|
Post by scott on Sept 23, 2010 9:33:33 GMT
Personally I think this needs introducing, otherwise some teams will be able to stockpile players in there.
Just players 22+ yrs old
|
|
|
Post by johnraggett on Sept 23, 2010 13:13:04 GMT
I agree, any player over 21 should be added to wages, not sure logistically how difficult this would be.
|
|
|
Post by scott on Sept 23, 2010 13:43:10 GMT
no nor am I but I can see some teams monopolising players with no real reason to sell them
|
|
|
Post by johnraggett on Sept 23, 2010 16:29:14 GMT
no nor am I but I can see some teams monopolising players with no real reason to sell them Exactly if your paying for them it might make you think twice about keeping them. I wouldn't say it will be to far off before some manager can field a reserve team full of 20 plus rated players, that could benefit lower leagued teams.
|
|
|
Post by tone on Sept 23, 2010 19:09:28 GMT
i thought that was the benefit of the reserves, to train players to fit into first team, as you have 21/22/23/24 etc players then the reserves need to produce at least 21 rated players to replace the older players or what is the point in training them
|
|
|
Post by scott on Sept 23, 2010 20:18:20 GMT
Yes thats right, paying wages wouldnt stop you bringing them up to standard, but it would stop you basically taking them out the system as some managers are doing atm, and its a new rule too, give it another season and itll go to pot.
With the old rule as soon as players were promoted, they were either played, loaned sold or retired. Now they can be left in the reserves to "gain experience/rot"
|
|
|
Post by johnraggett on Sept 23, 2010 21:23:26 GMT
i thought that was the benefit of the reserves, to train players to fit into first team, as you have 21/22/23/24 etc players then the reserves need to produce at least 21 rated players to replace the older players or what is the point in training them Yes of course it is, but when the likes of my reserve team is better than your first team, then maybe I should be paying for the likes of Heraldo, no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2010 6:49:37 GMT
If you pay wages for reserves it means you need some sort of income ie gate reciepts then there's also the fact they would need to be more competitive ie a cup at least!
Just saying we need wages added is nuts as we would all run at a loss.
Then there's also the point that if wages where introduced, squads would be trimmed down to roughly the same size as first teams, then you would only have to have a few injuries/suspensions and either team will be fooked or even both??
|
|
|
Post by scott on Sept 24, 2010 7:08:21 GMT
only wages for players over 21.
Why should you need wages, you want the privalidge of playing an older player to improve him then its only fair you pay a price to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2010 7:37:09 GMT
As it stands i have 31 players in my reserves and only would pay wages on 1 player?
So it's not exactly going to stop me stock piling players is it??
However there is teams with smaller squads and would virtually pay wages on nearly all of there team!
Now my first teams wage bill has always been around half my gate income, which helps to balance the books! Alot of teams is very similar to mine, so just adding extra wages for reserves will see teams run at a loss and in some cases an extreme loss.
Which would mean for those teams whatever they get in EOS would need to be kept just to pay wages, the only way they can get out of paying wages is by bringing in under 21's which most of the time you have to scout for! But you carn't scout or improve your stadium if you've got extra wages to pay??
So as i said, you would need income for the reserves, even something along the lines of: reserve home games, you get 50% of your normal gate reciepts, that way it helps with wages and you can use your hard earned cash elsewhere EOS?
|
|
|
Post by scott on Sept 24, 2010 8:01:37 GMT
no I disagree. is it easy enough to pick up yths in this game
it isnt to stop teams stockpiling yths like you, its to stop teams stockpiling seniors
|
|
|
Post by johnraggett on Sept 24, 2010 9:02:19 GMT
Agree with Scott again, dam!
As you say Andie you only have one player who warrants paying wages, so not really an issue for all.
But it could become possible for a manager to have older players all rated 21/22 playing in the reserves, should this be allowed for free?
This could be the differance in winning the reserve league title which does get rewarded.
|
|
|
Post by trulskaare on Sept 24, 2010 10:27:11 GMT
It's a good idea, but some teams won't care; look at Feyernoord
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2010 10:32:48 GMT
im not saying i agree or disagree
Just making the point that wages have been based on first teams only, i don't know about anyone else but i make sure i have enough players in my first team to rotate for fitness and to pay there wages! first teams are balanced!
This is how it's been since season 1.
So paying wages on extra players will disrupt the financial side of the game for everyone.
If you want managers to pay wages on extra players then fair enough.
It just means that alot of low income teams wouldn't be able to afford extra wages, especially for those handy back ups stashed in there reserves!
We've just had the age cap lifted on the reserves now your on about penalizing clubs for having those older players and much needed extra players??
However what i am saying is: give reserves an income! a small percentage of the gate money for home games, that way almost everyone will be able afford a few extra players? But if anyone wants a team full of 22 rated players then they need the extra cash to back it up??
|
|
|
Post by johnraggett on Sept 24, 2010 11:18:08 GMT
im not saying i agree or disagree Just making the point that wages have been based on first teams only, i don't know about anyone else but i make sure i have enough players in my first team to rotate for fitness and to pay there wages! first teams are balanced! This is how it's been since season 1. So paying wages on extra players will disrupt the financial side of the game for everyone. If you want managers to pay wages on extra players then fair enough. It just means that alot of low income teams wouldn't be able to afford extra wages, especially for those handy back ups stashed in there reserves! We've just had the age cap lifted on the reserves now your on about penalizing clubs for having those older players and much needed extra players?? However what i am saying is: give reserves an income! a small percentage of the gate money for home games, that way almost everyone will be able afford a few extra players? But if anyone wants a team full of 22 rated players then they need the extra cash to back it up?? The age cap has been lifted in order for teams to carry on developing these players, should they be able to do it for free? I don't think so. If you introduce wages for over 21 year olds then it would also make managers think should they develop their 28 year old 21 rated guy or concentrate on developing say an 18 rated 18 year old. Surely the game would benefit from managers developing youngsters and bringing them through the game rather than a manager developing a 32 year old in his reserves. Again what advantage to the game would it be for a reserve team to be full of 30 plus year old players?
|
|