the more players you have the lower average amount you can spend on players

200m on 25 players gives you a squad full of 8m players

200m on 30 players gives you a squad full of 6666666.66666667 players - have fun with that in your budget

no tactics means that it's likely to go down to the "who's got the best side" so why pad it out with more youth than you're likely to use?

I like to build with he future in mind.

you can build with future in mind.....25 players is plenty for both the here and now and the next-gen

Not if we are doing injuries, which means I have to factor in having a few backup players for the starting eleven and bench.

Tino's hit the nail on the head there. The point of limiting it to 25 is that it will force transfer activity regularly.

My rules regarding injuries have always been if you transfer an injured player, their injury no longer applies. I feel that this stimulates activity regularly, or the team is affected (as it would be in real life).

why does it?

how do you know the back up won't get injured?

I'm done with this discussion - I shall leave it to Hodgey

my previous comment was at Lubo by the way - Hodgey book-ended me

Well if the backup gets injured then that's fine because I have my first team fit...

Weird question.

11 + 7 subs leaves room for 7 youth players as Tino has said. As Tino has also said, there is no guarantee that your starting team will be injured, so back up is plentiful.

There will be 4 injuries per month, with 1 player injured for 1 GW, 1 injured for 2 GWs etc.

Oh right, you do a different injury system. Explaing that to start with would have been useful.

nice concept - So in week 2 are we down to just the 3 injuries?

in which case if my interpretation is correct - Lubo more often than not you "shouldn't have" too many first teamers out

also

Injuries will hit all of us - so it does even out

I'm moving away from my tried and tested forumla on this league - going with a "project"

Yeah, should have explained it from the start.

Yeah Tino - injuries don't stack up, i.e. if one player returns from injury, someone isn't then automatically injured. It is only done at the start of the month/when we start fixtures.

I strongly feel that allowing the transfer of injured players helps the league avoid stagnation in the long run too. Mixes it up a bit.

nice


can we sack Lubo

No. I am here to stay.

Can we have a maximum of five players to loan out instead of sell, or someting like that?

Never really seen the value of loans to be honest. Open to suggestions.

Say, have 5 loan slots available so that someone can have a set amount of players available, but that you can only loan out players under 25, and that they can't be recalled for 4-6 weeks.

You're really keen to extend the squad past 25 aren't you

I don't really see the point of the loan thing, as I doubt many would utilise it. Using these rubbish teams is deliberate - all of European's top players, including those in PL teams, are available to be bought. I'm sure most of us will prioritise these better players over youth players.

There's not much point in just signing a load of top players, and you will struggle to maintain a league for a long period of time if you have no way of having younger players introduced into the league, especially if you employ the half TM value release system.

Why will we struggle to maintain the league without youth teams?

you can introduce the youngsters

AFCB - http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/174762

will update this article

Nice one RoF

Are transfers just going off TM ratings?

Values? Yeah.