Restricted content › Forums › League News, Transfers & Account Info › General Discussion & Team News › Should we expand U21 beyond 32?
- This topic has 30 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
Zizou.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 27, 2024 at 4:29 pm #15853
For no, just answer yes or no.
We can discuss specifics afterwards.March 27, 2024 at 4:36 pm #15854IMO, youโre better off using Strawpoll or an anonymous poll maker or something like that bc Iโm not sure everyone will comment to share their opinion, knowing how passionately some ๐๐ of us are about the subject.
March 27, 2024 at 4:41 pm #15855March 27, 2024 at 4:47 pm #15856OK I’ll try to find an anonymous poll somewhere later.
Or if someone wants to take care of it.March 27, 2024 at 5:37 pm #15857There you go
March 27, 2024 at 5:43 pm #15858March 27, 2024 at 6:06 pm #15861A few things:
-First and foremost, BIG thanks to Z and everyone else behind the scenes for all their hard work this past season. If you ever need anything from me I’m happy to help.
-I also think it’s important to acknowledge Z’s willingness to discuss options even if they’re not taken up. Even were I to disagree with a decision I know it would have been given some serious thought.
-At the moment, I’m still all for expanding rosters. How that looks I think could and maybe should involve some creative ideas. So I’ll offer two. First, I still like the idea I proposed (privately, but I don’t recall if it came out in the end) of everyone having an academy. Academies would/could be U-18 and optional with regards to participation, but everyone would get initial funding of 500k per roster spot. And note, these Academy spots could be limited to say a smaller roster size and there would of course be no matches simulated. Otherwise, second idea would be go back to 30 outfield players at both Prem and Ch level but have the option for 3 U-21 designated players with that expansion. You could have rules like Ch U-21s have to be between 154 CA and 100 CA and once a player moves to Ch level he either has to stay there or can only go up. I could go into more detail on either of these if need be, but wanted to get them out there.March 27, 2024 at 6:10 pm #15862Also, I’m more than happy to help out behind the scenes if expansion means some extra workload.
March 27, 2024 at 8:21 pm #15863March 27, 2024 at 8:34 pm #15864i vote no to a large squad expansion or expansion to the prem/ch teams
i vote yes to 1-2 more slots for u21
March 27, 2024 at 9:03 pm #15865Given Zooka’s comment, maybe we need to have a different kind of poll, so it’s my mistake.
Maybe have something like :No change
Minor change (1/2/max 3 spots)
Major change (Academy idea, more than 3 added spots, etc…).What do you guys think?
March 27, 2024 at 9:11 pm #15866As a reminder, a 3/4ths majority is needed for polled rule changes. That means no more than 4 against. We are now at 4 against.
What I’ll say is this.
We’ve talked about it and debated the pros and cons before.
We are currently maybe 10 days from the opening of free agency. And I know that all of us have a list of players we are after, as we do virtually every free agent window. For every roster spot you add beyond 32 and think may add something of value down the road, just add 13 more because for every 1 for you there’s 13 for everyone else. Go ahead and slash potentially 14 guys from your list right now. And re-think the free agency window in potentially 10 days. If we add 2 U21 players, then do the same with 28 players.
I think there’s a misconception that more bids and more spots means fewer targets missed. I know that some of you have been scarred by missing out on players you really wanted. I’m also saying that about myself, haha. I swear the last two things Luigi did here was outbid me for Fabio Miretti and Giorgio Scalvini. But I don’t think just having the spots available means that you’d miss fewer targets. I think the more spots available to fill and the higher the roster number, period, will mean you’ll miss more targets, not less. That’s my opinion but that’s how I see it, always looking at the bigger picture here.
And don’t get me wrong, I often pine to Xavi over text about how I wished that I had 1 or 2 more spots on my U21 team. I do because I scout that much and watch that much footy and read about it and study it and obsess about it like the majority of you. But it would come at a high cost, frankly. And some of us that have been doing it a while are notably (see above) against expanding for that reason and others.
I appreciate the fervor everyone has for collecting players and assembling teams. I think the lack of additional spaces makes the decisions harder, which is a positive of the league’s. And I think it creates a healthy free agent market at Senior and Youth levels, which create exciting transfer windows, which is another positive for the league.
And I ultimately don’t think waiting on or potentially missing on a 16 year old is worth jeopardizing that by expanding any more. In fact, if we found 2 additional owners to expand to 16 teams, I would strongly recommend downsizing rosters at U21 at least back to 30, if not smaller. And the same with Senior teams. Wouldn’t that be a bitch.
March 27, 2024 at 9:24 pm #15867I think the main thing for me is it’s hard to have 32 players and bid for future underrated players (by FM) as well as compete for U21 titles.
At this point you almost have to choose. If you want 22 good players who can compete, you only have 10 spots for longer term players.Also, since this is going to be shut down given your initial post, I’ll reiterate I find shocking the american way (because it’s really american to me) of majority of 3/4. Majority should have always be 50+%. Otherwise when 4 people block 12 people, it’s hardly called a “majority”.
Not meaning to harp on anyone, but I do really feel like this rule should be banned ASAP.Definition of majority :
the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority): the majority of the population. a number of voters or votes, jurors, or others in agreement, constituting more than half of the total number.-
This reply was modified 1 year ago by
evilo.
March 27, 2024 at 9:25 pm #15868Anyway, since a whopping 4 are already against it, let’s move on and close this.
March 27, 2024 at 9:38 pm #15871The rules I inherited. Those of the rules that I or we changed over time became part of the Liga’s constitution. Thus, we require a supermajority to significantly change it. I don’t know if it’s American or Western, Xavi teaches history, we can ask him. But it’s what I deemed fair and continue to believe that it’s fair and well-intentioned.
-
This reply was modified 1 year ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Should we expand U21 beyond 32?’ is closed to new replies.