how do you hoard yours?

having tried to get my brain around the changes i really think a lot them will benefit the game as a whole. however, i still think players should be allowed to go on loan under the age of 22 to any club that will give them first team football regardless of the type of club.

i think 29 players is enough for a first team squad for every team in this game. first 18 plus 11 reserves. thats 58 first team players if you have a feeder club. nobody needs 40 players in a single first team squad. it is, put simply, an embarrassing amount of riches for anyone to have that many players. if anyone needs more than 29 players (including those that refuse to go into their academy) then answers on a postcard please. i'd love to know how these people came to be so indecisive, or just what they intend to do with a player thats scratching his backside on the loan list every week and using an excuse like "oh well i dont need cash it means nothing to me". bollocks to that. 23 year old's need to be playing games, not picking tulips every week. if he's not good enough to be one of your 29 first team players then you dont need him, so why hoard him? the people who are like this are the the kids in the playground when sticker swapping at school expecting 20 trades for a coveted shiny badge. if you have that problem then just get a feeder club for christ sake. sort your life out.

in my opinion, Paul should give each club in the game the basic free youth academy. all youths then go into that unless they refuse. then any club that has more than 29 first team players including those that refuse to go into the academy feel the effects of morale drops and transfer requests from anyone not atleast on the bench or playing a reserve fixture. the current level before this and automatic injuries happens is something like a first team squad of 40 which is just stupidness. I'm not saying their should be a squad limit like in real life, but nobody needs 40 over 21 players on their books. i think Paul should consider lowering the amount of first team players you can have in your squad before morale drops from 40 to 29 (excluding players in the youth academy).

valid points Stu. I think there should just be more players that expect first 18...and if they're not in the first 18 for say 3 weeks running, then they slap in transfer requests and are generally disruptive until they're back in the first 18 for 3 weeks running, or they're sold.

if players just got angrier and more disruptive for not playing, it might sort a couple of things out.

Stuart@Roma wrote:

having tried to get my brain around the changes i really think a lot them will benefit the game as a whole. however, i still think players should be allowed to go on loan under the age of 22 to any club that will give them first team football regardless of the type of club.

i think 29 players is enough for a first team squad for every team in this game. first 18 plus 11 reserves. thats 58 first team players if you have a feeder club. nobody needs 40 players in a single first team squad. it is, put simply, an embarrassing amount of riches for anyone to have that many players. if anyone needs more than 29 players (including those that refuse to go into their academy) then answers on a postcard please. i'd love to know how these people came to be so indecisive, or just what they intend to do with a player thats scratching his backside on the loan list every week and using an excuse like "oh well i dont need cash it means nothing to me". bollocks to that. 23 year old's need to be playing games, not picking tulips every week. if he's not good enough to be one of your 29 first team players then you dont need him, so why hoard him? the people who are like this are the the kids in the playground when sticker swapping at school expecting 20 trades for a coveted shiny badge. if you have that problem then just get a feeder club for christ sake. sort your life out.

in my opinion, Paul should give each club in the game the basic free youth academy. all youths then go into that unless they refuse. then any club that has more than 29 first team players including those that refuse to go into the academy feel the effects of morale drops and transfer requests from anyone not atleast on the bench or playing a reserve fixture. the current level before this and automatic injuries happens is something like a first team squad of 40 which is just stupidness. I'm not saying their should be a squad limit like in real life, but nobody needs 40 over 21 players on their books. i think Paul should consider lowering the amount of first team players you can have in your squad before morale drops from 40 to 29 (excluding players in the youth academy).

I could not agree any more 29 senior players plus youths is more than adequate, and I would go further in that there should be forced sales of the lowest rated players (who are nearly always) the players that never get a game. these players to be sold at trib value via the transfer list for 3 turns before being automatically moved onto an unmanaged cub rather than just being moved on straight away to an unmanaged club. This way it gives managers in the game to buy players at reasonable prices.

We all know who the hoarders are

Well, most people put their squads on the site so it's clear to see who has what players. I don't know about other managers but I currently (but only for 2 turns) have had 2 spare defenders and the players I'm not playing are already less happy so I'm putting them up for sale. What I don't get is how morale for a team can stay where it is if you have loads of players not playing (except youths who are obviously in the academy).

I disagree with Martin's forced sale idea as I believe if you buy a player you deserve to keep him unless you've financially over stretched yourself, however I do believe the morale impact of non playing, over 22 players should be more apparently unhappy. So you suffer if you hoard over 21 players - I think that's what everyone would like to see.

As a side note I also think that players should be more unhappy at lower reputation/positioned clubs. For example, a player might be happy in the reserves at a top Prem/Serie A team but will demand first team action at a Serie B/Lower division English/lesser league (Argentina/Ireland) top division team. So maybe Candreva or Ranocchia will go in the reserves at Inter but if I had them at Boca they'd demand first team football. Views?

seems reasonable, though in my experience thats already in place since i had 9595s bitching about not being first team regulars last year in Serie B but are now loving it in the reserves since i've gone up (and soon to be back down again). i agree with rob that clubs shouldnt be 'forced' to sell players not in their first 18 or resereves, but its perfectly reasonable i think that there morale drops, they ask for a transfer and also that paul enforces the automatic injuries when first team squads reach 30 players instead of 40.

Agree with Stu's points.

Rob@Inter wrote:

As a side note I also think that players should be more unhappy at lower reputation/positioned clubs. For example, a player might be happy in the reserves at a top Prem/Serie A team but will demand first team action at a Serie B/Lower division English/lesser league (Argentina/Ireland) top division team. So maybe Candreva or Ranocchia will go in the reserves at Inter but if I had them at Boca they'd demand first team football. Views?

Does that mean then at Charlton, Leicester, Hull and Watford, we can have a strong first 11, but any squad members after that would have to be pretty shit to be content in our reserves?

Not sure I agree with that as it takes away our ability to build strong squads and make decent challenges in the league, cup and maybe Europe. Wouldn't it just make the bigboys stronger and the little teams weaker?

Well I ask you this .... would Michael Owen sit on the bench at QPR, Swansea or Sheffield Utd? No way. Would he do it at United, Chelsea or Arsenal? Every single week.

And I think it would cover the first team squad of 18 not just the first 11.

I agree it isn't realistic that I have Agger, Huddlestone, Shevchenko and Carvalho in my reserves this week but why should I be penalized for wanting to start as a team in a lower league. Lord knows my transfer dealings have been restricted massively with the recent changes, but now you want to restrict the quality of players I can buy for my cup teams too?

I use the rotation of my players to keep control of stamina issues, and so i like my 29 players to be all of an equal standard.

I agree that it would make the game more realistic, but at the same time it would dampen my enjoyment of the game further.

Quite agree with that Tom

I don't know that I'd consider 4 players like that hoarding. And rotation is very relevant in today's world. I think that 1 week is also not very long for them to have to play in the reserves. Something like 6 consecutive weeks would make more sense - Rooney or Tevez would get pissed if they had to sit in Oldhams reserves for a quarter of a season.

And as I started out in Serie B it would have applied to me there and also as I said it sould apply to lower value leagues and I gave Argentina as an example so it would impact Boca too.

i dont think its fair to say that teams should be penalised regards who would sign for them dependant on league status as that probably would make the bigger teams stronger and make it much harder for the lower league teams to compete. its best to keep that side of the game as a level playing field i think. worth remembering also that the leagues here are 12 teams, so a league one or two side isnt really comparible to that level when the real life leagues are twice the size. id rather teams were prevented as legitimately as possible from hoarding players and make the rest of the game's teams stronger. thats a better aim for the game i feel rather than making it even harder for smaller teams to sign players who already have smaller resources to begin with which is enough of a handicap i think.