and 88s

Colemania

LEFT OFF

Can I change my votes lads? Starting to realise I was too hasty in voting to turn this on and agree with what people are saying. There's clubs there in division 1 and 2 and even the odd one in division 3 that have money to burn. They'll end up getting all these players as squad fillers whereby other clubs will get the duds.

If possible, change my vote or just make a note at the end to mark off my vote

Mr Blobby

I just realised that i'll probably be managing another team soon, so I should probably change my vote.

I vote to keep it off.

RickyOFlaherty

LEFT OFF

tupac_healy wrote: »

Unfortunately Mac......

Longer than that, quit....

Best of luck Baz, another of the good ones gone..

Not sure what he said as I presume the post has been deleted .... but banning from the forum is OTT in my opinion ... think just deleting the offending post and sending a private message might have been enough. It is not that busy of a forum to take the time to handle some of the more regular posters with a bit of care (IMHO).

Voted to keep it on.

hufpc8w3adnk65

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

RickyOFlaherty wrote: »

Not sure what he said as I presume the post has been deleted .... but banning from the forum is OTT in my opinion ... think just deleting the offending post and sending a private message might have been enough. It is not that busy of a forum to take the time to handle some of the more regular posters with a bit of care (IMHO).

Voted to keep it on.

If you want too Pop me a pm we can talk about it, but please dont question mod instructions on thread as it drags topics off thread.

ScummyMan

LEFT OFF

Galatasaray manager here, sitting on a decent pile of cash so I'll vote to turn it on :P

phone2000

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Hamburg - Voted to keep it off.

I can't see how switching this on will get the market moving in any way.

Beefy78

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Keep it off.

tonic wine

LEFT OFF

The gameworld was more enjoyable when we were allowed to buy from un-managed. As a small club(dynamo kyiv) i was able to compete for top players and managed to sign 4/5 89/90 rated players from unmanaged teams which helped me get promoted from div 2. With the rule as it is now, i would not have been able to do this, and i would be stuck with a sh1t team and sh1t players, eventually would have lost interest and stoped playing, as with many players that joined the game since the rule was changed. Lets be honest, who wants to trade 90+ players for two 88's ect. You don't have an opportunity to compete for the better players as it is now. The transfer market is the best part of the game and with this rule change you have taken away from the best part of the game

I don't see how it has benefited the gameworld as a whole since it was changed. It may have protected teams, but we have lost players and players lose interest logging in to see they got hammered again because they can't manage to sign better players to improve their team. Where's the fun in banging your head off a wall trying to sign the better players for cash. It rarely happens.

I won't have an opportunity to reply on this thread. Just giving my opinion.

tonic wine

LEFT OFF

phone2000 wrote: »

Hamburg - Voted to keep it off.

I can't see how switching this on will get the market moving in any way.

A team that has some attractive better players becomes unmanaged. Other teams compete for these players with huge amounts of cash. the club loses these players, but are left with a huge bank balance.

A new manager comes in. When another team becomes unmanaged, he has a huge bank balance to go and sign their players and the cycle continues. Otherwise cash is useless. From experience, it was the only use for cash.

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tonic wine wrote: »

A team that has some attractive better players becomes unmanaged. Other teams compete for these players with huge amounts of cash. the club loses these players, but are left with a huge bank balance.

A new manager comes in. When another team becomes unmanaged, he has a huge bank balance to go and sign their players and the cycle continues.

It seems that the bank balance is removed by SM after a few days, according to a few here.

So you'd be left with no good players, no money and a team of rejects, good luck getting a manager for them

tonic wine

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

It seems that the bank balance is removed by SM after a few days, according to a few here.

So you'd be left with no good players, no money and a team of rejects, good luck getting a manager for them

Unless that is something new, it wasn't the case.
There's a few managers on here that said (not this thread, other threads on this topic) when they took over (before the rule change) they had massive balances and it was the only way they could sign players when another team became unmanaged.

I had with Kyiv. Obviously if you put in extra work and buy cheap risers, you can multiply your balance very easy and use the cash to buy from unmanaged.

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tonic wine wrote: »

Unless that is something new, it wasn't the case.
There's a few managers on here that said (not this thread, other threads on this topic) when they took over (before the rule change) they had massive balances and it was the only way they could sign players when another team became unmanaged.

I had with Kyiv. Obviously if you put in extra work and buy cheap risers, you can multiply your balance very easy and use the cash to buy from unmanaged.

I'll check tomorrow but a couple of the lads were discussing it and said that the budget is reduced to the start out budget after a few days, I think Baz said it, will find it and post here. People have complained of budgets shrinking while waiting to take over with no transfers in or out, this could be why.

tonic wine

LEFT OFF

And this is another point that needs to be picked up on. Maybe we should be concentrating on improving the game world experience for the current active managers in an effort to stop the decline in numbers, and maybe start listening to why managers have lost interest and are leaving the game.

I think most of it comes down to not been able to sign players. This rule does not really effect the big clubs IMO, and i'll include myself in that category. For example, deals i've done myself are all PX, which involved a straight swap 94 px 94, and a 91 plus cash px for 89+90 player.

Small teams don't have these players to start out with, so don't have the players to do PX deals for the higher rated players.

Therefore they are not able to do any px deals for 90+ players.
They can't use cash to buy any 90+ players.
What options are they left with?
Where's the enjoyment going to come from?
How long will they stay active before giving up?

Beefy78

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

You're always going to lose players though. Nothing will stop that. Turning it back on will just make it more difficult to replace them. I built a nice little team at Panathinaikos. Left to join Shakhtar, the old team was gutted straight away and other than a few weeks has been without a manager as a result ever since (IIRC).

As frustrating as it is being unable to improve my side now it'll be worse if we do this as within hours the bigger sides will have snapped up the better unmanaged players making it more difficult for a mid-ranking side like mine who could actually improve with the addition of a few affordable 89s.

MRPRO03

LEFT OFF

I would be in favour of turning it on but on a condition that squad sizes can only be a certain number, so players would be spread around better. I am finding it near impossible to sign players from other managed teams.