I don't understand the rest of your post
Lol no it's probably my English which failed there.
My point is that in the past anyone could buy titles and since making money was a lot easier, it was also absolutely much easier to catch up. Maybe it was not sustainable in the long run but you could compete. I completely reject your idea that it's easier to catch up now. My point, albeit poorly stated, is that in the past it was easier for everyone to make a lot of money one way or another (now you can't daytrade, you got penalties of all kinds to income) , it was easier to keep that money (now you have a cap) and you didn't need much of that money to compete anyway.
Misagh is the perfect example of how you save, save, save and then compete. Only, instead of doing it at the national level he did it in the B3 a few times, but if he could do it at the B3 level anyone could have done it in its own national league. You are wrong thinking that for them it's harder now because of high prices. It's not the prices which make it harder for everyone to replicate that model, but all sorts of taxes and penalties, which, incidentally are also one of the causes of the high prices.
You can't use him as an exemple since he doesn't train, he day-trades. He must spend his life on TL.
So who do you want to use as an example? They killed buying titles ages ago, the hampered and then killed daytrading. I point at one manager who has been at the top of one of the hardest, if not the hardest, national league in BB for 15 seasons or so and you tell me no, you can't use him as an example? Who do you wanna use as an example? A lifetime D3 manager?
You said people have to rebuild. I pointed out that people with high value rosters don't need to do that if they keep the roster updated. Clearly, if you keep someone like Marshall until he's 34 for sentimental reasons it doesn't work. But if you roll sub 32yo players you can keep your roster at a similar level over time because they don't lose that much value. In an environment where talent is going down, you can stay on top even with a progressively worse roster, obviously. You are confusing your position of an old and ageing team with what I call a high value roster, filled with tier 1 relatively young talent. In fact if you say that your roster wasn't worth that much because the players were old, then you are a perfect example of how you could compete with a relatively low cost in the past.
Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/19/2016 6:44:45 AM