If anyone wants to start a discussion (on a different thread) about relaxing or lowering the age limit say from season 4 onwards that is something I would be open to, and did consider.

So the starting point for ROTW bids is 34+ and 37+ for keepers, with a max value of 3m.

Question is, what happens in season 2 as well, because 3m simply won't be enough.

As a proposal -

Season 1 - 34/37, 3m+
S2 - 33/36, 8m+
S3 - 32/35, 15m+
S4 - No boundaries?

Would then make season 4 onwards an 'open shop'

I like them not being available earlier, will hopefully keep the game going longer. Unsure about EOS, can see the argument on both sides - maybe if EOS were to allow the next seasons' 'restrictions' on it, then that could be beneficial, allows people to be prepared in to the next season - and spend an unlimited amount on someone a year younger, albeit still taking a risk with them dropping stats or possibly worse

My Opinion
No need to change Ben's proposed system. He is launching two games simultaneously for this exact reason. Those who want to do what they did last time, can play Game 123. Those who want to try something different, pick 124. Choose the game that suits you, rather than make Ben fit the game to your requirements.

The idea is to offer a different product/ experience. As each new game progresses, teams improve hugely and rises happen rapidly. Managers rail against the speed of the rises and Ben then sets about reducing the rate of improvement which causes complaint about a lack of rises and poor training results. He can't win!

This new proposal for 124 might well strangle the supply of high-end talent. It promises to have slower rates of player improvement from the anticipated high 80s/ early 90s OA starting point. A typical side will start with a suggested £25m and 25 points which promises to ensure a containment of POT players. Smaller starting budgets will mean more thought will (should) go into spending that money.

I would suggest that we all applaud the plan laid before us - a choice of games and a new format.

My Opinion
No need to change Ben's proposed system. He is launching two games simultaneously for this exact reason. Those who want to do what they did last time, can play Game 123. Those who want to try something different, pick 124. Choose the game that suits you, rather than make Ben fit the game to your requirements.

The idea is to offer a different product/ experience. As each new game progresses, teams improve hugely and rises happen rapidly. Managers rail against the speed of the rises and Ben then sets about reducing the rate of improvement which causes complaint about a lack of rises and poor training results. He can't win!

This new proposal for 124 might well strangle the supply of high-end talent. It promises to have slower rates of player improvement from the anticipated high 80s/ early 90s OA starting point. A typical side will start with a suggested £25m and 25 points which promises to ensure a containment of POT players. Smaller starting budgets will mean more thought will (should) go into spending that money.

I would suggest that we all applaud the plan laid before us - a choice of games and a new format.

My Opinion
No need to change Ben's proposed system. He is launching two games simultaneously for this exact reason. Those who want to do what they did last time, can play Game 123. Those who want to try something different, pick 124. Choose the game that suits you, rather than make Ben fit the game to your requirements.

The idea is to offer a different product/ experience. As each new game progresses, teams improve hugely and rises happen rapidly. Managers rail against the speed of the rises and Ben then sets about reducing the rate of improvement which causes complaint about a lack of rises and poor training results. He can't win!

This new proposal for 124 might well strangle the supply of high-end talent. It promises to have slower rates of player improvement from the anticipated high 80s/ early 90s OA starting point. A typical side will start with a suggested £25m and 25 points which promises to ensure a containment of POT players. Smaller starting budgets will mean more thought will (should) go into spending that money.

I would suggest that we all applaud the plan laid before us - a choice of games and a new format.

My Opinion
No need to change Ben's proposed system. He is launching two games simultaneously for this exact reason. Those who want to do what they did last time, can play Game 123. Those who want to try something different, pick 124. Choose the game that suits you, rather than make Ben fit the game to your requirements.

The idea is to offer a different product/ experience. As each new game progresses, teams improve hugely and rises happen rapidly. Managers rail against the speed of the rises and Ben then sets about reducing the rate of improvement which causes complaint about a lack of rises and poor training results. He can't win!

This new proposal for 124 might well strangle the supply of high-end talent. It promises to have slower rates of player improvement from the anticipated high 80s/ early 90s OA starting point. A typical side will start with a suggested £25m and 25 points which promises to ensure a containment of POT players. Smaller starting budgets will mean more thought will (should) go into spending that money.

I would suggest that we all applaud the plan laid before us - a choice of games and a new format.

My Opinion
No need to change Ben's proposed system. He is launching two games simultaneously for this exact reason. Those who want to do what they did last time, can play Game 123. Those who want to try something different, pick 124. Choose the game that suits you, rather than make Ben fit the game to your requirements.

The idea is to offer a different product/ experience. As each new game progresses, teams improve hugely and rises happen rapidly. Managers rail against the speed of the rises and Ben then sets about reducing the rate of improvement which causes complaint about a lack of rises and poor training results. He can't win!

This new proposal for 124 might well strangle the supply of high-end talent. It promises to have slower rates of player improvement from the anticipated high 80s/ early 90s OA starting point. A typical side will start with a suggested £25m and 25 points which promises to ensure a containment of POT players. Smaller starting budgets will mean more thought will (should) go into spending that money.

I would suggest that we all applaud the plan laid before us - a choice of games and a new format.