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

king size mars bar

LEFT OFF

Just voted to turn it on, hope it works out. Peace out from Leverkusen .

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Gonna start selling some youth, will need a decent budget come end of season!

The Governor

LEFT OFF

8-10 has kindly let me know he used manage in the GW but not anymore and feel free to set his vote aside.

Lord TSC

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

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!

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.

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

The Governor wrote: »

8-10 has kindly let me know he used manage in the GW but not anymore and feel free to set his vote aside.

Sign him up!


Loads of free clubs

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

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.

Very very well said, I agree 100% and I knew bazarakus' point about small teams benefitted by being able to bid more was very misleading as you quite clearly pointed out from your experiences.

you are also correct in saying that opening this will not serve its purpose which is to help smaller teams.

Eventually down the line div4 will be scrapped with div 3 not far behind

tupac_healy

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.

That's a single 88-89 player that they don't have right now (I'd feel safe in saying that this could even make the difference for some as to weather to quit or carry on in the GW, who know's it could be THAT one player they are after), and if the big boys hoover up some of the divisions other 88s and 89's then it makes that division even move of a level playing field.......

Still not seeing a downside, after all the big boys can only put 11 on the pitch same as the rest........ so if they have 20 or so 88's-89's causing concerns and upping their wage bill then...... whats the down side to that again?

PerrinV2

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

That's a single 88-89 player that they don't have right now (I'd feel safe in saying that this could even make the difference for some as to weather to quit or carry on in the GW, who know's it could be THAT one player they are after), and if the big boys hoover up some of the divisions other 88s and 89's then it makes that division even move of a level playing field.......

Still not seeing a downside, after all the big boys can only put 11 on the pitch same as the rest........ so if they have 20 or so 88's-89's causing concerns and upping their wage bill then...... whats the down side to that again?

Concerns? shure ppl just swap players to alleviate the concerns(with the intention of swapping back when the ban is up I believe)

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Gonna start selling some youth, will need a decent budget come end of season!

See.....


Market has kick started already :D:D

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Sure I could just keep swapping players to keep concerns down, seems to be the done thing now.

Again, unmanaged teams will be gutted and no one will want them. At the moment say there are 15 unmanaged, they all get raided, no one wants them again. Another manager leaves, team gets raided, no one wants them again... And so on and so on, until there are less and less teams worth managing and no one new willing to take them on because they have been gutted and haven't a penny to spend

The Governor

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Gonna start selling some youth, will need a decent budget come end of season!

Mate how come you have to emphasize how much of a big shopping spree you'll go on every single time this comes up?

Ala

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I don't care how I sound but that's why I buy youth. So they rise to the first team or they rise enough to use in part ex to get me better players. If this goes through I'll be on a shopping spree!

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

You wouldn't be planning to buy a load of players just for the sake of trying to prove your own point would you now? I'd have more respect if you just feckin bought them cause you wanted 'em for a cup team and kept stum instead of whats obviously an attempt to intimate lads from voting to turn it on

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

See.....


Market has kick started already :D:D

Aye, I've plenty of useless 75s, fire in some bids!!

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

I've said already ... if I were to get a player in the event of unmanaged buying being allowed, I would only be looking for players that would improve my first 11, if they dont improve my first 11 i'm not interested.

in the event I do end up buying I tend to sell to balance it out.

I'm not going to buy an 88 just to stick him on the bench, if i buy a player he'll go in my team ... other/richer/higher rated teams might approach it differently, thats their right but shooting down the 'turn it on' arguments while promising to build up cash to go buy players if this gets changes is imo ... a little childish and possibly aimed at unsettling the undecided voters

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Concerns? shure ppl just swap players to alleviate the concerns(with the intention of swapping back when the ban is up I believe)

If it MUTUALLY benefits both sides why not? Are there rules being broken?

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I've said already ... if I were to get a player in the event of unmanaged buying being allowed, I would only be looking for players that would improve my first 11, if they dont improve my first 11 i'm not interested.

in the event I do end up buying I tend to sell to balance it out.

I'm not going to buy an 88 just to stick him on the bench, if i buy a player he'll go in my team ... other/richer/higher rated teams might approach it differently, thats their right but shooting down the 'turn it on' arguments while promising to build up cash to go buy players if this gets changes is imo ... a little childish and possibly aimed at unsettling the undecided voters

Childish, ah go on outta that ffs. It looks like it'll be turned on so I'll build my kitty and be ready for the end of season as everyone else will. That said, I'm still against it. What's the problem? My argument is my way of trying to sway the undecided, I don't need to play games.

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

If it MUTUALLY benefits both sides why not? Are there rules being broken?

No rules broken but its the counter argument against your point of big teams having problems with concerns. There won't be a problem if we swap players who have concerns and take them back a few months later.

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

No rules broken but its the counter argument against your point of big teams having problems with concerns. There won't be a problem if we swap players who have concerns and take them back a few months later.

But how about the neglected to mention part about what happens in those few months, a team could get promoted off of it..... oh wait

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

The Governor wrote: »

Mate how come you have to emphasize how much of a big shopping spree you'll go on every single time this comes up?

Ala





You wouldn't be planning to buy a load of players just for the sake of trying to prove your own point would you now? I'd have more respect if you just feckin bought them cause you wanted 'em for a cup team and kept stum instead of whats obviously an attempt to intimate lads from voting to turn it on

Not to make a point, to have a better team.

If someone is intimidated by a couple of posts on boards, they have bigger issues than a poll on soccermanager.

If you have a problem with my posts you're free to report them, I won't be keeping 'stum'.

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

But how about the neglected to mention part about what happens in those few months, a team could get promoted off of it..... oh wait

I don't get the joke

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Not to make a point, to have a better team.

If someone is intimidated by a couple of posts on boards, they have bigger issues than a poll on soccermanager.

If you have a problem with my posts you're free to report them, I won't be keeping 'stum'.

Funny post that!

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Funny post that!

I'm glad you liked it

PerrinV2

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

If it MUTUALLY benefits both sides why not? Are there rules being broken?

Not against any rules that I can see.
I wonder why those developers put concerns in the game,hmmm..

Lord TSC

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Concerns won't be an issue. Once teams get pillaged, then there'll be nothing to spend cash on again, so people can just pay them off.

The big problem in this gameworld isn't buying from unmanaged teams, or a lack of cash....it's that people don't buy and sell between each other except for crazy deals.

Buying from unmanaged teams will see a load of big teams buy a load of players for about two weeks, and then the transfer market will die again, because it won't shift attitudes that are the bigger problem. The end result will simply be strong teams get stronger and unmanaged teams are killed off.

The Governor

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Not to make a point, to have a better team.

If someone is intimidated by a couple of posts on boards, they have bigger issues than a poll on soccermanager.

If you have a problem with my posts you're free to report them, I won't be keeping 'stum'.

Funny that given you have arguably the best squad in the GW, not to mention a few 90+ players for the bench, like I said acting like a child cause the vote is currently going against you.

I can understand the points and concerns the likes of Modo and Lord TSC come out with and your points , but its plain as day this whole "well if its voted on lads I guess I'll be buying all around me " is nothing short of the old if we don't play my way I'm taking the ball and going home.

Here's a few sweeties little fella, now run along and play

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I don't get the joke

I..... got promoted...... :rolleyes:

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Not against any rules that I can see.
I wonder why those developers put concerns in the game,hmmm..

Not sure, if you find one maybe you could ask them why there are no 'buy back clauses' in the game.....


They exist in real life

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

The Governor wrote: »

Funny that given you have arguably the best squad in the GW, not to mention a few 90+ players for the bench, like I said acting like a child cause the vote is currently going against you.

I can understand the points and concerns the likes of Modo and Lord TSC come out with and your points , but its plain as day this whole "well if its voted on lads I guess I'll be buying all around me " is nothing short of the old if we don't play my way I'm taking the ball and going home.

Here's a few sweeties little fella, now run along and play

I won't be taking any ball or going anywhere, I'll have a look at the clubs and will bid on any player I want to add to my squad. As Tupac said, I can only bid for 1 from each team at a time and having the team I have will put me at a disadvantage bidding wise anyway. If you don't like how I post there are plenty of things you can do to avoid reading them

As for the baiting, good luck with it

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

I..... got promoted...... :rolleyes:

Using swapped players? Good for you

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Using swapped players? Good for you

Thanks, weather it be sarcastic or genuine, I'm happy to accept your complement regardless :D

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Not sarcastic at all, I just didn't know if you were serious or if I was missing something