Gaming The SM RedCafe League

Varun said:
That would be counter productive. Buying shit so that the good ones can be taken by others.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. For now just keep the draft going until the three players are picked. Maybe include Zouma (88) and Goretzka (88) on loan to bring it up to 5. Yeah, loan deals aren't same as permanent deals but it'll make the draft more interesting I guess.
 
Sorry guys I don't understand what's going on.:confused:
 
RedSky said:
Well surely thats counter productive though? If it was under normal conditions then I could have free pick of pretty much any player as I know that my bid would always win given i've got the 2nd shittest squad in the game. So why exactly would I therefore agree to a draft system that gives everyone the equal chance of winning? That's bizarre.
Click to expand...
Yep, it doesn't change anything other than ensuring that every club can participate regardless of their cash situation which is the case with an open free for all. I said that because stain felt this is unfair. Personally, I'm all for letting smaller clubs get first dibs to improve overall standard of the league.

As far as agreeing to something is concerned, it's the same as bigger clubs agreeing to this format. Not everyone will be be perfectly happy with every way chosen as there's always going to be someone that loses out.
 
2mufc0 said:
Sorry guys I don't understand what's going on.:confused:
Click to expand...
A Club is now manager less which means players can be bought from them. To help the overall quality of the league, it's been decided that the lower clubs(by squad value) will get first dibs on who they want. So it's a draft format with lowest squad value clubs first. If you want a player, mention who you want and you will be able to buy him for max cash. If you don't want one, say that you're skipping.
 
Varun said:
Yep, it doesn't change anything other than ensuring that every club can participate regardless of their cash situation which is the case with an open free for all. I said that because stain felt this is unfair. Personally, I'm all for letting smaller clubs get first dibs to improve overall standard of the league.

As far as agreeing to something is concerned, it's the same as bigger clubs agreeing to this format. Not everyone will be be perfectly happy with every way chosen as there's always going to be someone that loses out.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Besides, my players are for sale as long as the valuation is... generous. So it's not like big clubs still don't have a chance of signing players from me. Sell high, reinvest, thats the Hereford way.
 
Varun said:
A Club is now manager less which means players can be bought from them. To help the overall quality of the league, it's been decided that the lower clubs(by squad value) will get first dibs on who they want. So it's a draft format with lowest squad value clubs first. If you want a player, mention who you want and you will be able to buy him for max cash. If you don't want one, say that you're skipping.
Click to expand...
So any player at face value from Sheffield Wednesday?
 
2x value doesn't make sense to me. If the goal is to give smaller teams preference, it's been scuppered by that rule and ban on player exchange.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
2x value doesn't make sense to me. If the goal is to give smaller teams preference, it's been scuppered by that rule and ban on player exchange.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is to maximize cash to Sheffield United in case when someone wants to takeover the club in future

It is not perfact, and we can still improve it in next draft (if any), but this time round, only 3 players are available, so it is not too bad
 
In that case would like Alexander Isak.
 
green_smiley said:
I think the idea is to maximize cash to Sheffield United in case when someone wants to takeover the club in future

It is not perfact, and we can still improve it in next draft (if any), but this time round, only 3 players are available, so it is not too bad
Click to expand...
OK, well I'll wait until the West Ham draft. But for that draft it should be FV, 1.5XFV, 2XFV etc. You could factor the price with a .25 or .5 increase on FV relative to each 100m of a squad's value. So someone with 150m of squad value pays FV, 200m 1.5FV, 300m+ 2xFV. Obviously a very rough outline but that's how I'd do it to benefit the smaller teams.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
OK, well I'll wait until the West Ham draft. But for that draft it should be FV, 1.5XFV, 2XFV etc. You could factor the price with a .25 or .5 increase on FV relative to each 100m of a squad's value. So someone with 150m of squad value pays FV, 200m 1.5FV, 300m+ 2xFV. Obviously a very rough outline but that's how I'd do it to benefit the smaller teams.
Click to expand...
West Ham manager is still active
 
I meant based on squad value, not that i'd get to bid anyway ffs.
 
green_smiley said:
West Ham manager is still active
Click to expand...
OK, thought he was awol. Still, I think that's a good idea for future drafts if the function of drafts is to allow smaller clubs first preference. Having first preference on something you can't afford doesn't really work.
 
green_smiley said:
Your best players were those that you loaned from other clubs. Nevertheless, you had some great talents there!

As far as I am concerned, it carries little value if the record are mostly from Div 3 - 5
Click to expand...
I was just joking, just in case that wasn't clear :)
 
I (west ham) am here, and I do play still, even if I don't talk that much.
 
Time's up for Bury

Barnsley decides to skip

And after review current squad value, draft order is changed to: Cardiff City, AFC Bournemouth, Birmingham City

1. Morecambe - n/a
2. Hereford FC - Senna Miangue
3. Leeds United - Alexander Isak
4. Bury - n/a
5. Barnsley - n/a
6. Cardiff City -
 
Apr'16
May'16
Jun '16
Jul '16
Aug '16
Sep '16

Oct'16 Youth Table

Position - Team - Points | Num of Players
  1. Man Utd 50.4 | 15
  2. Darlington 49.4 | 18
  3. Arsenal 47.8 | 15
  4. Chelsea 40.7 | 17
  5. Forest 34.2 | 15
  6. Newcastle 32 | 13
  7. Everton 31.9 | 12
  8. Southend 27.5 | 12
  9. Blackburn 26.7 | 13
  10. Aston Villa 25.4 | 11
  11. Liverpool 19.8 | 6
  12. Ipswich 19 | 10
  13. Spurs 18.8 | 8
  14. Plymouth 18.3 | 9
  15. QPR 18.3 | 11
  16. Hereford 17.2 | 11
  17. Man City 16.1 | 6
  18. Southampton 13.8 | 5
  19. Bristol City 13.2 | 7
  20. Leeds United 10.1 | 4
  21. Norwich City 8.9 | 4
  22. Sunderland 8.6 | 4
  23. Reading 8.5 | 3
  24. West Ham 8.1 | 4
  25. Fulham 8.1 | 4
  26. Cardiff 6.6 | 5
  27. Derby 6.3 | 4
  28. Wolves 5.8 | 4
  29. Bournemouth 4 | 2
  30. MKD 3.9 | 2
  31. Stoke 2.5 | 2
  32. Morecambe 2.5 | 2
  33. Barnsley 1.5 | 1
  34. Bury 0 | 0
  35. Sheff Utd 0 | 0
  36. Birmingham 0 | 0
Note: not included players that have been reviewed from 22 Sep onwards due to latest rating not reflected in SM
 
FFP Status (1 Oct 2016)

Div 1
  1. Manchester United - 42/42
  2. Arsenal - 45/45
  3. West Ham United - 30/45
  4. Manchester City - 41/46
  5. Newcastle United - 47/47
  6. Sunderland - 35/48
  7. Aston Villa - 49/49
  8. Chelsea - 48/49
  9. Everton - 48/49
  10. Fulham - 47/49
  11. Norwich City - 46/49
  12. Nottingham Forest - 49/49
  13. Southampton - 39/49
  14. Tottenham Hotspur - 46/49
  15. Wolverhampton Wanderers - 49/49
  16. Darlington 1883 - 48/49
  17. Plymouth Argyle - 51/49
  18. Milton Keynes Dons - 39/51
  19. Birmingham City - 52/52
  20. Queens Park Rangers - 50/53
Div 2
  1. Liverpool - 40/50
  2. Blackburn Rovers - 46/51
  3. Stoke City - 33/51
  4. Cardiff City - 40/53
  5. Derby County - 53/53
  6. Ipswich Town - 52/54
  7. Barnsley - 49/55
  8. Bristol City - 42/55
  9. Reading - 37/55
  10. AFC Bournemouth - 23/56
  11. Bury - 26/57
  12. Southend United - 56/57
Div 3
  1. Leeds United - 39/54
Div 4
  1. Hereford FC - 44/63
  2. Morecambe - 28/63
 
Can I bid on Isak now?
 
1. Morecambe - n/a
2. Hereford FC - Senna Miangue
3. Leeds United - Alexander Isak
4. Bury - n/a
5. Barnsley - n/a
6. Cardiff City - n/a
7. AFC Bournemouth - n/a
8. Birmingham - n/a
9. Bristol City - n/a
10. Derby County - n/a
11. West Ham -

@Turnip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.