A new slant on how to spend your cash. Whilst I like the further options proposed I have a feeling people won't perceive them as the answer to the "problem" of a couple of players hoarding cash.

It would be a nice option for just these players - the rest of us would query whether we wanted to spend that much from our Auction budget on the above.

For what it's worth, the extra Youth Coach one I like a lot - but not sure I would/could pay 1,000k for just 2 extra home points - but that's me.

And it is another option to the "tax" debate. 

Another option proposed by Mr Baptiste...

Additional Great Performace Points (750k):

This option would allow a team to purchase an additional ten (10) Great Performance Points for the upcoming season.  The fee would be due prior to session one and would cover only that one entire season.

I personally love the thought process here. Will post with some thoughts later on in the week...

For 1k per point, teams can purchase 20 extra points for use in any game against Preston North End.

I have no qualms with Ian but there are enough voters here who may just write this law into the books...

I fear complication of our beautifully simple game.  One of the things I like best about this league is that is uncluttered.   As I understand it, our rules are/were very close to an original set of rules for these games, and that one of the stated intentions of this league was simplicity/purity.  I'm not a "change is bad" guy by any means, but I did want to voice my caution re: overcomplicating.  If it ain't broke...

I definitely agree with Mike that we need to keep things simple, however there are 2 areas of the game that I think we can tweak without complicating things. One of them is incorporating "rivals" into the game (something that's been talked about since Season 2), and the other is a way to actually spend the money that teams earn - the only outlet is through the auction. If we can find uncomplicated ways to spend money, then I'm for it.

I agree: simplicity is the best and I think we can keep things simple while also introducing additional outlets for money.

First off, I really like the anti-Ian rules that JH suggests.  :-)

Actually I guess that's all I had...

Three common ways to get money of out of circulation in multiplayer video games with an economic system (think World of Warcraft, or similar MMORPG):

1) Repair costs.  The better the gear, the more it costs to keep it useful.  The players with the most stuff (and usually with the most money) have to spend a whole lot more money just in upkeep than lower-level players with lower-level gear.  United application: salaries.  Higher-SL players cost more to keep on your roster than lower-SL players.  One time retention fee would be paid in each off-season, prior to the first pre-season auction.  Problem: what happens if a team bids the bank in the auction for session 7, and doesn't have enough built back up to pay their team in the off-season?  Do they lose players?  Do they have to cut some or sell some off?  If they refuse (or NMR) how does the commish choose for them?  Since cash is never needed in gameplay, do we let the team go into the red and work their way out of it as the next season progresses, with that team simply unable to bid on any players as they have a negative bank balance?

2) Geometrical cost progression.  Lower-level items that everyone needs from the start are cheap.  The better stuff doesn't just cost twice as much, yet could be up to 10 times as much.  Example: +1 enchantment on your weapon could cost 100k in materials/fees.  +2 costs 250k.  +3 costs 600k.  +4 costs 1500k.  +5 costs 4000k.  Etc.  The same increase at higher levels costs considerably more.  United application: increase the geometric progression of minimum player prices at auction.  Make the non-league price times 15k instead of 10k.  A II/12 at auction then carries a minimum bid of 750k instead of 500k.  All prices would increase by half again what they currently cost.  If too high, even a 12k multiplier instead of 10k would increase prices by 20% across the board for minimum bids.  The trickier system would be to do something like age I players get the 10k multiplier, age II at 15k, age III at 12k, age IV at 10, or something like that so the players most in demand for higher SL cost the most without increasing prices on the backups or future players at ages I & IV.  Problem: that pushes the price for the star players at age II and III out of the range that most rebuilders/Div 3 teams can afford.  Precluding some teams from getting a top player more than once every three seasons doesn't seem in the spirit of league fairness.

3) You get screwed at the trading post.  You want to buy that?  Sure, you can buy it for 50k.  You want to sell it to me?  Sure, you can sell it for 25k.  Whatever you sell back is worth way less than what it costs to buy it.  This encourages players to trade more amongst each other for rarer items, as what a player is willing to pay is nearly guaranteed to be more than what the program will buy it for.  It also makes it harder to accumulate money just by 'farming' items and selling them to the program.  You have to find player buyers to get any real cash built up.  United application: make the non-league sale price half (or 3/4) of what it is if you want to sell a player to the non-league.  This would cut down the glut of cash into the league by several teams at the session 8 deadline.  They wouldn't be worth nearly as much.  At the same time, they could be sold to another manager at less than auction price, but more than non-league sale price.  That's a win-win scenario that would greatly increase the value of trades, while hurting the "hoarders," which is what we're trying to do anyway, right?  This decreases the amount of "free" money coming into the league (as it costs nothing to sign a schoolboy, raise them up, and sell them two or three seasons later), without cutting the minimum bid level of auction buys so those prices stay up.  Problems: dumping older guys or mid-range SL players is one of the few ways that a rebuilding team can make money down in Div 3.  They get less each session, and won't be winning Cups any time soon.  So now we cut down on their primary earning opportunity even more?  While it would certainly hurt the hoarders more than the spenders, anything that makes it harder to get a team back on its feet should be implemented only after careful consideration of options.

That's how the multi-million dollar software companies do it.  Anything sound good for us?

ï»I am with Mike.

ï»I think the rules for this game were unbelievably well written and dont need to be changed.

ï» If we want to make a change to add variety the  change I would make is introducing seasoning of players to a 2nd position as that was in the original rules.