Sorry to reply to this after so many other posts went by. I seem to be online when most people are asleep and then log off just as the masses are getting on board.I do see what you are saying but I disagree. Players are nothing more than the sum of the actions taken by their managers in training. I don't think that a player who has an unaffordable salary is the best player in the game. You have to weigh costs and benefits in this game. Up til now most managers have been blindly training single position with emphasis only on primary skills without looking down the road three seasons and seeing that their Frankenballers were going to have ridiculous and unaffordable salaries. Why is that a problem? It is a problem for the managers who trained those freaks and for the idjits who pay to have them on their team. It is no problem for managers who have spread their training around to create more balanced players who perform at a level of, say, 13-15. I think this trend for creating triple 18+ is not only overly testosteronic but obviously stupid financially. If a manager couldn't see that they were creating an unusable player, maybe next time they will open their eyes. Those players whose salaries make them unplayable will retire. So what? There will be hundreds more shortly. And maybe they will be more all-around, but I doubt it.Now, to look at your problem from another angle- Perhaps a change in ticket pricing, tv revenue, or some other merchandising outlet can be introduced to increase the amount of cash teams are pulling in. 35k/week seems a bit low for tv revenue in the 21st century.
That is a fantastic idea. I would also like to be able to pay a "no-foul" insurance, a "no-missed shot" insurance and a "no turnover" insurance.
when my boys are on the road in dodgy parts of the US