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

The Governor

LEFT OFF

rasco1975, no posts in the SM forum, another void vote I'd say?

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

You'd wonder why they bother.

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

I think it 12-9 once dud votes are dropped

The Governor

LEFT OFF

13-10 my count.

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

The Governor wrote: »

13-10 my count.

10-8
Manzoor

Techniques
rasco

I could be wrong but I think these dont currently manage a club in the boards league

hufpc8w3adnk65

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I voted lads, leave it as is, been thinking long and hard and I think it's better as is! Tho stimulating the transfer market would be something I'd like too try and do somehow

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

MrMac84 wrote: »

I voted lads, leave it as is, been thinking long and hard and I think it's better as is! Tho stimulating the transfer market would be something I'd like too try and do somehow

As would I, I just don't think this is the way.

The Governor

LEFT OFF

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

10-8
Manzoor

Techniques
rasco

I could be wrong but I think these dont currently manage a club in the boards league

Manzoor is Arsenal & Tech is Sevilla isn't it?

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

MrMac84 wrote: »

I voted lads, leave it as is, been thinking long and hard and I think it's better as is! Tho stimulating the transfer market would be something I'd like too try and do somehow

Some free credits for the manager that ...

... do X in the transfer market

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

The Governor wrote: »

Manzoor is Arsenal & Tech is Sevilla isn't it?

could be mate ... I did prefix with 'I could be wrong'

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..