| Forum » Doubts and questions » New Updates: Contracts | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
What is the thought behind changing the contract years from 7 to 4? | 21/08/2014 18:20 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5339 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Because juniors have 2x release clause with ridiculous salaries when they're promoted to the first team. | 21/08/2014 18:31 |
| A - Div2/Gr4 | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
I think it's primarily for the promotion of juniors. Right now you can promote a jr and have him on a very good clause/salary ratio for 7 seasons. For example, my LF http://en.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=9171528 I'm paying him 1.1 million to for a 1.8b clause. Now that's probably too high a clause, but it's easy to afford. I would have to be resigning him before next season if I wasn't able to offer a 7 year contract. To resign him now to the same clause would be almost a 4m salary, to sign him to a clause that is realistic of his value (about 1b) I'd have to pay him 2m. This helps to take some money out of the game. The contract length is meaningless, it's not like real life where someone is like ok well extend me and pay me x or I walk. |
21/08/2014 18:36 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
By taking money out of the game how does that benefit those in lower divisions/ or new users? Since those in higher division have a sizeable bank & savings? | 21/08/2014 18:49 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
DirkDiggler said: By taking money out of the game how does that benefit those in lower divisions/ or new users? Since those in higher division have a sizeable bank & savings? Taking money out of the game is always beneficial to the game because some higher division teams have all that extra money. It's very proportionate too. The big teams have the players who require the highest salaries. If you're taking an extra 2-3 million a week from a top team for those 3 seasons they've lost of cheap salaries it will impact them. This is a pretty minor change though because keep in mind that you don't get the benefits of those super cheap salaries if you buy a new player as a non junior, so this really doesn't impact many teams. |
21/08/2014 19:20 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
Taking money out of the game is always beneficial to the game because some higher division teams have all that extra money. It's very proportionate too. The big teams have the players who require the highest salaries. If you're taking an extra 2-3 million a week from a top team for those 3 seasons they've lost of cheap salaries it will impact them. This is a pretty minor change though because keep in mind that you don't get the benefits of those super cheap salaries if you buy a new player as a non junior, so this really doesn't impact many teams. I understand the non junior aspect of the salaries bc ive dealt w/ them. Yes money is taken out bc of these new, im assuming 1:1, salaries : clauses but the ability of larger teams with already larger enough savings accounts to continue to bid for these "new" influx(free agents) of players into the market will eliminate those in lower divisions or new users from getting them. The cost of player expenditure will rise for all, pretty much weeding out all those who cant afford to pay these 1M dollar/pound salaries. Now if this new rule is made so that there can be a distinction between divisions, segregating better avg players according to divisions ie. Div 1 90+ avg; Div 2 80+, Div 3 70+... then i think you got the right rule. If you are hoping to flood the market w/ better players with huge salaries, it could happen if the cost of players are so insurmountable that even Div 1 or 2 managers cant or wont pick up their players for fear of costs/expenditures. Where do those in Div4 & lower fall? Not shooting down the idea just trying to see where this rule was going.  Edited by DirkDiggler 22-08-2014 02:28 |
22/08/2014 02:27 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this part: the ability of larger teams with already larger enough savings accounts to continue to bid for these "new" influx(free agents) of players into the market will eliminate those in lower divisions or new users from getting them. The cost of player expenditure will rise for all, pretty much weeding out all those who cant afford to pay these 1M dollar/pound salaries. There isn't going to be an influx of new players anywhere. Anything this rule does will also take 4 seasons to happen as everyone can still sign their juniors to 4 year contracts with a nice release clause ratio. If it got to a point where you couldn't afford your weekly expenses for players, selling 1 of your backups should cover a season and beyond of player salaries unless you have a team with 4 stars and the rest are 95 av (which those are only the rich people anyways) What's going to happen soon is actually kind of the opposite of what you're saying, 90 av players have already started creeping into div 3 pretty well, and player prices have fallen dramatically, which actually helps the lower div teams. If you no longer have to put a minimum 1B release clause on an 88 av player, it allows lower div teams to enter the upper divisions for less money. Conversely, with the big teams wanting the big players that are still rare (Stars, 95+ players, 90+ OM's, etc) they are still going to have to pay the huge salaries. In the grand scheme of things this rule change is really minor and I don't think it'll have any sort of harsh effect on the landscape of the game. |
22/08/2014 16:47 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
1821 msgs.
International
|
And 7yr salaries were a bad thing.. because why, exactly? Because everyone who plays in the high ranks want to prevent new teams from threatening their position? I can't currently train a player to 90+ in the youth team.. because I'm not in a high enough division to get the game income to buy the staff % increases and the youth players with high enough prog to potentially be a 90. All good players I have... I made myself in my youth team. The only way I can increase my division is to have the long view of training my own players both in youth and senior squad. And now you're saying I can only have players for 4 yrs before I have to sell them.. and start afresh? That's simply not enough time for lower division players to actually achieve a good set of players with their lower% youth coaches. This is more about keeping lower division players out of top divisions. Money creation in this game is already vastly slanted towards the top 2 divisions. 7yr salaries are the only force-balancing item allowing lower division teams to actually compete when they level up.. it should NOT be removed. This is absolutely not a minor change in any way. Rather, it locks the door and keeps all the money sloshing between the players already in 1 and 2. I will never be able to catch up to anyone in division 1 already.. because the most money I can make per game is what they're already making! If me having a 90 player for 7 years is so terrible.... PAY ME HIS RELEASE CLAUSE. After all, division 1 and 2 players make my annual income in 2 home games. Do not do this. This makes the rich richer -- it doesn't improve gameplay in any way other than to increase the relative wealth of the top teams. Edited by Buckeye623 05-09-2014 01:29 |
05/09/2014 01:01 |
| ★★Dyslexia Untied - Div2/Gr1 | ||
|
Fiscal
4210 msgs.
Best scorer
|
You went on a serious rant here without understanding a basic function of the game. The length of the contract does limit how long you can keep your player. No one said you have to sell your player after 4 years. You can resign your player to a new 4 year (right now 7 year) contract every 48 hours. At the start of every season when your players contract is reduced by one year you can resign him to a new 4 year contract. All this will do is reduce the ratio of his release clause to salary....meaning you will have to pay a higher salary to get a higher release clause sooner. Currently, when a junior is promoted from the junior team to the senior team is when you will get the highest release clause for the lowest salary. You can set a newly promoted senior players release clause very high for not too much money and keep it for 7 years. Now you will only be able to do that for 4 years. That's it. You don't have to sell a player at the end of the contract. Buckeye623 said: And 7yr salaries were a bad thing.. because why, exactly? Because everyone who plays in the high ranks want to prevent new teams from threatening their position? I can't currently train a player to 90+ in the youth team.. because I'm not in a high enough division to get the game income to buy the staff % increases and the youth players with high enough prog to potentially be a 90. All good players I have... I made myself in my youth team. The only way I can increase my division is to have the long view of training my own players both in youth and senior squad. And now you're saying I can only have players for 4 yrs before I have to sell them.. and start afresh? That's simply not enough time for lower division players to actually achieve a good set of players with their lower% youth coaches. This is more about keeping lower division players out of top divisions. Money creation in this game is already vastly slanted towards the top 2 divisions. 7yr salaries are the only force-balancing item allowing lower division teams to actually compete when they level up.. it should NOT be removed. This is absolutely not a minor change in any way. Rather, it locks the door and keeps all the money sloshing between the players already in 1 and 2. I will never be able to catch up to anyone in division 1 already.. because the most money I can make per game is what they're already making! If me having a 90 player for 7 years is so terrible.... PAY ME HIS RELEASE CLAUSE. After all, division 1 and 2 players make my annual income in 2 home games. Do not do this. This makes the rich richer -- it doesn't improve gameplay in any way other than to increase the relative wealth of the top teams. Edited by Buckeye623 05-09-2014 01:29 |
05/09/2014 03:02 |
| FC need more holidays - Div3/Gr9 | ||
|
Fiscal
1821 msgs.
International
|
Your lack of understanding of introductory economics isn't my problem. See, I can be condescending too! Now, back to the issue. The issue isn't the ability to resign or not, the problem is at what weekly price point that resigning occurs.. and how the long-term increase of salary cost for good players degrades the economics of lower teams much more than that of people already in divisions 1 or 2. And yes, I said sell: Because with my lower % staff, if I take the time to increase even a prog 94 to 70,75... levels that are needed to compete in higher divisions and require multiple years in sr as well as youth.. with the 7 yr contract I can resign this player once and still be economically viable after comparing per-game income and player expenses. Not so with the 4 yr. Edited by Buckeye623 05-09-2014 04:18 |
05/09/2014 04:02 |
| ★★Dyslexia Untied - Div2/Gr1 | ||
1
