MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
                        
 
 The Trade Window is currently open...
Some stuff from SESL
All Topics
Steve (Asteria) - Sunday 08-26-07 4:28
There's been one or two discussions on SESL (as many here will know) so I thought I'd mention them here. I'm not saying I agree with any of these.

1. Rivals (a) - rivals are selected at the start of the season and cannot be changed. Crowds (i.e. gate money) are higher for matches involving rivals, doubly so if the teams are rivals of each other.

2. Rivals (b) - similar to (a) but morale changes more when involving rivals.

3. Gate money - instead of a 50-50 split, the home side gets more of the gate money.

Graham (Barcelona) - Tuesday 08-28-07 7:27
1 & 2 I can see and probably have some agreement/sympathy with.

Unfortunately 3 is something I dont agree with. I dont recall the formula exactly for working out the gate receipts, but IIRC they are based on a teams morale? If thats the case then the more successful teams are more likely to have higher morale and so in effect we're giving more money to teams that are already successful, thereby widening the gap.

I'm actually more in favour (generally) of "balancing" changes which reduce the gap....

Perhaps if the home team spent a load of money on the home team boost then perhaps they should get more of the money.

GMcD.

Carl (Hollywood) - Tuesday 08-28-07 9:10
A wages structure is the answer to that widening gap Graham.
The higher your SL (and all players in your squad are included) the greater your wages hit. Against that, the home team keeps all the gate (like in the big boys game) for league games and the better team will attract more consistently high gates but the weaker teams will look forward to a big pay day when the better teams come to town.
Steve (Asteria) - Tuesday 08-28-07 12:29
I can't actually see the point of any of these myself. 1 and 2 just add cash to every team, and more for those that manage to have plenty of rivals.

As for 3 well the 0.3 bonus that some teams get is worth 18k per team when this team is at home and 9k when away. Add the 25k per league match if you're in Division One.

On the other hand the average morale of all the teams is 0.5. If we had a 0.3 morale team at home to a 0.7, then it would be 69k per team (ignoring bonuses). The other way round it's 81k per team. If the home side picked up 2/3 of the gate money then the better team would get 154k from the two games and the weaker would get 146k as opposed to 150k each. That's only 2k more/less per match and hardly worth changing anything. For most sides it would be less.

Mark (Scotland) - Sunday 09-09-07 17:27
Wages is a decent idea, but would need to be carefully planned, or majority of teams could all end up similar with a host of 'average' players so as to avoid too much wage cost reductions.

Rivals - could maybe be made more a feature by Olmec highlighting in Bold or something on the fixture list when 2 rivals are scheduled to meet.
In same way as MVP are noted by Olmec Head automatically, similar list could be noted on Blog automatically by Olmec of any upcoming Rival matches to help build up the pre match hype.

Gate money - I'd vote to leave it as 50/50 split.

Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 09-23-07 21:28
...and the reason for a change is...???

No offense intended for SESL at all, Mark, but there's a group of managers there that want to add a cash or resource award for any event possible regardless of need or impact on the game. In addition to added resources for rival games, it has been suggested that we reduce the cost of OTF points, reduce post-season OTF loss, award cash, CP, TP, and assorted tasty pies for Cup finishes (in addition to cash for the added matches), and increasing SL levels for +100 rating points. And that's just this month.

Personally, I don't see a need for the change and don't believe in change for change sake. As the team listed on most rival pages, I should be most in favor of the rule, but somehow I'm not. It's just another influx of resources for no apparent reason.

Again, no offense meant to SESL, Mark. I wouldn't be in the game if I didn't enjoy it.
Robin (Ayers Rock) - Tuesday 09-25-07 22:19
I am opposite to Phil , in that I believe in rewarding those who do well. Back to this in a min.

I was the one who suggested a REDUCTION IN OTF Loss, but not as the poll was proposed. Mark is to blame for this as it was he who made us all aware of Early Cross and now every one is trying to use this tactic. What I had noticed in SESL was the lack of managers building up their OTF and virtually no-one using BALL. I do not want to see this disappear and all teams end up using Long or Early. Hence I suggested a reduction in end of season loss of OTF. I was suggesting a reduction of 20% rather than 30% a HUGE saving of 2 CP :).

REWARDS: I see nothing wrong in rewarding a manager for an achievement, wining the league or cup etc. NOT a great deal but something. Say 100k for a league title/ cup win and 50k for runner up. You could extend this to also a small kkk for best DF (fewest goals) and best attack (most goals) these are not necessarily the TOP teams in the league so it can be spred around - Just an Idea.

Phil (Missouri) - Monday 10-08-07 21:35
I'm not opposed to accolades and awards, either, but it just seems to line the pockets of the most successful teams. They just won the cup/league title...the game operates better on the whole if that team doesn't receive extra resources on top of it all. Good discussion here, with good points on both sides, Robin.
All Topics