I don't know about you guys, but I enjoy helping out newbie managers and don't need any earthly reward for doing so. Helping others can be a rewarding experience in it's own right.

Yoav, I think this is a good attitude and I wish there were more managers with this sentiment. And if Mark wants to reward managers for helping out newbies, I personally don't see a problem with this. I know that other experienced managers such as Robin, have offered their services in the past with newbies. Anything that lightens Mark's load without creating more problems is unquestionably a good think.

I just question the motives and reliability of giving CP for bringing in new managers.

I used to, until the ELG boss stabbed me in the back.....

You mean until he threw a castard pie in your face

Just kidding

A Finders Fee (FF) will be available only once a season per existing manager.
So 3 CP is max a team can get.

This will indeed lighten my load, as I am tired of bringing in a newbie from waiting list and have them faff about for a few weeks while I send them dozens of email responses, for them to turn round and say 'sesl is too complicated' or 'rules are too long'.

e.g. 4 existing managers tried to help the previous NAI boss last month or two, and he still started the season with just 1 GK and made no effort to resolve this. The 4 helpers did a great job, but ultimately it never worked out as manager would maybe just not listen. Had a known friend been helping him things may have been different?

Yoav is doing a great job with DEV, for example. But when today we will likely see another 3 SESL managers replaced, something has to change. Hence Finders Fee idea.

The motive of existing managers is to help SESL by bringing a reliable manager to the game and spending hours working with them over the rules, tactics, line-ups etc. 3 CP is not that generous if you consider a manager can get 3TP for writing a team history at seasons end. FF will be removed it newbie manager turns out not to be reliable at season end.

I no longer announce new managers arriving in SESL as in the past newbies reported a dozen rip-off trade request emails often "welcomed" them to SESL!

I want to stabalise SESL managers and think FF will help this. The turnover of managers is too much, and this is partly my fault as I don't suffer fools lightly and I am harsh with time wasters.

Lets see how it works out, and if existing managers have to work hard with a newbie to earn their 3 CP after a month, then this is helping me and SESL I think.

As I said, my concern is not the allocation of CP, but that fact that if managers knew suitable recruits they would have brought them in already. A reward for new managers will I suspect bring in new managers that were previously thought unsuitable.

However, this has been well discussed and all the points have been argued. Mark's obviously assessed the pros and cons. I reserve the right to say 'I told you so' if it all goes pearshaped, but also to blend into the woodwork is it seems successful.

As for other managers on the waiting list, what about having a system of sponsorship? New managers could be allocated an experienced manager as a helpers for simple qusetions, as I suspect the newbie forum can be intimidating. Or simply a list of friendly managers they can just e-mail for questions (or even a grouped set of e-mails they send to).

We currently have this, and it has not worked as hoped.

Exisiting managers have maybe not brought in friends already as SESL has a waiting list and did not need them.
Now I need a solution to halt the handful of manager changes each 2 weeks.

Vince - I have asked friends if they wanted to take part before & explained to them the level of input required etc. And before suggesting them to Mark I've wanted to make sure they are committed.

On a couple of occassions the friends I've spoke to were up for it but I didn't reckon they had the time or enthusiasm to commit to SESL so never bothered proposing them to Mark as a new manager.

To suggest that with the introduction of a finders fee existing managers will then recommend/introduce players that are not committed to the game I believe is a slight on the managers of the league.

I believe the majority of managers are honest guys who appreciate the time Mark puts in and will not muck him about by introducing managers just for the sake of getting 3CP. At the end of the day if I introduced a manager who ends up being sacked a few weeks/months after joining I would believe it would reflect badly on me - therefore I wouldn't want to recommend if I don't think they are suitable.

As Mark highlighted the current system of him bringing inexperienced managers in from a waiting list is not working - and has continually proven this. If existing managers are to recommend friends they are there to provide advice and if needed give them a 'kick up the arse' if their getting lazy.

The fact that the finders fee of 3CP is not handed over until the new manager completes a season, submits 2 press releases in their first month and post on the forum means that it improves manager participation and helps to integrate new managers into the league.

I honestly can't see why you are so againt this proposal Vince - after all surely a finders fee for helping out a new manager is just as worthy of reward as doing a history write up for the website and other associated articles/white papers etc?

They are all assisting commish and easing his workload whilst (IMHO) improving/enhancing the league. In the end only time will tell if its introduced.

Firstly, no slight was intended to managers. And, I keep saying it, but I’ll say it again I’ve not problem of allocating rewards for assisting new managers. The problem here is that all the objections to may argument don’t ever address the point I’m making, and that’s the point of rewarding for bringing in new managers.

You say most managers are an honest lot. OK, agreed. It’s easy to introduce a new manager and requires very little time or effort, all you do is give your friend Mark’s e-mail. An honest, reliable manager will help their friend settle in. Can we agree on this, as a friend you will unquestionably offer help? In fact, I would go as far as saying that EVERY new manager that is recruited by a friend will ALWAYS be given help from their sponsor. There has NEVER been a case where a responsible manager has recruited a new manager and simply left them to fend for themselves in the SESL.

So, if as you say, managers only recruit new managers that are reliable, given that the recruitment process is very easy, and that managers have always helped their friends settle in; what then, is the purpose of the ‘Finders Fee’?

You say the waiting list system doesn’t work, but how will a ‘Finders Fee’ change this?

1. Recruitment is easy and painless. You’re point that managers would not recruit unreliable manager then would not increase recruitment then. As they would not recruit managers they would not have done otherwise; incentive or not. So it has no effect on recruitment.

2. Most managers are an honest bunch and will not recruit a bad manager as it reflects badly on them. All friends recruited have, and will always be helped by their friends, and never left on their own. So it’s not used and an incentive to ensure a manager stays reliable.

The only benefit then is that it rewards managers for helping a friend; which they would already do, as it reflects badly on them otherwise.

So I ask again, what is the purpose of the ‘Finders Fee’? All the reasons for having a ‘Finders Fee’ are already in place. Honest managers will not change their behaviour, so I can’t see how it lightens Mark’s load or solves the ‘Waiting List’ problem, as it’s claimed to do; as honest managers already do that the ‘Finders Fee’ is supposed to miraculously do. All it does is introduce an incentive for recruiting new managers that would have otherwise not been considered. My point is why introduce a rule that has not benefits, yet COULD produce problems? It just seems like a shot in the foot.

Its quite clear me & you will never agree on this Vince -

Firstly you say

'So, if as you say, managers only recruit new managers that are reliable, given that the recruitment process is very easy, and that managers have always helped their friends settle in; what then, is the purpose of the ‘Finders Fee’?'

I've pointed out in previous posts why I think the Finders Fee will help - you don't agree with the points I've made, I don't agree with the points you've made. One thing I will say is although managers may not expect reward for helping other managers out - its a nice gesture/thanks for putting in that effort. After all, although we would do it anyway, it does take a fair bit of time to go through and explain rules, answer questions and help newbies with lineups - so I don't agree that it takes very little time or effort. I suppose it depends on the degree/level of help you offer - and this will no doubt be shown in how quickly the new manager gets to grips with the game & how much of an active part he takes in SESL.

A finders fee has never been on offer in the past and maybe it should have been. I just believe (and I think commish will agree) that the managers who take more of an active part in the league should be encouraged to do so. Ok - so people have offered help to managers they've introduce in the past and never got any incentive. But I don't think thats a good enough arguement against not introducing it.

Secondly there are managers that take more of an active part in SESL than others (for various reasons). I think its only fair that the more active a part the manager takes in SESL the more rewards he is due (ie the more press you do, the more incentives and rewards there are, same goes for writing team histories or price guides, white papers etc).

You have yet to answer one of the questions I posed - you can get bonuses (TP/CP/Cash) for writing articles for the website, doing division team histories etc - why is Manager Mentoring not worthy of this?

Is recruitment easy and painless at the moment? Obviously not as commish has to shoulder the responsibility - I think more of the onus on managers to recruit people due to the incentive.

Perhaps the fact that people were aware commish handled the recruitment process in the past and that there was a waiting list discouraged managers from suggesting friends? OK - of course if I had a friend that I knew liked this type of game and would almost certainly be interested in SESL I'd automatically tell him about the game (as I have done in the past & were added to the waiting list) and tell them to register their interest with commish. However if managers were aware that positions were available (rather than relying on a waiting list) they may give it a bit more thought towards recruiting - there may be people they hadn't though of asking purely because the recruitment process in the past has been mainly the commish's responsibility.

Maybe its worth the commish highlighting positions may be available soon (and the number of positions) in the weekly session results email and managers to look for new recruits - I'm pretty sure I've been unaware of positions available in the past cos commish has had people on the waiting list & appointed this person - I may have been able to offer an alternative by introducing someone.

Commish has admitted the failings of appointing new people on the waiting list - so maybe now this is the approach to take - make managers aware of positions coming up and give the existing managers the opportunity to introduce a friend rather than appointing the first person on the waiting list.

‘You have yet to answer one of the questions I posed - you can get bonuses (TP/CP/Cash) for writing articles for the website, doing division team histories etc - why is Manager Mentoring not worthy of this?’

I’ve said this many times, and I’m not sure saying it again will help.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH REWARDING MANAGERS FOR HELPING NEW MANAGERS

Is this clear enough? I’ve said this in every one of my post on the matter! Why you keep harking back on this point is beyond me.

IT’S NOT ABOUT REWARDING MANAGERS FOR HELPING NEW MANAGERS. ITS ABOUT REWARDING MANAGER FOR RECRUITING NEW MANAGER I DISAGREE WITH!

Is this also clear? When I said recruitment was a painless process I meant it was painless for the recruiter, not Mark, which I assume was an obvious point. There’s no reason for a manager NOT to recruit a new manager. You say they have to go on a waiting list, but for several season’s now, as far as I’m aware all new mangers recommended by existing managers are FAST TRACKED. I suspect you were one of these ‘fast tracked’ managers. This is because they always got help from their friend. EVERY season and several times during the season for the last few season’s Mark has said if you know any friends what want to join they will get a team STRAIGHT AWAY! EVERY SEASON mark ask you to introduce friends, all you have to do is click ‘reply’ with you friends e-mail, and it’s done!

The problem is not managers recruited my existing managers, but ones who didn’t know anyone. Given its painless for RECRUITERS to bring in new managers; a ‘Finders Fee’ will not solve the problem of bringing new manager, unless they were not considered suitable in the first place. Should you reply, remember:

IT’S NOT ABOUT REWARDING MANAGERS FOR HELPING NEW MANAGERS. ITS ABOUT REWARDING MANAGER FOR RECRUITING NEW MANAGERS I DISAGREE WITH!

Clear?

I must have missing Mark’s last post. I do know that Mark constantly asks managers to recommend new managers. Why not try a fast track first? As it said before, my main objection was that an incentive for bringing in a new manager was that it puts a question mark over the motives for bringing in a new manager. Currently, as far as I’m aware managers that are brought in by existing managers have been reliable. This is the reliable part why risk it but adding the POSSIBLITY of damaging this?

Surely if a fast track system doesn’t work then neither would the ‘Finders Fee’ if recommended by honest managers?

Vince - firstly no need to get so touchy. Thought we were having a civilised debate here - you realise the use of bold capital letters is the equivalent of shouting in internet/message board etiquette! Don't worry my ear drums are still intact!

Anyway - I fully understand what you have been saying. But I can't help thinking you are contradicting yourelf.

The reason I keep harping back to asking you do you have a problem with a 'finders fee' and a reward for helping new managers is - you say you are quite happy for this and yet you are against rewarding a manager for recruitment of new managers? Correct?

Well surely its one and the same thing - you need to recruit before you can help out a new manager. OK - so you can help out with someone else doing the recruiting (ie commish) but this is more workload for him - plus as Mark has pointed out the idea of assigning a mentor to a new manager from the waiting list hasn't quite worked out as he would have hoped. Therefore there is a need to look at a new way of recruiting managers.

Several stipulations would be introduced by Mark before the manager gets the CP. It won't be a case of managers introducing newbies to the league just for the sake of doing it so they can increase their CP resources - a manager (if my understanding is correct) cannot introduce more than one manager per season therefore only a maximum of 3CP can be obtained.

Now I know your main points are regarding recruitment and not the issue of reward of CP to existing managers (perhaps there's been a cross of wires, although I fully understand your points) but as far as I'm concerned the recruitment issue & existing managers helping new players are interlinked!

If your main concern is the recruitment policy - one thing is clear, the current system is not working to Mark's satisfaction. He's looking at new ways of doing so & new suggestions - and IMHO the failsafe way is for existing managers to take an active role in the recruitment process and help commish veto potential new managers.

I have suggested a possible solution/improvement (all be it I stole the idea from a flippant comment from CEL boss) - Vince I'd ask you, if you have any other ideas/suggestions as to how we tackle the recruitment issue and improve it get them out in the open and everyone can discuss them. I just think you are being rather alarmist over the whole issue of 'quality' of new managers.

There is no full proof means (as far as I'm aware) of introducing new managers that will be reliable without actually putting potential managers off (ie by introducing stringent criteria they must comply with/adhere to) - but surely you agree that the best policy and the one to promote is the introduction of managers recruited by existing managers (who are well aware of the commitment required to play SESL) rather than commish fronting the recruitment of managers and taking on additional workload to 'sound out' new managers etc. ?

WHO CAN WRITE THE BIGGEST!!!!!!

I won't tell you again...

Don't play with the 'puter! Its not a toy!