Change language
In my analysis, this is an aggravating factor that limitates the increase of the small communities and in fact blocks the expansion of the game quality and income for Managerzone development.
The context is for instance, nations like France have roughly 10 real teams and maybe 30 or 40 that somehow play or keep the club alive. Generally between 1 and 4 clubs play U21 or U23. Maybe 10 continuously produce some top U18-U21 players. Except top 4 or 8 of nations, this situation represents most of the potential of development of the game in many nations.
It is obviously an unfair and unbalanced market rule, specially for the hockey:
- Teams need 20 players instead of 11 or 3x20 players if a club plays all ages.
- Many communities are too small to avoid their own market to be quickly inter-blocked by the limitation. Imagine when there are only 2 or 4 clubs. This would kill the capacity of the U21 local market to update and do the seasonal turn over because of the reset time plus the limitation to 2 players.
- This limit fakes the bids and clean market principles to the advantage of foreign clubs.
- Hence bigger foreign nations already suffer far less of the limitation and they can also bid for some 1$ bargains (typically bugs on long term but needed to fill the 4 lines) with far less chances of being challenged by a local bid, because local clubs are frozen by the transfer limit.
This breaks market fairness obviously.
Proposed solution: I think the clean proportion would be a limit to 3 or 4 in hockey instead of 2. Possibly 2 for big nations, 3 for mid nations, 4 for small, in the same spirit as the foreign transfer limit. In fact this is the same idea of adaptating a market limitation to the mathematics of local demography.
Else maybe change the time limit. Remember playing U21 needs to renew a complete 20 EVERY season. The formation center can never produce a fully competitive 20 alone, at most you produce 7 U21, 7 U20, 8 U19.
You have the well known n*(n+1)/2 combinations of club pairs to exchange. So this constraint fades with the square of the nation population. That is why it is probably far more obvious for the smaller nations that can never develop club strength. So managers do not last. These MZ nations remain anecdotical, and hockey does not develop.
Hockey
Hockey » English » ManagerZone talk
Views: 104 Posts: 6
- Page 1
-
Re: Unfair limitation of transfers small vs big nations
By
krisshaller - 31-01-2024 04:46This is absolutely fair. Here in Colombia there are just like 16 active teams, and from those, only 6 put players on the market with some regularity. My youth squads are limited to 16 players (3 lines), most of them just for the sake of stamina. More often than not I have to let go of good players on the market just because I already met the 2-players limit.
-
Re: Unfair limitation of transfers small vs big nations
By
deleted_8665294 - 29-02-2024 12:53
1212121
-
Re: Unfair limitation of transfers small vs big nations
By
hengzhi108 - 04-04-2024 08:19
77777777777777777
-
Re: Unfair limitation of transfers small vs big nations
By
gexingu6902 - Thursday 09:15
11111111111111
- Page 1