I don't see a problem with this Andy. With the high minimum bids that are required for each player, teams are not going to be able to maintain bank balances higher than 2000 for long at all. If they do, like Bristol City, it means they either aren't participating in auctions/trades, or they are not bidding high enough and not winning anyway.

Yes, it does mean that when the time comes when they REALLY want to win an auction, they can ensure it. Bristol City can bit 2300 on one of the auction players this session. Because the 2nd highest team only has 2250, a bid of 2300 would guarantee that Jake wins the lot. However, in order to build up such a bank balance, he couldn't have won much at all the season prior. Sure enough, the only expendature that Bristol City had last season was a single auction win for about 300.

Teams have a very limited means by which to earn money. Since they have no clue what other managers' bids are going to be, in order to win, your bid has to be higher than what you probably want it to be. If we were to switch have the bid stand as entered, we would find bank balances being depleted very fast, which would result in smaller auction participation in the long run as many managers wouldn't be able to meet the minimum requirements for bidding. Auction participation for Season 1 was already less than 50%. Most managers opted to refrain from participating in most auctions. I wouldn't want to introduce anything to further decrease that.

Must agree with Rob I dont see any problem here

I'm trying to step out of "what I've gotten used to". 

I think what Andy is saying is...

Let's say there is a team with a big money advantage (2000k) and the next highest bank is 1000k.

That team can just bid 1001k and be guaranteed the player in the current system.

But what if its a system where the actual bid is used (not lowered to be above 1k of the next highest bid).

Then, if the team with the cash really wants him they may have to bid and pay 1001k rather than 1k above the next highest bid (which still could be 1000k for all we know).

I think Andy's point is that its somewhat easier for the megabank team to get the player with less risk.  I think.

Andy will have to clarify though.

Personally, I'm fine either way and I see benefits to both (we 'used to' do it the way Andy was suggesting in the late 80s/early 90s leagues I ran).  You have to get more 'skin in the game' to win those auctions (resulting in higher prices).

Al

The old system worked.  The one where you paid exactly what you bid and not a penny less.  It worked because managers that really wanted one player could put in multiple bids on the same players to ensure that they got their man, without grossly overpaying for him.  We get one bid per player now.  To only have that one shot creates an incredible amount of cash risk for managers if their full total is going to be used.  The end effect is that everyone starts bidding lower on all players because saying "This is guy is worth 1/3 or 1/2 of all my money" is really, really hard to do.  One injury and he's gone for two-three sessions.  Nice investment.

When the switch was made in MSWL from the old (set bids) to the new (sliding bid to 1k over 2nd bidder), we actually saw the highest priced players go for MORE money.  Teams were far more hesitant to drop 900 or 1100k on a player when they knew that every cent was going to be spent.  When they could put that total down and know there was a decent chance that they could get the guy for 790 or 817 or somewhere lower, they were more likely to bid higher.  This caused total bids on the higher SL players to go up when more managers starting putting in the higher amounts while hoping for the lower totals.  It also meant that the poorest teams stumbled across great steals a lot easier.  Bidding multiple lots on one player when we were limited to 5 kept the poorest teams from exploiting steals and prevented league competitive balance from improving.  Now teams can put down a lower amount on all players and occasionally someone will stumble in a great deal because everyone else avoided that auction slot.  The minimums per players prevent the 1k auction win in this league, so no one is going to build a T11 or T17 that way.

Yes, there is less risk of drastic overspending for the teams with more money.  There is more potential for getting them to bid higher on every win however, because they have to put their full max offer down every time without being able to send in a lesser bid or two as well.  A team looking to run up prices without actually winning the bids can do so very successfully.  Many auctions I'm not looking to win players as much as I am making sure that the teams that do win have to pay a good price to get who they want.  As long as some teams are doing this each session then the eventual winners will have their balances reduced quick enough.

Besides, if a manager builds up that level of resources through shrewed saving or through a rampant fire sale as Bristol did last season (where they sold off more players than anyone else to get all that money in Session 7 when the Non-League Sales deadline closed - at the cost of losing almost every remaining match because they had a team full of apprentices left), why shouldn't they reap the benefit for an auction or two next season?  Those totals cannot last indefinitely in this league due to so little income each session.  This isn't like SESL where the rich keep getting richer due to morale and gate bonuses and extra match income.  Everyone gets 80k per session except for end of season bonuses.  Save up, or sell off all your B-level players, and you too will have your turn on top of the auction tables.