| Forum » Suggestions » Loan System | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Changes should be made to the current loan system
|
||
|
Username
122 msgs.
Substitute
|
"A more balanced distribution of good players will benefit D1 and D2 as much as lower divisions.'' If i am div.1 team and i loan 3 players every season and making billions profit from that and you are div.4(like your team and you have 3 loans in) losing tons of cash for not training your own players it will benefit me same as you if they remove loans? I will lose billions you will lose nothing and whats more important you will benefit by not taking loans." Again you fail to factor the effect of lower wages when there's a larger pool of good players available. Thus, your argument is invalid due to its false premise. You also erroneously assume I'm spending billions on 3 loans. I barely pay 45M in wages for my 3 loans. Do the calculations each season has about 14 weeks and all you pay for is the wage of the player when you do a loan. Lower divisions would never bother asking for loans if they were gonna lose billions, heck most div 4 and 5 teams barely make 2 billion in revenue. How could they even afford to lose billions if they're not generating the revenue to meet wage obligations? Take more time and read what I say because you misinterpreted everything. For instance, I said "There are plenty of good managers in D3 and D4 that are tactically better than some of the managers from Div 1 and 2" but you're saying I said "div.3-4 managers better than div.1-2". Totally not the same thing. Edited by Vadecula 19-02-2016 03:37 |
19/02/2016 03:12 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2960 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Vadecula said: "A more balanced distribution of good players will benefit D1 and D2 as much as lower divisions.'' If i am div.1 team and i loan 3 players every season and making billions profit from that and you are div.4(like your team and you have 3 loans in) losing tons of cash for not training your own players it will benefit me same as you if they remove loans? I will lose billions you will lose nothing and whats more important you will benefit by not taking loans." Again you fail to factor the effect of lower wages when there's a larger pool of good players available. Thus, your argument is invalid due to its false premise. You also erroneously assume I'm spending billions on 3 loans. I barely pay 45M in wages for my 3 loans. Do the calculations each season has about 14 weeks and all you pay for is the wage of the player when you do a loan. Lower divisions would never bother asking for loans if they were gonna lose billions, heck most div 4 and 5 teams barely make 2 billion in revenue. How could they even afford to lose billions if they're not generating the revenue to meet wage obligations? Take more time and read what I say because you misinterpreted everything. For instance, I said "There are plenty of good managers in D3 and D4 that are tactically better than some of the managers from Div 1 and 2" but you're saying I said "div.3-4 managers better than div.1-2". Totally not the same thing. Edited by Vadecula 19-02-2016 03:37 Ok one more time hope this time you will get it. This is what i meant with losing billions for not training your players: If you take 3 loans per season and dont loan out you lose ~1B its ~150M+ per player profit if you have your own 90+prog players to train,so not taking loans and train your own players will give you ~450M per season + if you loan 3 out thats another 450M so close to 1B per season profit. How can i assume that you spend billions on loans when your whole team is worth 1-2B ?You tell me that. Now you do the calculation of ~18 season(you are that long in the game) losing 15B+ from loans in/out plus deposits on that money. How you think good teams made their teams? train their own players and loan out. Ofc i mean tactically better how else? If you think that you save a lot with training loans with low salary keep doing it,everyone has different strategy for long term. Cheers |
19/02/2016 06:05 |
| Mr. Q17 - Div1/Gr1 | ||
|
Username
122 msgs.
Substitute
|
As I've said before loaning is a short term fix and shouldn't be looked at as a long term solution. Why would I argue to change the system or even scrap it altogether if I see it as a good long term strategy? You continue to miss the point and reach the wrong conclusion. For starters your calculations are completely off. Each season here is approximately 14 calendar weeks. In order to reach your projections a manager would have to pay at least 10.7M per week in wages for each loan player. Very few managers in Div 1 and 2 pay more than 8M per player in wages weekly. Managers are more likely to pay 15-50M in wages per season for the loan of a highly rated player that would have likely cost him at least 300M to purchase on the market. That's a saving of at least 250M that can be used to strengthen his squad by buying 1 or more good players to train along with the ones he's loaning so he doesn't have to keep using loans every season. He may even choose to sell the same players he's trained for a hefty profit in the future. When used properly, lower division managers can actually make money from using loans in the short term. For your calculations to work everything has to remain constant every season (amount of good players available, not buying, not selling or training your own players, wages of 10.7M per player). All highly unlikely scenarios because rosters, wages, expenses, revenues fluctuate every season. The good managers that ask for loans of a 90+ players only plan to use them for one or 2 seasons until his own players get better or he's bought a long term solution. By the way this is an irrelevant side note, this is my first season with 3 loans on my squad and I haven't played 18 seasons. I've taken long breaks in between seasons. |
19/02/2016 07:42 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
122 msgs.
Substitute
|
As I've said before loaning is a short term fix and shouldn't be looked at as a long term solution. Why would I argue to change the system or even scrap it altogether if I see it as a good long term strategy? You continue to miss the point and reach the wrong conclusion. For starters your calculations are completely off. Each season here is approximately 14 calendar weeks. In order to reach your projections a manager would have to pay at least 10.7M per week in wages for each loan player. Very few managers in Div 1 and 2 pay more than 8M per player in wages weekly. Managers are more likely to pay 15-50M in wages per season for the loan of a highly rated player that would have likely cost him at least 300M to purchase on the market. That's a saving of at least 250M that can be used to strengthen his squad by buying 1 or more good players to train along with the ones he's loaning so he doesn't have to keep using loans every season. He may even choose to sell the same players he's trained for a hefty profit in the future. When used properly, lower division managers can actually make money from using loans in the short term. For your calculations to work everything has to remain constant every season (amount of good players available, not buying, not selling or training your own players, wages of 10.7M per player). All highly unlikely scenarios because rosters, wages, expenses, revenues fluctuate every season. The good managers that ask for loans of a 90+ players only plan to use them for one or 2 seasons until his own players get better or he's bought a long term solution. By the way this is an irrelevant side note, this is my first season with 3 loans on my squad and I haven't played 18 seasons. I've taken long breaks in between seasons. |
19/02/2016 07:42 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
9897 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Best thing to do, scrap off loans (Though it's hard because i won't be able to loan my guys out). And reduce the supply of +90prog players. | 19/02/2016 08:43 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
9897 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Best thing to do, scrap off loans (Though it's hard because i won't be able to loan my guys out). And reduce the supply of +90prog players. | 19/02/2016 08:44 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2960 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Vadecula said: As I've said before loaning is a short term fix and shouldn't be looked at as a long term solution. Why would I argue to change the system or even scrap it altogether if I see it as a good long term strategy? You continue to miss the point and reach the wrong conclusion. For starters your calculations are completely off. Each season here is approximately 14 calendar weeks. In order to reach your projections a manager would have to pay at least 10.7M per week in wages for each loan player. Very few managers in Div 1 and 2 pay more than 8M per player in wages weekly. Managers are more likely to pay 15-50M in wages per season for the loan of a highly rated player that would have likely cost him at least 300M to purchase on the market. That's a saving of at least 250M that can be used to strengthen his squad by buying 1 or more good players to train along with the ones he's loaning so he doesn't have to keep using loans every season. He may even choose to sell the same players he's trained for a hefty profit in the future. When used properly, lower division managers can actually make money from using loans in the short term. For your calculations to work everything has to remain constant every season (amount of good players available, not buying, not selling or training your own players, wages of 10.7M per player). All highly unlikely scenarios because rosters, wages, expenses, revenues fluctuate every season. The good managers that ask for loans of a 90+ players only plan to use them for one or 2 seasons until his own players get better or he's bought a long term solution. By the way this is an irrelevant side note, this is my first season with 3 loans on my squad and I haven't played 18 seasons. I've taken long breaks in between seasons. 10.7M per week salary to reach my projection?  I am talking about profit 150M per player per season not salary. Ex. i buy CF 90prog 20/90 for 500M and i loan him out 3 seasons in a row,he will be 95/22 and i can sale for 1B+ so 500M+ profit for 3 seasons = 150M+ per season. Thus training your own players + 3 loans out = ~1B profit per season Nvm dont listen to advises ,keep doing what you are doing. |
19/02/2016 16:45 |
| Mr. Q17 - Div1/Gr1 | ||
|
Username
122 msgs.
Substitute
|
We're clearly not going to agree on this because you don't understand how financial projections work. Your speculative approach is exactly why market was so inflated for so long. | 19/02/2016 16:51 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2960 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Vadecula said: We're clearly not going to agree on this because you don't understand how financial projections work. Your speculative approach is exactly why market was so inflated for so long. +1 I agree 100% |
19/02/2016 17:15 |
| Mr. Q17 - Div1/Gr1 | ||
|
Username
122 msgs.
Substitute
|
For those of you that still wish to understand the true financial implications I'll use the following example to explain: ABC Realty buys a building that we'll call Bu1 for 500M and believes it will appreciate to 1B in 3 years. If ABC Realty keeps BU1 for 3 years and pays yearly expenses of 50M for 3 years, total expenses will come to 150M. If sold after 3 years profit will be 1B- (500M+150M)= 350M - taxes If ABC Realty rents Bu1 to someone for 3 years then profit is 1B-500M= 500M-taxes. Now these implications are true if you're viewing the entire market from the perspective of ABC Realty. If XYZ Bank wants to enter the market but doesn't want to pay 500M on buying a building it can lease/rent BU1 for 50M per year until it can move into another building in 3 years. If XYZ Bank decides to only pay lease/rent on Bu1 and do nothing with its money for 3 years then real or actual cost is 150M. The opportunity cost for XYZ Bank on BU1 would be a loss of 350M+taxes. The key phrase here is "opportunity cost" not real cost. On the other end, if XYZ Bank leases/rents Bu1 while working on constructing its own building or maybe it's using the 450M to buy 5 smaller properties at 90M each that we'll call P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 that will also appreciate after 3 years. Total yearly expenses for P1-P5 is 45M and Bu1 is 50M From XYZ Bank's perspective it's only losing 50M per year on Bu1 and 45M per year for P1-P5. Total expenses for XYZ Bank after 3 years on Bu1 and P1-P5 is 285M+450M= 735M After 3 years XYZ Bank keeps P1 but sells P2-P5 at 350M each totaling 1.4B in revenue. Profit for XYZ Bank is 1.4B- (450M+285M)= 665M This example shows it's possible to make profit from loans as long as you're also investing and training your own players. |
19/02/2016 19:38 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
3
