Devaluation of the team for MOTM?

[C.Sativa]

I think that's cheating.We know people always try that,but have a look at A.Forscutt's monthly team.He's started at 92m
I'v seen a lot 97-98m but now it's getting less and less.
I think that's cheating to be honest.you might say now that "so,why don't you do it".I'll probably try next year
But I still think something wrong on this issue,I don't think it should be base on % changes.
ok,what is your opinions about this?

ps:this might be the wrong month to devalue i think.You might need expensive players,we'll see

[quizking]

I don't see anything wrong with it - it's a legitimate tactic and within the rules; importantly though, it doesn't always work. i tried it a few months ago and could only come 12th - as couldn't afford the more expensive players that ended up having the greatest increase. likewise, forscutt won't have any spare cash for some other crucial transfers later this month - we'll see.

[andye]

I agree it is fair enough - my best monthly position this year was actually last month with a team that started in excess of 150 million

[wabu]

I agree with Quiz King and Andye, its fair enough if you want to take that risk. By having a runned down team you are unable to buy the 'Premium' players (Henry, Rooney, Lampard etc), so this counter balances the greater % gain. Also if things go bad you get a greater % loss, so it works both ways and I certainly wouldn't call it cheating. It is also surprisingly hard to run a teams value down.

I expect Mr Forscutt will come unstuck near the end of the month when he'll need more expensive players for the FA cup final. Time will tell.

[C.Sativa]

Ok,I think i'v used wrong word with "cheating".I should probably say finding loopholes,or may be you are right this is another complication that makes Guardian different than other FF
mmmm .I just tought it should be whoever gains most points should be leader,not whoever gains most percentage.
But after your replies I'l have a think again ,and try to get on with it

[Salte]

I agree with C.Sativa that the monthly awards should be based on how much money each team has earned instead of percentages. Simply because i don't think you should benefit from actively devaluating your team and then compete for a monthly price. (Maybe it's just cause I'm too lazy to ever do anything like that myself, I've enough to do with my single team).

[quizking]

aha - but that would put new entry teams at a disadvantage - i.e.starting with 100 mill half way through a season, whereas other players might figure they'll put an under performing team, say worth 130m into the monthly comp - they'd be able to afford the top players at some point. the guardian will always be looking for some new entries, and hence a little bit more revenue, maybe even possible new readers.