|
 |
| To pay or not to pay |
I'm not talking about Donald Trump's "hair" either. That's blatantly a rug.
With the arrival of the youth academy, I've had to do some real thinking about how I want to make the most of it with my different teams, and I certainly don't think there is a "one size fits all" approach to the system. I've come to the view that each team you have is likely to need a more tailored approach in order to really capitalise on this new feature.
I say all this without any of us having seen the effects of the system yet, but I'd like to get my thoughts in early - I'm not too worried if in 6 months' time I can look back smugly and say "I told you so" or whether I'll end up as Xpert's equivalent of Michael ("No Hurricane") Fish - the whole point is that I can imagine a number of managers making their mind up and either going all or nothing when in reality that might not be what you want to be doing.
I'm not going to discuss the claims that "the youth academy is a tax designed to drain money from the game" or that "the rich teams will get richer" because right now they're moot. I don't particularly subscribe to either theory, but I'm going to reserve judgement until I've seen some evidence either way.
One important thing to note with the new system is that youths might be better, but their usefulness still depends in part on when they arrive. Youths arriving at any time can get a full skill update at the change report, but they require a full season's worth of games, even if they arrive with a few weeks to go. Not a problem if you have no qualms selling your juniors, but something to bear in mind.
Another thing is that you are still at the mercy of the 30-day system, in that the quality may be better, but the quantity will be the same. You could be paying for weeks to not receive any players. You may need to bring in two players at the start of a season and the youth team may only be able to provide one, so you could still have to dabble in the market anyway.
Season length is a factor for me - when you've got a fixed 18-day window where you can't receive youth offers in all leagues, that makes up a larger chunk of a season where a league is small and the number of youths you'll receive is reduced as there's less time when you're eligible to receive one. You may not be as willing to pump loads of money into a system that will offer lower returns for your investment, especially when longer private leagues may be receiving additional youths and putting them on the market, potentially increasing supply and reducing their price.
As it stands, my instincts are telling me that newer teams may not wish to invest heavily straight away, unless they are looking for a quick sale to boost immediate finances. These teams have little cash and may benefit more from bringing in a larger number of slightly lower quality youths and using the money to train them up - the quickest way to make money is to increase the value of the assets you have i.e. the players, and getting a couple of doubles from 18/4s could be better value for money than one quality youth.
Established, conveyor teams that may bring in one or two players a season may benefit more from the youth system, using it to supplement market transfers - the advantage that youths should be compatible with the team is a big benefit, plus a junior always costs the same regardless of the SQs they may have.
I mentioned timing before as being very important, and I think that could apply to how an academy should be funded. The quality of youth should be at its maximum during the closed season IMO - there will have been 18 days when you haven't received a youth so one should be readily arriving, and you will have longer to sort the player's form and game time out. This would mean investing while the window is closed, and then probably easing up on funding and allowing the academy to drop in quality slightly as the season progresses.
One other thing that has occured to me is that it may be more cost effective (although slower) to ramp up funding gradually to boost stars in steps, rather than spending 3m immediately to get to 5 stars in 10 weeks. It takes three weeks at 50k to get to 2 stars from scratch. If it took 1 week at 300k investment, that's still 150k extra spent.
Basically, the next few weeks could shed a lot of light onto how the scheme will work and I'm going to be wary with my funding tactics and, more importantly, my expectations.
|
|
2011-07-20 20:24
|
10773 Vistas |
|
Reportero:
Rbjayb
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|