Go to page 1
| Forum » Suggestions » Transfers | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Sounds good?
|
||
|
Username
388 msgs.
First-team player
|
Hi when selling a player on the market not on HC I think you should be able to set a clause on the transfer that will generate a decided % of the wining when they sell him again also you should be able to set how many seasons this clause it will remain active. Ex I sell Player X for 10M to team Y, we agree on 30% of the amount over 10+taxes will go back to me if sold within 5 seasons, Y sell X to Z for 100M 4 seasons after the deal then I get 100m-10m-taxes from 10m deal * 0,3 to my account |
07/05/2012 02:13 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4820 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Why would I agree to buy something from you that way??? I train a player for 2-3 season makes no point that you take the benefit of my hard work. -100 |
07/05/2012 07:37 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2149 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@bluegene said: Why would I agree to buy something from you that way??? I train a player for 2-3 season makes no point that you take the benefit of my hard work. -100 +101 to what blue says... so in total it becomes '-201' for your suggestion. |
07/05/2012 07:39 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
388 msgs.
First-team player
|
ofcourse it will only be applied if agreed upon, and i think it never will apply for young players with high forecast unless the buying team are low on cash. I think it will apply well for deals with on players with inexperienced teams | 07/05/2012 16:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@bluegene said: Why would I agree to buy something from you that way??? I train a player for 2-3 season makes no point that you take the benefit of my hard work. -100 Because that player had the player you wanted to train up and without him you wouldn't have the player. It is the way real football works, so I don't think he's so off base, but since this game takes player value from training more so than potential (you don't have the benefit in real life of knowing an actual physical number the player's skills can reach) so then there is a little of a disconnect, however I think it has a lot of merit. 1. It would be a potential way to curb inflation. A fair amount of teams "in the know" find high quality players via Scout+ searches and steal good players from unsuspecting teams, if these unsuspecting teams get a cash injection of a few million, it's taking money away from well off teams and giving it to teams that might be less fortunate (since they haven't figured out the training system/don't have a good stadium/etc.) Yeah you did do the "work" to train the player up to his potential, but the other team still had the commodity that you wanted and without it you wouldn't have been able to train it up to give you that value. Obviously this would be very unpopular with @'s or anyone who could make it happen because they are obviously part of the upper tier and would then stand to lose the most from this. 2. It would be a fun way to make a gamble on a player if there was an optional button for this. So for example lets say I'm selling a player for $5M, but I'm offering the option for a 30% sell on clause and you can buy the player now for "free". It allows you to buy a player and train him up potentially for nothing, but if you train him up high and try to sell him, you're going to make some good money, but so is the other guy. The only problem with this is that it adds an entirely new element to the market and I don't know such a hyper inflated market could handle something potentially caustic added to the mix. |
08/05/2012 01:56 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2149 msgs.
Best scorer
|
illex said: 2. It would be a fun way to make a gamble on a player if there was an optional button for this. So for example lets say I'm selling a player for $5M, but I'm offering the option for a 30% sell on clause and you can buy the player now for "free". It allows you to buy a player and train him up potentially for nothing, but if you train him up high and try to sell him, you're going to make some good money, but so is the other guy. The only problem with this is that it adds an entirely new element to the market and I don't know such a hyper inflated market could handle something potentially caustic added to the mix. Hmm... you guys make a good point BUT I think this will just add a lot of work and layers of complexity to make sure people dont abuse the system. For eg. Team A has a player Z with good potential. Player B & C notice player Z and come to understanding. B buys the player from A at 30% clause, and then after marginal training sells him to C for a low price. So A gets a small cut rather then what he would have got if C bought directly from him at 100%. What is in it for B? Well C will return the favour and scout for other potential players to pass on to B. This will ensure that team A always gets low price for his player since B & C are partnering together compared to the current scenario of B & C bidding against the player Z. And again fiscal @'s will have a hard time trying to catch such instances as they will need to use actual calculators.  I might be wrong here but this is my understanding of the system you propose and a splinter of abuse which i can see happening. Do correct me if you think otherwise. |
08/05/2012 08:06 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Well typically sell on clauses are semi permanent, as it they can stick with a player through their career (and permanent clauses would be the only way to do it in the game to prevent cheats), so if permanent sell on clauses were added to some players then the player would forever have X% of his sales sent back to a team, and a player could have multiple clauses, so 2-3 teams could be getting a piece of the action when a player moves on. Just as with the actual auction market, the market would help to correct itself, people list players for insane prices all the time, but usually nobody buys them. It would be the same with sell on clauses, nobody would want to pay a 50% sell on clause for a 90FC player that's only got real skills of 15 right now. Or maybe they would, but they would be less likely to move the players since they would never get market value for the player, meaning people would be more likely to keep "home grown players". This is where you could see inflation get out of control, only because then nobody would really want to get rid of their prospects since they'd be losing money, and there would be less prospects on the market, however people still have to sell players they trained to make money, so there could be a good trickle down into the lower divisions. The only way I see it actually helping to curb inflation is if youth players had a cap on their price, so once their auction hit a certain dollar amount (say $2m) then the auction would then turn to bidding on sell on percentage points. When a team is making $15M a home game, that $2M is nothing, but when you're potentially losing future income, you're less likely to get crazy with your spending on something. One issue is the fact that new players typically seem to stick around for like a week, so how many of the lower teams would actually benefit from this before they quit? Technically what you described would be legal anyways since it is a trade of presumably equal value players, but you're absolutely right, if there were one time clauses then it would probably lead to a good amount of cheating. But again, that is some of the risk in accepting a sell on vs money, and nobody is ever going to not get a deal for a player that they don't think is good. It is unlikely this would be put into place as I've spent maybe 30 minutes thinking about this, and much more than that would be needed before it was actually implemented, and the fact that it's something that hurts more established players, and the developers and @'s aren't going to do something that they wouldn't be happy with. I just thought it was stupid to completely write the guy's ideas off as dumb without looking at them. |
08/05/2012 14:36 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
Go to page 1
1
