Jump to content

Big teams (100 or more players)


Big teams (100 or more players)  

  1. 1.

    • yes: we can decrease the money earned from a match (-money=-players)
    • yes: we can make a limit (40 max players for team for example)
    • Yes: we can raise the money earned from the players(with this pay 30 players it's hard)
    • no: the current system is better


Recommended Posts

Hi everybody!

In many words, some Teams have 100 or more players: in real life this can't be happening! The team have to go bankrupt! So why don't set a limit???

The teams with a big stadium can form a team over 200 players and still earn easily money and maintain this big number of players. SM do something about this!

Ah and the teams with 200 or more players locked all the loans: it's impossible to play with this BUG

Fix Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

This is always being raised... Yes, teams having 100+ players is unrealistic, however no more so than the financial model that is used, which punishes small teams (in real life, not in game) regardless of their success in game.

There are those who are just hoarding, but for the most part I would say the main reason for large squads is to sell players after a rise to maintain a cash balance that would otherwise see the club bankrupt or having to field a team of 84-86 rated players instead of 90+

When an Accrington Stanley can build themselves up, win championships, and compete fairly on a financial footing after proven success with the big teams that can lose consistently, be relegated, but still bring in millions each week, then you remove one of the biggest reasons for having hundreds of players in a squad.

Fix the finances, and most people would be far more in favour of a cap of 30-40 players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

I always remember the first guy I came across who had a massive squad (my first GW). He managed Sheff Wed and had 200+ players...he would sell an buy daily...like it was going out of fashion!

I messaged him, "Dude you have way too many players!"

He replied "Funny, I dont think I have enough" :eek:

Well it did strike me as funny...an I told him so B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

capping isnt the answer. I do believe 255 is too much, 125 is more appropriate. under 100 is getting kind of tough on smaller clubs who need to constantly flip risers or players for cash flow & profits.

The answer i believe is already in place, just needs adjusting.

speed up concerns, forcing managers to sell or outlay more money if they want to keep them.

have youth players develop concerns:

"to many players in my position" or " not enough opportunity to play"

Also, youth players have the ability to turn down transfers on the same basis as above. If you have a large squad, players shouldnt just sign if they can see if they are going to never play or have limited time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

Capping won't be a good solution. Instead, decreasing the income & increasing expenditure & concerns will be an ideal solution. Some steps like automatic signing of rise concerned player, increase in concerns, same price during transfer & increase in wages have already taken place but still the income needs to be reduced in order to increase chances to club with 100 players going bankrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

Capping won't be a good solution. Instead' date=' decreasing the income & increasing expenditure & concerns will be an ideal solution. Some steps like automatic signing of rise concerned player, increase in concerns, same price during transfer & increase in wages have already taken place but still the income needs to be reduced in order to increase chances to club with 100 players going bankrupt.[/quote']

I have to ask, what team(s) do you manage in your game worlds? Have you tried managing a smaller real life team that's not one of the top teams in one of the top leagues?

Income is a huge issue with a small stadium, or with a small real life attendance, and as has already been mentioned in this thread, buying and hoarding players to sell off for a profit when they rise is one of the primary factors involved in massive squads just to maintain a positive balance.

Adjusting the finance model to be fairer to all clubs, based on SM success not RL success, and then adding a cap of ~50 players, would be a reasonable solution IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

Capping isnt the answer. I'll be brief because this has been debated ad infinitum.... None of the options u offer are worth voting for. I suggest u look back at many different almost endless threads/ posts to make yourself aware of the options/ ideas.... Then SM won't listen anyway ...:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

I have to ask' date=' what team(s) do you manage in your game worlds? Have you tried managing a smaller real life team that's not one of the top teams in one of the top leagues?

Income is a huge issue with a small stadium, or with a small real life attendance, and as has already been mentioned in this thread, buying and hoarding players to sell off for a profit when they rise is one of the primary factors involved in massive squads just to maintain a positive balance.

Adjusting the finance model to be fairer to all clubs, based on SM success not RL success, and then adding a cap of ~50 players, would be a reasonable solution IMHO.[/quote']

I used to manage Saturn in GC1. I had no problem with income. I also managed Treviso in an Italian Championship for 3 seasons & got promoted in season 2. I had Players like Falcao & Lampard & a squad of like 40 players with risers too. But I had income of 300k in every home match. I left it coz I got Inter Milan in that GW & later on the GW died. But I din't faced any problem with income. Here in the forum based GW I used to manage The New Saints & had risers who rised within my managerial time but I din't had any income related problem there also.

Currently I have Treviso with players like Totti, Armero, Kiessling & my balance is 12M(its season 1 turn 23). And a Barcelona with 97 players & balance 46M(season ended & starting bal. was 45M). Din't had transfers for the whole season.

The point of giving stats here was to tell that squad cap will restrict the chances of buying risers. If I have a team of 50 players & a breakout star emerges, I won't be able to buy him. Instead of this I recommend a major adjustment in finance section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

;2839086']capping isnt the answer. I do believe 255 is too much' date=' 125 is more appropriate. under 100 is getting kind of tough on smaller clubs who need to constantly flip risers or players for cash flow & profits.

The answer i believe is already in place, just needs adjusting.

speed up concerns, forcing managers to sell or outlay more money if they want to keep them.

have youth players develop concerns:

"to many players in my position" or " not enough opportunity to play"

Also, youth players have the ability to turn down transfers on the same basis as above. If you have a large squad, players shouldnt just sign if they can see if they are going to never play or have limited time.[/quote']

This is where we can't win. We did make concerns harsher and people started to complain because their squad players were becoming unhappy and handing in transfer requests. We heard many grumblings that squads people took months or years to build were now being ruined. Hence why you currently have the concerns system that we have.

;2839086']capping isnt the answer. I do believe 255 is too much' date=' 125 is more appropriate. under 100 is getting kind of tough on smaller clubs who need to constantly flip risers or players for cash flow & profits.[/quote']
;2839086']Adjusting the finance model to be fairer to all clubs' date=' based on SM success not RL success, and then adding a cap of ~50 players, would be a reasonable solution IMHO.[/quote']

Again this is something that even you can't decide on and this is the same in all similar posts. Why is 125 more appropriate? Why 50? No matter what got introduced, people would say it's too high or too low.

;2839086']Capping won't be a good solution. Instead' date=' decreasing the income & increasing expenditure & concerns will be an ideal solution.[/quote']

We tried to tighten finances and this led to complaints that we were crippling clubs financially. We saw people complain that their clubs were no longer feasible to manage and that they were resigning from them. Again it's another area we can't win in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

This is where we can't win. We did make concerns harsher and people started to complain because their squad players were becoming unhappy and handing in transfer requests. We heard many grumblings that squads people took months or years to build were now being ruined. Hence why you currently have the concerns system that we have.

I understand what your saying' date=' you cant please everyone...but what you can do is help everyone (especially the smaller clubs), by giving a small club a ground capacity of 25k upon reaching division 1. Ive operated Plymouth Argyle in Div1 for years with that capacity. Took them from Div 4 an never had more than 50 players. Trading for profit only really works in the lower leagues when your squad average is low. As soon as you start getting a decent squad average, profit from transfers goes down drastically...just as your wage bill gets higher.

Just think, youve got that dead-cert riser who's a 75 sitting in your reserves. He's been there for 4 months, and your just waiting for the rise before selling.

BANG..he gets his fully deserved +5, an his value has gone from £600k to £2M! £1.4M profit B)! Later you realise he's cost you 400k wages! NICE RIGHT..a cool 1M profit from him! Now you just cant wait for your OTHER 20 :eek: 75's to get their rise, an get you outta debt :P

It is a toughy for you guys, but I think giving better gates would no doubt help.

I personally havent really struggled with the money on this game, if im losing too much money I just simply slim-line the club, the best I can. Almost all my clubs are no larger than 30 players. Waste not, Want not ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

I wondered when this old chestnut was going to come up again. Strangely the problems SM face ( as highlighted by Steven) and the solution ( as suggested by AJB) remain the same..in short theres little that can be done and perhaps people should be a little less anal about the whole subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

I understand what your saying' date=' you cant please everyone...but what you can do is help everyone (especially the smaller clubs), by giving a small club a ground capacity of 25k upon reaching division 1. Ive operated Plymouth Argyle in Div1 for years with that capacity. Took them from Div 4 an never had more than 50 players. Trading for profit only really works in the lower leagues when your squad average is low. As soon as you start getting a decent squad average, profit from transfers goes down drastically...just as your wage bill gets higher.

Just think, youve got that dead-cert riser who's a 75 sitting in your reserves. He's been there for 4 months, and your just waiting for the rise before selling.

BANG..he gets his fully deserved +5, an his value has gone from £600k to £2M! £1.4M profit B)! Later you realise he's cost you 400k wages! NICE RIGHT..a cool 1M profit from him! Now you just cant wait for your OTHER 20 :eek: 75's to get their rise, an get you outta debt :P

It is a toughy for you guys, but I think giving better gates would no doubt help.

I personally havent really struggled with the money on this game, if im losing too much money I just simply slim-line the club, the best I can. Almost all my clubs are no larger than 30 players. Waste not, Want not ;)

that is what happens in reality too. Southampton, Roma, Villarreal are clear examples of this, aren't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

Utterly agree with capping a squad to 40

I have a squad of just under 100 but I would have no problems if SM imposed a cap.

Player hogging destroys so many game worlds.

It should be introduced overnight with managers told to sell or lose them for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FallenAngel

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

I think the biggest problem with squad caps is that introducing them could annoy a large number of managers who choose to play the big squad game.

maybe they could make it optional in custom setups, and rotating in alternate standard/GC's.

could even be optional at creation of a standard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

Please Mr Soccer Manager can you bring in some form of squad capping ive become a monster. I have 200 + players in my squad. I can form 3 different teams that would better most teams in my gameworld. Despite my squad size I still buy players. Less to improve the squad but more to deprive my rivals. Im a dominant force in my gameworld but I do wonder how this would all play out if the odds werent stacked in my favour. Ive locked up this gameworlds talent in all honesty. Id have a big sale but whats to stop other guy doing exactly what I did. I need a new challenge. Can you chuck us a squad cap. I know id still kick ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

I wondered when this old chestnut was going to come up again. Strangely the problems SM face ( as highlighted by Steven) and the solution ( as suggested by AJB) remain the same..in short theres little that can be done and perhaps people should be a little less anal about the whole subject.

Exactly. You only need to read this thread and the others created before it over the years to know that those that debate this subject can't even agree amongst themselves on whether it should / shouldn't be introduced.

I understand what your saying' date=' you cant please everyone...but what you can do is help everyone (especially the smaller clubs), by giving a small club a ground capacity of 25k upon reaching division 1. Ive operated Plymouth Argyle in Div1 for years with that capacity. Took them from Div 4 an never had more than 50 players. Trading for profit only really works in the lower leagues when your squad average is low. As soon as you start getting a decent squad average, profit from transfers goes down drastically...just as your wage bill gets higher.

Just think, youve got that dead-cert riser who's a 75 sitting in your reserves. He's been there for 4 months, and your just waiting for the rise before selling.

BANG..he gets his fully deserved +5, an his value has gone from £600k to £2M! £1.4M profit ! Later you realise he's cost you 400k wages! NICE RIGHT..a cool 1M profit from him! Now you just cant wait for your OTHER 20 75's to get their rise, an get you outta debt

It is a toughy for you guys, but I think giving better gates would no doubt help.

I personally havent really struggled with the money on this game, if im losing too much money I just simply slim-line the club, the best I can. Almost all my clubs are no larger than 30 players. Waste not, Want not[/quote']

The majority of a club's income comes in via TV revenue, not gate receipts, and the amount a club gets is more or less split evenly across the division. This was changed a good while back so that those with big stadiums didn't have a massive advantage. Yes, they still have an advantage as they will generate more in gate receipts, but this is somewhat negated by the even distribution of TV revenue.

Also parts of the joys of management is to manage different clubs and tackle the challenges that that specific club brings. Plus as Justin X has already "that is what happens in reality too. Southampton, Roma, Villarreal are clear examples of this, aren't they?", in reference to buying / selling on a continual basis to balance the books and continue to improve their squad.

Utterly agree with capping a squad to 40

Why a cap of 40? Why not 30? Why not 50? What is the reasoning behind the number 40?

Player hogging destroys so many game worlds.

In what sense? Is it economically feasible to "hog" all of the best players? What would their wage bill be? Surely they wouldn't be able to sustain the losses the comes with it and they'd be forced to sell to help balance the books? Also take into consideration player concerns. Is it possible to manage a squad and keep them all happy if you're "hogging" all of the best players?

It should be introduced overnight with managers told to sell or lose them for free

And what would the fall out be if we did this?

maybe they could make it optional in custom setups' date=' and rotating in alternate standard/GC's.

could even be optional at creation of a standard[/quote']

IF squad caps were to be introduced, then it would be best implemented in Custom Game Worlds as they are more fantasy GWs and managers can already customise their rules and how they want it to be.

Please Mr Soccer Manager can you bring in some form of squad capping ive become a monster. I have 200 + players in my squad. I can form 3 different teams that would better most teams in my gameworld. Despite my squad size I still buy players. Less to improve the squad but more to deprive my rivals. Im a dominant force in my gameworld but I do wonder how this would all play out if the odds werent stacked in my favour. Ive locked up this gameworlds talent in all honesty. Id have a big sale but whats to stop other guy doing exactly what I did. I need a new challenge. Can you chuck us a squad cap. I know id still kick ass.

Out of interest what is your total wage bill (including players out on loan as you pay half of their wage)? How much money does your club generate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

It destroys game worlds because it deters managers from joining and staying in game worlds. You can see it happening.

People join a game world but are unable to build a squad because most of all the best and emerging talents have been taken. Managers won't sell and some pig ignorant managers won't even acknowledge bids.

New managers then leave in frustration.

In sum, it creates monopolies and inherently, monopolies destroy competitiveness.

Placing a cap on squads is the single, most effective improvement that SM could do.

Of course, there will be a large proportion of whinging managers would oppose such a move. That's because they are defending their vested interests. I have teams with stupidly large squads but I would have no problem if the rules changed to make the game competitive, fair and realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

I agree a squad cap would be a great idea - as an option in a custom gameworld where people that wanted it could all go and try it out.

A lot of GCs are fairly empty this is true - but this is due to people quitting when they're having bad results / quitting because they think they can get a better team in the next GC / quitting because they're "cutting down on teams" / quitting when they get bored (I've quit a few league-winning sides because I've ended up the only managed team in the whole division and didn't like playing unmanaged every match). Anyway there are so many game worlds made these days that if you see an almost-empty gameworld with a player hogging manager in it...leave him to it and find another one!

Proof of this is in GC1 where there's the biggest player-hogging squad in the whole of SM (its' value was nearly £2bn at one point) but funnily enough it's the most popular GC by miles so doesn't seem to put anyone off!

My team in GC1 when I inherited it had over 200 players, about 6 months later (due to concerns and selling off the real rubbish) it's down to 140. Of those 140 players I don't have any rated over 89 - and only 4 rated over 86 - so nobody is jealous of my squad, I'm not hogging any top players from anybody or preventing anyone new from grabbing a top talent and wouldn't want to be forced to cut down to 40 or 50.

As far as talents go – new ones such as Zelalem and that young Leverkusen guy (whose name I can’t remember) are added all the time and when they’re free agents the teams that can bid more money on them are the smaller not so good teams – so the player hoggers lose out this way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

Hi All, As I'm new to all this, please allow for any mistakes. In one off the leagues I'm in has a team with over 200 youth/loaned out players plus their team off 38 players. It will put people off building a team, so keeping the squad's to 40/50 players would be fair. All the best :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

I do believe a squad cap will work as well as changes to how the finances work. for example in the GW I'm in Man United at one point had around 60+ players and at least 40 of them being 90+. Because of the income that they got the manager was able to pay off all of his 90, 91, 92 players that never played when they got concerns. After a while the manager left the club and I was offered the job (but didn't take it) and I seen with the players they had, they also had a budget of 200m+. This is we need a squad cap to stop people hogging lower 90 rated players they wont play and a change to the financial side to stop them having all of these 90 rated players and still earn silly money when they play a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

How about? When multiple bidding occurs for a certain player those teams with sensible squads of 44 and under be able to offer more money than they who hoard. Surely theres nothing like losing out to a hoarder in a bidding battle. Part and parcel of being a hoarder is you bid on anything that can at least do 20 keepy uppies on youtube. They bid on everthing. I should know. It seems about time that those who play sensibly should have a minor edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

This is always being raised... Yes' date=' teams having 100+ players is unrealistic, however no more so than the financial model that is used, which punishes small teams (in real life, not in game) regardless of their success in game.

There are those who are just hoarding, but for the most part I would say the main reason for large squads is to sell players after a rise to maintain a cash balance that would otherwise see the club bankrupt or having to field a team of 84-86 rated players instead of 90+

When an Accrington Stanley can build themselves up, win championships, and compete fairly on a financial footing after proven success with the big teams that can lose consistently, be relegated, but still bring in millions each week, then you remove one of the biggest reasons for having hundreds of players in a squad.

Fix the finances, and most people would be far more in favour of a cap of 30-40 players.[/quote']

Income for small clubs is an issue. Why not the managers get the power to choose a sponsor with contract period of 2-3 seasons from a list of sponsors that are offered depending on your success & also contract termination clause.And various sponsor for different things like shirts kits etc & bonus for competing some special clause in contract like your player being the top goal soccer in the month, reaching a specific round or winning cups, qualifying for SMFA competitions etc. This will make it more realistic. More over the prize money for winning competition is low. I won the domestic shield and charity cup (twice) and received about 1.3 million. I joined Manchester United EC6376 in season 5 & prize money for the league in last 5 seasons are:

Season - Position - Prize(approx)

5 - 2 - 7.5M

6 - 2 - 7.0M

7 - 1 - 3.6M

8 - 1 - 3.5M

9 - 2 - 3.1M

Thats a huge drop in Prize money. And its a concern for small teams becuase the always have a chance in cup games to get the silverware.

Also why don't the managers get the chance to set ticket prices where the the chairman sets the normal value. If the price set by manger is too high then this result in drop of attendence and the price should be proportional to success.

Capping to just 40-50 players isn't going to be a solution. It will make it hard to build good championship winning teams if you consider it for long run (if one stays loyal to the club) as you'll need to have good starting XI and their replacements plus your youth players for future of the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Big teams (100 or more players)

It destroys game worlds because it deters managers from joining and staying in game worlds. You can see it happening.

People join a game world but are unable to build a squad because most of all the best and emerging talents have been taken. Managers won't sell and some pig ignorant managers won't even acknowledge bids.

New managers then leave in frustration.

In sum' date=' it creates monopolies and inherently, monopolies destroy competitiveness.

Placing a cap on squads is the single, most effective improvement that SM could do.

Of course, there will be a large proportion of whinging managers would oppose such a move. That's because they are defending their vested interests. I have teams with stupidly large squads but I would have no problem if the rules changed to make the game competitive, fair and realistic.[/quote']

I am in support because it happens....yes it happens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...