Numpty >>
ketvirtadienis kovas 14 - 13:02, Pataisyta
ketvirtadienis kovas 14 - 13:04 Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Noooooo no no no!
For me personally this is absolutely the worst possible news.
This proposed change demolishes my whole game plan. I have spent years of effort, blood sweat and tears - and loads of money developing a group of keepers for future use. I doubt if I'm the only one who will be massively disadvantaged by this proposed change.
Will all my years of effort now be entirely wasted?
I have made those plans directly as a result of how the game works. I obviously understand the reasons, but it seems entirely unreasonable to change the rules in the middle of the game, especially if it seriously disadvantages one or more of the managers.
Surely any proposed change must take everyone into account so that it's reasonably fair to all interested parties. This definitely isn't.
Other changes to players in the past were brought in gradually with a new version of players and the existing ones left alone to die off. This is what we should do now.
I propose that a new version of players is brought in that do eventually retire. But all the existing players should be left to retire naturally, eventually they will all be gone, either because they are no longer good enough or because they become too expensive. This is the only fair way to do it. No one loses out and it should keep everyone fairly happy.
Please consider this as the most reasonable way forward. Thanks.