Changes: - 20 teams (not all teams will need to be pairs, although some obviously will) - teams play each other twice only - knockout cup added - small tweaks to player DB - improved MOTD - no managers - teams are selected by you (although you would be able to leave it to default if preferred) I'd also like some discussion regarding a possible retention system. Although it'll be far more difficult to do due to the fact we're using an auction system. Any other suggestions welcome.
Oh what? This isn't a long term thing. Urgh. Thought this would be more of a dynasty thing hence the aversion to oldies skippos :fp:
Maybe just have 4 players retained or something like that. Going to be unfair to teams that don't have big stars already though.
If we were doing retentions, it'd be a player taking up x amount of your budget. I'm thinking of just scrapping retentions completely as there'll be such a change of structure with new teams/teams splitting up, etc.
You'd have to retain them at a loss of certain salary restrictions though. perhaps what you paid. would be interesting as some blokes might choose to let better players go in favour of retaining mid range bargains etc.
Could have a first refusal system. So each manager gets to choose 4(or some other number) of players to have a first refusal option on. Players are auctioned as normal and then at the end of the auction, the managers have an option to buy the players they asked for first-refusal on for 5% more than the end of auction price (rounded up to the next £0.5m).
RE: Tweaks to DB. Thoughts on adding very slight changes to the players that did well this season. I.e. Gundogan to be even more h4x next season based on this season's performance. And some players who have overperformed also get a slight reward. Just putting it out there. It kind of creates a CFL world that just ever so slightly deviates from RL because we are moving ahead of RL.
Not sure I'm keen on that idea tbh. Someone could have a huge star, waited for them and sacrificed spending on others, only to have them taken away at the end of the auction, meaning they've got to trade players to get compensate and could lose out massively as a result. Unless I've misunderstood. Alternatively, you could make them have to trade players of the same value as what was paid for the player, but make it a maximum of two players, that way people don't miss out as much. So like player X buys Messi for £50mill, player Y has first refusal, so offers a player of £25mill and £30mill to cover the price (increase of 10% [£5mill] added on). That way player X loses out less than if they're given £55mill at the end of an auction, which is basically worthless then.
What if the 'retained' bloke is on one of/the last day of the auction and the purchaser then has no time to find a replacement.
I would go for a silent/pmed auction for the next one personally There were too many times personally where I just couldn't be say by the computer at the time of finish, im sure it affected quite a few people as well It shouldn't just come down to who can time their posts to the second better, but about how much you value a player in comparison to others and trying to second guess each other
You mean like is the case with the last round regardless of how the auction is done, because its the last fucking round. Who didn't bid as much as they could for the bloke they wanted in the end anyway?
First refusal clause: - a manager can pick five of their current players to use the clause on. - they are then able to buy the player for 10% lower than the previous highest bid. eg. if the highest bid was 30m, a first refusal manager would be able to buy him for 27.5m (note that he'd be able to buy him at 27m if his bid was before the 30m bid). - I'd make it quite clear in each auction which player has a first refusal clause, and who to. This should lead to some interesting tactical bidding. Thoughts?
