Rob45 wrote:
Personally, i think each team entered should be to the value of 50m and no less. This would force people to include high valued players, that they think will perform the worst.
If for argument sake, the three promoted teams had a crap season, it would be easier to choose a combination of their players, to the value of 40m....but if you had a 50m rule this wouldn't be possible...forcing you to pick higher valued players...basically using your skill ( if there's such a thing ! ? ) to choose which high value players will not do well.
A £50m budget between 11 players is an average of £4.5m, which is pretty high. You'd have to pick several high value players to fulfil the budget, meaning very few players of £3m or less in the team.
A £40m budget means you can choose the poorest value picks from the promoted teams, but as they're all likely to be priced around £1.0m - £2.5m you'd still need to pick some £5m+ players to reach the £40m minimum budget.
If you work on this season's prices, you'll see that a £40m budget is still hard to reach using poor players, even with hindsight. At £50m I think there would be too many players the same in each person's team, which is something I want to avoid. £40m would mean a much more diverse range of players at various prices, which I think will be more interesting in the long run.
I see where you're coming from Jules....i hadn't thought of it like that. Perhaps you could have a rule where you HAD to choose ONE PLAYER, valued at 6.0m + ? ( Basically choosing who you think will be the " shitest " high valued player )
