Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Gigantic future inflation
in short they plan to change youth school so that you will have to pay a lot of money just to have what you have now
At least Poland won't be hit that hard...
The more managers in countries, the more rich(er) teams there are. In the near future the closing of many youth schools because of too high costs will hit the smal(ler) countries hard. Way less national players so NT's will go down quickly.
And looking at my situation. With the new setup of leagues, I already lost over 200 supporters and a max of 16000 visit matches each week, sometimes just 8000, half and a quarter of what it used to be. So my money is already down, and I can't get the mood up anymore. I already didn't earn the big money, but now it is even way less. In my case, and I think I'm not the only one, the wrong managers are affected by less income.
The income of the top leagues, and in Poland that are way many leagues as in the Netherlands, should get less income to start with. The gap between weak teams in weak divisions (lack of supporters) should be made smaller with strong teams in strong divisions.
Simply reduce income would be a first step. And ofcourse this should affected teams with high income the most, and teams with low income (almost) not.
At least Poland won't be hit that hard...
The more managers in countries, the more rich(er) teams there are. In the near future the closing of many youth schools because of too high costs will hit the smal(ler) countries hard. Way less national players so NT's will go down quickly.
And looking at my situation. With the new setup of leagues, I already lost over 200 supporters and a max of 16000 visit matches each week, sometimes just 8000, half and a quarter of what it used to be. So my money is already down, and I can't get the mood up anymore. I already didn't earn the big money, but now it is even way less. In my case, and I think I'm not the only one, the wrong managers are affected by less income.
The income of the top leagues, and in Poland that are way many leagues as in the Netherlands, should get less income to start with. The gap between weak teams in weak divisions (lack of supporters) should be made smaller with strong teams in strong divisions.
Simply reduce income would be a first step. And ofcourse this should affected teams with high income the most, and teams with low income (almost) not.
That would make constant player trading even more profitable (amount gained in transfers would increase in % compared to income from team, sponsors, stadium etc). and important so I doubt that it's a good way to tackle the problem.
Trading should have been dealt with a LONG time ago. Like players refusing transfers way more often, and for a way longer time, if they are not juniors from own junior school. Or refuse transfers if they didn't play enough minutes in first team (not sure this will work, could be a mayor restriction for new teams).
But something should have done already to stop this. Years and years ago when it got out of hand.
Or even a more simple solution, and no, not the most ingenious solution, a max amount of money managers can own. Transferprices will drop and trading will probably stop if a team can't earn more, as the too much money will just disappear.
.
(edited)
But something should have done already to stop this. Years and years ago when it got out of hand.
Or even a more simple solution, and no, not the most ingenious solution, a max amount of money managers can own. Transferprices will drop and trading will probably stop if a team can't earn more, as the too much money will just disappear.
.
(edited)
You got it all wrong. Problem is that it is more profitable to train young players than playing to reach the top. This has nothing to do with trading per se. You can buy 18y and sell him in 3 seasons for 5x more. One of the reasons is that top teams can afford to buy such players but cannot afford to have several 18y players for training because it would reduce their chance to stay at the top
Happy to be shot down here but just floating another possibility in that player wages gets split into two components (like tactical discipline) but you see the combined value. The “skill” based wage (eg the current way wage is calculated) + a last transfer price tax/component. Whether that’s a flat rate or an exponential/logarithmic rate would need to be thought through more. However for example say it was a flat 1% rate (realise this is probably unrealistic and may need to be smaller or a different measure of determining rates). So if a current wage was 10k per week and a player was last sold for 100k, the wage would go up 1k for a total of 11k per week. Say they were sold on again for 1m the wage would now become 20k per week (10k for the skills wage and 10k for the last transfer price). I mean 1% breaks down at higher amounts so maybe it needs to be lower again.
However what this does do is it means that those who pay more because they have more now have a price they now pay for that. Means more thinking as to how much do I want to pay here as opposed to how much have I got. The better players will still end up with those wealthier but there’s a price to that in the form of increased wages - increased money sinks.
This also adds value to youth schools as promoting your own juniors won’t have that transfer tax added to the wage.
It also potentially shifts slightly (not much mind you) that training players is better than trying to win the league.
Just a thought there’s probably a lot wrong but to me wages are one of the problems in that for the most part they’re too cheap in comparison to revenue brought in (expenses for the most part are also one off costs which is another issue).
Otherwise there needs to be money taken out of the system without harming those without the money to begin with (otherwise what’s the point).
However what this does do is it means that those who pay more because they have more now have a price they now pay for that. Means more thinking as to how much do I want to pay here as opposed to how much have I got. The better players will still end up with those wealthier but there’s a price to that in the form of increased wages - increased money sinks.
This also adds value to youth schools as promoting your own juniors won’t have that transfer tax added to the wage.
It also potentially shifts slightly (not much mind you) that training players is better than trying to win the league.
Just a thought there’s probably a lot wrong but to me wages are one of the problems in that for the most part they’re too cheap in comparison to revenue brought in (expenses for the most part are also one off costs which is another issue).
Otherwise there needs to be money taken out of the system without harming those without the money to begin with (otherwise what’s the point).
It also potentially shifts slightly (not much mind you) that training players is better than trying to win the league.
How ?
In your scenario the teams with ambitions to win that pay a lot for 11 players + 5/6 substitutes will have to pay even more in salaries for their top players than teams using weak & cheap players and just training youths for profit
It would affect paying a lot of money for a youth [since after paying 15m you'd have to then pay additional 150k a week, bonkers] - but how's that good? You don't make money on such players anyway, with luck you can break even after seasons of training.
How ?
In your scenario the teams with ambitions to win that pay a lot for 11 players + 5/6 substitutes will have to pay even more in salaries for their top players than teams using weak & cheap players and just training youths for profit
It would affect paying a lot of money for a youth [since after paying 15m you'd have to then pay additional 150k a week, bonkers] - but how's that good? You don't make money on such players anyway, with luck you can break even after seasons of training.
Yeah you’re probably right in that the status quo doesn’t change. I was just trying to think of a way to shift the I’ll pay everything because I’ll then get more back when they’re better (that just results in the haves always ahead of the have nots, which is why things like trading frequently happen in the first place).
Basically though there’s too much revenue at the elite levels and not enough expenses and those expenses (outside of transfer costs) aren’t even scalable to the point it doesn’t really hurt the elite. Adding additional expenditure I don’t think will work (well depends on if it’s inflation that’s the issue or if it’s being priced out of the market that’s the issue - eg wealth distribution) if it’s not a repeatable and scalable to revenue streams. Things like improved medical things to reduce injury length is a good idea and may help drop inflation but it won’t change the wealth distribution if it’s a fixed cost per week or a one off payment. Also likely makes a two tier system even worse when revenue isn’t balanced across countries.
Basically though there’s too much revenue at the elite levels and not enough expenses and those expenses (outside of transfer costs) aren’t even scalable to the point it doesn’t really hurt the elite. Adding additional expenditure I don’t think will work (well depends on if it’s inflation that’s the issue or if it’s being priced out of the market that’s the issue - eg wealth distribution) if it’s not a repeatable and scalable to revenue streams. Things like improved medical things to reduce injury length is a good idea and may help drop inflation but it won’t change the wealth distribution if it’s a fixed cost per week or a one off payment. Also likely makes a two tier system even worse when revenue isn’t balanced across countries.
Things like improved medical things to reduce injury length is a good idea and may help drop inflation but it won’t change the wealth distribution if it’s a fixed cost per week or a one off payment. Also likely makes a two tier system even worse when revenue isn’t balanced across countries.
exactly, I agree that it's not the proper way of tackling the problem
that said it's hard to think of one that wouldn't be harmful for new/small teams
in general ANY additional payment will be easily within reach for top/richest teams
a. if it's an important novelty worth paying - they will get it, new/small teams will be left out [with weaker youth school, for example]
b. if it's not an important new thing worth paying - it will be ignored
result will be the same... either no change (b.) or smaller teams get f... (option a.) thus even enlarging the gap between poor and rich
and if youth school becomes too expensive for many teams the number of youths will drop down -> youths from big, rich teams able to keep youth school will become even more expensive due to same demand lower supply -> the rich will still be able to make more money even if they will have to invest more, it will pay off
exactly, I agree that it's not the proper way of tackling the problem
that said it's hard to think of one that wouldn't be harmful for new/small teams
in general ANY additional payment will be easily within reach for top/richest teams
a. if it's an important novelty worth paying - they will get it, new/small teams will be left out [with weaker youth school, for example]
b. if it's not an important new thing worth paying - it will be ignored
result will be the same... either no change (b.) or smaller teams get f... (option a.) thus even enlarging the gap between poor and rich
and if youth school becomes too expensive for many teams the number of youths will drop down -> youths from big, rich teams able to keep youth school will become even more expensive due to same demand lower supply -> the rich will still be able to make more money even if they will have to invest more, it will pay off
Start capacity of 8-10k stadium, a set of cheap but decent start coaches and 500k start capital would close some of the gap between New and established teams the new inflation has enhanced.... regarding poor/Rich in other terms then new/established is nonsense, better management of club is the case
A scouting cell to make estimations of youth players more accurate could help.
Also doktors and physiotherapists to reduce injury duration AND injury chance.
I know it's a thing for richer managers, but with these, the fun rises AND lots of money flows out of the game, without the necessity of poorer managers to invest in these things.
Without these, they play the game as we know it now.
So in fact, these features could and probably will help inflation to normalize again.
Also doktors and physiotherapists to reduce injury duration AND injury chance.
I know it's a thing for richer managers, but with these, the fun rises AND lots of money flows out of the game, without the necessity of poorer managers to invest in these things.
Without these, they play the game as we know it now.
So in fact, these features could and probably will help inflation to normalize again.
A scouting cell to make estimations of youth players more accurate could help.
honestly I would never see the point in paying for it
I have problems with gathering at least 10 decent youths, I have 15 now and half of them will be worthless anyway
what's the difference if they are +2/-2... none, I will still keep them and make the keep/sell/sack choice when they come out
And I kinda doubt it'd make a difference vs inflation as that could NOT be a high price... otherwise it will be totally unreasonable to pay it
btw. they have plans for such addition to youth school, most of their YS change plans are basically ideas on how to make people pay for what they have now anyway... for example one of ideas it to make people pay TO BE ABLE to appoint a brilliant/magical/unearthly coach...
now, the problem is - at what point and how many people will decide "youth schools sucks anyway, I only lose money for x years, I prefer to close my youth school instead of paying even more than before" - now THAT can be potentially a huge issue for the game, much bigger one than the inflation
(edited)
honestly I would never see the point in paying for it
I have problems with gathering at least 10 decent youths, I have 15 now and half of them will be worthless anyway
what's the difference if they are +2/-2... none, I will still keep them and make the keep/sell/sack choice when they come out
And I kinda doubt it'd make a difference vs inflation as that could NOT be a high price... otherwise it will be totally unreasonable to pay it
btw. they have plans for such addition to youth school, most of their YS change plans are basically ideas on how to make people pay for what they have now anyway... for example one of ideas it to make people pay TO BE ABLE to appoint a brilliant/magical/unearthly coach...
now, the problem is - at what point and how many people will decide "youth schools sucks anyway, I only lose money for x years, I prefer to close my youth school instead of paying even more than before" - now THAT can be potentially a huge issue for the game, much bigger one than the inflation
(edited)
I don’t think that would solve inflation. At best it masks it for a few seasons before inflation is back. Unless it is a recurring cost relative to the income currently in the game, it’s not going to make a difference. Then you have issues if the cost is significant of players going nah doesn’t give me enough of an advantage financially to pay for it (we already see this with people and youth schools or with providing skills to nt managers). That’s why I was thinking towards wage increases based around transfer prices as a way to say sure you can pay x for that player but you’ll also have additional expenses relative to what your forked out as a result. Again possibly problematic but I was trying to think beyond a one time money sink.
The fact is we’ve basically boosted revenue from home matches from 7/16 weeks to 11/13 weeks and nothing has been done in the expense side to balance out. With no place for excess money to regularly go, transfer price increases are the end result
(edited)
The fact is we’ve basically boosted revenue from home matches from 7/16 weeks to 11/13 weeks and nothing has been done in the expense side to balance out. With no place for excess money to regularly go, transfer price increases are the end result
(edited)
Doctor is also a good idea.
Pay money to do something about time of injuries. And a psychiatrist for form. This are extra staff and cost money
Or hire these per week for an X amount of money, depending of skill. For example 3 different levels.
Scouting or something like that is also an option. Make junior school a bit more easy again, less of a gamble. Although, if this is not affordable for new teams, only rich(er) teams will benefit and make more money:/
(edited)
Pay money to do something about time of injuries. And a psychiatrist for form. This are extra staff and cost money
Or hire these per week for an X amount of money, depending of skill. For example 3 different levels.
Scouting or something like that is also an option. Make junior school a bit more easy again, less of a gamble. Although, if this is not affordable for new teams, only rich(er) teams will benefit and make more money:/
(edited)
Doctor is also a good idea.
Pay money to do something about time of injuries. And a psychiatrist for form. This are extra staff and cost money
The thing is... the greatest team has money...All of them...
If you put something like this (Like you say, doctor, etc) Those teams will be unbeatable...
this ideas help those teams. Not good for average and new teams.
If you play agains the better team in your league, and IN THAT WEEK, your rival has his best on low for or injuried, you will have a chance... If not, will be almost imposible.
IMHO
Pay money to do something about time of injuries. And a psychiatrist for form. This are extra staff and cost money
The thing is... the greatest team has money...All of them...
If you put something like this (Like you say, doctor, etc) Those teams will be unbeatable...
this ideas help those teams. Not good for average and new teams.
If you play agains the better team in your league, and IN THAT WEEK, your rival has his best on low for or injuried, you will have a chance... If not, will be almost imposible.
IMHO
I think better improve has to be in YOuth school.
With more possibilities for ALL TEAMS...
If you are new or not, you can sale a good player of your school, (and later even more income in future sells)
15 YO entering the school.
better distribution ( most of our players came out with defense and striker, without pace or technique, those are almost useless... An so in distribution matter...
I dont say EASIEST.... I just think not so lame all of them.
With that modification, the game will be more attractive for all, and there will be MORE better players to bid, making (Maybe) less expensive.
If you have more ofer, there will be less demand
Not ALL teams figthing for 1 good player for week like we see today.
This week i buy 1 striker, 89 users "interest" on him... So crazy, never see so many in only 1 bid.
With more possibilities for ALL TEAMS...
If you are new or not, you can sale a good player of your school, (and later even more income in future sells)
15 YO entering the school.
better distribution ( most of our players came out with defense and striker, without pace or technique, those are almost useless... An so in distribution matter...
I dont say EASIEST.... I just think not so lame all of them.
With that modification, the game will be more attractive for all, and there will be MORE better players to bid, making (Maybe) less expensive.
If you have more ofer, there will be less demand
Not ALL teams figthing for 1 good player for week like we see today.
This week i buy 1 striker, 89 users "interest" on him... So crazy, never see so many in only 1 bid.