|
Post by Mike on Apr 19, 2013 19:31:20 GMT 1
bigest problem is the market
If you decide to have youth, you'll have to buy them. You certanly will want youth if more U21 come in the picture.
Problem is that you need to sell other cyclists because you have to make room for your youth. And selling cyclists is just not going well. Because there are to few teams.
TL was great when we were over 1000 managers. Nowadays it's hopeless.
That's why I am strongly against more U21 races.
|
|
|
Post by Quatannens on Apr 20, 2013 9:57:17 GMT 1
The youthscout is still useless without the extra trainingspots. It's a perfect idea. Now the 18 year old cyclists will hardly be trained and thus never being able to the 22+ year old cyclists. This creates a 'gap' in the game that can be solved a bit by the extra trainingspots. If there really will be a gap between 18 and 22 it will be very profitable to train 18-year old cyclists as they will be worth an insane amount of money once all the now 22-year old cyclists will end their carrier. It's easy to say they aren't interesting now, but they certainly will be. The question is how many managers will actually train those now useless cyclists to become wanted in 10 seasons...
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 20, 2013 12:12:39 GMT 1
you don't get my point
You can't get rid of cyclists to make room for many youth because the TL sucks
|
|
|
Post by kurtinsc on Apr 20, 2013 12:54:46 GMT 1
you don't get my point You can't get rid of cyclists to make room for many youth because the TL sucks Based on what? What exactly are you expecting from the transfer list? To get big profit from your least desirable riders? When I've bought better riders and sold off some of my worst ones, I've only got 5-50K for those bottom level guys. I don't really see that as a problem... it's just realistic. I don't want them because they're the least of the guys on my team. Why should people to expect to bring in big dollars for them? When I sell off one or two of my mid-level guys, I get 200K-600K instead... that seemed reasonable to me. I mean... there's not a lot of demand for old cyclists and underskilled cyclists... but should there be?
|
|
|
Post by Quatannens on Apr 20, 2013 16:20:08 GMT 1
you don't get my point You can't get rid of cyclists to make room for many youth because the TL sucks If you can't sell your cyclists for 0, you should fire them. Unless they earn more pricemoney as they cost in wage. Or maybe you just expect too much. If a cyclist is expensive, he needs to be young and a known good FA on a usefull skill. Many many cyclists aren't like this because they are older, or have a mediocre FA. If you want bad cyclists to be more expensive, all cyclists will be more expensive and what does that change? You will still be able to buy the same with the money you earned from sold cyclists
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 21, 2013 13:26:53 GMT 1
I guess you guy's don't remember the early days.
Never mind
|
|
|
Post by Quatannens on Apr 21, 2013 16:18:56 GMT 1
I do remember. The transferprices were rediculous. They only went higher and higher and higher. The raceincome, sponsorincome, wages, ... were nothing compared to transferprices. Or do you want a game were trading is the only thing that matters in a game? Because back than it was like that. You had a lot of money, bought a cyclist and sold him for more after some seasons because the prices got higher again. You are not advancing that way. The other teams will get exactly the same. You just get way more money, but you couldn't buy anything more from it. Now the prices aren't going insanely high (yet). Because the incomes are reduced to normal amounts, wages are raised and you loose 5% from sold cyclists. I think this is a much healthier situation...
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 21, 2013 22:20:29 GMT 1
You are really getting on my nerves. Everything you write, is common nollage to me. It seems like you don't want to see my point at all.
Don't you have problems selling cyclists then? Am I the only one who recognises this problem? It's not really a problem it's just a statement. Because of low numbers in membership the TL doesn't work as fluently as if there were triple the amount of users.
It's something you have to adapt to, I know this. I don't need any explenation to this fenomena because I know the explenation allready. I'm just stating the fact.
Only thing I'm trying to tell you is increasing U21 stages is to my opinion not a good thing because you have to make room for more youth. Making room means selling cyclists. And selling cyclists just isn't easy because of the reasons I wrote above.
|
|
|
Post by kurtinsc on Apr 21, 2013 23:20:42 GMT 1
You are really getting on my nerves. Everything you write, is common nollage to me. It seems like you don't want to see my point at all. Don't you have problems selling cyclists then? Am I the only one who recognises this problem? It's not really a problem it's just a statement. Because of low numbers in membership the TL doesn't work as fluently as if there were triple the amount of users. It's something you have to adapt to, I know this. I don't need any explenation to this fenomena because I know the explenation allready. I'm just stating the fact. Only thing I'm trying to tell you is increasing U21 stages is to my opinion not a good thing because you have to make room for more youth. Making room means selling cyclists. And selling cyclists just isn't easy because of the reasons I wrote above. I still don't understand the problem you're having. I just sold a 22 year old with 7 mtn, 7 hill and 4 sprint for 550K. That feels like about the right price to me. A while back I sold a 24 year old with 7 mtn, 3 hill, 4 sprint and 3 TT for 73K. Both of those seem about right. As the age goes up, so do the requirements for skills to have value on the transfer market. 7/7 guys at 22 will bring in a decent price. 7/7 guys at 21 will bring in a big price. 7/7 guys at 26 will bring in pennies... they need to be much better at that age to bring in a good price. That's just reasonable. I think the prices of the transfer market in seasons 1 and 2 actually drove a lot of teams to bankruptcy... and from the game. They spent money they shouldn't have to try to fill out their teams. Looking back, I kind of view it as a pyramid scheme... favoring those who sold early to newcomers who had little knowledge of what was valuable. I made dumb mistakes with most of my early transfers. I think the current market is much more realistic to the actual VALUE of the riders being sold.
|
|
|
Post by Ab Normaal on Apr 22, 2013 8:24:21 GMT 1
You are really getting on my nerves. Everything you write, is common nollage to me. It seems like you don't want to see my point at all. Don't you have problems selling cyclists then? Am I the only one who recognises this problem? It's not really a problem it's just a statement. Because of low numbers in membership the TL doesn't work as fluently as if there were triple the amount of users. It's something you have to adapt to, I know this. I don't need any explenation to this fenomena because I know the explenation allready. I'm just stating the fact. Only thing I'm trying to tell you is increasing U21 stages is to my opinion not a good thing because you have to make room for more youth. Making room means selling cyclists. And selling cyclists just isn't easy because of the reasons I wrote above. I still don't understand the problem you're having. I just sold a 22 year old with 7 mtn, 7 hill and 4 sprint for 550K. That feels like about the right price to me. A while back I sold a 24 year old with 7 mtn, 3 hill, 4 sprint and 3 TT for 73K. Both of those seem about right. As the age goes up, so do the requirements for skills to have value on the transfer market. 7/7 guys at 22 will bring in a decent price. 7/7 guys at 21 will bring in a big price. 7/7 guys at 26 will bring in pennies... they need to be much better at that age to bring in a good price. That's just reasonable. I think the prices of the transfer market in seasons 1 and 2 actually drove a lot of teams to bankruptcy... and from the game. They spent money they shouldn't have to try to fill out their teams. Looking back, I kind of view it as a pyramid scheme... favoring those who sold early to newcomers who had little knowledge of what was valuable. I made dumb mistakes with most of my early transfers. I think the current market is much more realistic to the actual VALUE of the riders being sold. I do agree the prices on the TL are a little more back to normal and that it is ok that you won't get anything anymore for a 28 yo. But you have a problem if his contract expires. You can't get anything for him on th TL, but letting his contract expire is also something. I just renewed a contract. The guy was asking for over 57K. That is riducolous. But since he is a ridere who performs better than his stats say, I wanted to keep him. Closed the deal for 7,5K. Not a problem for its self, but if you have 25 of these salaries or even more.... In the mean time you should renew your cyclist and Kurtinsc, you and Quantannens still don't give a solution for the problem that hardly any team has a YS. Just changing the age of the pulls to max 19 and setting a few more U21 races won't do the trick. That still doesn't make having a YS make worth it in first or second division. The state of Quantannens, say that training young cyclists is more something for the lower teams and then sell them to the richer teams in 1st and 2nd division is an opinion that I understand. That means that the money from the top teams go to the teams in lower divisions. That is true, but then they sell their best riders and will never develop to higher divisions. As for the argument that if you implement my proposal, the richer teams will get even richer: that is not correct, because they don't sell the young cyclists, they use them for themselves. And if you keep the YS wages as they are, even EGV can't afford a top YS, a top trainer and having 25 cyclists with a salary of 20K a week. And than anybody can say you shouldn't give a cyclist 20K per week (which I don't, the 7,5K I just gave is the highest I ever did), but if my cyclists ask for 57K, I am wondering what the guys from EGV and the Droeftoeters ask. If they ask about 80, you just simply can't give them 10. So, also these top teams have to make choices and that is thé possibility for other teams to close the gap in years. It is not enlarging the gap. That is a fundamental difference in our opinion! I see it as an opportunity for the other teams in the long run to challenge EGV and the Droeftoeters. You think they will make the difference larger. I don't see how.
|
|
|
Post by Quatannens on Apr 22, 2013 10:23:41 GMT 1
RaymondC, I don't think I know what your point is. Is it that more managers will give a better transfermarket? If yes, I don't know why this would be so. More managers with the same situation as now is just more cyclists, more potential buyers and more sellers. The situation won't change, it will only be on bigger scale. Why do you think there is something wrong with the transfermarket? Because you can't sell low-budget cyclists for a lot of money, or is it something else?
|
|
|
Post by kurtinsc on Apr 22, 2013 12:23:02 GMT 1
I still don't understand the problem you're having. I just sold a 22 year old with 7 mtn, 7 hill and 4 sprint for 550K. That feels like about the right price to me. A while back I sold a 24 year old with 7 mtn, 3 hill, 4 sprint and 3 TT for 73K. Both of those seem about right. As the age goes up, so do the requirements for skills to have value on the transfer market. 7/7 guys at 22 will bring in a decent price. 7/7 guys at 21 will bring in a big price. 7/7 guys at 26 will bring in pennies... they need to be much better at that age to bring in a good price. That's just reasonable. I think the prices of the transfer market in seasons 1 and 2 actually drove a lot of teams to bankruptcy... and from the game. They spent money they shouldn't have to try to fill out their teams. Looking back, I kind of view it as a pyramid scheme... favoring those who sold early to newcomers who had little knowledge of what was valuable. I made dumb mistakes with most of my early transfers. I think the current market is much more realistic to the actual VALUE of the riders being sold. I do agree the prices on the TL are a little more back to normal and that it is ok that you won't get anything anymore for a 28 yo. But you have a problem if his contract expires. You can't get anything for him on th TL, but letting his contract expire is also something. I just renewed a contract. The guy was asking for over 57K. That is riducolous. But since he is a ridere who performs better than his stats say, I wanted to keep him. Closed the deal for 7,5K. Not a problem for its self, but if you have 25 of these salaries or even more.... In the mean time you should renew your cyclist and Kurtinsc, you and Quantannens still don't give a solution for the problem that hardly any team has a YS. Just changing the age of the pulls to max 19 and setting a few more U21 races won't do the trick. That still doesn't make having a YS make worth it in first or second division. The state of Quantannens, say that training young cyclists is more something for the lower teams and then sell them to the richer teams in 1st and 2nd division is an opinion that I understand. That means that the money from the top teams go to the teams in lower divisions. That is true, but then they sell their best riders and will never develop to higher divisions. As for the argument that if you implement my proposal, the richer teams will get even richer: that is not correct, because they don't sell the young cyclists, they use them for themselves. And if you keep the YS wages as they are, even EGV can't afford a top YS, a top trainer and having 25 cyclists with a salary of 20K a week. And than anybody can say you shouldn't give a cyclist 20K per week (which I don't, the 7,5K I just gave is the highest I ever did), but if my cyclists ask for 57K, I am wondering what the guys from EGV and the Droeftoeters ask. If they ask about 80, you just simply can't give them 10. So, also these top teams have to make choices and that is thé possibility for other teams to close the gap in years. It is not enlarging the gap. That is a fundamental difference in our opinion! I see it as an opportunity for the other teams in the long run to challenge EGV and the Droeftoeters. You think they will make the difference larger. I don't see how. The issue is that more teams have a youthscout, not that more teams in 1st or 2nd division do. But when doing that, we don't want to make youthscout overpowered. I'm not saying we won't need to go further... perhaps lower the cost of the youthscout wages. But we should go there incrementally. While you may not believe just adding 2-4 more U21 races and making youth pulls all teenagers will fix it... it may be enough. We don't lose anything by slowly improving the youthscout but we could royally screw things up by doing too large a bump too fast. And I'm not sure your analysis is how it would work out. If the lower division teams develop the young riders and the high division teams don't, what makes you so sure they'll sell their best? I think they'll sell their second and third stringers... which will still be the best on the TL. As for the movement... the price of rider salaries being asked for with renewals will do that on its own regardless of what happens with the youthscout.
|
|
|
Post by Ab Normaal on Apr 22, 2013 21:50:43 GMT 1
Kurtinsc, I don't say that only more teams in 1st or 2nd should have a YS. But with these rules no one in 1st or 2nd will have one except for fun. Off course we need to check for all teams and I do agree, like I proposed to change for next season the pulls only to be 18 and 19 and to have about 5 U21 races and then wait 1 season to check what happens.
Lower the wages of YS is definately not the solution, like I said, ALL teams should make important decisions. Then the best managers will finally float to the surface.
Rider salary renewals has nothing to do with the YS, but salary costs will rise in the coming seasons as the cyclists get better. So these costs will rise and all together with a good trainer and a good YS will mean for all teams to make choices. And that is what I would like to see.
|
|
|
Post by goof on Apr 23, 2013 13:52:53 GMT 1
Combing back to the discussion of the last page.. Abnormaal, I was also refering to the fact that, if you originally would have five teams of five cyclists, you can now have five teams with one youngster per team and one 'good' team without a youngster at the same training cost. This lets you able to use even more stamina, so overall your teams might perform slightly better. But the great advantage lies in the U21 races and the white jerseys, but that is already mentioned before. And I don't think that the market would be a big problem, because the market regulates itself. There is indeed an oversaturation of bad or so-so cylists of the transfer market in my opinion, but if nobody wants them they'll eventually disappear from the game. And if there are less so-so cyclists, their value will rise slightly, so there will be an equilibrium somewhere.. And RaymondC, in combination with the five extra training spots you won't need to buy more cylists, so the market won't become much of a problem. However, I still think that the five extra training spots is a bit too powerful. More U21 races should also enourage more people to buy a youth schout.
|
|
|
Post by lee1950 on Apr 30, 2013 2:46:50 GMT 1
How about adding two U-21 training spots to ALL teams? Open those two training spots to riders you bought and to riders you pulled. - that reduces the benefit to the top teams who can only keep and train two additional U21 riders - it gives every team a chance to add and train two additional U-21 riders - every team in the game will have a chance to add two U-21 riders to their team. That's an additional ~1,000 youth riders, which should result in a steady flow of trained riders in the game for the future - opening the training spots to purchased riders will help support the market for U21 riders because every team has room for two riders How about 3 U-21 races? 5 seems too much, unless the calendar is expanded; and 1 race is not enough, particularly if we add two U-21 training slots. As mentioned earlier, many of us, including me, like to put a U-21 rider into short tours to gather a few points, so even if there were no U-21 races, I'd still keep two or three around to compete for white jersey points. How about some prize money for white jerseys? Maybe 50% of KOM or Points jerseys for the top 3 finishers in U-21 competition? How about changing the age of youth pulls to 18, 19 or 20? (iirc, currently it is 18, 19, 20, 21, or 22 but I could be wrong - it's been a long time since I had a YS.) I think it's okay that 1/3 of the pulls be useless 20yos. That's realistic. If it currently is 18-thru-22, that's just too many useless riders, imo. These changes would feel quite balanced to me, and would spread the benefits of YS'ing to all teams.
|
|