Light the blue touch paper.....

Gaz@Chelsea wrote:

At the end of the day if im paying my money and wanna get players in that are in England or might be coming to England at Cremonese then sell them to Chelsea i will, I could'nt give to shits if it upsets someone, i mean how many fucking rules to we need, some of you guts take my enjoyment out the game some times with ya moaning and makes me wonder if im not better off in the other game with the people that left game one cos of the forum.

No-one is moaning Gaz, just looking for clarification on what is allowed, not allowed, right or wrong. If everyone is happy that this can go on then so be it, just want everyone to be on a level playing field. The people who are missing out, ie, Dan and Lee, need to know what they are missing out on, and that they have an opportunity to do the same if required.

Rob@Inter wrote:

Personally I say keep it simple and within what is already tracked.

2 rules

i. Must stay for 24 weeks

ii. You can't sell the player for less than you paid for him.

Good work Rob and Stu.

I say bollocks to all of the sanctimonious agonising about gaining a bargain if you can get one.

We are all by and large adult and able to abide by simple self imposed morality.

I am taking on a feeder club with a view to newing young (U21) players and if those players cost a couple of million to my feeder club but have a re-sell value to Bohemians (or any other club if placed on the transfer list at trib val) of £500k, I would be nuts not to take advantage of the cheaper option. And gentlemen I am sure you agree with this simple equation!

Everyone within this game tries to gain an advantage in some way or another, and the reason that we play this game is because we all to a degree possess a competitave spirit, and we mostly get on with each other on the forum because of a mutual respect.

Getting straight to the point I feel that a player from here on in regardles of age or nationality should only be transferred on a permanent basis from feeder to parent and that should be after 24 weeks BUT at the lower buycost if less than the price paid. And that season long loan arrangements for U21 players between parent and feeder should continue as it gives your youths a chance to get first team games.

Actually. Fuck it. You know what - I agree with Martin. And Gaz too to an extent. It's a game, play it the way it's designed.

if you put a 24 week time limit on it, nobody will give a fuck about the valuations anyway.

The time limit itself will put an end to the out and out abuse.

We used to get a report which was WAC (weeks at club) for every player, which now seems to have dissapeared. This would be hugely helpfull if the 24 week rule is to be implemented between feeder and parent, which by the way I am in totally favour of.

ok so from the two polls we can gather than the amount of no answers here means people arn't keen for major rule changes, but are in favour of some small changes to protect the feeder clubs a little better and stop the minor abuse of selling a player from feeder to parent in consecutive weeks. it makes sense i think that a player at a feeder club should have to stay their for a certain length of time before the parent club can take advantage of them and a full 24 weeks seems a decent minimum length a player must stay their to be groomed. i think after that period it should be fair to say that you can sell them to the parent club at resell price because you've had them a year, and if the player has transferred to a bigger club in real life during that time then its the manager's excellent skill and forsight to have taken a chance on that player so its within their right to do as they see fit with the player, which includes selling them to the parent club and then taking the proft of the player their.