The recent Chelsea charge is based on this and all out attack
Gaming The SM RedCafe League
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Pretty sure thats the highest amount of average mins to date for me.
Seems everyone is open to idea of loan cap to unmanaged clubs, I will make a proposal in details later
Exciting.
OK, so data was taken last week and I couldn't access SM at work, so bear with me as I will update the figure later, if required
Last edited:
RedCafe Soccermanager Loan Cap Proposal
Current baseline (as per 22 Sep 2015)
30% of managed clubs account for 80% of total loan to AI clubs:
Last edited:
Objectives
- Help with wages for clubs who do not have huge stadiums
- Encourage small clubs to grow by purchasing and loaning out risers
- Promote participation of clubs from all Divisions
- Applied to loan to AI clubs only
- No restriction on loan from one managed club to another
- All clubs must comply with FFP rules
- No significant change in player valuation and wage system next season (especially with the impending reload of Game World in Oct)
- The pattern of loans has been consistent, and will be similar next season if loan cap is not implemented
- Maximum of 50 managed clubs in every season
- Average weekly wages (50% of wages for 2 turns) of 1 additional quota is 8,000
Last edited:
Proposal
>70k = 0 ¦ 60k-70k = 0 ¦ 37.5k-60k = 1 ¦ 30k-37.5k = 2 ¦ 20k-30k = 4 ¦ 10k-20k = 5 ¦ <10k = 6
>70k = 0 ¦ 60k-70k = 0 ¦ 37.5k-60k = 1 ¦ 30k-37.5k = 2 ¦ 20k-30k = 4 ¦ 10k-20k = 5 ¦ <10k = 6
Last edited:
Proposal (con't)
- The loan cap is applied until Turn 10 only (inclusive) for each season
- If there is any remaining place to loan out players to AI clubs after Turn 10, it is up for grab for everyone
Last edited:
Ah that explains it.Man of few words (see post count)
How have you worked out the drop in stadium sizes for each incremental increase? Based on calculations from the data you collected? @RedSky
I don't mind the loan cap much as it won't make a huge difference but I don't get the idea behind it. The FFP cap is the maximum number of players you can have, not the number you must. So smaller teams buying much more than they can afford and then having a restriction in place to help them send these players out on loan when they are already being benefitted due to the FFP cap is strange. I'm in for in btw as it's been requested by a quite a few on SM too but it's the logic behind it I'm not sure about.
I don't mind the loan cap much as it won't make a huge difference but I don't get the idea behind it. The FFP cap is the maximum number of players you can have, not the number you must. So smaller teams buying much more than they can afford and then having a restriction in place to help them send these players out on loan when they are already being benefitted due to the FFP cap is strange. I'm in for in btw as it's been requested by a quite a few on SM too but it's the logic behind it I'm not sure about.
Smaller clubs can only loan out their low-rating players to AI. If bigger clubs monopolize the loan to AI as well, there is not much left for smaller clubs to have
Last edited:
More than 80% of players available to loan out to AI have been taken by clubs with more than 30k stadium capacity
Even if we only consider the 10 clubs or so with 40k and above stadium capacity, that has already taken up 42% of loans to AI
By introducing loan cap, it will give everyone a relatively fair chance to loan out their players to AI
By introducing loan cap, it will give everyone a relatively fair chance to loan out their players to AI
Last edited:
I get all of that @green_smiley. My point wasn't about why people want it. My point simply was that FFP takes care of the fair play bit. The loans are simply a race, you need to get them in time. Having caps here also is strange because if a manager is too slow to get loans done on time, perhaps he shouldn't keep players he can't afford? After all, the FFP limit is the maximum you can have, doesn't mean you have that many in the squad.
As I said, it's just a couple of Mil a season, I don't mind it given so many want it enforced. I just don't agree with the rationale behind it when FFP is already in place and being tweaked again to be fair to everyone. Each riser makes the club a minimum of 2-3mil, that's more than fair according to RSs latest grid. Extra 7.5k isn't going to amount to that much over the season I feel (based on a guess and not stats which is why I asked RS how DM he decided on the numbers).
As I said, it's just a couple of Mil a season, I don't mind it given so many want it enforced. I just don't agree with the rationale behind it when FFP is already in place and being tweaked again to be fair to everyone. Each riser makes the club a minimum of 2-3mil, that's more than fair according to RSs latest grid. Extra 7.5k isn't going to amount to that much over the season I feel (based on a guess and not stats which is why I asked RS how DM he decided on the numbers).
The big clubs have advantage to wait and loan for example 82-rated players and above to other managed clubs. The smaller clubs don't because an 82-rated player will be an automatic starter and also because our cnutish chairman won't allow us to do so. Like myself, I can't loan out players with more than 78 rating, and no other managed clubs want to loan my players who have rating of 77 or less
No managed clubs wants an 82 rated player on loan so thats a wrong assumption to begin with.
Check again
Is there a way to even check that?
Yes, go to every managed club and see which players they loan
And how about 83-85 rated players? Surely big clubs can loan them out, and will be high in-demand
Put it this way, as far as I know of, only Norwich wants a loan cap. I don't know if other clubs from Div 2 or lower want it. And if you look at my table, I can loan out more players without loan cap. I don't mind it to be a race. I just want to give the rest a chance
Generally I find that most managed clubs want players in the 85-87/88 rated bracket and only damien can loan 88 rated players out ( not 100% on this). We have 48 clubs and 175 loan space available. Think having 4 loans per club is fair irrespective of stadium size.
\
Thats a lot of work! I checked the loanee list and MKD have a couple of 87 rated players available. Whoever loaned a 82 rated player over that is strange.Hear, hear. Feck the loan cap. Squad cap differences is enough re FFP.
Only RS and Damo can loan out 87(88) rated players. The rest can loan upto a max of 86 or below and with the sheer number of 85-88 rated platers available for loan, it's stupid of whoever is loaning in 82 rated ones.
Kidderminster loaned Adama Traore off me. Clubs in Division 4/5 will much prefer loaning an 82-84 player over an 87
Say someone who has 6 players out-of-loan to managed clubs, and is the 3rd highest (Utd: 17, Forest: 10)
52 AI clubs x 3 players = 156 loan space available
As per my analysis, you will only make a loss of estimated 1.6M per season with loan cap implemented. 1.6M is almost negligible for you, but is significant for smaller clubs like mine
I want to emphasize again: If no one else wants a loan cap, I am perfectly fine with it
This season I have made a loss of -2,220,896 excluding transfer money in and out( That includes season tickets/prize money,etc) so its really not negligible. FFP has destroyed any chances of signing risers and its impossible to make money without selling players.
Why do you want to exclude transfer money in and out?
I lose 300k every week without transfer
Because its not a fair comparison?
Have lost 29m in that case if that makes your happier.
Whats your total loss so far?
Yes, I am delighted because of your incompetency
I have made my case. Like I said, I am happy either way. If no one other than Norwich wants it, I am perfectly fine with it
Edit- you never said how much you have lost in total so far excluding transfer money.
Boom boom.
MJJ, being the generous guy I am, I'll take your 2 best players at face value for pure cash so you can go in the green.
Still at work so I can't log in to SM to tell you the exactly how much. Not does it matters anyway, but most likely less than you because the bigger the club is, the more loss the club can afford to make
Edit- you never said how much you have lost in total so far excluding transfer money.
I will sell you my two best defenders at 1.5 x the face value.Boom boom.
MJJ, being the generous guy I am, I'll take your 2 best players at face value for pure cash so you can go in the green.
In that case, I really dont see how I am classed as a bigger club when your seasonal income is more than mine.
Bid made. Thanks!
You are saying that a club with average attendance of 7000+, 3 level down in division is bigger than yours. That has to be a WUM
@MJJ relegate yourself to Division 2, then we will talk about which is the bigger club