| Forum » Doubts and questions » New Updates: Contracts | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
vgates said: 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. I think what he was trying to say is that w/ the constant need of re-uping of contracts of a 50-70 avg player w/ a salary/release clause of 100,000/220,000 it will end up looking more like 450,000/90,000 towards the end of the 4 yr contract. He/she will still produce similar amount of revenue and have player salaries skyrocket, also if they are not able to ascend to a higher DIV there will be no compensation monetarily & you will be left w/ 2 option either you sell (willing/forced) or you lose them by not re-signing them. As you can see/infer this problem will mostly affect those in lower Div those who can not keep up w/ the rising salaries. |
05/09/2014 04:26 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
4210 msgs.
Best scorer
|
It isn't my 'lack of understanding of introductory economics' that is the problem, it's your exaggeration of the effects of the release clause system and accusation that it is all a scam to keep the rich rich and in Div 1/2. If you want to make that argument, a much more intelligent point to support that ridiculous conspiracy theory is the change to no longer allow no team players with a greater than 75 average to enter the auction at the beginning of the season. But instead you are arguing over what amounts to pennies in the market economy system in SM. I find it odd that you are complaining about the change when you don't even utilize the current 7 years as evidenced by this player: http://en.strikermanager.com/inicio.php?accion=/jugador.php%3Fid_jugador%3D8195929 You have him at $51m release clause and the salary for you is $65k. And you resigned him in June to a 3 yr contract because he has 2 left now. I have two mid 80's mids...one is 26yrs old, paid $600k per week with a release clause of $219m, one is 27yrs old paid $500k per week with a release clause of $189m, and a 30 yr old CF paid $500k per week with a release clause of $222m. I have no problem paying my weekly expenses. I even took out a $50m loan which has a $2m per week payment to build up my stadium. Never been in the red. When I look at your games, you are not in a PL with the maximum amount of games per season so you are losing out on home games. You don't have a single friendly game scheduled when people are asking for friendlies in the forum constantly. You are missing out on a large amount of revenue. As for the comment about taking the time to train players to compete in the higher divisions with your lower % staff, well I seem to have been able to do just fine by not training up 94 prog players. Rather, I spend my time searching the market for value players. Buy low, sell higher. Introductory investing. Buckeye623 said: 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 05:11 |
| FC need more holidays - Div3/Gr9 | ||
|
Username
5633 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
You all make fair points (albeit nastily  ). The reasoning behind this idea is to make it extremely difficult for teams to keep high average players in their teams for long periods of time, with an eye to reduce the number of 90+ players in teams in general. For lower div teams, it doesn't have as bigger effect, because the price of lower average players has dropped to a point where you can almost pay the lowest possible wage for the player and still keep them in your team without being hostiled. For higher average players (90+), the values have dropped also, however by shortening the length of time between resignings, it makes it more expensive to keep that player in the team long term - much more than it will for lower average teams to maintain their players. And if you're concerned that you do not have enough money to train or employ 99% coaches, then buy some golden balls like everyone else, look for 89+ coaches to hire and train them up with GB. Every single division 1 & 2 team has done this, most of them very early in the game and it's why they are where they are today. And guys, relax on the condescension and sarcasm. It's unbecoming of intelligent people, annoying to read, and basically unnecessary. Chill out |
05/09/2014 16:02 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Wow this thread got out of hand in the last 24 hours  Like prac said, this really only hurts higher division teams with high average players. When I first started playing this game I had no problems at all with covering my weekly expenses with two home games (and still having about 20-30% of my income left over, so a 3rd home game + friendlies/cup was all profit. This was also at a time where player prices were going up at crazy rates so a player you bought for 10m one week was worth 13 the next, so you had to go a little higher with your clauses. It wasn't until I got to div 3 and started getting 80+ av players that my expenses went up, but I was still able to cover them pretty well. Now in div 2 I lose a little money every week I only have 2 home games. There are div 1 teams (and some in div 2!) that hardly cover their expenses with 3 home games a week, because the ratio that high average players salaries to release clauses are. Let's look at my two DFM's that are about the same average 84/19 http://en.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=13467308 85/32 http://en.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=3992057 The young one was promoted at the end of last season, as the current rules stand I can hold onto him for the next 6 seasons for just 500K a week and at current prices probably wouldn't have to resign him until he reaches about 90 average. Meanwhile my old DFM costs me almost double the price of the other guy. If I wanted to resign the younger one he would bump up to 1m for the same release clause. So now I have two fewer seasons to keep that guy, and in 4 seasons I will have to double his salary to keep the same clause From that you can see the inequality of the wages for newly promoted players of similar average, but what about the gap between lower average players and higher average players? vgates has a 75/19 DFM http://en.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=14189940 (very similar to mine, just 9 points lower) costs him just 95K a week for a 150m release clause. He pays 1/5 of what it takes to keep my guy around. If I had a squad filled with 25 of my DFM's it would cost 12.5m a week, while 25 of vgates guys would cost just 2.5m, I'm in the higher division, so I make more money, but my wage gap is 6x what his is. That DFM should last vgates until he starts competing for the top spots in div 3, so it's not as if he's a useless player for him either. Again, this rule is minor, but it takes more money from the game as averages go up, and thus effects the higher div teams more. |
05/09/2014 16:57 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@illex said: Wow this thread got out of hand in the last 24 hours Like prac said, this really only hurts higher division teams with high average players. When I first started playing this game I had no problems at all with covering my weekly expenses with two home games (and still having about 20-30% of my income left over, so a 3rd home game + friendlies/cup was all profit. This was also at a time where player prices were going up at crazy rates so a player you bought for 10m one week was worth 13 the next, so you had to go a little higher with your clauses. It wasn't until I got to div 3 and started getting 80+ av players that my expenses went up, but I was still able to cover them pretty well. Now in div 2 I lose a little money every week I only have 2 home games. There are div 1 teams (and some in div 2!) that hardly cover their expenses with 3 home games a week, because the ratio that high average players salaries to release clauses are. Let's look at my two DFM's that are about the same average 84/19 http://en.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=13467308 85/32 http://en.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=3992057 The young one was promoted at the end of last season, as the current rules stand I can hold onto him for the next 6 seasons for just 500K a week and at current prices probably wouldn't have to resign him until he reaches about 90 average. Meanwhile my old DFM costs me almost double the price of the other guy. If I wanted to resign the younger one he would bump up to 1m for the same release clause. So now I have two fewer seasons to keep that guy, and in 4 seasons I will have to double his salary to keep the same clause From that you can see the inequality of the wages for newly promoted players of similar average, but what about the gap between lower average players and higher average players? vgates has a 75/19 DFM http://en.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=14189940 (very similar to mine, just 9 points lower) costs him just 95K a week for a 150m release clause. He pays 1/5 of what it takes to keep my guy around. If I had a squad filled with 25 of my DFM's it would cost 12.5m a week, while 25 of vgates guys would cost just 2.5m, I'm in the higher division, so I make more money, but my wage gap is 6x what his is. That DFM should last vgates until he starts competing for the top spots in div 3, so it's not as if he's a useless player for him either. Again, this rule is minor, but it takes more money from the game as averages go up, and thus effects the higher div teams more. Question : how much revenue do you pull in a in a week? (approx.)? I pull in about 35-45m depending on the quantity of home games. My expenses are around 10m weekly I can cover my players salaries at a normal rate. You are in a higher div, you make more money, fuller stadium, how are you losing money? If this only affects those in higher leagues/div it would mean a higher turnover in player personale. With the example you displayed for us in this post your 19 yr old DMF would stay for 4 yrs at 500k. Now the 4 yrs are up where does this player go? If you choose not to resign him that means another w/ the compacity to pay 500k would be able to sign. This does not necessarily mean managers in lower div bc they all don't have the means. You might have the resource to pay but you decide not to. So what happens to this player, loan, sell (market/private)? At some point soon player value will decrease bc as soon as many managers decides 500k 300k release clause is too much, player value falls. It will trickle down to lower divisions bc the prices in the market will fall and lower managers might decide to pick them up. You will have a lot of red balance sheets if it hit the lower div. Or these players will just end up up swimming the market waiting for some one to pay 900k salary for a 400k clause. I don't see div 5 and lower picking this up. I already see this in basket manager . PF and C in that game have low value even if their avg is high. |
06/09/2014 19:18 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5633 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
My weekly income from 2 home games (including PL) - strictly income from matches - is about 51.2 mil. My player salaries are currently at 65 mil. I have 7 CFs that I am currently training, all that I have trained from 14/15 years old. Their salaries are as they were set when I promoted them. Now in order to keep those players after their contracts run out, I will need to double some of their salaries in order to keep their hostile price high enough that people won't try to hostile them. This will add another 15 mil to my player salaries if I choose to keep training these players into their mid 20's. In order to compensate for this difference, I maintain a reasonably large amount in deposits which at the moment sees my weekly expenses reduced by about 18 mil. If I wish to keep my team as it is, I will not be able to spend these deposits because I will only ever come close to being in the black if I play 3 home games per week. That doesn't take into account the cost of my schools, which I could remove, but I feel the expense is worth the potential gain - about 10 mil a week. Edited by @practicesquad 07-09-2014 06:29 |
07/09/2014 06:28 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
You obviously DONT want to keep all these FWD's since you are still training. If they are for sale, there is no way there is a market for all of them (at least not at the price you would like to sell them at) , one bc they are young and high avg, two bc of their elevated salaries. So the question is why would you pay all those salaries? Bc if they are for sale you would want them to be hostiled at some point, right? There is no way all those CF start your games. Logically I think you are right in keeping your schools open bc of your potential gain, however in terms of keeping all those CF, not counting your other FWD's, that is a LUXURY that most of us managers cannot afford. Like I tried to explain before if managers like you are having to pay young players earlier ( 4 yr rule) many can opt to "releasing" these expenses to the market. I am assuming that most managers DIV 2 & up can afford those luxuries but for how long? So those two consequences I said before can happen, you either end up flooding the market (have them swim there for awhile), or you keep them and end up in red. Either way it will end up affecting managers in lower divisions the same way bc if they train like you.... 8 CF..... Then they will also end up paying that heavy player salary, obviously on a smaller scale but you have to consider the revenue they can generate which isn't plentiful. Hope it wasn't taken as consdending or a jab just putting it out there of possible concerns. We will seein about a yr how this will affect us. Cheers! |
07/09/2014 14:24 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
138 msgs.
Substitute
|
i don't think for a second that they make changes specifically to help older players, especially in this case as it will have more effect for higher cost teams, but the loss of 24 hour auctions would seem to be damaging to the potential for new player growth(at least the way ive played so far it'll affect me) | 07/09/2014 14:44 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
I never looked at this change as a benefit to either. It will affect higher divisions first then lower divisions. |
07/09/2014 15:02 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5633 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
DirkDiggler said: You obviously DONT want to keep all these FWD's since you are still training. If they are for sale, there is no way there is a market for all of them (at least not at the price you would like to sell them at) , one bc they are young and high avg, two bc of their elevated salaries. So the question is why would you pay all those salaries? Bc if they are for sale you would want them to be hostiled at some point, right? There is no way all those CF start your games. Logically I think you are right in keeping your schools open bc of your potential gain, however in terms of keeping all those CF, not counting your other FWD's, that is a LUXURY that most of us managers cannot afford. Like I tried to explain before if managers like you are having to pay young players earlier ( 4 yr rule) many can opt to "releasing" these expenses to the market. I am assuming that most managers DIV 2 & up can afford those luxuries but for how long? So those two consequences I said before can happen, you either end up flooding the market (have them swim there for awhile), or you keep them and end up in red. Either way it will end up affecting managers in lower divisions the same way bc if they train like you.... 8 CF..... Then they will also end up paying that heavy player salary, obviously on a smaller scale but you have to consider the revenue they can generate which isn't plentiful.Hope it wasn't taken as consdending or a jab just putting it out there of possible concerns. We will seein about a yr how this will affect us. Cheers! Nah it's ok I thought all of these things through a long time ago and the reason I purchased those players when I did was to train them and sell them to make a large amount of deposits to cope for a declining market and increasing expenses. The reason I have them there is to sell them, but I want to try to get maximum value out of them and selling them at their current age/average isn't an option right now. Given I have sold 1 this week and there is another on sale now, but that is to make room in my squad for juniors I have to promote at the end of the season. I don't consider them a luxury in that respect because I need them to sustain my team eventually. You were saying that you make around 40 odd mil a week with 10 mil a week expenses... You have a lot of room to play with. The point I was making from the start is that these changes will affect players like myself, who live on the edge financially, must faster than those who make 4x their expenses each week. If anything it gives me more incentive to try and reach div 1 eventually, because the increased revenue will take a load off. But I can't rely on that. |
07/09/2014 15:17 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
2
