retired_fitbeats

Another well structed argument of a failing of the game, matched with a sensible and quite simple solution. - If only all posts matched this standard!

I have been thinking along these lines for a while but wasnt sure of a solution.

Just one other point to add is the computer tends to come in with an enquiry when you have set an asking price for a player which i find frustrating.
"Yes he is avalible, and look theres his price!"

retired_nsample

You are of course correct but it is a moot point as towhether keeping one of the few good threads open, perhaps with some slight deviations from the original idea ( altho my point was very much related to transfer policy ) is better than to start a new one which will be overwhelmed by the current standard of threads in GQ.

retired_ironmaden

Well thought out, Ackter :thup:

circlewalker

Bump.

retired_cycleman88

I was goig to say good post, then I saw I already did so before.

Deja vu.

But still good.

ddong78

Agree 100%, so I have nothing to add. Shouldn't be too hard to implement either.

retired_amyrnbsn

I agree that, in principle, it is a very good system. I just have a slight concern about the way you've suggested of the user using the 'very high' option.

If the manager can get more money to buy a 'very high' player, what's to stop them putting players, one at a time, on the shortlist for a 'very high' rating, and getting extra money for all of them?

I do like the system, it's just that that would need to be addressed.

retired_alisham007

Sounds a little complicated but well thought out. The ending where the Chairman steps in seems to be a nice idea.

But i agree that the transfers need to be a tad more realistic. They're good now but could be improved.

retired_RedRobin

I had something similar in my board interaction thread last year and I think I agreed with this when you posted it last time, so I'll do the same again!

flexDaAbs

I like it. Good post.