I think so, yeah
Gaming The SM RedCafe League
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
I'm not exaggerating when I say the last time I was able to use just money to sign a proper first team player was when you decided, for some reason, to sell me Ozil (94 rated at the time) for £71.5M back in 2015. To this day I've still got no idea what you were thinking of with that. £696.1M in my bank and it is useless to me. I'm sure other clubs have £300M+ that they don't use either.Did you read the previous post, to actually get on the ladder now you need money now, to just buy risers to sell because we are all looking for talent, most small clubs these days would need a stimulus package as anyone in d1/2 could out bid them on a player or make them waste all there money, it’s better that the money gets spread around any way as most of it is tied up in damos account.
This is pretty much akin to what we do with drafts it’s about getting money to the small club for the next manager in that case while helping out the small clubs with managers.
There probably should be a vote before blocking it off entirely as some have since said (who've experienced the D5-1 challenge) that they don't see a massive issue with it as long as deals are declared (which I agree with, so FFP can be kept track of). One of the arguments against has always been about 'player parking' where if someone has, say, an FFP of 50 and is at that FFP but leaves two players at the other club and then signs two other players to fill that gap which they wouldn't have been able to do if they kept those two players - or where if they let another club buy a player for cheap then never buy back but myself, Newcastle and Middlesbrough have stated that we haven't done either. The deals are mandatory, and, it isn't like you don't see clubs buy back players after a season in real life - Angelino at City for example.
I'm fine with whatever is decided. Will let someone else handle a vote.
One thing we could argue is if someone claimed they did the natural road to glory, but in fact doesn't
In fairness, we are trying to get more people to join to make the GW more competitive. One way is draft, which "dismantles" a club but leaves it with enough cash for new manager to work with. Most recent example is Kidderminster, whom the manager takes advantage of cash pool he has to rebuild his team, starting from Div 4
Even so, the key difference is transparency. We have a good idea of how much additional cash the club has
So by declaring any form of "buyback" or "financial aid", would discourage "player parking". At the very least, anyone could question the deal if it does not look right
Updated this with there being a few big deals since (Pjanic, Aguero, Alonso, Schulz, Oblak, De Gea, Dele, Vertonghen etc)
Division 1 clubs ranked in order of avg. first XI rating (takes 10 strongest outfield players regardless of position + keeper)
*in case of multiple players on same rating, uses first alphabetically
Division 1 clubs ranked in order of avg. first XI rating (takes 10 strongest outfield players regardless of position + keeper)
| Rank | Team | Avg. Rating | Strongest Player* | # 90+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Manchester United | 93.9 (+0.1) | Antoine Griezmann (95) | 21 (-1) |
2 | Everton | 93.5 | Neymar (96) | 16 |
3 (⌃1) | Liverpool | 92.9 (+0.4) | Kevin De Bruyne (96) | 13 |
4 (⌄1) | Nottingham Forest | 92.6 | Robert Lewandowski (96) | 16 |
5 (⌃3) | Newcastle United | 92.1 (+0.2) | Gerard Pique (94) | 15 |
6 | Arsenal | 92 | Eden Hazard (95) | 15 |
= | Aston Villa | 92 | Lionel Messi (99) | 11 |
8 | Darlington | 91.9 | Thiago Alcantara (94) | 13 |
9 (⌃1) | Fulham | 91.4 | Raphael Varane (94) | 10 |
10 (⌃2) | Cardiff City | 91.3 (+0.2) | Luis Suarez (94) | 13 (+1) |
11 | Middlesbrough | 91.2 | Mats Hummels (93) | 15 (-1) |
12 | Sunderland | 91.1 | Mauro Icardi (93) | 16 |
13 (⌃1) | Bristol City | 91 | Cristiano Ronaldo (98) | 9 |
= (⌄8) | Manchester City | 91 (-1.2) | Marco Reus (93) | 12 (-1) |
= (⌃1) | Southend United | 91 | Andy Robertson (93) | 11 |
16 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 90.9 | N'golo Kante (94) | 15 (+2) |
17 | Southampton | 90.8 | Saul Niguez (93) | 10 |
18 | Bournemouth | 90.7 | Alexandre Lacazette (92) | 11 |
19 | Hereford | 90.3 | Marcelo Brozovic (92) | 6 |
20 | Ipswich Town | 90 | John Stones (91) | 9 |
*in case of multiple players on same rating, uses first alphabetically
Still think a decrease of FFP for all teams would kinda solve the issue here, i've got 54 players at Ipswich, and it's not even a struggle, In Div 1 i should be weighing up the balance of having rotation and prospects.
I've got complete rotation and a plethora of young prospects.
I've got complete rotation and a plethora of young prospects.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,384
- Supports
️
See I’d be fine with it being transparent and tracked but maybe the players who are “sold” should be included like the loan system?
If it stays with it being declared I think then GK swapping should be allowed for 88 and below under the same rules. You can swap but has to be declared etc because for all intents and purposes the functions are the same clubs benefit from a temporary sale which is then reversed.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,384
- Supports
- ️
To be fair I wouldn’t have a problem with us dropping FFP lower? How does everyone else feel?
FFP is fine imo, I find my self having to sell some good talents now and then as I don't have space. Even sold some 90+ players because of it.
I have stayed relatively quiet in all of this for a number of reasons but partly because I could not be bothered to read the emotional threads on the SM Gameworld.
Now it has calmed down a tiny bit I thought I would comment.
I started Barnsley in season 9...in 2015, before money was meaningless. I did no deals in the early part of my tenure that meant buy back clauses until I was promoted into div 1. The deal then was Mandzukic with a buy back clauses at the end of the season. I was happy to sell back or keep, which in the end I was allowed to keep him.
Now I am not sure if this classes as player parking at the time, admittedly he was not a youth player.
I would also point out the talent in the youth squad at Barnsley, Kubo, Mount, Martinelli (still amazed noone else bid), to name a few on top of Alexander Arnold and Rodrygo at one point. There is always talent somewhere it is just difficult to find them. The reason the latter two are both not there now was it took a couple of seasons to secure a bigger stadium therefore to stay in the black I sold for money and a player, which I was happy to do as it this is part and parcel of the game. Staying in the black is crucial if you want to challenge for the new youth potential stars, if you over spend then tough.
The one thing though that I would like to point out is the Italian loan system for youth players.
2 clubs own a player. One pays for them to go to their club and at the end of a specified period of time both clubs blind bid. If the player is going to be a star then the big club always wins. If however the big club has got someone better in the position then they can opt as a fee of 0 and default the player to the other club. Now this may not happen now and is a memory from my old Champ Man days but this to me sounds like what we are debating not doing...unless I have misread the bits I could be bothered to read (apologies if this is the case).
I have never done one of these deals and likely never will so I honestly don't give a sh*t either way, but I would really like this to be over soon....please, for my sanity.
Now it has calmed down a tiny bit I thought I would comment.
I started Barnsley in season 9...in 2015, before money was meaningless. I did no deals in the early part of my tenure that meant buy back clauses until I was promoted into div 1. The deal then was Mandzukic with a buy back clauses at the end of the season. I was happy to sell back or keep, which in the end I was allowed to keep him.
Now I am not sure if this classes as player parking at the time, admittedly he was not a youth player.
I would also point out the talent in the youth squad at Barnsley, Kubo, Mount, Martinelli (still amazed noone else bid), to name a few on top of Alexander Arnold and Rodrygo at one point. There is always talent somewhere it is just difficult to find them. The reason the latter two are both not there now was it took a couple of seasons to secure a bigger stadium therefore to stay in the black I sold for money and a player, which I was happy to do as it this is part and parcel of the game. Staying in the black is crucial if you want to challenge for the new youth potential stars, if you over spend then tough.
The one thing though that I would like to point out is the Italian loan system for youth players.
2 clubs own a player. One pays for them to go to their club and at the end of a specified period of time both clubs blind bid. If the player is going to be a star then the big club always wins. If however the big club has got someone better in the position then they can opt as a fee of 0 and default the player to the other club. Now this may not happen now and is a memory from my old Champ Man days but this to me sounds like what we are debating not doing...unless I have misread the bits I could be bothered to read (apologies if this is the case).
I have never done one of these deals and likely never will so I honestly don't give a sh*t either way, but I would really like this to be over soon....please, for my sanity.
Also I think Ffp should be a bit lower, as 52 for Everton with a 45000ish stadium just seems too high, but God knows what the limit should be, maybe 45....but meh, don't really care either way as long as there is a limit.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,384
- Supports
- ️
Money isn’t meaningless it just depends who you are after. It should be very important to clubs like your Barnsley who started with nothing so surely when in Division 5 that should be the challenge?
You make a great point there is always talent coming through and it’s about scouting and finding that talent. You don’t win them all but eventually you get lucky recent example for me Fabio Silva etc
It may surprise but I equally don’t mind either way as long as there is consistency and logic behind why we say it’s ok or not. I can’t see the logic in arguing for example that this is the good kind of player parking whereas as GK concern swap is bad? Both serve the purpose to artificially improve a clubs situation. So I guess it comes down to are we ok with paid loans (but back clauses etc)?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,384
- Supports
- ️
45 seems a fair enough point
First 11
Back up 11
And 23 prospects/or depth of your choosing
Surely enough for anyone?
In fact player concern swap should be a no, and not just limited to GK. It is just that GK's concern is harsher than outfield players
In general, if you could not give player enough game time and he develops concern, then you should consider selling him outright, preferably to other who needs him more
Currently FFP is relative to stadium size, again with intention to help out smaller clubs, so that they can raise cash by trading risers. E.g. if Cardiff's new FFP is 45, then Utd's FFP should be less (e.g. 40)
That been said, we have been profiting for few seasons now, from Spurs' Wembley stadium which never gets filled (90K capacity)
In general, if you could not give player enough game time and he develops concern, then you should consider selling him outright, preferably to other who needs him more
Currently FFP is relative to stadium size, again with intention to help out smaller clubs, so that they can raise cash by trading risers. E.g. if Cardiff's new FFP is 45, then Utd's FFP should be less (e.g. 40)
That been said, we have been profiting for few seasons now, from Spurs' Wembley stadium which never gets filled (90K capacity)
I am against it.
What keeps me invested is buying and planning for youth players getting into first team years down the line. I usually target 25 players for first team squad with one team(90+) for league and another for cup games(85-90) with some subs accounting for injuries. Rest i invest in youth. Out of these some are long term projects, some are transitional players for generating finances and rest are gambles. But usually there is a fair numbers of players bought and sold.
Yeah, I'm a hard no on FFP changes. 45 is just about workable for me and that has had quite a few difficulties.
Best I could do is to update player's trade between managers every turn
Im fine with FFP was just a suggestion, also maybe we should make the buyback clause legal and controlled.
Like it posted in Redcafe whenever it's used, and only as a first option on the player when the opposing club is choosing to sell?
Like it posted in Redcafe whenever it's used, and only as a first option on the player when the opposing club is choosing to sell?
So after all this, Benito goes and breaks FFP. Nice, dude.
Drop everyone's ffp by 1 or 2
Actually I think that was just a little international league that Pablo set up with some RAWK people and some of us...
Money is entirely useless for teams that have been in Div1 for the majority of the last 20 seasons as the prize money from staying there alone (as well as your away day at OT) generally allows clubs to either break even over the season or make mountains of money (600 mil at United, I've around 200 I'm sure it's similar amongst clubs like arsenal etc), and as a result clubs in lower divisions don't want to make cash deals for their players, and that's not mentioning money made from cups and European cups for teams in Div 1.... This idea of player parking where we create artificial space in our squad is ridiculous, as most of the deals I've done with TS are with players due a rise, where he has had them for just as long as their TB lasts then I've bought them back, not filling their space with other players...
As for GK concern swaps, all my swapped players would never have gotten a concern at Newcastle for not playing enough as they are all too low, whereas GK swaps is literally doing it to avoid losing the player and is very much hoarding. If you can't see that, that's your problem for not understanding a relatively obvious difference...
As for lowering FFP absolutely not, I've maybe 17-18 players currently first team quality, have put a lot of eggs into the basket of waiting to long term projects to come to fruition...
Brilliant
That's due to your stadium size and the fact you're in Division 1. If you get demoted back down to Division 2 you'd struggle with wages.
never struggled once in all the time i was in div 2
I agree that concern swapping should be a no though, I have a first team of 15 and it's fine. If people are getting concerns from 87+ players then its because their first team squad is simply too large.
Personally think FFP is fine, I have only 6 90+ players and don't hear me complaining about it. *shrugs*
I think its because you have a semi decent stadium size. I was making a loss of 700k each week last season in Division 2.
My max capacity is only 22,987.
*gives bro hug*I think its because you have a semi decent stadium size. I was making a loss of 700k each week last season in Division 2.
My max capacity is only 22,987.
new ffp rules please ammend first post Damien
25 players
with a maximum of 17 non-"homegrown" players in each club squad
im open to extending it to 30
25 players
with a maximum of 17 non-"homegrown" players in each club squad
im open to extending it to 30
My chairmen literally gave me like 60 more seats or some bollocks. He's a fecking twat.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,384
- Supports
- ️
How have I? My caps 54?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,384
- Supports
- ️
Fair enough for top division clubs but surely you could still pick up talents from smaller clubs who need cash. I’ve sold plenty of players for cash only.
While the intention of both deal types is different the physical action is exactly the same. I could just claim that I’m helping another club out? You can’t operate based on being thought police so it has to be consistent.
Id happily have a reduction in FFP but at the very least these deals need to be binding and public so we can keep track of it. I still think it’s unfair for clubs who could still use money and just because you have many mega rich clubs it doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot who have to manage their finances more. I think just donating Money to a small club spits in the face of those who have to sell to get deals done. I had to raise money for Maguire by selling Calvert Lewin for example but with a sugar daddy helping me buy what I want it wouldn’t be a concern. I sold Moutinho for cash only again to make sure I’m covered for the season wage wise while the stadium grows all to keep afloat.
this is a capitalist game world where the rich get richer pal
if you want communism join redcafe.cn
if you want communism join redcafe.cn
on a side note
just realised i have been a member here 15 years as of 2 days ago
and i still have yet to make any meaningful contribution or debate haha
this is pretty much the only thread i look at
just realised i have been a member here 15 years as of 2 days ago
and i still have yet to make any meaningful contribution or debate haha
this is pretty much the only thread i look at
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,384
- Supports
- ️
Happy membership birthday I suppose?
You had your bid for Joelson accepted and had yet to accept a bid for Ronaldo Viera.
But its the intent of doing a concern swap to horde players which was the original purpose of FFP to stop big clubs hoarding players, the buy backs allow smaller clubs generate more money. Yes you didnt have a sugar daddy, but you were also took over a club in div 2 that had been well built by the previous manager. If you cant manage finances thats not a problem for the rest of the GW...
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,384
- Supports
- ️
The bid was accepted at the same time? Viera was out as he came in.
If that’s bannable then Jesus wept is this for pointing out that special deals are happening? Im on 54 players my cap and haven’t at any point been on any higher
I could just claim it’s helping another club (which it would be) and then off the hook. Both acts are altruistic yet one is given special treatment because well I don’t know why?
I can manage it just fine but what I’m trying to point out is you are letting some clubs have special treatment where they don’t have to manage their finances properly and they get free cash. That isn’t fair if they chose to be at that club.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,384
- Supports
- ️
Can’t be arsed with this you’re just going to ban me without any proof so go ahead. Ridiculous!
Lesson learnt don’t question the clique.
Lesson learnt don’t question the clique.
That's actually not true though.
The Fernandes deal completed 3 hours before the Viera deal did. So for 3 hours you were on 55 cap. I do have those completed deals still in my history.
We put the rule in place years ago to stop people bidding for players and then cancelling accepted bids if they didn't win the transfer battle they were bidding on. I.E. You see that you didn't win Fernandes battle and then cancel the accepted bid on Viera. I'm not saying you'd do this, but people have in the past hence the rule addition.
The rule is once bid it is assumed you have one for sake of FFP, you just admitted it was once it was accepted you accepted the bid for Ronaldo.