You cannot save money for 10 seasons with the weekly increment in place. I only suggested removing the one time transfer bid with a salary based bidding system, not the weekly increments which ensures staff turnaround.
Actually, that will make staff payments even more lopsided. Given that salaries rise by a fixed percentage each week, a large starting salary will rise much faster than a low starting salary.
edit: Here's the detailed explanation:
Roughly speaking, with a 2% increase in salary, the total amount you pay for staff over a period of N weeks is:
[(1.02)^N]*SAL, where
SAL is the initial salary.
If for some reason the initial salaries of staff are different, there will be a difference in the total salaries paid of these two staff member, based on how much time, on average, you choose to hold them. Mathematically, it can easily be proven that
the difference in total salaries paid increases exponentially.
Please note that staff members of the same level can have different salaries even now. That doesn't necessarily make one of them superior to the other. However, it does make them cost differently in the open market -- staff with higher salary will cost less, and this difference should be roughly equal to the extra salary you're going to pay him.
What you're suggesting is to remove this mechanism for equilibrating staff costs, and allowing teams to arbitrarily profit by good deals over time with no built-in mechanisms to prevent this.
Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 11/27/2008 11:09:13 AM"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."