SoccerManager.com (#4) The Boards.ie World

KERSPLAT!

That's gas considering it was one of the reasons give by all the no voters but was always dismissed.

Anyway, vote again, I think the yes will still win.

baza Rakus

It's almost as if Soccer Manager is a game that is quite buggy sometimes.

Almost ...

When it went down in Gold 1 a while back it took about three weeks to play out and everyone get their readies. I tink in the end everyone was pretty happy (pretty much everyone got loads of cash apart from the teams with **** loads of players)

eh i dunno

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

During the 2nd of back-to-back friendlies against Aston Villa, Porto fans were heard singing "Can we play you every week?"

It was the 4-0 and 3-0 scorelines which gave the Porto fans reason to be buoyant

Meh no silverware dished out in pre season!

swoody

Germany have won the SMFA World Cup!

in other news...

The chairman has decided to invest 33,471,335 into the SMFA's offshore account to mount a serious title challenge this season

tupac_healy

Lord TSC wrote:

Has it changed much? Now some teams have 300m instead of 250m....

Much? 50mil.... Do you consider that much?

tupac_healy

Cash rich clubs being given an EXTRA 50mil for free was never a reason put forward.... But gas yeah, flawless contribution to the conversation as per

In fact the OPPOSITE was promised by SM to 'Improve competitiveness' that the smaller clubs would be given large sums in order to compete within the confines of these 'buying from unmanaged' regulations..... I.e. cash ONLY.

This is a classic case of the goalposts being moved (not by clubs obviously) but my original assessment of the subject was based on the gap being narrowed and not widened......

Comic Book Guy

Lord TSC wrote: »

Has it changed much? Now some teams have 300m instead of 250m....

50m is a lot from my point of view, especially when the clubs involved had to do nothing to earn it. That's not a dig at the clubs that did get it, I know ye had no input in getting it and would gladly give it back.

I know lads are going to say ya have a full season to build up your cash reserves but I reckon I would have to sell almost the entire youth team to bring in 50m just to catch up and level out with what clubs with way better squads, way more valueable squads and innumerably bigger cash reserves alewady in place already got in one swoop for nothing.

Not really a level playing field! I have no problem with there being differences in season tickets sales, and money brought in via merchandising etc between div 1 clubs and div 4 as that's logical and realistic but bumping up an already heavy weight club with 50m for no obvious reason is hardly fair?

Mourinho

Lord TSC wrote: »

Has it changed much? Now some teams have 300m instead of 250m....

As someone who hasn't got a cash injection I still say meh, an happy to still turn on the buying from unmanaged.

The majority of players people would buy with that cash are sitting at clubs that will never be filled anyway, it's nearly all clubs with say one 89 or 90 and rest are crap 87s and below.

Most lads had couple hundred million anyway as you said big deal.

So I say let the bidding wars come, I still see a thawing of the current transfer activities. If Bayern, PSG or Real can snap up a young 88/89 for say 15m then they may be more inclined to sell that 30 year old 89 that won't go anywhere I dunno E.G. Christan Fuchs

They will need to make cash back as they know it will let them bid for someone else down the line whether from an unmanaged or not.

At the moment can you really see an 89 being sold for cash even if he's over 30? Not a hope lads will want couple youths or something.

Still better serve the current players and let em have some fun at this stage it's more craic than looking at all those handy players just sitting at clubs that will never be used by anyone but the computer so to speak.

Oh and btw City will blow through his 50m in a couple weeks on every youth added anyway

tupac_healy

Mourinho wrote:

They will need to make cash back as they know it will let them bid for someone else down the line whether from an unmanaged or not.

I disagree with almost everything you said, but rather than draw out a huge argument I'll just still to this one point...

Please man, don't be so naive, why in the name of God will they sell on these 'older' players when they get these new players for cash, sure the chairman is going to invest start of next season, replenishing cash is not an issue.... there is no need or incentive to sell anyone!


I had hoped that the 'concerns levels rising quicker' would also have a positive effect on this, but going by what SM say and what they do, I won't hold my breath on this one either....

Lord TSC

Comic Book Guy wrote: »

50m is a lot from my point of view, especially when the clubs involved had to do nothing to earn it. That's not a dig at the clubs that did get it, I know ye had no input in getting it and would gladly give it back.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying how much 50m is for some teams; when I got a 25m cash injection at Drogheda in The Good League a few months back, it completely transformed what I was doing there. Nor am I arguing that it's "fair" in terms of which teams got the cash injections. I'd have rather seen the bottom teams get those massive cash boosts to reinvigorate the gameworld at its foundation.

Because I was on my IPad (due to log in issues), I wasn't able to put forward the idea properly. On a keyboard now, I'll be more specific.

I'm not saying 50m isn't a lot for some teams. It very obviously is. More, it's not a lot for the teams who got it, in terms of not only having a team of 100+ players, but in terms of the fact they already had massive bank reserves. If a team had 200m in the bank, there's not much more they need at that stage. I'll expand more below in relation to other posts...

Mourinho wrote: »

So I say let the bidding wars come, I still see a thawing of the current transfer activities. If Bayern, PSG or Real can snap up a young 88/89 for say 15m then they may be more inclined to sell that 30 year old 89 that won't go anywhere I dunno E.G. Christan Fuchs

They will need to make cash back as they know it will let them bid for someone else down the line whether from an unmanaged or not.

Honestly, I think if people weren't inclined to sell such players before, they won't be now. If people are hoping that buying from unmanaged means they can grab some players from the unmanaged teams, fine, but I wouldn't be relying on bigger teams selling decent 89s, cash injection or not. If hoarding exists, its going to exist no matter what way the rules get changed, and its selling people a false bill of goods to think otherwise imo.

As I said, at this stage, I'm not arguing against turning the rules on, in terms of I'm not going to bother voting NO again. But people probably need to have a bit more realism in their thinking about how this changes things. Which leads me too...

tupac_healy wrote: »

Cash rich clubs being given an EXTRA 50mil for free was never a reason put forward.... But gas yeah, flawless contribution to the conversation as per

In fact the OPPOSITE was promised by SM to 'Improve competitiveness' that the smaller clubs would be given large sums in order to compete within the confines of these 'buying from unmanaged' regulations..... I.e. cash ONLY.

This is a classic case of the goalposts being moved (not by clubs obviously) but my original assessment of the subject was based on the gap being narrowed and not widened......

tupac_healy wrote: »

I disagree with almost everything you said, but rather than draw out a huge argument I'll just still to this one point...

Please man, don't be so naive, why in the name of God will they sell on these 'older' players when they get these new players for cash, sure the chairman is going to invest start of next season, replenishing cash is not an issue.... there is no need or incentive to sell anyone!

I had hoped that the 'concerns levels rising quicker' would also have a positive effect on this, but going by what SM say and what they do, I won't hold my breath on this one either....

You're pretty much now bringing up the points that were constantly held up against turning on buying from unmanaged, but which you largely ignored. Namely...

Large teams will have more than enough money to overly dominate the market, while small teams will struggle to compete.
Large teams will not be forced to sell anyone (of any significance) to justify spending sprees.
Concern rules, and any changes, will not force anyone to sell anyone.

Honestly, I don't see how the goalposts have moved at all; rich teams who had 200m in the bank now have 250m in the bank. But its not that these teams wouldn't have had the financial muscle to dominate the transfer market before. They may be slightly stronger, but not significantly, relative to how much they already had.

The goalposts haven't been moved; in fact, I'd say you're now placing them exactly where those of us who have concerns have been placing them up until now. The two quoted posts are pretty much exactly the concerns we've been trying to present to you. Now the vote looks set to pass, you've realized the rich teams have the advantage, which was the crux of the argument thats been presented to you for over 18 months.

Colemania

Trying to cut down on my squad so I've transfer listed most of my youths and a few fringe squad players rated 87 and under. They'll be going to externals anyway so if anyone wants one for cash, bid away. I'm Udinese by the way

Mourinho

Meh honestly still not bothered tbh if it annoys lads fair enough debate away.

I'd honestly rather see see players used tbh whether they get landed en mass at Bayern or whoever than current status quo, it's only a game after all.

Mourinho

One that I was thinking of is this whole mess is probably all caused by something as small as a programmer putting a + instead of - in a line of code So say instead of it being of a teams average is - half the average or whatever the rule is to get a cash injection, they probably have it as if the average is + aka bigger then give em the mola

Colemania didn't ya say on KIK they replied to your query anyway and said that's not how it's supposed to work and the likes of Bayern shouldn't have got the injection?

GLaDOS

Lyon getting 2 bids in for the same player, this game eh?


I'll probably keep my vote the same way, was going to get outbid for the best players anyway. A re-vote does make sense though.

Colemania

Mourinho wrote: »

One that I was thinking of is this whole mess is probably all caused by something as small as a programmer putting a + instead of - in a line of code So say instead of it being of a teams average is - half the average or whatever the rule is to get a cash injection, they probably have it as if the average is + aka bigger then give em the mola

Colemania didn't ya say on KIK they replied to your query anyway and said that's not how it's supposed to work and the likes of Bayern shouldn't have got the injection?

Ya they said to raise a ticket which I have. Waiting on a reply!

Colemania

Colemania wrote: »

Trying to cut down on my squad so I've transfer listed most of my youths and a few fringe squad players rated 87 and under. They'll be going to externals anyway so if anyone wants one for cash, bid away. I'm Udinese by the way

Wow......just like that there's 31 gone! I'm back under 100 players again

tupac_healy

Lord TSC wrote:

The goalposts haven't been moved; in fact, I'd say you're now placing them exactly where those of us who have concerns have been placing them up until now. The two quoted posts are pretty much exactly the concerns we've been trying to present to you. Now the vote looks set to pass, you've realized the rich teams have the advantage, which was the crux of the argument thats been presented to you for over 18 months.

Absolutely 100% incorrect.... I've made no such realization, my comments are based upon large (you don't see them as large but that's where we differ) sums of money being dumped into financially rich teams when we were told that SM were making the game more competitive... Had this not have happened I'd have more than happy to proceed....

But going on this blatant lie from SM we have no evidence whatsoever that the concerns update will work as they have promised either, therefore it's a double blow to smaller clubs.


How you can say the goalposts have not been moved based upon the recent cash injections is beyond me, and the fact you think 50mil is a small amount shows how far out of touch you are.... And your claim that it doesn't matter as what's the difference between 200 and 250, have some respect for lads that have literally no cash and trying to Build a team...

Colemania

The bug I reported with the cash injections was closed and this was their reply....


Hi Colemania,

We are aware of this problem and are currently working on it, but thanks for bringing it to our attention again.

Regards
Soccer Manager



To be honest, if they do fix it it'll just work properly going forward but for this season at least, the big clubs will keep their cash injections and looks like everyone else will just have to bear the brunt of it and not get anything. Is it fair, no definitely not but I tried....

gerp99

In my defence I got 50 mill. I currently have 51 million. It won't last long

Colemania

gerp99 wrote: »

In my defence I got 50 mill. I currently have 51 million. It won't last long

No in your defence is Boateng, Ramos, Barzagli and Carvajal so you definitely can't complain.....

:P

ctrl-alt-delete

Why don't the big clubs just buy the little clubs ****e players for max cash.

We all know it makes sense and the only way that makes sense.

We should trial it first of course, I nominate City to splash the cash at Genoa.

PerrinV2

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Why don't the big clubs just buy the little clubs ****e players for max cash.

We all know it makes sense and the only way that makes sense.

We should trial it first of course, I nominate City to splash the cash at Genoa.

Genoa are too big,div 3 side,wanna start with those div4 teams :pac:

swoody

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Why don't the big clubs just buy the little clubs ****e players for max cash.

We all know it makes sense and the only way that makes sense.

We should trial it first of course, I nominate City to splash the cash at Genoa.

first you must set up a poll and a voting system so we can decide by 2025 and then argue that its unfair and only benefits a tiny minority and it drags on and on and on an.............d on.

Mourinho

swoody wrote: »

first you must set up a poll and a voting system so we can decide by 2025 and then argue that its unfair and only benefits a tiny minority and it drags on and on and on an.............d on.

Don't forget the re-vote in case lads aren't happy with the first one

Vote Lisbon for jobs lads! :pac:

Burlap_Sack

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Why don't the big clubs just buy the little clubs ****e players for max cash.

We all know it makes sense and the only way that makes sense.

We should trial it first of course, I nominate City to splash the cash at Genoa.

The great 50mil giveaway.....I'll do it so who wants a few mil?

GT_TDI_150

Mystic Megs ----> This Way

Lord TSC

tupac_healy wrote: »

How you can say the goalposts have not been moved based upon the recent cash injections is beyond me, and the fact you think 50mil is a small amount shows how far out of touch you are.... And your claim that it doesn't matter as what's the difference between 200 and 250, have some respect for lads that have literally no cash and trying to Build a team...

Do me a favour and stop trying to portray my intents as something they aren't. I quiet clearly addressed that point, when I said...

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying how much 50m is for some teams; when I got a 25m cash injection at Drogheda in The Good League a few months back, it completely transformed what I was doing there. Nor am I arguing that it's "fair" in terms of which teams got the cash injections. I'd have rather seen the bottom teams get those massive cash boosts to reinvigorate the gameworld at its foundation.

[...]

I'm not saying 50m isn't a lot for some teams. It very obviously is. More, it's not a lot for the teams who got it, in terms of not only having a team of 100+ players, but in terms of the fact they already had massive bank reserves. If a team had 200m in the bank, there's not much more they need at that stage.

The goalposts haven't moved because the rich teams are still rich and the "poor" teams (relatively speaking) are still poor. Goalposts moving would have been had a load of poor teams been given money to compete on a fairer level after a vote took place on the knowledge that some teams would have had advantages, and those advantages were wiped out. As it stands, the advantages haven't changed at all; rich teams who had the ability to hoover up talent still have that ability, only now they have a slightly higher ability to do so. I doubt any team has gone "Well when I had 200m, I wasn't going to buy anyone, but now I have 250m, that changes things". Anyone who thought that the power wasn't massively in the hands of the rich teams before the injection hadn't thought things out at all.

The key word is "relatively". The balance of power hasn't shifted; the rich teams are still stupidly rich. The argument presented to you for 2 years has been that if the rule was turned on and people let buy from unmanaged, then it's the rich teams who would be able to dominate the situation to claim players they wanted. That fact hasn't changed in the slightest with the cash injections. Not one bit.

The arguments for and against a rule change remain exactly as they were before.

tupac_healy

Lord TSC wrote:

That fact hasn't changed in the slightest with the cash injections. Not one bit.

Everything we disagree on boils down to this one sentance in essence..... It really is a sad indictment of how you view the game as opposed to others who have done such a wonderful job building on a reletaive shoe string budget....

Again, last time....

I based my opinion on the promise from SM that the gap would be narrowed, not widened, which is exactly want happened..

Hence, goalposts moved...


End of

KERSPLAT!

Has it not always been your opinion that buying from unmanaged should be allowed? This is a long time issue, well before SM promised anything

tupac_healy

KERSPLAT! wrote:

Has it not always been your opinion that buying from unmanaged should be allowed? This is a long time issue, well before SM promised anything

No, because I've been on the SM forums a long time and these changes were talked about even as far back as 2 years ago...

A for effort though, try all you want I'm sorry to inform you that I've not had some divine intervention about the matter, I really feel as though the gap has widened significantly rather than being reduced, as was promised....

Not attaching blame to any player of the game it's SM that has changed my decision not anything that changed my mind...

You above all should know I'm not swayed by the opinions of others