Jump to content

Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)


Guest SM Dev (Ste)

Recommended Posts

Re: Player Concerns

I think these are 2 very valid questions.

Phil or a Dev - is there any way of knowing this or is each case different.

My concern is that some top quality youth players will get to a level 5 concern before they realise their full potential. For example i have Zezinho in one of my squads but he's only rated 76 and isn't anywhere near good enough to play in my first team. He's rumoured to be joining Arsenal and I believe he'll be 90+ one day but he's already developed a level 1 concern at a lack of opportunity at my club' date=' so i'm guessing there's a strong likelihood i'll be forced to sell him on before he ever gets there.[/b']

Now you could counter argue this by saying there's plenty more fish in the sea and i could pick up some more young prospects, but many of us play SM to buy these youngsters and watch them grow over time.

If he signs in this window, he can't join Arsenal until the summer so at the earliest won't play again until August. That's 7-8 months away, which in SM time can be 2 full seasons. In that time will he have gone to level 5 and therefore forcing me to sell him?

If Zezinho is going to get to a level 5 concern then what's the point in buying young talent because i'm not going to play a 76 rated player and risk losing a game.

I've been involved in the test set-up and can say none of my youngsters have developed concerns, despite it nearing the second season of testing. Some have been at the club for over 4 seasons and have been through the initial accelerated program of unhappiness SM tested as well.

So why are none of my youngsters happy? It's because they don't have an excessive level of competition. If I had Zezinho in my squad, I'm sure he would not be unhappy - he will see that he is well below the standard of the first team + more importantly, he will see there are not too many youngsters in his position ahead of him. He will see he has a realistic chance of getting some games in due course.

If on the other hand, he saw 10 other youths similarly or higher rated than him, then rightly so in my opinion he will be showing some concerns re:his opportunities. Also, a common misconception beind banded about currently is that concern does not mean he will be demanding a transfer withn a few games. It could be 3-4 seasons before he gets to that level - ample time to give him some game time.

The take home message has been presented by a few on this thread already. Everyone can still purchase youths and see them develop to their potential. They will not approach a level of unhappiness necessitating transfer except in squads where they may have 10+ players ahead of them in the pecking order (in the same position). The main people being penalised will be those who purchase every so-called promising youth going. Members who are just slightly more selective in their purchases need have nothing to worry about :)

PS This is all wthout even mentioning that such players can always be used in the odd meaningless game at the end of the season anyway.

EDIT: As for Linekers Toe's intial query re:timeframes - that off course is impossible to answer and circumstances vary from squad to squad and gameworld to gameworld no doubt. But I'm confident I could manage a squad of 50-60 with roughly half first teamers and half youths in any gameworld. Some players will have concerns no doubt in this theoretical squad, but not at a level that imminent chairman intervention is likely. Some may approach level 4 concerns at times, but I will be able to intervene and stave off these concerns without any real impact on results. That is my honest opinion and I'm sure others will be able to do the same. Bigger suqads, I'm not sure yet, but then again 50-60 is more than adequate for any gameworld surely and allows you to have your pick of youths as well :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help) I think a nice feature would be to have the min number of games a player has to play within his profile. As alot of people who pl

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help) the only problems I can see with the new concerns are youth developing concerns eg under 21s and players supposedly developing c

Re: Player Concerns

Phil/Ste/Smartdoc - i have another question.

When i asked a question a few days ago regarding youth players and their concerns i was informed (and rightly so) that there was a difference between lack of games and lack of opportunity. A player with a few players ahead of him in his position would rightly feel concerned about their lack of opportunity.

However i have today had several more concerns, this time about a lack of games.

Now i've checked the help section and it clearly states

"Youth players do not develop concerns (age 21 and under) unless good enough to play"

So with a 1st team average of 91, who has decided that Delfouneso (aged 18 rated 80) Kadlec (aged 17 rated 80) and Berget (aged 19 rated 80) are good enough to play?

A player rated 80 would be to a decent division 3 standard (Beckford, Snodgrass, Lambert being my examples) but i'm not in division 3.

So how can these youngsters have concerns about a lack of games when they're in the youth team and are clearly not 'good enough to play'.

Could someone please clarify this for me as if a 17 year old rated 80 is going to develop concerns, i may as well sell my entire youth team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

Glen Johnson has just raised a level 1 concern regarding his wages, as he is on £21k and wants £60k - I can't afford this and thats the reason I bought an 89 rated player and not a 91 rated. I'm at lowly Tranmere and run at a massive loss, existing only by buying and selling and an extra £40k a week is massive to em.

Add to this the ground expansion rule hasn't come into play for me, so I'm never going to be able to afford a team of 91 rated players at £60k each unless I follow everyone else and only ever try to manage the 'big' clubs. My capacity is 16,000 and the League 2 average is 25,000, yet a season has come and gone and I haven't been increased. Why is this?

I haven't been promoted, but expected this to come into play for all clubs - even so my friend is manager of Southend, got promoted and is still at 12,000 capacity. Why are some rules working but others aren't?

:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

Phil/Ste/Smartdoc - i have another question.

When i asked a question a few days ago regarding youth players and their concerns i was informed (and rightly so) that there was a difference between lack of games and lack of opportunity. A player with a few players ahead of him in his position would rightly feel concerned about their lack of opportunity.

However i have today had several more concerns' date=' this time about a lack of games.

Now i've checked the help section and it clearly states

[b']"Youth players do not develop concerns (age 21 and under) unless good enough to play"[/b]

So with a 1st team average of 91, who has decided that Delfouneso (aged 18 rated 80) Kadlec (aged 17 rated 80) and Berget (aged 19 rated 80) are good enough to play?

A player rated 80 would be to a decent division 3 standard (Beckford, Snodgrass, Lambert being my examples) but i'm not in division 3.

So how can these youngsters have concerns about a lack of games when they're in the youth team and are clearly not 'good enough to play'.

Could someone please clarify this for me as if a 17 year old rated 80 is going to develop concerns, i may as well sell my entire youth team.

I'll be honest and say that I feel that guidance from SM help is outdated and may well need amending to say 'are unlikely to develop'. Your experience and that of others clearly refutes this. But I would not necessary consider making mass sales, but perhaps selective sales. It seems you already may have a surplus of forwards in your side and keeping all of them would make some get some concerns. On the other hand keeping some should not affect their happiness adversely. Selling them en masse as you suggest also doesn't make sense to me. You could quite easily bide your time and wait for them to approach level 3 or 4 concerns (if there is no way of getting them game time prior to this). By this time you will almost definitely have a better idea of which is most likely to succeed in real life and be better informed to decide which you should sell and whose concerns you should try and appease :). But it appears no player is totally immune from developing concerns irrespective of age :o

@ IantheRed - I would give you similar advice. although Johnson is now showing some concern, you should not be duped into thinking you should take immediate remedial action. I'd bide my time and wait till a level 3 or 4 concern appears. By this time either:

a) his contract will be up and your hand will be forced anyway

B) you will have had ample time to have find a replacement

c) hopefully you may be further up the ladder and possibly able to afford his increased wage demands :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

it s unrealistic that tranmere have squad full of 91 so sell one riser' date='

second ground capacity i think u get on start new season i have maccabi tikva they were 4000 now they are 6780 i think after wining first division[/quote']

It's the second season since the rule came into play, therefore I 'should' have been increased as far as I'm led to believe.

Why is it 'unrealistic' that I try to take a club like Tranmere, bottom of the third division when I took over in 2008, to the top division? Isn't that what the game is about, or should we sell the best players because we are a tiny club,

all take the job offers we have had from Man United, Liverpool, Chelsea et al and let the lower divisions become an unmanaged wilderness ripe for tapping by the big boys?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

A lot of my players have developed concerns. Many of them are 21 or younger.

Many of my players are playing a a competitive level for their real teams but because rating increases are usually very gradual young players need 2-3 rating cycles to catch up with the real life development. Rating cycles have gotten much slower this past year and are at perhaps 8-9 months now. That means that a young player who is playing competitively for his real life club will only be ready to play for your SM team about 1-2 years late. But during this time he will develop concerns in SM.

I feel that this change is seriously hindering people who don't want to buy stars but develop young players. You simply can't give these players opportunities in game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

A lot of my players have developed concerns. Many of them are 21 or younger.

Many of my players are playing a a competitive level for their real teams but because rating increases are usually very gradual young players need 2-3 rating cycles to catch up with the real life development. Rating cycles have gotten much slower this past year and are at perhaps 8-9 months now. That means that a young player who is playing competitively for his real life club will only be ready to play for your SM team about 1-2 years late. But during this time he will develop concerns in SM.

I feel that this change is seriously hindering people who don't want to buy stars but develop young players. You simply can't give these players opportunities in game.

i agree with this and its knock on effect

the ratings used to be done 3 times a year on the cycle the 8 section and the summer section maybe twice

this part of the game has not been done correctly for a while now and will have a knock on effect with the concerns

we today go into section 8 italy spain portugal

these have not been done since may !!! last year

if this continues havoc will ensue with peoples youth teams

this is a vital part of the game youth teams its how the smaller teams can compete and how the gold set ups survive

it seems s/m must get other parts of the game correct before bringing in other new so called improvements

oh and as for the ground building thing ok i have sheff wed decent size ground but having taken them from div 3 to div 1 i still have no reward and have to compete with the bigger clubs at a disadvantage if i want the top playersto compete i need to pay top wages

i thought that was what this game was all about bringing a smaller team up through the leagues or developing youth to compete

but just because some people moan cause there lazy dont scout or spend time researching players we get all this

people who put time in to the game are being hard done by cause lazy guys go oh look he's hogging the guy i want

well you should have brought him first then its an open market

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

i am just realistic man u ,chelsea barca real bought every good player if he doesnt prove sell him to average team that how it goes,only team from third to first division streight was fiorentina but with very strong squad in that time,leeds was strong but where is that club now,it is destiny big became bigger small stay small i dont see that nothingam forest still wining cl that

time has gone,small teams in best case can go in cl groups or uefa cup but from small countries where it teams are champions ,why in england we have top 4 teams and couple strong it s all about money

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

Cristianobalotelli. Something i don't think you've realised. THIS IS A GAME! We don't care if 'in real life' lower clubs can't rise. Nobody would play this game if only the top four clubs were playable. You sound like the kind of guy who just plays as the big clubs and then can't understand where people with small clubs are coming from so you just mock them.

Quite frankly, this is where SM is heading. Where everyone is going to be like him because of the changes. Small clubs become impossible, so it only leaves the managers who only play big clubs. If SM manage to get it to that extreme, then i, along with many others, will leave this game. People think that that game worlds are empty now. Wait until the only clubs being managed in every game world are the big four.

Tony beddows is absolutely correct. SM needs to stop just changing things, and get the game whipped into shape. Rating changes are probably the best thing about this game. I haven't played any other game where it is like SM. It is great because they happen often. At this rate, a player could retire and three years later he gets taken off the database.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riferimento: Re: Player Concerns

Cristianobalotelli. Something i don't think you've realised. THIS IS A GAME! We don't care if 'in real life' lower clubs can't rise. Nobody would play this game if only the top four clubs were playable. You sound like the kind of guy who just plays as the big clubs and then can't understand where people with small clubs are coming from so you just mock them.

Quite frankly' date=' this is where SM is heading. Where everyone is going to be like him because of the changes. Small clubs become impossible, so it only leaves the managers who only play big clubs. If SM manage to get it to that extreme, then i, along with many others, will leave this game. People think that that game worlds are empty now. Wait until the only clubs being managed in every game world are the big four.

Tony beddows is absolutely correct. SM needs to stop just changing things, and get the game whipped into shape. Rating changes are probably the best thing about this game. I haven't played any other game where it is like SM. It is great because they happen often. At this rate, a player could retire and three years later he gets taken off the database.[/quote']

lol yea i agree, especially about the last part. Its funny cuz like 1 month ago, ive seen on someones team Pavel Nedved, hes supposed to be retired already 5 months now. This shows that SM is too busy making changes to make this game be more realistic instead of caring more about things that dont work properly in the game.

And i do think that SM should cut by at least 30% the daily game worlds they create. I know that like ppl might get depressed cuz they wont be able to get a good team (might actually help SM, more reserving clubs) , but i prefer playing with a div 4 team but with like 80% of managed teams in the game world rather than having Barcelona and playing in a game world with like 10 other managers. If someone wants to play with a big team, and have only a few managers, then there are private game worlds

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

i know its going off subject of player concerns

but far too many game worlds are being created its easy to get a brand new barca man u or madrid these days i mean you can even just buy one :rolleyes:

so people just jump ship and leave an old team thus emptying older game worlds

an arguement could be made that people leave these teams cause or player hogging

but a while ago it was very difficult to get a top top side so you really searched around to find a small club for a challenge in the championship or a smaller prem team

even though in many game worlds the messi's and ronaldo's were gone you could still always search around a build up a squad of 88 or 89 risers or mid 80 guys you knew would rise in a month or so

i admit i was a club hopper

but i enjoyed finding a villa team sitting at the bottom or the championship or a birmingham team in div 3 building them up and restoring them to there right full place

anyway its just easy now to get a new team than put the work in

but back to player concerns i agree as the posts above other parts of the game need to be addressed for this to work correctly

an example of what i can see happening

old game world 10 active teams man u huge squad have to let guys go though player concerns . they will just end up at the other 9 active teams until they get player concerns and have to sell there 91 92 rated guys . and who will buy them the other 10 active teams including man u ;)

sorry to go on but if i am man u and have to sell my guys though player concerns all i will replace them with is other active teams players they have had to sell though player concerns :rolleyes:

all that will happen is 90 91 92 rated guys will just move around the active clubs it wont save the game world still no body will fill the lower leagues

why because its easy to go get a new man u barca or milan

or take a smaller club and have to wait 8 months for your guys to rise

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

I like playing smaller teams. These need to make money with risers as everyone knows. But because chairman value drops so much for risers and the ratings schedule is so slow you need to get a big number of them to make money and to get the talent you need for the future.

With the new rules teams become much harder to manage because you have to deal with so many concerns. Because of this i quit 3 of my 4 teams yesterday and will now try to manage only one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

SM have introduced a change (Player Concerns) to deal with a problem of their own creation (Slow Ratings Schedule causing increased squad numbers).

My large squad numbers are not caused by player hogging, they are caused by the slow system of rating review.

To me this is just another pointless effort by SM to derail all the time and effort that people who put into managing small clubs. I have no interest in managing Man Utd. My interest in this game is managing a lowly ranked team that will one day compete with Man Utd.

The opportunity to do this continues to erode. Low attendances. Youth player values dropping to half their worth. Now, 72 player rated players who think they should be in the first team and every player who rises demanding a wage increase.

The Player Concerns is simply incompatible with the slow system of ratings changes in SM. If players were re-rated every 3 or 4 months we would all have squads of 30. When a player is re-rated only on a 9 month basis it is simply not possible to turn over your risers and keep your squad number low, which is what we all want to do.

Why is SM devoting its time to these so called improvements when the transfer system has deteriorated to a joke. We used to get two sets of bids from unmanaged clubs per day, now it is an irregular one per week. We used to bid for a player and get him in 24 hours, now the transfer bid drifts endlessly in no mans land for days.

SM - Please fix the problems before you create new ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

SM have introduced a change (Player Concerns) to deal with a problem of their own creation (Slow Ratings Schedule causing increased squad numbers).

My large squad numbers are not caused by player hogging' date=' they are caused by the slow system of rating review.

To me this is just another pointless effort by SM to derail all the time and effort that people who put into managing small clubs. I have no interest in managing Man Utd. My interest in this game is managing a lowly ranked team that will one day compete with Man Utd.

The opportunity to do this continues to erode. Low attendances. Youth player values dropping to half their worth. Now, 72 player rated players who think they should be in the first team and every player who rises demanding a wage increase.

The Player Concerns is simply incompatible with the slow system of ratings changes in SM. If players were re-rated every 3 or 4 months we would all have squads of 30. When a player is re-rated only on a 9 month basis it is simply not possible to turn over your risers and keep your squad number low, which is what we all want to do.

Why is SM devoting its time to these so called improvements when the transfer system has deteriorated to a joke. We used to get two sets of bids from unmanaged clubs per day, now it is an irregular one per week. We used to bid for a player and get him in 24 hours, now the transfer bid drifts endlessly in no mans land for days.

SM - Please fix the problems before you create new ones.[/quote']

transfers for me usually take 24 hours.

and i see your point but if ratings are reviewed too much it would cause so much hassle with form etc.

teams would fluctuate far too much.

ok increasing them too every 2/3 months for the big leagues i think would be nice but anymore then you would get ridiculous rating changes making ti so hard to play the game as there is no stability within your team.

eg ferdinand 96 > 93>92>93>95>96 again. that could easily happen if ratings were done once a month !

also, a lot of us play this game for free = only advertising money for SM. = they are a business. they dont want to / may not be able too make ratings reviewed more often as more costly and time consuming

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

SM have introduced a change (Player Concerns) to deal with a problem of their own creation (Slow Ratings Schedule causing increased squad numbers). I disagree

My large squad numbers are not caused by player hogging' date=' they are caused by the slow system of rating review. How big is your squad?

To me this is just another pointless effort by SM to derail all the time and effort that people who put into managing small clubs. I have no interest in managing Man Utd. My interest in this game is managing a lowly ranked team that will one day compete with Man Utd. I also prefer to manage small stadium teams, how does this relate to player concerns?

The opportunity to do this continues to erode. I disagree, I have now gone from 2 small teams to 5 small sized teams

Low attendances. My stadium cap rises almost every season though gaining promotion or high finishes and most games it is packed to the rafters.

Youth player values dropping to half their worth. Examples please?

Now, 72 player rated players who think they should be in the first team and every player who rises demanding a wage increase. A small grumble doesn't mean they are going to walk anytime soon.

The Player Concerns is simply incompatible with the slow system of ratings changes in SM. If players were re-rated every 3 or 4 months we would all have squads of 30. When a player is re-rated only on a 9 month basis it is simply not possible to turn over your risers and keep your squad number low, which is what we all want to do. The current system is fair and prevents knee jerk reactions to things like injuries or falling out of favour with say a new manager.

Why is SM devoting its time to these so called improvements when the transfer system has deteriorated to a joke. We used to get two sets of bids from unmanaged clubs per day, now it is an irregular one per week. We used to bid for a player and get him in 24 hours, now the transfer bid drifts endlessly in no mans land for days. If you are experiencing delays, unlist a player and relist him. It works for me.

SM - Please fix the problems before you create new ones.

Anything that forces me to trim my 255 man squad with Leeds is fine by me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

Hi Guys,

Firstly this feature is here to stay. It will bring massive benefits to the game and solve quite a few problems as well.

It has been brought in for a number of reasons, primarily:

1) To stop 'player hogging'

2) To stop youth 'farming'

The array of concerns a player can develop have been implemented with this in mind. It has also been implemented to only really effect squads who are on the extremes.

It has NOT been designed to stop player scouting or from people 'buying risers', we know that this is the core part of the game and we do not want to do anything to effect this. The feature has been designed so that this area of the game is protected, we know that scouting and buying risers is sacrosanct. We have built in limits so that managers can still have very large squads!

Bearing this in mind, I would like to point out that the feature as it currently stands is not set in stone, limits and boundaries can be tweaked and changed. It is a new feature and will take some time to get right and find the correct balance. We have already tweaked a few limits regarding the player opportunity ones so that next time your Game World is processed no one 18 or under will develop a player opportunity concern. We have also upped the limit that a player looks at to decide whether they have a future at the club.

If other people have concerns about the squad then please let me know your club and Game World on here and highlight any player(s) you feel have wrongly been given a concern. I am more than happy to look at every case brought to my attention, we want to iron out any flaws and get this feature spot on. We are completely on your side regarding this feature and want to get it right for you.

However please remember what the feature is designed for... before we had this feature a manager could build a squad of 200+ players and never have to worry about improving their wages or playing any of them or even selling any of them. Or a manager could, for example, buy the top 10 Gks in the Game World and just have them all sitting there in the squad not playing.

A few people have commented that we have introduced this to make the game more 'realistic'. Well that is not the driving force behind the change. The driving force is to make the game MORE playable... By having to manage your squad with a bit more thought and deciding who you really want to keep and deciding 'do I really want need to buy this latest prospect?' should add more depth to the game. It should also help make Game Worlds fairer and the transfer market more active. For every player that you are forced to sell, remember someone else in your Game World will be the same. More buying and selling will happen creating more opportunities for cash rich clubs with poor squads to improve or smaller clubs to buy better players. At the moment what chance do they have?

It will also stop one team or a handful of teams from dominating a Game World and therefore make it easier for smaller clubs to buy good players or buy young prospects. Currently a team (Man Utd) could buy all the top players (never have to play them or rotate them) and buy all the top young prospects (never have to worry about them leaving, never give them wage rises) and just watch them increase in rating and then either sell them for a huge profit to repeat the cycle or add them to their huge 'first team' squad.

Smaller clubs will now be able to pick up some disgruntled stars and young prospects that they would have other wise never had the opportunity to buy. Managers who have followed the above method of Game World domination will have to re-think SLIGHTLY, and may only be able to do the above method with only half the players they used to.

As I said if anyone has any issues about specific concerns please post you club and Game World and I will look into it.

P.S. Please bear in mind the difference between a 'Player Opportunity Concern' and a 'Lack of Games Concern'. Any player can develop a 'Player Opportunity Concern' and is based primarily on the size of your squad. A 'Lack of Games Concern' will not effect any youth players (those 21 and under) unless they are first team material. Players 21 and under can still develop other concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

Superb post and thank you for your time:).

However, I have a question in regards to wages. Players who have increased in rating from 88 to 90 (e.g. Vermaelan) have had concerns regarding wages, I thought OK no problem new contract, however, when offering a new contract I have found that the new contract would mean he would earn more that players of higher ratings:o

Is there a reason for this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

Hi IOA,

A while back we changed the wages system, basically upping the wages of top rated players. Therefore Vermaelan is working off the new (higher) wages system and your other players (who got their wages set under the lower system) are 'content' with there wages as they are not much lower than their ideal wage. When they next have their contract renewed they will get a higher wage. A player only develops a concern when they are a good deal lower than their 'ideal' wage.

A little tip to you all about the wage concern as others have a pointed out, this only really needs to be addressed while on a later stage. Once the new contract is offered and signed the concern immediately disappears. (We all know how fickle footballers are when money is concerned!)

We are also reviewing the wage levels, and will be adding a few new 'bands' as the jump from a 89 to a 90 is currently very big. Low 90 rated players will want smaller wages shortly, so this is another reason to delay offering new contracts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

Makes sense now thank you, Ibrahimovic currently gets 74,400 per turn but a new contract would mean he gets 99,840:(

I think I'll wait for another two season before renewing it:D

Also wanted to say thank you, it's a great credit to SM to have people/staff that go onto the forums and help members directly:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

thank you s/m your reply and input on this thread

i will take on board your comments as they do make sense

but maybe there will be a few small problems along the way

i will now go back to my teams and work within the new rules

hopefully together we can continue to improve this great game

i will take this as a challenge and a test as hopefully others will too

thank you s/m again for your input :):)

and continuing good work :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns

I think one of the main reasons people are annoyed about this being introduced is the selling on of youth players. Part of effective youth management is also looking at the youth players you already have and deciding if they may rise again or whether they should be sold on at an earlier stage. Effectively hogging every youth prospect to come onto the database is just as bad' date=' in my opinion as hogging all of the superstars.

As an example I bought Mannone into my Everton side as a 10k riser. Since then he has risen by a large margin and has stopped playing for Arsenal as Almunia and Fabianski have returned from injury. Considering this I may now take the decision to sell him on as his wages will have risen with his rating.[/quote']

It's all well and good if you're using Mannone as an example as most people will have sold him on. But the concern is over youth players you've bought, have got a small rise and you know they're going to be great in future. Let's use another Arsenal player (Wilshere) as an example. He's only rated 83 and is used sparingly by Arsenal in real life.

Chances are if you have him in your squad, he's not good enough to get a game so in SM terms he'll probably become fed up and want a transfer before he can fulfill his real life potential with Arsenal. I'd guess it'll be at least 2 years before he plays regularly for Arsenal, which on SM could be 5 seasons. He'd more than likely have demanded a move by then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...