We can start the bidding tomorrow at 8 am GMTAnd when does bidding start?
You literally just increased the money by 10m as everyone has a 20m player which they will sellNah.. I think there is enough money to build a good squad now
You can sell 2 now, the player you’d like to upgrade and the player you no longer need for 13 man squad.You literally just increased the money by 10m as everyone has a 20m player which they will sell
That was the original rule as well, the change in rule (squad cap of 12) is that we can sell one extra player which for most will be a 20m player. With the bank charge, that means the rule change to increase funds will only result in an extra 10m. If the rule was changed to increase our funds, I really dont think it will make much of a difference.You can sell 2 now, the player you’d like to upgrade and the player you no longer need for 13 man squad.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it
Right 10m + 50m is 60m to upgrade.. You can upgrade just 1 player if you want..That was the original rule as well, the change in rule (squad cap of 12) is that we can sell one extra player which for most will be a 20m player. With the bank charge, that means the rule change to increase funds will only result in an extra 10m. If the rule was changed to increase our funds, I really dont think it will make much of a difference.
Yeah I get that, I am just confused if the intention was to increase the fund value because we felt it wasn't enough the increase should atleast be signficant not 10m.Right 10m + 50m is 60m to upgrade.. You can upgrade just 1 player if you want..
Please remove the discount for players costing 20m when we sell them to the bank. That way, the rule would have more effectRight 10m + 50m is 60m to upgrade.. You can upgrade just 1 player if you want..
You could leave the 20m player and upgrade a 60m player to someone more substantialYeah I get that, I am just confused if the intention was to increase the fund value because we felt it wasn't enough the increase should atleast be signficant not 10m.
That’s fine. I’ll allow thatPlease remove the discount for players costing 20m when we sell them to the bank. That way, the rule would have more effect
Ah that's perfect now.That’s fine. I’ll allow that
Edit: Edited the reinforcement round post
Yes
NoCan we extend the 50m we get to reinforce to 60m. I can get the player I want then
Is that not a wee bit unfair on likes of Zlatan7 or EAP who have lots of 30m players and barely any 20m players?That’s fine. I’ll allow that
Edit: Edited the reinforcement round post
I can’t sell my 20m player as he was a sub. The rest are all 30m. The new rule change again has no benefit to meIs that not a wee bit unfair on likes of Zlatan7 or EAP who have lots of 30m players and barely any 20m players?
You still get the same money for a 30m player though.Is that not a wee bit unfair on likes of Zlatan7 or EAP who have lots of 30m players and barely any 20m players?
At some point we have to draw the line on where you start making losses on selling playersI can’t sell my 20m player as he was a sub. The rest are all 30m. The new rule change again has no benefit to me
True. But if managers had known that they would get the same money back for a 20m player as a 30m player, they may have invested differently in the first round.You still get the same money for a 30m player though.
Why change rules to benefit some managers only?You still get the same money for a 30m player though.
True. But if managers had known that they would get the same money back for a 20m player as a 30m player, they may have invested differently in the first round.
It doesn’t matter much to me to be honest as we had planned on basis of 10m returns for 20m players as per original rules. It’s more just the principles of fairness and shifting plans as a result of changes.
@MJJ @Don Alfredo there is no consensus amongst all the managers to change the ruling on 20m players. I will have to scrap the ruleWhy change rules to benefit some managers only?
Just increase funds for all or move players to base price or let things remain unchanged.
@Don Alfredo we need a union.@MJJ @Don Alfredo there is no consensus amongst all the managers to change the ruling on 20m players. I will have to scrap the rule
IMO just scrap the 12 man limit rule, that would solve all those problems. Not sure when was implemented either way as it wasn't in the rules beforehand (just for the first game)...@MJJ @Don Alfredo there is no consensus amongst all the managers to change the ruling on 20m players. I will have to scrap the rule
I know! I’ve made 3 different reinforcement choices this week as people keep asking for different rulesEveryone including me is coming up with their own version of modification to suit needs
To be fair the rules are like this:Everyone including me is coming up with their own version of modification to suit needs
All of us still reek of desperation to somehow get even 10 mn extraTo be fair the rules are like this:
R.3) Initial funds of 700m for a 13 player squad. No substitutions allowed in the match but if you progress to next round, you must play your 12th and 13th player. By Q/F round, your entire squad must be utilized.
^^^ I bet it's not only us that based our RR plan on selling all subs for the QF's and there's no indication you need to keep 13 player squad all the time.
Our plan was keeping it to 11 players with playing the 2 subs from the initial drafting which was well within the rules. Keeping it to 12 or 13 always is what IMO changes the rule here, not the other way around..
To be fair the rules are like this:
R.3) Initial funds of 700m for a 13 player squad. No substitutions allowed in the match but if you progress to next round, you must play your 12th and 13th player. By Q/F round, your entire squad must be utilized.
^^^ I bet it's not only us that based our RR plan on selling all subs for the QF's and there's no indication you need to keep 13 player squad all the time.
Our plan was keeping it to 11 players with playing the 2 subs from the initial drafting which was well within the rules. Keeping it to 12 or 13 always is what IMO changes the rule here, not the other way around..
I agree on the selling deduction that is changing the rules, but not for the 12 as a compromise. If it was 12 should be stated from the off. Makes no sense to keep compiling players you won't use anyway going forward. Especially with no subs allowed.That’s fair enough and just a bit of unclear rules set at the start, I thought changing it to 12 was a fair compromise.
Removing the selling deduction is just a clear rule change that only helps some.
Scrapped now anyway by the looks.