- This topic has 45 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
I’ve seen and received a number of proposals for changes next season. I’ve consulted with some of you, “the board”. If I didn’t, no offense. And if you reached out in private, I’m always happy to hear ideas. Or feel free to add any others in a reply below if you want to gauge public opinion on something. But below, I will explain a few modifications being made moving forward and propose one other for vote.
9538 wrote:So as you guys know that we currently have a rule that Championship teams should be European based teams that are outside the top 75 list of club coefficients (UEFA). I wanted to propose an alternative: A Championship team should be selected from any league outside the top 5 European leagues (EPL, Ligue 1, Bundesliga, Serie A and La Liga).
If someone wants to keep the current criteria, then we can have a hybrid system where we have a team from the top 5 leagues but they have to be outside the top 75 in club coefficients.
A few things. I don’t wish to shrink the window of teams that GMs have to choose from in Europe. I just wanted there to be a way to seperate the teams you do choose from by establishing the line (being 75 in the UEFA Co-Efficient). I still feel it’s a nearly perfect system despite relying on an albeit moderately imperfect UEFA ranking scale. There is gradual movement amongst teams so that the teams eligible in Premiership (and thus – the Championship) is never stale. I didn’t see the difference between the hybrid system proposed and the current system in place, where all teams in the Championship have to be European and outside the Top 75 in UEFA Co-efficient. Also, I wish to not have things like relegation/promotion have a yearly affect on whether a GM’s Premiership team has to play in one league or the other. God forbid there’s a Watford fan amongst us. I like and prefer the current system as it does allow a gradual change. Pretty soon, Santi’s Premiership club will likely reflect the changing mood and fortunes at Newcastle, as above so below.
Required lineups
Lineups will be required for every round. Should you need to miss a lineup call because of unavailability, we reserve the right to use the previously submitted lineup. HOWEVER, we will only go back to the last previously submitted email and the tolerance for this will be very small. That said, please reach out if you require an extended absence of more than a round, as we all know shit happens.Bench + Subs
Starting with Season 22, the number of allowed substitutions in a match will increase to five. The number of bench players will increase to nine (1 GK + 8 OF).
For Cup matches ONLY – A sixth sub will be permitted if the match goes into Extra-time.Payout Changes
Payouts have been modified to reflect the growing importance of the Premiership in our league, as well as the growth of the league as a whole. Plus… INFLATION, duh. The biggest changes are that the Premiership winner will go from 15 million to 24 million whereas Championship winners go from 10 to 13 million and U21 stays. A payout was also added for Dynasty Cup Quarter-Finalists. For a list of the revised payouts, click here. Please do not reply on that thread.Academy
There was a proposal submitted for each team to be able to have an Academy for young players with the aim to have longer-ranged propects and increase the number of youth players. I feel this would greatly water down the free agency market, which is always hot year after year, twice a year. This is due in large part because of the number of players available and how long it takes for many of them to show something enough to deliver on their promise. I feel that adding another league’s roster even if games wouldn’t be required to sim would too greatly diminish the free agent market and have a negative impact on the league, as a result.Increased U21 roster size proposal
I don’t want to seem like I don’t hear the calls to expand roster sizes. Though I am old enough to remember when we trimmed senior team sizes to 27, which I still find is the perfect number. That said, in hearing, brainstorming and debating many ideas back and forth, I’ve decided to put forth a call to vote. I’ve given the following a lot of thought. Like, a lot of thought. I’ve bandied about the pros and cons in my head for cummulatively hours on end, doing multiple math equations and talking to some of you to gauge your input. I’ve heard opinions both supporting and not supporting an expansion of youth teams so in thinking of how to approach a proposal that I’d expect to be a split vote, I tried to find a compromise that would likely garner more support and pass and for our GMs to be happy with. In order to pass, I’d like to have 3/4s approval which would mean 9 votes for yes from the 12 returning GMs continuing next season. Our new GMs will debut in the next few days but we will respectfully not include their votes on this poll. Moving forward, they will of course be included in all league matters.
The proposal combines, or rather compromises, with both the appeal for an Academy for long-term prospects and an increased roster size at U21.
Under this proposal, each GM would have a small U21 Academy with a maximum of 3 players. Each player would require a free agency bid, eligible to make only at the start of each season. Bids for Academy players will not be permitted during the mid-season transfer window. All other free agency bid rules will apply. Importantly, this Academy would only apply to players outside of the current season’s version of Football Manager. For Season 22, the version of FM will be Football Manager 2023. (If you currently have a player marked on the Complete Rosters thread as not included in FM22, of which there are currently 12, he may or may not be eligible for the Academy in FM23. Once rosters are updated in FM23, we will verify the players and list them accordingly, but generally this applies to 16 year olds and younger in FM). Players will either be eligible for the Academy or U21, not both. This also changes U21 rules to only include players in FM. This also invariably caps the number of U16 players you may have at one time to 3. Academy players may not be traded so you can only bid on them, counter bid on them and release them. This aspect of the Academy is non-negotiable. (Obviously, if/once they graduate to U21, you will then have trading rights on them.) As of last season, if you had players outside of FM, they still counted against your U21 roster count. That would no longer be the case under this proposal, increasing your potential u21 roster size right there. Additionally, U21 teams would increase from 30 outfielders to 32. In all, U21 roster sizes would max at 35 total players and an Academy of 3, bringing the total to 38, from 33. While this might not seem like a lot, multiple 5 by 14 and you’ll see the additional number of players being added to the league would be 70. Moving forward, this would eliminate 70 potential u21 free agents (at all times) that would otherwise have been in the free agency pool with our current roster sizes. Lastly, as if you needed to be bribed, all 14 GMs would receive a league windfall of 2.5 million to cover the additional available roster space.
tl;dr of Proposal
- U16 Player Academy of 3
- Academy bids only at start of season
- Academy players non-tradable assets
- U21 roster sizes from 30 to 32
- 2.5 million to each GM
Vote YES to adopt the proposal
Vote NO to vote for the current roster rulesCLICK HERE TO VOTE
You will need to enter your league email address to vote so don’t vote more than once but you can change your vote after the fact.
2. A little confused with the sentence: “The number of bench players will remain nine (1 GK + 8 OF).”
The rule states : “8 players may be named to your bench, one must always be a GK.”
So which is it?
Fixed, thanks for catching!
3. Three titles in a row at U21 and no increase in prize money next season. Will no one think of the kids?
The increases largely had to do with a re-prioritization of finances. They were last updated a few seasons ago. Originally, the Championship (previously called SNAFL) was kind of a throw-away league where not even everyone had to have a team or owners split teams. Now, with the added money and investment in players, it’s become a hot commodity, as it should. I feel U21 is fun in and of itself but should retain the lowest standing. I tried to find an even number that I’d be happy with considering the increases we were going to see in Championship and Premiership purses. So, if you notice, U21 winner gets basically what 6th in the Championship gets and 6th in the Premiership gets what the Championship winner gets. So I feel that the numbers are fairly spread apart now, meaning U21 received no added purse.
Zizou I have a question.
Why should a minority decide for the majority?
Why do you leave the possibility that 5 GMs could decide one thing in opposition with 7 others?
Why not simply the majority?I don’t want the league to pass unpopular rules or ones that the GMs are split 50/50 or with a 1 majority or something like that. I’d like for the vast majority to be in favor. That’s to do with the compromises made for more incremental increases than I’d heard in earlier proposals. I know you’d be in favor of this, albeit maybe not in favor of some of the shackles I’ve added but a U21 roster increase in general is not as popular among the GMs as one might think.
If the proposal doesn’t pass but is close, we can further discuss the pros and cons for GMs and see if we can come to an agreement after the vote but I’m hoping that’s not needed and it’s either passed or rejected. I’m abstaining from voting in the meantime while others continue to make their voices heard.
- The topic ‘Season 22 Changes w/ Poll’ is closed to new replies.