no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / Rookie contract Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2020-08-12 10:06:47 (ID: 100151599) Report Abuse | |
|
ocram10000 wrote:
Hi to all, I wanted to propose the rookie contract, which would work like this: - only for those who have active HR - lasting 4 seasons, only for young people promoted by the YA present in the same for at least 2 seasons. - maximum number of rookie contracts 4 for season - these contracts would be more than those of the HR I think this will encourage the use of YA, and reduce budget problems, allowing managers to create a lasting player base Thank for all Marco I don't see the big game change on this. An active HR do have many managers and the most do get 16 or 17 year old rookies in the YA. Don't know how many do have a YA activated, but many I think. Maybe not premium, but that was not the question. 4 seasons on signing? Right now my rookies would get a 3 year contract, this and 2 more seasons, so this new type should be this and 3 more seasons? 4 Contracts per seasons mean more or less all YA-graduates do get that contract. And do I understand the last part that way that I have to pay more than the 3 season version? So some sort of semi-franchise-contract? Assuming I did get that all right, the amount I can spare is quite limited, so why bother. Sure if there and it counts, I would do it, but it's not that we have money problems. As mentioned before the mediacenter did already push already the average team strength higher, this would do it eventually more. But why this? Encourage YA-usage, would only be needed, if we have a problem there, but as far as I know, it is used already quite often. as said, I don't see budget problems, only management problems, but that will still exists, with whatever change coming. And regarding player base ... many do already keep their players for their livetime. Likely a better change from management point of view would be to encurage shorter player on the roster periods to vitalize transfermarket and boost the management part, but I can understand that this would frustrate many, after investing a lot of time in their players in YA. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ocram10000
|
posted: 2020-08-12 10:51:20 (ID: 100151601) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Assuming I did get that all right, the amount I can spare is quite limited, so why bother. Sure if there and it counts, I would do it, but it's not that we have money problems.
Money is the problem, however, in my opinion. There are budget problems that affect the TM. Let me explain with an example: I make a contract to a young player of medium value (active HR): 3 seasons (1 + 2) salary 30-50K, after 2 seasons in which I have grown I have 3 choices: 1) renewal if it goes well at 250-300K 2) I put it on the market 3) I release it Choice 1: How many can make a roster with those contracts? Nobody Choice 2: Who buys a 2500K player + 250-300K salary? None or few. Choice 3: Obviously I will never have a competitive team, and saturation market of FA. Using my proposal for at least 8-12 seasons with sustainable salaries and consequently money to invest in the market for some stars players. Furthermore, it would not change the current balance because everyone could use rookie contracts and would create stability in the long term, not forcing the teams to dismantle the rosters every 3-4 seasons. At the limit you could reduce the rookie contracts to 3 instead of 4. Last edited on 2020-08-12 10:52:25 by ocram10000 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-08-12 11:17:34 (ID: 100151602) Report Abuse | |
|
ocram10000 wrote:
Assuming I did get that all right, the amount I can spare is quite limited, so why bother. Sure if there and it counts, I would do it, but it's not that we have money problems. Money is the problem, however, in my opinion. There are budget problems that affect the TM. Let me explain with an example: I make a contract to a young player of medium value (active HR): 3 seasons (1 + 2) salary 30-50K, after 2 seasons in which I have grown I have 3 choices: 1) renewal if it goes well at 250-300K 2) I put it on the market 3) I release it Choice 1: How many can make a roster with those contracts? Nobody Choice 2: Who buys a 2500K player + 250-300K salary? None or few. Choice 3: Obviously I will never have a competitive team, and saturation market of FA. Nobody did force you to train his skills to that limit. THAT is a crucial management decision and does basically one of the main parts of the game. Decide, how far you want to train the player. And that multiplies with 50-70 players on the roster does make it the game it is. I can understand that 2) and 3) is not a great thing, now, but saying that a stretched contract suggestion is the only solution for coaches is not correct. I could understand that you want to give managers more options, but your suggestion is basically if in place the only logic option, since it would shift the prolongation and now-comes-the-money-moment into the future and does cost likely less, but from games point of view, that does not add options, it transfers the system. You could stop at skill level 40 as average, cost you 85K-90K instead of 250K per update. The trick is of cause to have the highest skills AND a low wage balance, or at least for some time the money to sustain a higher wage, but that's part of the game. ocram10000 wrote:
Using my proposal for at least 8-12 seasons with sustainable salaries and consequently money to invest in the market for some stars players. Furthermore, it would not change the current balance because everyone could use rookie contracts and would create stability in the long term, not forcing the teams to dismantle the rosters every 3-4 seasons. At the limit you could reduce the rookie contracts to 3 instead of 4. I have every season 3 to 5 YA players on my roster, of whom likely 3 to 4 will reach retirement within my team. NOBODY does force you to renew the roster every 3-4 seasons. A few days I did read an approach which did sound wierd, but the manager does it since some time. Get players age A, A+1 and A+2 (don't know where he starts, but he aims for say 20, 21 and 22) for the whole roster. Then he drives this as long as possible, and when the roster falls apart, likely because of retirements, he starts new. Brilliant from one point of view, idiotic from a different point of view. What I like is, he did look for a strategy and sticks with it. If you don't like your strategy of renewing every 3-4 seasons a roster, change the strategy. Different coaches, different training, different whatever. The contracts will NOT help, from my point of view. Because you likely do train you players the way you do right now to be competitive. Fine. You can't pay them at that time on prolongation day. Fine. Now comes the new rule and you have a bit more money. Fine. Everyone can do it. Fine. Now the level rises again. Fine. Now you need MORE money to compete on the level, which is not there. That's how I see it. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Rookie contract | |
