Academy Change

[Fgrenyu]

I want to start a discussion on changing the way that Academies work. Basically, the gist of it is to reduce the difference in training speed from the bottom of the academy to the top and introduce the impact of squad size being linked to the academy. I.e, a lower level academy can handle less players, while a higher level academy can handle more players.

At a starting point, I'd have current levels be reflected around a good academy level and then plus or minus one squad player per level, with a baseline of 20 at minimal and 30 at deluxe, but that could change depending on potential impacts. In terms of training speeds, I'm not sure of how to adjust that but that can be part of the discussion.

Thoughts?

[radar]

I really like this idea in principle.

One of the problems with academies, as I see it, is that paying for a top academy encourages you to have a large squad size (with associated wage costs) - otherwise you'll lose out on the training benefits you are paying for. Paying more to train more players fixes this so specifically that I wonder if this is the exact reason you suggest it? Or maybe it's just a nice coincidence

I'd suggest you should be restricting the training possible (from 25 players) for worse academies rather than increasing the number for deluxe academies because I'd guess it's not possible to benefit from training 30 players at once - because you'll lose out on experience gains. But that's just details. I'm interested in reading alternative thoughts before trying to perfect it, in case it's only us two who think it's a good idea.

[boscorp]

Not sure that i'm taken with this idea yet. I thought a higher academy with faster training speeds was a good thing worth investing in? There are currently penalties for having too many trainees which keeps player numbers in check.

[Fgrenyu]

I really like this idea in principle.

One of the problems with academies, as I see it, is that paying for a top academy encourages you to have a large squad size (with associated wage costs) - otherwise you'll lose out on the training benefits you are paying for. Paying more to train more players fixes this so specifically that I wonder if this is the exact reason you suggest it? Or maybe it's just a nice coincidence

I'd suggest you should be restricting the training possible (from 25 players) for worse academies rather than increasing the number for deluxe academies because I'd guess it's not possible to benefit from training 30 players at once - because you'll lose out on experience gains. But that's just details. I'm interested in reading alternative thoughts before trying to perfect it, in case it's only us two who think it's a good idea.

One of the main reasons was to help reduce that gap between the bottom and top teams, through training speed. As it is, a lower division team can't really afford both the high academy and the larger squad to keep that pipeline of players coming through, thereby making it easier for the top teams to maintain their spots up the top. Reducing the difference in that training speed could make it easier for lower teams to develop that top team, while the top teams can invest further to enable them to keep that pipeline going, and enable a larger squad size for cup runs as well.

[Fgrenyu]

Not sure that i'm taken with this idea yet. I thought a higher academy with faster training speeds was a good thing worth investing in? There are currently penalties for having too many trainees which keeps player numbers in check.

It is worth investing in, of course, but if we linked the penalty entry points to the academy level, then that can give a bit of an extra mechanism to help those lower and newer teams close that gap to the bigger teams.

[boscorp]

I think that's part of the reason we have the transfer market. It's a very useful tool for any team to use and improve their squad. Whether it's selling good players to improving clubs or buying players to improve your own club.

[radar]

I really like this idea in principle.

One of the problems with academies, as I see it, is that paying for a top academy encourages you to have a large squad size (with associated wage costs) - otherwise you'll lose out on the training benefits you are paying for. Paying more to train more players fixes this so specifically that I wonder if this is the exact reason you suggest it? Or maybe it's just a nice coincidence

I'd suggest you should be restricting the training possible (from 25 players) for worse academies rather than increasing the number for deluxe academies because I'd guess it's not possible to benefit from training 30 players at once - because you'll lose out on experience gains. But that's just details. I'm interested in reading alternative thoughts before trying to perfect it, in case it's only us two who think it's a good idea.

One of the main reasons was to help reduce that gap between the bottom and top teams, through training speed. As it is, a lower division team can't really afford both the high academy and the larger squad to keep that pipeline of players coming through, thereby making it easier for the top teams to maintain their spots up the top. Reducing the difference in that training speed could make it easier for lower teams to develop that top team, while the top teams can invest further to enable them to keep that pipeline going, and enable a larger squad size for cup runs as well.

I believe we are saying the same thing with different words, so I completely agree

[Fgrenyu]

I think that's part of the reason we have the transfer market. It's a very useful tool for any team to use and improve their squad. Whether it's selling good players to improving clubs or buying players to improve your own club.

Again, though, this does offer an advantage to those teams that are more established in terms of being able to train to sell via training speed which those lower down can not do.

[boscorp]

I think that's part of the reason we have the transfer market. It's a very useful tool for any team to use and improve their squad. Whether it's selling good players to improving clubs or buying players to improve your own club.

Again, though, this does offer an advantage to those teams that are more established in terms of being able to train to sell via training speed which those lower down can not do.

The difference in training speed is only 3% per level which really is bugger all for a 100 day season. Its a lot if you have mininum investment compared to top teir but most clubs can afford to invest a few levels... about 80%.

[Lesvosace]

I think it's unfair to those who have invested in their academies over a longtime to then remove the benefits.

[boscorp]

I think that's part of the reason we have the transfer market. It's a very useful tool for any team to use and improve their squad. Whether it's selling good players to improving clubs or buying players to improve your own club.

Again, though, this does offer an advantage to those teams that are more established in terms of being able to train to sell via training speed which those lower down can not do.

I think you have the impression that Div1 clubs are more profitable than lower divs. Thats not my experience. With 15 seniors and 12 youth the wages i spend to maintain competitive sides is barely covered by sponsorship and gate takings. Any more than a reasonable academy investment and id be running at a loss. The profits i do make usually get spent on replacing players to remain competitive and avoid demotion.
If i was in a less competitive league in a lower div and just aiming to avoid relegation i reckon i would be in a lot better position to afford investing in a higher academy and more trainees.

[GM-crowfan65]

you would want to finish top 4 so you get prizemoney as well