cycling4freaks.com

Buhmann wrote: (If i understood him correctly )

(seems so )

Allowing to sell them before they are really in the team?

I see more disadvantages: The safety rider.

But ok, before going into that, what about the details?

- Do the riders go back to the market?
- Selling price?

back to the market would allow to "reserve" riders with a multi account. So no.

Selling price 50%*tax (so for me with 70% tax 15%)

Cerro Torre RT wrote:back to the market would allow to "reserve" riders with a multi account. So no.

Selling price 50%*tax (so for me with 70% tax 15%)

This is possible right now too. Buy a youth rider, hold him... reset and he's back on the youthmarket.

so it should be changed anyway, no matter if they can be sold or not.

Mmh, didn't know that about reset. Needs to change, agree.

Another argument for separte d1-4 and rest youth markets btw.

Teamreset still possible in Div 1-4? Thought that would only be allowed for minor Divs.

It's only for minor divisions.

That's why a separation of the JTM would be a solution.

I would handle the youth riders exactly like the others. 50 day rule since the rider is bought. No 15%, only day rule and tax. Only different: If selling a youth rider, the rider is deleted. No reason to keep them. Riders with 0 points are deleted, too. So not really a different...

And don't forget to delete the riders without nationality after beeing sold.

(sorry, slightly offtopic )

How the tax work please ? I don't understand how can i have -45,83% with my team ...

The higher the value of your business (riders + cash money), the higher the tax rate.

Grr and why the cash money make the tax high ? we already loose too much with bying and selling the riders ...

How much do you gain per race or per month?? If you ride regularly you will be able to gain 1-2 Mio per month, so you can buy one rider every month. If you want a climber, you wait 2 months, no problem. If you sell a rider for 90%, you can almost immediately buy another one for the money you get.

You see, without the tax, you can buy let's say 8 more riders per year, what do you want to do after 2 years? You have 20 riders, you have 5 Millions in cash... there is no possibility so spend money. Of course, you can ride with a 600'000-Team every race, the other teams will love you for that. So there must be made a possibility to spend money. With the tax it's easy, you need to spend the money to buy riders, because you don't get enough by selling them.

Zauberlehrling wrote:How much do you gain per race or per month?? If you ride regularly you will be able to gain 1-2 Mio per month

So i don't ride regularly most months? -.-

Most months, i don´t earn more than a million...but okay, i´m really bad (Withput Coulieu )

Well, between -1 Millon and +1,8 million for me this year. ZL earns too much!

skull wrote:i complain
i like the 15%

Ok.. but would kind of nice to get some reasons too.
I really agree with Cerro here for the "cut it, kill it, destroy it, maim it, beat it into a bloody pulp" argument. It's outlived it's raison d'être. Youth riders are the most popular and survival without selling at 24 to get more money works too. What's the reason to keep it?

Cut the +15%!

One opponent that wrote something, but just his opposition, not his arguments. That would still be welcome.

The argument for cutting it by Cerro is there:

yes, please cut it. An unnecessary benefit of i type of riders that are already the moste wanted.

But why have we this rule at the moment?

? Not sure I know what you're asking.?

Why we have the rule now?

Because it was introduced shortly after or together with the tax system. To lessen the impact of non-training youth riders mostly but not only on big rich teams that bought youth riders. After that it was never changed, even if the situation changed.

Why we still have it? Because it was never cut.

Why it should be cut?

1: It never did what it was intended to do. Basically it didn't work. 70% tax teams selling a non training climber for example is still an exception. Even getting 45%, more often than not they are kept. The rule is used mostly by smaller teams, where then they can replace the fired non training star with a new 21 year old. Replaced 1:1 or even making a profit. Taking away the 15% wouldn't change the fact that a non training star can be replaced by a smaller team. Which is good. But by covering maybe only 90%, only 80% (of the new rider, sell 4 Mio, get 60%, 2,4 Mio, buy a new one for 3, ok now it's get 75% get 3 Mio, 1:1, new you cover less and 40% is not that small anyway)etc. it would stop the extreme "toprider" crazyness a bit. Not a bad thing. Every month there are many 23-24 year olds sold, just because they are not training "perfectly" Only 84 with 24, sold. Missed one training due to risk with 22? Sold. Only 83 with 23? Sold. All riders that still can become 86 or even more. Actually an 84 end of 24 most likely will become an 85 during his career, don't know the percentages, so don't know if an 86 is even likelie, but think it actually is. The result is that instead of offering big teams an "insurance" not too lose too much money on bad training, we offer small teams an insurance against non perfect training. You can buy and rebuy x riders, sell them if they don't respond well to risk at 22, sell them if they have a average training with 23-24, meaning +4. Which then increases the pressure on all other teams on the youth transfer market as well, PLUS floods the TM with "wasted talents". Riders that could still have had success, but won't. That won't be bought since they cost more than a 21 year old, they have a name already, and just trained average or slightly below average. That's the result of the rule. That's not what it was introduced for. The rule failed. If the new goal is: Insurance with profit for slightly below average training for small teams: keep it. But don't thing that's a worthy goal.
.
2: Youth riders are the most popular riders anyway. The incentive, buy youth, is unnecessary. They are the potentially strongest riders. They are the cheapest riders that can be stars.

You see, I answer even if I don't actually know what you are asking.... is the answer to your question in there?

i dont need arguments
we have established this rule cause it was wise
NOTHING changed since then

and when you cant remember why it was wise then i doubt your wisdom in general

What i mean: When we develope something we have thought about this. Now many things have changed for us, so we think the rule is not important. But maybe other teams are in the same situation as we were as we integrate this rule. So we have to think about this, if the old reasons for this still have sense.

Ah, ok.

See above.

So, to what conclusion did you come? Does this old rule still make sense?