Hi, I don't think you've seen it correctly, but I've had this player for 85 days, not for two weeks, and I've bought him from a free agency at a very cheap price, I've trained him and put him up for sale at a reasonable price of this type of player with good potential, what you say doesn't make sense, the rule doesn't make sense, in any case, what they should change would be the starting price of a free agency with that potential, it's not my fault that no one has bid for him and I have bought it very cheap.
I have invested time and money in him, therefore what you propose does not seem reasonable to me. There are players with that potential who are sold for much more money, what would be the fair price? where is there a thread that says that? It is an inconsistent statement, 329k is a cheap and accessible price for him, therefore I tell you again that this rule is totally meaningless.
Regards