A finance idea that will take WCC to a whole new level!

[nibbs]

The idea of losing my best players because someone out bids me is lame. I wont stand for it. I'm against it all the way.

 

[Cloete]

The idea of losing my best players because someone out bids me is lame. I wont stand for it. I'm against it all the way.

not if we use rich's technique. i fell that idea is bad as well. but f we use a transfer system u can turn down their bids. or accept them and get alot of money. i think it's crazy to be able to steal players like that as well. it means the richer teams will definitely benefit. however with a transfer idea u can sell ur best player for a shedload and buy some other good players with all that money. also the whole tihng can be tinkered with. as we still have until the end of the season to do it.

 

[Rich2001]

The idea of losing my best players because someone out bids me is lame. I wont stand for it. I'm against it all the way.

People - You missed my post just after Blewys where I told him about how that doesn't work and he replied with I'll think and post again today.

Speaking to Cloete on MSN and he had a very good idea to overcome the problems where if a player is in contract you the current team get all the say if you will release the player etc and get in a bidding war, but if the player is out of a contract then it's a free for all... if you can;t match the wage demands for a new contract the player would leave. Working excatly like the EPL football for example (or the bosman rule)

 

[Rich2001]

not if we use rich's technique. i fell that idea is bad as well. but f we use a transfer system u can turn down their bids. or accept them and get alot of money. i think it's crazy to be able to steal players like that as well. it means the richer teams will definitely benefit. however with a transfer idea u can sell ur best player for a shedload and buy some other good players with all that money. also the whole tihng can be tinkered with. as we still have until the end of the season to do it.

Ok you replied at the same time as me, but that does sound slightly more resonable and something the managers would be happier with, go my idea

 

[Rik]

All the arguements are based on one thing, mis-understanding and confusion, which is what I feel this idea brings too much of. The current system seems to work fine, why complicate matters? "If it ain't broke don't fix it. If it's slightly broke then repair only what needs fixing"

 

[Cloete]

All the arguements are based on one thing, mis-understanding and confusion, which is what I feel this idea brings too much of. The current system seems to work fine, why complicate matters? "If it ain't broke don't fix it. If it's slightly broke then repair only what needs fixing"

well think about it. would you want to make sometihng more enjoyable for EVERY1 or leave it the way it is? i am sure if you give it a chance and post something constructive towards it instead of knocking it all the time we mite come up with sumthing. if you don't like it y don't you post y u don't like it? it may actually HELP for a change! u can't just say it isn't simple. i mean if it were a transfer system all that would happen is u make bids and accept reject bids for players. how that seems really complicated. oh no poor me, now i have to keep track of money. i mean it's quite petty to say ppl like it for it's simplicity. all people would still have to do is post their team. who said you have to trade? they would barely make n e difference in effort if trading had money. bar a couple of calculations. i think you are just being petty saying that it's good for it's simplicity when in fact you haven't even tohught about it logically. liek i said before, think outside the square u live in

 

[Rik]

well think about it. would you want to make sometihng more enjoyable for EVERY1 or leave it the way it is? i am sure if you give it a chance and post something constructive towards it instead of knocking it all the time we mite come up with sumthing. if you don't like it y don't you post y u don't like it? it may actually HELP for a change! u can't just say it isn't simple. i mean if it were a transfer system all that would happen is u make bids and accept reject bids for players. how that seems really complicated. oh no poor me, now i have to keep track of money. i mean it's quite petty to say ppl like it for it's simplicity. all people would still have to do is post their team. who said you have to trade? they would barely make n e difference in effort if trading had money. bar a couple of calculations. i think you are just being petty saying that it's good for it's simplicity when in fact you haven't even tohught about it logically. liek i said before, think outside the square u live in

I've thought about it logically so don't even go there, there is no need for insults or petty remarks in a disagreement. As for:

well think about it. would you want to make sometihng more enjoyable for EVERY1 or leave it the way it is?

I may be mistaken but if it wasn't enjoyable in the 1st place us guys wouldn't be playing it? In my opinion the system is fun and enjoyable as it is, any extra gimicks would just ruin it.

i am sure if you give it a chance and post something constructive towards it instead of knocking it all the time we mite come up with sumthing.

I am posting something constructive and critisising it at the same time. It's called Constructive Critisism oddly.

if you don't like it y don't you post y u don't like it?

I though I just said I didn't like the idea, and in every post I've posted in this subject?

u can't just say it isn't simple. i mean if it were a transfer system all that would happen is u make bids and accept reject bids for players. how that seems really complicated. oh no poor me, now i have to keep track of money. i mean it's quite petty to say ppl like it for it's simplicity.

Not only can I say it's not simple, I can also ask you who's going to do it all? Yourself? I somehow doubt it. I really don't see the need for a transfer system or a finance system, that is my view and I thought it out before I ever posted my views on the matter. I can assure you of that.

 

[Cloete]

I may be mistaken but if it wasn't enjoyable in the 1st place us guys wouldn't be playing it? In my opinion the system is fun and enjoyable as it is, any extra gimicks would just ruin it.

i said more enjoyable. it is curently enjoyable but making it more so is obviously an advantage. even if it is a gimick n e thing to make it more enjoyable is for the bettering of the game.

Not only can I say it's not simple, I can also ask you who's going to do it all? Yourself? I somehow doubt it. I really don't see the need for a transfer system or a finance system, that is my view and I thought it out before I ever posted my views on the matter. I can assure you of that.

actually if we use something like rich's idea there doesn't need to be any vaulation. it's between the managers to agree on a fee. i think wat is quite gimicky is the way you keep saying it isn't simple enough. yet as i had stated there is barely n e extra work. all you do is agree on a bid and get/lose the player and get/lose money. also maybe we should see what blewy hinks of the whole matter. it is his and rich's decision after all.

 

[Rik]

actually if we use something like rich's idea there doesn't need to be any vaulation. it's between the managers to agree on a fee. i think wat is quite gimicky is the way you keep saying it isn't simple enough. yet as i had stated there is barely n e extra work. all you do is agree on a bid and get/lose the player and get/lose money. also maybe we should see what blewy hinks of the whole matter. it is his and rich's decision after all.

Excuse me for asking but isn't it the choice of the managers too? After all we are going to have to cope with the rules.

Also what you are saying is the thing I have the problem with, I don't feel there is any need for a transfer system. However often you ask me to think about it I come to the same conclusion. And I know Neil and Marc are not the only ones who agree with me here.

 

[Cloete]

Excuse me for asking but isn't it the choice of the managers too? After all we are going to have to cope with the rules.

Also what you are saying is the thing I have the problem with, I don't feel there is any need for a transfer system. However often you ask me to think about it I come to the same conclusion. And I know Neil and Marc are not the only ones who agree with me here.

ok fair enuff about not anting it. but i just wanted to say i find you saying that it is too complicating quite bemusing. as after all it isn't too much difference. apart from the fact that it just adds something to teh game.

i fell it could help attract more people for this reason: often people are waiting for the season too end. thinking it's too long and waiting for teh draft. but if there is money involved for winning their div and VB cup etc. people might become more interested in the game. because teh better they do the better chance of good players joining them there is. because they will have a decent amount of money for winning. so i feel it could add quite alot more interest. however this is only my opinion. i leave it completely open for debate and people to express their opinions.

 

[David]

Intriguing stuff..

A simple plan would be this.

Each team gets its money blah blah.

Each player has a mathematical valuation based on form, a weighted average, some stupid something..

contracts, thats a nice word.

Anyway, you want a player, you pay his "value" and he's roped in for one year, you want him two years? pay two times his value, three years, three times his value, etc etc. Of course, that is the payments are spread out amongst the appropriate amount of years.

If multiple people want the same player, he who offers the most, gets the player, so, say I'm worth $2 (overpriced I know) and two people want me, one bids $4 for 2 years, whilst the other bids $7 for 3, you know who I'd go to.. The $4 because I'm a fool :P:P

Anyway...

I think its pretty simple, contracts are locked in.. Maybe transfer fees, to make retaining a player easier..

And, the big thing

Lower divisions get more money, that helps balance it out, yes

Don't mind my rambling unless you want to...

 

[Cloete]

quite a good idea. but wouldn' that still mean that clubs can lose their best players for nothing? i really would h8 to see that happening.

 

[David]

Well, i guess transfer fees are feasible.. The higher value a player has, the higher the transfer fee. Well, it can be worked out. Maybe, even, say an opposing club has to bid say 10-20% higher than a club trying to retain a player, hmm?

 

[nibbs]

Firstly, who decides if a player will accept a certain offer?

Some players are loyal. Not everyone is in it for the $$$ and they will not leave their club, unless they feel seriously mistreated.

If there was a contract thing, I think each club gets the first go at resigning their players. ie if Howarth is coming off contract, I have until week 15 to resign him. This means I'm the only one who can speak to him until after week 15. If I can't sign him, other clubs are free to negoiate from week 15 onwards. If rich clubs can just come in from the start and pilege my resources, I would be ****ed off.

 

[David]

Good point, good point...

The club getting first dibs is a good idea, and I guess in some ways they could represent club loyalty by looking at how many games tyhey've played during the season, the more you play at a club the more likely you are to be loyal to that club yes?

 

[nibbs]

Word.

Also would players get a say in who they sign for? ie B.Allen might be right at home, enjoying a peaceful life style in Kent. However what if he has to go play in Zimbabwe? I'm pretty sure, that would be not appeal to anyone!

 

[Cloete]

yeah that's why i think transfers r a better idea. then the club can either chose to accept or reject the offer. i think it's a much better option. then the club doesn't lose their best player for nothing or they can even keep him. so say if i offerd 50 000 for howarth u could accept in which case howard would come and u'd get 50k. or u could reject and let him stay with u.

 

[Slats4ever]

For all the critics of the idea saying "it's not in the spirit of WCC, it's too complicated" "It might scare off new players" "It'll make there a bigger gap between better and worse" and saying that all these things are bad, I beg to differ.

WCC to me is so much fun because it is so real. Computer games such as CM and ICC are fun because they are real. To be perfectly honest this sort've money and transfer etc is going on in real cricket, in County, starting to come in Shield. All the players are professionals and must be payed.
There are some of you out there whom it appears are a little worried about the change, understandebly so. However I think we should just embrace the idea, we would never get anywhere if we never tried new things such as these. WCC wouldn't have even started if guys like GB and Rich didn't act on a vision. This is a vision which we must try. It will add a new edge to this game, making it more realistic and ultimately more fun to play.
As far as hard work goes, sure the whole things hard work but you only get out what u put in. I'd be willing to accept a role in this venture, say being banker, whereby i keep a record of how much money each club has, and if we all did a little bit like this, then WCC could become even more entertaining.
Sure we've got a great game now, but why bother standing still and not trying new improvements, give this finance idea a go, allocate money to each team to play with then they can fight over players. Sounds like good fun to me!!!!!!!!

 

[Rik]

The thought of having to negotate with on of my own players does not appeal to me. Who would decide on the prices anyway? Yet again we get to the "is it worth it" factor. And yet again I have to say no it isn't

 

[David]

Who would decide player value?

A mathematical equation, i'm sure theres someone out there with a brilliant mathematical mind waiting to provide a masterful player valuation formula based on career and form.