Yeah, developers should pick first idea no matter how good/bad it is.
It's all about discussion, giving ideas, pointing good/bad things in ideas, giving opinions. This way something can be not only implemented, but actually benefit the game and players.
I'm not saying my idea is best one. I just present my point of view.

I think a game like this should stay not too complicated, and for that it's important to keep the same solutions for similar problems. And the players retirement is already solved here in an elegant way

I know.

It's just, I've read in different topics people saying players shouldn't retire cause then their "old" coach would bale out immediatly. Others say, give +- 75 years old their respective retirement...
I try to find a way in between and the first reactions are negative...
Ok, but I have a problem with people saying no to an idea without making a clear point why and without an alternative.
No is the easiest answer...
The answers given are...it's not fair, it should be with restriction for this and that...
coaches should be this old, not that old,...

So in the end, you like the idea but need a change with the age restrictions I gave...
But both answers given are a straight NO. If we're about to discuss, at least don't skip the idea's or at least the parts which you do like. Now it's...everything someone says is wrong. Do it like this!
And it's not personal but I see different topics with this kind of answers...
What will happen to it, you think? Nothing...

I agree there is many ideas (maybe even too many different ideas), about different topics, but it's not a contest for most liked idea. I believe developers will eventually pick best things from many ideas and make an update that is a hybrid that is best in their opinion.

The final version of updated Sokker should not be a set of best solutions, but best set of solutions. Every idea/change should match with other changes. That is why there is need of discussion and many new ideas. It gives developer wider point of view, and solutions that they wouldn't come up with.

I agree that a "no"/"-1/+1" answers etc. are pointless. Mandatory questionnaires in development section would give people insight if an idea is liked or not. Right now if there is an idea that covers the ground that I think should be updated I have to write those pointless posts so my voice can be seen.

I've just spoken with my coach Abele Conoci, age 107

he informs me he has no plans to retire any time soon :o

do not must delete age, only show retire age :)

ok,so,my point of view...reset all coaches ages like 40yo so we can all start from the same point ,then fix a retirement age like 75 or so.
In my opiniom charles ideea with no age for coaches is better,unrealistic, but,this is not reality at the end of the day.Its hard to make money on sokker,so,let coaches as it is.
(edited)

+1

So coaches who aleeady served for 40season will coach another 35 season? And everyone who has top coaches would not need to change them for 10 real years?

Exactly, so the teams who spent millions of euros on a 80+yo ET coach a few seasons ago will not have to replace it straight away. I understand your concern regarding the old teams having such coaches for years IRL but what you propose is not fair for the newest team which invested a lot of money in coaches knowing they would't retire.

Replace all existing coaches age to a random age between 40 and 45 and set the retire age at "random between 70 and 80"

You are on the right path, but I would do it in a different way to make the age of coaches have more spread. 40 to 45 is too narrow.
Also it is unfair to managers who read the rules and didn't know that they are not implemented, so they replaced their old trainers. They lost money, but other people get to just "clone" their trainers for free.

I propose a formula:
(Age-45)/2+45=NewAge (or something like this)
89 -> 67
78 -> 62
55 -> 50
47 -> 46

This would reduce the impact of retirement implementation, and it wouldn't be too unfair towards people who didn't know that the retirement rules are not implemented.

So coaches who aleeady served for 40season will coach another 35 season? And everyone who has top coaches would not need to change them for 10 real yea

Its also what I was saying. At the moment aprox 3 options:
no ages
reset ages to 40 and start retirement on 75
coaches start to retirement from next season.

I would be happy for 1st and also 2nd option, but also its not fair and real. Somebody is saying what about money spend in these coaches. I regruted last coach in 2013, what money I am loosing since then? They served good, time to say thank you.

So 3rd option is my preferred. I didnt want to give exact numbers, thats something what DEVs can do but i will give them now
We go in 3 waves in 3 seasons (devs can do 5 or can do 3 in 6 seasons or whatever)
Next season all coaches 95+ are retired with exception if the coach was hired in past 3 years
Season after all coaches 90+ are retired with exception if the coach was hired in past 2 years
Season after all coaches 80+ are retired with exception if the coach was hired in past 1 years

Also final cleanup can be done, no exceptions and age 75+

Makes sense all options work for me

I regruted last coach in 2013, what money I am loosing since then? They served good, time to say thank you.

+1

So many people just thinking about themselves, as if they are the only people who would lose coaches.

Why reset to 40? It would be better to update age to 64 and start retirement from 65, one season is far too much time to get a set of coaches. And age of new coaches could be random between 35 and 45 or always 40 or 45.

it would be crazy transfer market for coaches if you do it in one season....

if it is done like that maybe there should be some fee that club gets if you release your coach...

i think that it should be done gradually....

it is not really fair when you pull new coaches that you get maybe one time 33 yo...and next one is 63 yo...and it really same expensive fee for both of them....maybe there should be some new type of coaches...without years maybe...