feeder club rule

i) all players signed at a foreign club cannot move to the parent club for 1 season. (24 turns)

ii) ii. You can't sell a player from a feeder club to a parent club for either less than you paid for him or his buycost (whichever value is higher)

this would mean you couldnt sign a player to your feeder club for 25m and then sell them to your main club for the lower resell, you'd have to pay at your main club what the purchase price was for the feeder team.

examples:

exhibit 1:

a feeder club signs sandro for 4m.

sandro has a buycost of 11m and a resell of 4m.

under current rules the parent club can sign sandro the following turn for 4m.

under the new rules the parent club would have to pay 11m for sandro after one season at the feeder club.

(higher buycost applied)


exhibit 2:

antonio valencia has a buycost of 17m and a resell of 11m

a feeder club signs antonio valencia off the transfer list for 24m.

under current rules the parent club could sign valencia for 11m.

under new rules the parent club would have to pay 24m for valencia after one season at the feeder club.

(higher purchase price applied)

Option 2

Leave things as they are If you can get a player for Pauls valuation over to your main club but have had to pay more via the use of a feeder club, well so be it.

EXAMPLE:

Bohemians last week newed Bruno Zuculini, age 17 AM/DY. Cost £2M re-sell value £0 thats right zero, nil, zilch, nada, fuck all, not worth a penny. So I will from now on be using my feeder club to get hold of U21 players and want to take the option to get them over to Bohemians for Pauls valuation.

Lower purchase applied should be the rule of thumb not higher, and if I am going against the grain all I can say is give your Marxist and Corinthian beliefs a little gold star and a bowl of strawberries.

seeing as the results of the poll appear to be pretty much split, I maintain any approach to paul with regards to this should be put on the back burner at least until the new manager rating system is fully understood.

There is too much opposition to the proposed rules to just ignore the people who voted no.

for the record. I voted yes, but we live in a democracy fellas.

Can I have a strawberry now please Martin?

yeah you're right rich, all we need really is a 24 week rule max perhaps. to be honest i'm quite happy with the way it is...the suggestion was only made i should add since feeder clubs are a recurring discussion.

i mean...we'd have absolutely nothing to argue about on the forum if the rules of the game became any more confusing than they already are. so rather than this place lose its humour i'm batting for your team rich.

i say leave it as it is and that Tom should'nt bite when will winds him up. who cares if Toms a cheat

Agree with Rich, while there are still managers that don't want change then we should continue to play the game as it is at the minute. The last thing we need is anymore managers leaving the game.

We have all been happy playing under the current rules and so until a vote on change is unanimous, then things should remain as they are.

I voted yes too, for the record.

Sorry if this is all going over old ground for some managers, but my initial intention was just to guage whether opinions have changed on the parent/feeder regulations.

Metaphorical strawberries are in the post along with some little gold stars.