View forum thread

I would prosper from that, I have 4 youths near promotion time and 7 are 15 years or older.

But it would be unfair. It takes time to get to that stage. Some have given up on the YA due to rejections, some don't use it for other reasons.

Youths are worth a lot these days, and giving some a huge advantage is not right.

Time the promotions better Mitchell. There's been plenty discussed as to what helps.

There was an entire thread in the Scottish forums if i recall correctly

Edit:" When the proposed youth changes go ahead they will always accept the offer of promotion.

I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about the likes of Istycandy who has a youth to promote in a few days but if that youth rejects he's going to be fired from the club he's been with since day one of season one. Cherryred who has only moved clubs once quite a long time ago and doesn't want to do so again but is being forced to. I've only ever had two rejections out of 13 so it hasn't really effected me much but the diminishing squads are a genuine threat to keeping players in the game and what I suggested was just a quick and easy fix. Realistically the new youth system where all youth accept isn't going to be here for at least another 6 or 7 seasons, by which time the people mentioned above and other will probably be long gone.

Maybe a check could be implemented, so that people who have gotten warnings will get 100% success with promotions until they reach a certain squad size. To be used only one time for each club so people don't exploit this.

The issue is serious, I agree something needs to be done.

I recognise that there are some challenges, not least of all finding quality players to replace the retirees, but why should we make this game easier for people who can't keep enough players in their squad? There are plenty of players out there - ok, they're not necessarily as good as the ones you currently have, but there is no excuse for running your squad size so low that you're under threat of sacking. That is simply poor management.

I've managed to maintain a decent(ish) squad and I've never switched teams. Is my squad as strong as it was when I started? No. Am I competing with the top teams in this game? I like to think so.

Remember, this game is about relative strengths. You don't necessarily have to keep improving your squad, you just need to make sure that your squad is better than your rivals.

Wouldn't mind a totaliser on my bids made. It's pretty much cause I'm lazy to count but would be handy when multiple bids are made and knowing exactly the amount left available to play with

Manager numbers at an all time low, so what could be done?

I know my suggestion would not get far, But I'd like to see this version taken down and worked on at Rons own pace, in the meantime I'd like to see the very original IAG game (IAG1) brought back, which to be fair while not taxing was still fun. I believe the original game is still good enough to attract new managers to the IAG brand and this version could be brought back when it is in a fit and proper state.

Great idea IMO, trouble is I don't think there was a 'subscribe' option on IAG1, so hosting fees would have to be covered somehow.

IAG1 was easy to play and simple to understand, perfect for todays 'quick fix' gamers.

And boring with no longevity because it was too easy to win. There needs to be a balance to be unique and different.

Longevity?????

Try getting from Division 360 to Division 1.

That just wasn't feasible though. It was TOO long a target to aim for. All you had was next season, earning stupid amounts of money that you couldn't spend quick enough.

I agree that for some this might be a winning formula, but I'm not sure that's the target market for this game.

I am bidding on a 22 year old goalkeeper - and may still be unsuccessful in signing him of course - but why is he only asking for a one year deal?

I would expect that from a 30+ year old, but not early in a playing career. Whilst I realise there are benefits to short contracts, the benefit of one year deals are negated by the restriction on renegotiating contracts.

Anyway, he has agreed to 2 years, so it's not a biggie - however anyone a little new to the game might not realise that players asking for a one year deal, can accept a longer deal, so the question is - why not drop the one year contracts? or am I missing an important point of the game?

lol and in today's game it is not easy to win games no Jija, come on look, last season as part of trial into injuries i was heavily fatiguing my teams upto 70/80% and they still came 5th in the league...

Stop trying to find excuses for everything, if your after a moderator Job Jija just say it out loud as i am sure many folk including THE WARBLERS would supoort your application, it is better than been up the rear end of someone with brown on the nose always. Everything anyone says, you have to counteract it in favour of telling others to stop in their pursuit of wanting the game improvements brought in quicker.

Players are getting older, not enough youths coming through, 3 seasons money to by one decent player, and your in the belief that folk should stop asking.....

I wasn't aware I was making excuses for anything??? I'm just giving a different viewpoint.

Excuses or trying to validate why improvements are not been made or by telling managers that their managerial skills are lacking which is not fair. Managers are genuinely concerned as they have spent time building their clubs and the last round of improvements failed in their reasons for being implemented and if managers do not voice their concerns then the owners will think there is no issues and the game will drag on.

Many top teams have issues with players retiring, many of them run squads with as few as 16 players and these are the top teams, and these top teams are able to survive because if they get just one youth to promote successfully and the youth is only going to reach mid 30s in ratings, then with their coaches they can train them up quick to mid 30s and sell for 4 million a time, whereas smaller teams cannot do this and losing one youth who has cost them maybe 500,000 each time makes going with youths because of time constraints and costs not worth the hassle, so in fact the youth system is of no real value to smaller clubs.

Personally i am ok plodding on, my youth system has been full since i took over 3/4 seasons ago and looking forward to promoting a couple next season but for the majority it is failing.

I had 3 players retire this season, i am fine, but many managers may not be and it is not down to their skills it is down to a whole host of issues and another to add to the lack of youths is how can they compete when prize money is 1.8 million per season and most players who are worth buying as a long term investment are worth more than 3 seasons money. What i am reading is managers saying their are players available to buy, yes, but players who are 33-34-35 with short careers and big age demands or players in their late 20's who are maxed out training wise or players in their late 20's with fixed attributes of 90 plus but no use to smaller teams as before the players get to 40 plus they will be retiring.

The top teams will survive and whilst i appreciate that is just life, you have to remember this is just a game and to have such a big gulf and one tha'ts still growing between top-middle and bottom, this gap is not productive to the games long term survival and if anyone is going to say well Chelsea and Real Madrid are miles ahead of Barnet or Numencia yes they are agreed, but they still get beaten by the bottom clubs or lose in the cup. Maybe the cups need a more random aspect so the big clubs are not guarenteed diddly squat like they are now. The only time they lose in the league is to the top sides around them maybe or if they draw a side of equal standing in the cup...... This does not include managerless premiership sides.

I for one would vote that in cup competition, may the league cup only, then smaller clubs are given more of a chance so maybe a tweak of the programming and the overall team ratings are given a minus -20 rating against teams in say division 4, -15 division 3 and so on, lets see if the big clubs can survive without the extra income generated from cup games gate receipts and prize money??

By the looks of it and as we all knew anyway, the target market for this game is EXTREMELY limited.

IAG1 had IIRC around 500 or 600 divisions when it was pulled, although some managers had 10 teams or more, that is still A LOT more users than we have now.

True. And I'm not defending the current situation with lack of improvements, by the way, I just think that this game does (and should) offer something different to every other game out there. As such, the target audience will always be a smaller pot of people.

+1

The ability to downsize a stadium?

Was thinking it would help the managers that may have went down the upgrade the stadium too soon route or when teams start to plateau and crowds get affected by the stall in CR (that I've heard some managers mention I think).

A RL situation would be Aberdeen if they don't build and move to a new stadium and have to redevelop pittodrie it would have to be downsized

How about a seasonal multiplier bonus for managers who stick with the same club for a long time. Would be nice to be rewarded for performing consistently season after season with an ageing squad and limited funds.