there is also a problem, so it is ceaper to not assign a scrimmage, or didn't they count? But then people in the cup would get 50% higher salarys, and at least i am rarely play player three times a week.
If you then say, just the games they play, then you will have collectors of players, maybe from special NT or prospect from them cause they only cost the buying.
And you have to process the salary three times a week.
I guess my english wasn't at its best.
Let's try with an example...
1) First let's speak idealy on a week with 3 games each, where all games are "important" (league and cup).
Now, a player played (on team-A) at the first game and had not been listed to the second (due to injury OR coach desicion).
Then he was transfered to team-B.
The result of it should be team-A pays 2/3 of its salary, team-B plays 1/3.
The computation could still be calculated once - at the same time it is caclulated today (and the payment time will not change either).
2) Now let's mix things up - now let's consider this week there is a scrimage instead one of those games, who should pay for that game?
Well, it can be defined in different ways, but I suggest that the team who will owns the consecutive game (which will be an "important" one) will pay this part.
A second option is not to count them unless all games are scrimages at that week (although I think that there is no salary payment in those weeks).
As you mentioned in your other paragraph, there are corner cases.
Due to that it will be good to handle them.
In any case, paying for a full week although you got him for 0 games that week (can happen), is something better be fixed.