Ideas & Suggested Improvements: Squad Sizes/Transfer Requests

60 Comments Add your own

• 1. Sujan  |  June 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

  Im outraged by this new idea, ive been building my youth squad to over 100 players and i buy the lesser rated players. If it was possible that other unmanaged or unmanageable clubs could loan out these players, their morale would be high and they would play regularly.

• 2. Raz  |  June 17th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

  I’ve always liked the idea of players handing in transfer requests so a definite from me on that subject.

  As for the squad cap - almost definitely from me again. Some managers in early setups ie WC 1-100/ EC 1-30. Are hogging literally ALL youth talent in some squads which possess upto around 150 odd players in a squad, this is not only unrealistic, but unfair on other managers who join the setup late or dont have such a great squad and income.

  The same principle applies with having all top players in a squad, and thus this would make it more realistic for players to get unhappy and hand in a request.

  I know this is all provisional at the moment but if a manager just rejects the transfer request, then there should be a limit either with time or games whereby if the player is still in the same frame of mind, the player is added automatically to the list as the manager would just be able to keep the squad he wants regardless of wether a player puts in a request or not.

• 3. alonso2008  |  June 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

  i think its okay to have a cap of say 100 players…but that “transfer request” thing is a no-go.

  especially at the present level in which a players becomes “NMF” after simultaneously playing a league & cup game. any manager will have atleast 25-27 players if he wants to compete in the league as well as the cup & cover up for injuries.

• 4. gAv GaV  |  June 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

  I think they should be transfer requests but mainly only for gold championships as its getting near impossible to sign decent players of 88 or more. I’m not saying every player who doesn’t play should hand in a transfer request but players who are expecting to play the majority of the time.

• 5. matty  |  June 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

  In favour of both.

  For the transfer requests for players i think the player would have to hand in their transfer request at the beggining of a new season, which would give the manager a season to sell them, and so be able to negotiate a good offer for the player.
  If the manager doesn’t sell the player by the time the season ends then the player would become a free agent… either that or the player refuses to sign a new contract, but then the manager could still end up with the same player for upto 5 seasons, by which time everything will have changed anyway

• 6. Johan Cruyff  |  June 17th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

  I think theres 3 problems. 1.Swapping players 2.Wages maybe not high enough 3. Most managers just make very poor signings. Swapping makes SM diferent frm other games but swap is just very easy. Maybe make wages even higher? In gold setups there lots(eng spain france etc) i put it down 2 pain stupid if some teams hav more then 100 players cos other manager didnt buy right

• 7. Johan Cruyff  |  June 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  Would transfer windows help? I played champ manager and they usely hav max 100 players. Most setups i play in most teams only hav 20players 2 sav money

• 8. Lance  |  June 17th, 2008 at 6:03 pm

  I admit it might give us a new challenge. But in real life a manager can talk to a player & convince him how he would fit into his long term plans. But if SM decides to implement this, there is a chance a player with low morale might reject a new contract. But there might be certain players I’d like to hold on to my team even if they are lower down the pecking order now, but might be promising. I hope this only affects higher rated players who fail to make it to the first team. Also it would be nice if a manager would be allowed to rate a player’s importance to the squad and this should contribute to a player’s morale. For instance if I have kroos in my squad, though he is only 83 I’d ‘rate’ him as a ‘future prospect’. which should do his morale a world of good

• 9. Dave  |  June 17th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

  I think the finances is the key — the reason why the big clubs can have such large squads is because their financial advantage is so big, they can afford to pay a squad of 100 players and still make tons of money. Adding stadium construction and other game elements that allow a team to generate more revenue would help solve this problem.

• 10. Johan Cruyff  |  June 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  How bout tha chairman can stop transfers exp if u already hav 5 LB 5 W can stop u to buy more as its unnecesery except if they lets say buy 80 or lower rated players depending which division u in? Or limit say max 10GK 20DEF 20MID 20strikers?

• 11. Paul Thame  |  June 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  I’m undecided on the idea of transfer requests but in relation to squad caps they should happen. I rarely build huge squads, bar an Inter Milan, and when I try to buy other players in other setups I find they’re snapped up by the top 4, and they refuse to loan or sell. So squad capping would be heartily welcomed by me

• 12. Matt  |  June 17th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

  I think all the ideas are well worth looking into, how about this…
  have players that can request transfers BUT only if their club has over 50 players, i think that is fair, that should surely suit the people who think that they need atleast 50 people to keep going

  a cap of 100players is realistic though, i also think that people should have to give good reasons that will be looked into by an independant person for turning down reasonable bids, i have seen 99mill bids being declined for players rated 95, that is just stupid, how can new players get anywhere?

• 13. Malcolm Yeo  |  June 17th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

  I do think the situation of too many top players at a club needs addressing. Maybe changing the youth sqyad to a reserve squad, would be a better idea with caps of 40 on your main squad and 30 in your reserve squad, the morale of the reserve squad wouldnt deteriorate too much as like in real life they would be playing fixtures. This still leaves you with 70 players at your disposal, easily enough players for you to play 4 games in one week. Its more challenging as you will have to decide who plays when, and more, like real life I might add. This can then be combined with morale and the refusal of players to sign new contracts, as they are not playing regular football. Im all for managers building up the best squads they can and developing young talent, but not at the expense of other managers in their set up who have started later or have a more limited budget. Some people may find my idea a bit harsh but personally real life management is utilising the players you have and the “real world” factor of top class players wanting to play regular football. Not the idea some people have on this game of buying as many top rated players as possible and just rotating them constantly through a team with very little motivating that change apart from fitness levels.

• 14. tebthereb  |  June 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

  I think features true to life are needed and welcome in SM and this is no exception if it is done well and acknowledges the obsession in the game for scouting youth prospects.

  People outraged as they have big clubs (first person on here) are wrong as it is likely it will be aimed at clubs with lots of high rated players on the bench, rather than low rated youth. Some teams have Cech and Buffon in the reserves.

• 15. jim ellerington  |  June 17th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

  clubs are only allowed to register 23(?) players for champions league and uefa cup in real life.

• 16. shane  |  June 17th, 2008 at 9:12 pm

  like i have said be4 maybe not limit the size but give the players 2 ratings the sm rating ie what he is at moment with in the system and another 1 based on game time he players which would also effect is morale if playing he be happy if not be lower if never plays apart from 3/4 times a season be very low which would lower is 2nd rating.

• 17. Dargine  |  June 17th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

  I think this should be a option for each set-up owner at the start of a season in addition to the options there are now.. and if not then this shouldn’t be part of SM. Just look at teams like Chelsea in real life, they got like 300 players, most of ‘em loaned out such as Alcides, Rajkovic and Boulahrouz.. and players like Kakuta and Bruma in their youth squads.

• 18. Raz  |  June 17th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

  tebthereb

  HERE HERE. Nail on the head

• 19. burs  |  June 17th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

  For Gold Championships why not ban buying players from unmanaged clubs? That would help solve part of the problem.

  As for squad sizes, why not have chairman demand that managers sell a certain number of players by a certain date or get fired in a Gold Championship?

  PS All these sorts of things that should happen ONLY in Gold Championships

• 20. Dargine  |  June 17th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

  But I think this answer is put in a strange way: “No, I would like it to remain as it is as it doesn’t matter who I leave to rot on the bench!”..

  ’cause you wouldn’t have to leave ‘em to rot on the bench.. you can use ‘em for cup matches, and let them play every now and then for the last 15 minutes or somethin’ like that, and let ‘em play in friendlies.. it’s not about rottin’ on the bench. Not in my squads at least.

• 21. mind  |  June 17th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

  Either reduce finance of big clubs or enlarge finance of small clubs…

  e.g. I’ve played with CSKA M. and finished on fifth position and didn’t get stadium increase…but in other hand Roma has stadium of 89 000 and income of 2 million for each game…

  Money is important key and big clubs are in big advantage here…

• 22. burs  |  June 17th, 2008 at 11:56 pm

  “Money is important key and big clubs are in big advantage here…”

  maybe club’s that are performing well make more money from matchday merchandise as it appears to be that the bigger the stadium the more the merchandise, whereas in reality merchandise sales are based on success (see chelsea’s recent spike in merchandise sales over the last 5 years) e.g. liverpool make more in merchandise than vasco da gama even though vasco have a far larger stadium

  for example my good liverpool team makes around £300k per game in merchandise but my crap vasco team makes around £700k in merchandise per game!

• 23. Eddie sarmento  |  June 18th, 2008 at 1:42 am

  Banning clubs from buying from unmanaged clubs is not a good idea, where are you going to get good players from if you are in charge of small team, you think clubs will accept cash only for a player especially in the gold championship. Player transfer request and squad limits should be put into place and then maybe there will be less unmanaged clubs in gold championships

• 24. Ryan Morgan  |  June 18th, 2008 at 6:00 am

  “#1. Sujan | June 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
  Im outraged by this new idea, ive been building my youth squad to over 100 players and i buy the lesser rated players. If it was possible that other unmanaged or unmanageable clubs could loan out these players, their morale would be high and they would play regularly.”
  I agree. I got 236 players, which is obviously a lot. But the thing is my club is in a game that has only 2 DIVISIONS. I am trying to sell the ones that I think are at full potential or close (well the ones that won’t be stars). Only 4 of them are currently seniors.

• 25. Knox  |  June 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

  I’m all for limiting players because there are managers that take it too far - people with 200 or 300 players are ridiculous.

  I think the solution is to bring in squad caps, bring in transfer requests and then increase the fitness recovery from 10-15 so that players can play 2 games a week without becoming NMF - at the moment you need a league squad and a cup squad plus spares and that doesn’t help.

• 26. burs  |  June 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

  “Banning clubs from buying from unmanaged clubs is not a good idea, where are you going to get good players from if you are in charge of small team, you think clubs will accept cash only for a player especially in the gold championship”

  what about protecting the unmanaged clubs so that people who want to manage them have something to work with? pretty much every club in a gold setup that has been unmanaged for a length of time has had near enough all of its worthwhile talent taken away for a very small amount (relative to what they would get if the club was managed), therefore it is not in the best interests of the GC’s

• 27. Dargine  |  June 18th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

  “Money is important key and big clubs are in big advantage here…”

  Ain’t that what “stadium buildin’” got introduced for?

• 28. Jimi Hendrix  |  June 18th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  A sensible cap means just that, but most of you don’t really understand that and the full implications of it. It could be added so nobody had to sell players and is only really needed to stop the older setups getting worse anyway. But could obviously stop any more going the same way too. It’s all greed and you know it. Nobodies saying don’t buy plenty of youth or rising players or even 3 or 4 decent teams. But when you have several clubs dominating the market, not their market, the smaller clubs market, there is clearly a problem. It’s not a game for several and is even growing almost daily, so the problem needs adressing.

  Not only have i already made this clear, but Bed also made the suggestion recently in the forum and plenty of people before us. It’s the only real recurring theme. Apart from more money/less money etc. But why keep changing things for one little problem when the solution for most of them got suggested about 2 years ago i bet, there is no real reason to not have one. A SENSIBLE one.

• 29. Jimi Hendrix  |  June 18th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

  SENSIBLE SQUAD CAP
  SWAP WITH UNMANAGED TEAMS FOR ATLEAST THE SAME RATING
  REMOVE TRANSFER BAN

  This is a master plan if you will, as it can only improve the game in plenty of ways and stop most complaining. Taking them added features away again is possible because of the new chairman situation, so there is no reason to have them features now as it’s not so easy to hammer clubs for all their decent players. Them features also contribute to most complaints, as they stop people buying players and thus helps peoples money grow. Most are in agreement that somethings needed, so this would really improve everything, especially if some sort of cap was introduced.

  Obviously though just saving them setups is the most important thing.

• 30. Wunna  |  June 18th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

  Transfer request is an interesting suggestion. However, there are some limitations. As someone has already mentioned here, we need about at least 25-27 players to be able to compete in the league, cup and shield matches. Otherwise, all the players would become NMF. So someone over 90+ would have to sit on the benches. Otherwise, everyone not in starting XI would be below 90. That doesn’t make sense, does it?

  For the squad cap, I agree that people want to buy youths in the hope that they will become superstars. But having 100 youths in a team is unrealistic (especially in Gold Championships)!

• 31. Jimi Hendrix  |  June 19th, 2008 at 12:13 am

  Sorry to do heads in again but this is the very last.

  That’s not even the main problem really though mate. Not many usually complain about them because there’s that many, and plenty of teams could maybe have a good few. We don’t need that many i totally agree, but several teams probably could. The key is getting in there for the best, like it is with all players really. But then there’s still far more though, even the scouts in the forum miss some risers and just about every league is well covered too. So there is plenty of them, for everybody.

  Every club just about has at-least 1 new player added each season as-well, so there is loads when added to the youngsters that didn’t rise too high from before.

  The main problem is when the big teams start clearing the market that’s for lower teams, mainly in the 80’s somewhere to low 90’s. Because all the lower teams get stuck. It doesn’t matter what team you are really either, unless you are very very active you are unlikely to improve much in the old GC’s, if at all once you reach mid 80’s or so. And it’s because it also starts filtering through the rest, and lower teams start hoarding players in the 80’s. But thats only because they can’t improve really.

  If we have the level above we simply don’t need what is effectively a lower league’s team sometimes, it just spoils it for the majority as there isn’t as many of the higher rated and we don’t even need to buy any of them if we have the level above, and plenty of that level above sometimes. So there is no nood for any of us to do it.

  Even the real low teams soon surpass playing with the 70 odd rated players, because there is loads in the high70’s to low 80’s. So them can’t be the main problem really. The same with most youngsters, as most teams play with better from the off almost. And there is plenty left for them in that market afterwards too.

  We have all been guilty of buying too many players, or even being greedy, and a cap could be the only thing that stops that greed, because that’s even worse than not getting players in some setups. People take over small teams and can only buy 1 or 2 decent players because of it, and most end up not lasting 5 minutes. This is despite all the money we all have too, so some teams could maybe do with more!!!

  The other suggestions could all be added too imo, as they are all good and can only make the game better as a whole. But like you have said mate and others, rejecting contracts and/or poor morale making them leave will most certainly cause more problems. The cap shouldn’t if done properly.

  Very last words, as every angle has well and truly been covered. It does make far more sense than actually losing players for no reason though.

• 32. Dargine  |  June 19th, 2008 at 1:52 am

  “For the squad cap, I agree that people want to buy youths in the hope that they will become superstars. But having 100 youths in a team is unrealistic (especially in Gold Championships)!”

  How is that unrealistic? Every team in real life got a lotta youth players.. they got whole trainin’ centers for the youth.. a lotta players here from let’s say below 20 still play for the youth squads of their team but only appeared in the “real” team like once or twice.. so like that “real” teams got lotsa youth players. And even teams like Chelsea and Arsenal they’re gettin’ a whole lot of players under 16 because those players can’t get contracts in their own countries yet but they can in England.. and a lotta teams from Portugal are just buyin’ a whole bunch of Brazillian players.. and then let’s say 3 years laters they sell the best ones for a high price and sent the others back to either Brasil or just put ‘em on the streets..

• 33. Vino  |  June 19th, 2008 at 10:07 pm

  Player hogging is what teams do in real life.
  Man United, Chelsea, Barca they all do it too. Look what happened to Scott Parker when he went to Chelsea, bench warmer. It would be stupid to change this on soccermanager. It is afterall a game and smaller teams should be more alert and capture big players when teams become unmanaged etc and just be a bit more sneaky. I personally enjoy that part of the game and competing against the big corporate clubs in this way. It is after all what makes a good manager.

• 34. Vino  |  June 19th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

  I would be outraged to see this brought in. Teams that have big squads suffer greatly anyway with wages and it is a managers choice how many players they have in their squads.

• 35. Jimi Hendrix  |  June 20th, 2008 at 6:04 am

  The teams are only like that because of cheating, as they shouldn’t even be able to afford it. How do they have all the best players, players everybody usually pays loads for, and still have plenty of money for other teams players? it shouldn’t even be possible.

  Real life clubs hog the odd player, but only when they are useful. Man utd even sold Chelsea Juan Veron because he wasn’t needed. He may have been poor to what they expected, but did they even stop a close rival from improving? no, and none of them ever do when the player isn’t needed.

• 36. Wunna  |  June 20th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  I must say I agree that there should be some kind of squad cap/transfer requests but all the angles should be covered.

  First, Man U had scholes, hargreaves, carrick and anderson (all of them are 90 and above) for their TWO central midfield positions last season and that’s what the rotation is all about. So every 90 and 91 players who don’t play regularly ask for transfer requests/ reject contracts, then all the bench players will be below 90. So imo, I think only 92 and above or something like that should be asking for transfer requests.

  Even then, if they are not happy with being on the bench and express desire for transfer requests, the managers should be given a chance to play them (that’s what it’s like in real life, isn’t it?). Or may be, the managers should be able to loan them out instead of selling them.

  Everything should be taken into considerations. For example, if the managers don’t play because their fitness is too low (for example, just recover from injuries), should the players be requesting for transfers? So, I guess players should be making requests if they are not playing even though they are fit (85+ let’s say?).

• 37. Jimi Hendrix  |  June 20th, 2008 at 11:47 pm

  Making players leave because of morale and/or rejecting contracts could ruin the smaller clubs that rely on loads of players, as them players you are usually waiting for the rise to arrive and are similar in rating.

  With other potential changes to go with that, like making clubs go by the budget more (even though i agree we could and really should do that anyway as some problems maybe wouldn’t have arrived if that was the case) will literally kill smaller teams and cause more potential problems and unmanaged clubs. Most rely on this too for our fun/enjoyment, as most don’t/can’t get top teams

  We wanted more money and now we have it, some teams have far too many players that could and really should be at different clubs and some can’t never buy.

  That’s pretty much all the problems that keep persisting or why most recent suggestions have been made, so are the only real things that need improving in some way, but one or two a big way. Especially in older GC’s that people still pay to play in, as that makes it a little more unfair again in my opinion.

• 38. Jimi Hendrix  |  June 21st, 2008 at 12:15 am

  Also, and sorry for going on and on but it seems like the only rational feature/improvement that can improve the whole game, but the big clubs with far too many players should be swallowing up that money to become a real, big, dominating force, that can also have a great reputation, unlike a certain massive club in real life that seems to want have a bad one.

  Everybody can guess who i’m on about and whilst everybody thinks they go over the top in buying players at times, they are always needed or could be in the future. never far too many or players they will never need or don’t think they might, the same with a certain English side, that still don’t do that. And them are the only even close examples of what happens on here, but still nowhere near as close.

  They buy when then seemingly don’t need to, like everybody should be able to onhere and real life, but they are only ever a waste when they don’t show what people expect, not because they weren’t needed from the start.

• 39. slimaidy  |  July 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

  I would like to see player transfer requests added. As with real life football if a top player isn’t getting much first team football then they will want away. Real life squads are big at top clubs but they are made up from lesser quality players than the first choice 11. In one of my leagues I tried to purchase a new forward from Barca, as they had several very highly rated forwards that half way through the season had not played. I offered well over the chairman value but no luck as the person controlling the team didn’t want to let any go?
  Would that happen in real life? The answer is simply no. the player in question would proberbly be looking for a new club or the chairman would step in and look at selling the player as there is no point in top players sitting on the bench when the club could cash in on them.
  As chairman in the game have the power to make decisions on transfers could they not also have the power to force the manager into selling players when they are not required due to the size of the squad.

• 40. Moataz  |  July 10th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

  why doesnt the chairman recommend the manager to sell some of his players to get money , not through player exchange/
  like ,say, if a club has 100 players , and its budget is 10 million the chairman recommend it to be 50 million by the end of the season , forcing the manager to sell some of his players.
  As for smaller clubs , it would be of a similar relatively , like if the club has 100 k , the chairman would recommend either to win a torphy or reach semi-final , or make some profit for the club without relegating .
  i hope this helps

• 41. Sheepy5  |  July 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

  I think there should be a limit on the amount of first teamers although the amount of Youth teamers should be as many as a manger wants

• 42. Niel Bassom  |  July 16th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

  I agree that players not being played should be able to request transfers as in real life

  the only improvement i would suggest to go along with this is that the chairman stops blocking higher rated players being loaned out

  i have a team that has a lowest rated player of 90 and he’s a back-up player that will get disgruntled but my chairman would never under the current system let him be loaned out

  this should be changed so that us the manager can decide who can be loaned out and who can’t

• 43. Sir Jon  |  July 21st, 2008 at 6:09 am

  Mid July 2008, I joined SoccerManager.com, within a week I buy a gold member with a standard situp. Then I join GC 1 with the Lyn Oslo team. While looking for players, I find gold member, tebthe(whatever), hording 186 players, what a bunch of …..
  It’s a joke… I am droping out of GC 1 and I suggest that SM make a player limit rule for clubs. Very disappointing.

• 44. antonio nunez  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 2:27 am

  as we r club managers it would be very interesting to see a player asking for a transer request .. it would make the soccermanager really interesting game u know

• 45. Dave  |  July 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

  A squad cap should be introduced.

  In the setup I manage in, Man Utd have these players just for centre midfield.

  Pirlo, Gattuso, Xavi, Lampard, Nasri, Riquelme, David Silva, Carrick, Raul Garcia and Gago.

  Then centre forwards.

  Ronaldo, Rooney, Eto’o, Ibrahimovic, Henry, Gomis, Tevez, Adriano, Benzema, Rossi, Shevchenko and Bojan.

  It’s not realistic that one team in real life could have all these players. It just wouldn’t happen and therefore should not happen in SM.

• 46. Pringle  |  July 26th, 2008 at 8:28 am

  I’m based in english league 34 where Man Utd have a squad of 60 players.. Players that would benifit other clubs and make they’re enjoyment of the game a whole lot better for having them in their squad. Having the monopoly on these players means that winning every competition genarates so much revenue that this club can continue to outbid every other club for the best players available.

  Sm’s mission states “Make the world’s best soccer manager game then let the world play it for free!”

  Well in our league it’s only the worlds best game for one club, I think the idea of players handing in transfer requests when they are not playing is an excellent idea, but it has to be made realistic and other clubs should then be able to pick up these players at a knock down price.

  Cutting squad sizes is a must to maybe a maximum of 22 first team players (Enough for 2 players in every position) and maybe a youth team of no more than 11 under 18’s.. When youth players then turn 19 you should have the choice of whether to sign them to a senior squad contract or realese them as is the case in real life..

• 47. ..::noob::..  |  August 4th, 2008 at 6:42 am

  i do it, other people do it but i think for the sake of the setups i think a squad cap should be enforced

  and how about if a club puts a bid in for an ‘unused’ player the player can ask for it to be accepted

• 48. Jordan Brown  |  August 18th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

  i reckon tht it is annoyin wen the big 4 just buy all of the big plyers and wonderkids coz im sunderland nd i wanted bojan krkic but the likes of chelsea outbid me coz i crnt afford any more but then they dont even use them in the 1st cuple of seasons but i wud use them all of the time and wen i search em i find out tht ther on loan at sum wer like leeds utd it isnt fair so i reckon it wud b a decent plan

• 49. Carl Roberts  |  August 20th, 2008 at 11:27 am

  Anyone who does not support this idea, clearly is a hoarder of players, for example in my setup (139), AC Milan have a squad size of 136, compared to my 25 (19 1st team). Now i am one for trying to increase my youth or 1st team squad, but every new youth player i go for Milan come in for them and guess what…..they go there, and very few of my bids for 1st team players actually get responded to (thats my other annoyance about this game, if people dont respond to bids after a certain time the chairman should step in!!!)

  Although i am only new to this game, i clearly believe a lot of money can be made from buying youth players in cheaply and then selling them on. Introducing this squad cap would help spread the talent and therefore make the game more enjoyable for everyone and realistic as its not like all the wonderkids all come from the same one club…..how can you not support this idea.

  If something aint done about the two points i make, i cannot see why new people to the game are gonna stick around, cause they just cant buy anyone unless its from and unmanaged team (and there only so many players at these teams). Do Something…….the smaller peoples squad the better the game, simple……

• 50. Justin Slamen  |  August 27th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

  players who are not getting played should have low morale and therefore not play well when needed. i dont think there should be a max squad but something should be dont to make it more real, mayer a max senior squad with unlimitated youths???

• 51. Justin Slamen  |  August 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

  again YOUTH SQUADS SHOULD BE UNLIMATED!

• 52. Koutsopodiotis Kostas  |  August 28th, 2008 at 8:24 am

  In my team (west ham) at 081 championship ,if i remember correct i have 107 players.from which only 16-18 they capable of playing in the first 11 squad,cause they are 88 average rating.
  i read a fellow m8 above that if we have many players i destroy the others game.
  I think he is wrong,i dont have the money to have 107 players of 90 rating,i just having fun by playing with my youth squad, i am taking risk by buying them.and by using them i dont think that players with 70 rating will damage anyone.
  It is just my opinion.This is a game.we try make teams as we ld like to be.some risks may be wrong,time will show.
  If u decide to make a limit on teams though u should give back money to the teams for the players they lose.
  u cannot just destroy them economically.
  ty for reading

• 53. Jetzki  |  September 5th, 2008 at 3:53 am

  I said no because the english premier league have had many players that are good sit on the bench ……Saha ….Wright Phillips…Shevchenko and even Ballack……It is the harsh reality …the more money the more power….
  I’m more into a morale level on about 20 clicks (only a top-player) If you reach the very minimum thats when the player should be sold

• 54. ry  |  September 19th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  this is a bad idea

• 55. Mustafa  |  September 25th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  Each Team Should not exceed more than 30 Players. Because excessive squad doesn’t make any sense

• 56. Top class  |  October 10th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

  Havent you ppl heard of a big star studed squad??If sm put a cap on number of players in a team ppl wouldnt have such ambitons!!

• 57. Josh  |  October 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

  some managers need big squads, like me, i do because i am fighting at the top of the leagues i am in, so when players molare/physical fitness is not so good i do not play them because i need to win the games so i need big squads, all my players are 90 + and i have 20 players in mygeneral squad and 95 players in my youth squad so if my youth players end up being 86/87 or even more then i can either sell them and make a profit (as i have bought most of my youth players for under a £1m or if they are still young then i will keep them to see if they rise in rating, this is why team’s need big squads, but some teams do not because they play the game and do not take it as seriously and play there best players even if they are NMF every week

• 58. che  |  October 14th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

  i think you should have a miximum of 100 youth players and 75 senior players you have to allow for lots of players because a lot of the time i sign pretty useless players that play for my local club they are only 70 odd sm rating and if i’m only alowed 50 players i will no longer be able to do that!!

• 59. Alan L  |  October 20th, 2008 at 9:42 pm

  Lets add a bit of reality to the short minded people enough to say no to this suggestion. Chances are they already manage a big club, hence have the resources to bully most other players so they only have something to lose. An example to back up my argument… There is a manger in my league that manages Man U, but doesnt like ronaldo., so never plays him. He has been relegated twice but won’t sell any players and of course there is no facility for players wanting to leave. How is this fair or realistic? All games have to be realistic and competitive or people will get bored and leave.

• 60. Scott  |  November 13th, 2008 at 11:13 pm

  Either one or the other needs to be added.

  Add a player cap or have transfer request added. If I had to choose between the two, I would say transfer request.

  Just as SM has Club Chairmans who make determinations on whether deals go through or not, they can have players decide if they want to leave or not. In most cases, this won’t happen. Based on the players rating compared to the rest of the squad, a player would expect to play a certain amount of games. The chance of a transfer request being handed in grows over time if the player isn’t playing when he expects/should. This effects the players morale. If the morale stays low enough over a certain period of time, the risk of a transfer request becomes more and more likely.

  As for the fellow who complained about needing 50 players because of all the competitions. It’s called managing. No club has 50 or so players to compete. No player only plays at 95% or higher. Players get tired, fatigued during a season and play as such. That is why good clubs lose to lesser clubs sometimes. You have to make a decision which competition is more important to you. That is why it is so hard to pull off a double or a treble. Some of the big clubs don’t care about the smaller league cups, so they play their “youths”. They don’t have 50 senior players for each competition. That is why Milan succeeded almost every year in the Champions League, but struggled to win Serie A and the Italian Cup. They made it their priority. You have to make a decision.

  It’s common sense, if a player doesn’t play as much as he should ….over time, he becomes unhappy and hands in a transfer request. It’s a part of life, it’s a part of football. Deal with it. Impliment it.

  I also don’t think chairman should automatically renew all expiring contracts. This is what makes clubs sell players alot of times, out of fear of losing them on a free transfer. If I have Player A who wants a transfer and his contract is about to expire, I should be forced to sell him or risk losing him as a free agent. In which case, the club who pays the most gets him off the free agent list. If a player has a long contract but has already handed in a transfer request and has not been transfered after an extended period of time, the player can refuse to play for the club (this is extreme and would only occur in the most extreme situations).

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed