I’ve tried to answer you points as best I can. I’ve had to use capitals as you have ignored what I’ve said each time. Your main justification for a ‘Finders Fee’ is to reward the assistance of helping a new manager. This appears to be something we both agree with, so my use of capitals was to question why you kept using this as an argument for a ‘Finders Fee’, implying I was against this against it. As this is something we agree on why continue to use this? My objection is recruitment. As the proposal goes, the two are interlocked, I also agree on this.

OK, what’s the problem at the moment? The waiting system is not working. OK, agreed. Your proposal is a ‘Finders Fee’. This is not quite right, what is being proposed is a ‘Finders Fee’ AND a Fast Track system. My mistake was that I assumed there was already a Fast Track system in operation and I apologise for this. I brought the Montrose manager, Steve, into the game after Mark asked for new managers and he got the team straight away.

OK, now we’ve identified the problem we find it’s not the ‘Finders Fee’ at all which is the solution, but in fact a ‘Fast Track’ system. The ‘Finders Fee’ in and of itself does nothing, but reward a ‘Mentor’, as we’ve already established there is sufficient motivation for recruitment (the SESL is enjoyable, you will want to help a friend, etc). Managers will always help their friend, so it doesn’t increase interaction at all. Similarly, all this talk of helping Mark with workload, etc, would be purely a result of the ‘Fast Track’ system, by giving preference for recruited managers rather than those on the waiting list and in fact nothing to do with a ‘Finders Fee’.

So why not just implement a Fast Track system? I mentioned this in my last post, but you seem to have missed it. You say I’m alarmist (the same was said about my thoughts on CP availability and price), but why risk it? If we can agree there’s sufficient motivation to bring in new managers, a ‘Fast Track’ system would surely solve the waiting list problem? All the benefits of the system you want, but none of the dangers I’m concerned about, as I assume it’s the recruitment of new managers into the SESL under the guidance of an existing manager which is your primary objective, not the reward of CP? So we can have our cake and eat it?

I assume you will agree that the motives are sufficient to bring in new managers, and should it require a reward, then managers would otherwise not, then this could be a problem? If I sounded harsh, it was unintentional, our main disagreements before stemmed from two points, mainly due to the fact I assumed there already was a Fast Track system, and hence a ‘Finders Fee’ would not alter the core problems of recruitment. I think you mistake is perhaps to assume that the ‘Finders Fee’ AND a Fast Track system are interlocked, when in fact they are not.

Ultimately, I think A ‘Fast Track’ system would be a fool proof means of introducing new managers, as I’m sure we both agree if the current motivations are insufficient, but the introduction of a reward changes this then this is not what we want and does put in question the motives of the recruiter?

Will the two of you cut it out?
I am in the habit of reading each and every post on the forum and if I go on reading this thread any further I will get my head explode

Now that I out that out of my system It's time for a few questions:
1)Do we have a waiting list? where can I see it?
2)What's a FAST TRACK?

I have been bombarding our good commish with many emails last season loaded with questions about all kinds of stuff and also sometimes questioning some of the rules. Got on his nerves more then once , but as time went by I settled in and got a better understanding of the way Sesl works. So now the level of questions he gets bombarded with is on a higher philosophical one
BTW - I was recruited by Mark personaly. Hand picked by the commish himself

Vince is suggesting that instead of rewarding the recruiting manager, the reward will go for the mentor manager. That does seem fair at first hand. But how will you decide on the identity of the mentor?
Are you suggesting that each newbie will be restricted on following the advise of a single mentor?
Is there a way to do such a thing?
Should there be?
Isn't it better for a newbie to get as many advises from as many sources as possible and choose from that pool of ideas and approaches the ones he fancies most?

So how can the commish chose which of the mentors had the deepest influence on a newbie manager?

PS - I have noticed that on the on going argument between Vincent and Elgin Boss Elgin Boss kept refering to Vincent in his name, while Vincent was refering to ELG guy as you. Could the reason for that be the fact that Vincent has his name showing on his posts while the Elgin manager has Elgin_Boss on his posts?
I opened a thread on this subject on the "Suggestions for the forum" section.
It is my belief that it's much nicer to know the name of the person whose post you are reading or replying to. After all, the club's abbriviation alreay appears on the post anyway. So why not write your name on as well?

Sheez, you don't give up easy do you!

OK Yoav,

For you benefit. Currently the SESL works on a waiting list system. Anyone who wants to join the SESL goes on a waiting list; whether they are recommended by a friend or simply stumbled onto the website and likes the sound of the game. Managers that are recommended by friends are almost always reliable managers, where as managers that are recruited without a ‘buddy’ tend to be unreliable (your good self obviously excluded).

Managers brought in by friends are typically ‘screened’ as managers would invariably only pick friends they thought would enjoy the game and have time to spend on the game. Furthermore, friends will also invariably help their friends so save asking Mark silly questions (like yourself). Hence a newbie recruited by existing managers are preferable than ones recruited by Mark in terms of reliability and workload.

The Elgin manager suggested a ‘Finders Fee’ where existing managers get rewarded for recruiting and assisting a new manager into the SESL. This new manager will ‘jump the queue’ and be selected above those on the waiting list to fill a team slot (AKA a Fast Track system); as we’ve already established new managers recruited by existing managers are preferred.

Hence the introduction of a ‘Finders Fee’ will theoretically increase the reliability of the new SESL managers, lighten Mark’s workload, and reward the recruiting manager for helping a new manager into the game. Sounds ideal at first glance. However, in my opinion, its not as simple as that, and far from lightening Mark’s workload and increasing the reliability of the SESL I think it will actually do the opposite. You just have to step back and look at the ‘Big Picture’.

Whilst, I agree it would be a nice touch for managers to be rewarded for assisting the new managers they recruit, the problem is that the recruitment and assisting is interlocked. The problem I see is that once you reward for recruiting a problems arises over the motivation of the sponsor and the reliability of the new manager. There is a POSSIBILITY that existing managers recruit new managers for the wrong reason, and such managers MAYBE of questionable quality (as the recruitment process is easy for the sponsor, all you do is e-mail Mark with the new manager. A reward may encourage a manager to put forward someone they would have previously considered unsuitable). Whilst the Elgin manager believes this is UNLIKELY, the fact he agree that there should be criteria such new managers get to ensure the reward, seems to suggest he is also aware of this POSSIBILTY.

It also seems we both agree that there is sufficient motivation for existing managers to bring in new managers (the SESL is fun, you will want your friends to also enjoy the fun, and you will always help your friend). If these reasons are insufficient and yet the introduction of a reward changes this then the new manager is of questionable quality. So a ‘finders fee’ doesn’t improve recruitment except possibly in a negative sense, nor does it effect lightening Mark’s workload, as you will invariably help your friend.

It’s in fact a Fast Track system that does everything that the Elgin manager claims a ‘Finders Fee’ will do. Basically, new managers brought in by existing managers should be given preference over those on the waiting list. A ‘Finders Fee’ will put a question mark over the motives of the recruiter and the new managers reliability, where there was none before. AND more importantly will add to Mark’s workload, as he now has to monitor the progress of the new manager to see he meets the criteria for a reward (trawl through to press to ensure 2 are submitted, check the IP address on the forum to ensure he’s not managing a second team, and somehow check he’s not playing in another league!). Is it worth it so managers can get their reward for helping a new manager, when its something we all agree they would do anyway?

Sorry Vince, but that last post was even bigger than the rest, you trying to explode Yoav's head?

Enough is enough.
I aint bothering to read all Vince's long drawn out rants above......

... but I wonder if HAM are hurting after a poor session 3 when his team managed just 1 point, and 2 goals that were both penalties ...

My only motivation is SESL running as best it can and for Mark to have and easier time. Whether you want to read these or not is up to you...

Incidentlally both games Hamilton were the better side; Buckie scraped a draw, and the ref won it for Celtic. Nothing you can really do if its out of your hands. Something you over looked or chose to ignore? I wonder...

Maybe HAM got team tactics wrong? As is this the same ref that awarded HAM a penalty vs CEL?

Have you been listening to Marillion's album "Clutching At Straws" this morning?

Really? Has it not occured to you that we got the penalty, DESPITE the ref bias? I think the stats speak for themselves:

Team Area Totals
MIN TM T GP DEF OFF
-----------------------------
01 HAM L 95.00 217.00 162.00
01 CEL L 55.00 134.00 221.50

Even with my best player player sent off (MA 3/39 sent off just after half time), And Celtic having to play three player aggressive (we had none); we still generated more shots in open play (2 vs 1). Can you serious, and with an unbiased opinon, say we got our tactics wrong or would have lost without the ref bias? If you are honest you will have to say no.

No 'clutching at straws', the answer is simple. Its the 12 various free kicks and corners Celtic, campared to none we got which made the difference. It seems you also neglected to point out three of the four Celtic goals came from corners or free kicks. Seriously, do you not understand the formulae of the SESL or are you just bias?

If the ref was as bad as you thought, why did you not Stall for a draw then?

Or why not man-mark all the strikers so they don't profit from set pieces?

Sure you aint Arsene Wegner with all your excuses Vinny?

SESL Commish said earlier on this topic:
"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."


Kinda knocks your "only motivation" on its head.
This Finders Fee is thought to help Commish and the game.

Perhaps one can conclude from the HAM rants above that it does not matter if 1 CP or 100 CP is on offer. HAM has no intention of bothering to bring a newbie to SESL to help out (his "only motivation" remember) and he will rant and rant to try stop anyone else getting their hands on any CP he seems to want all for himself in this game.

HAM Challenge
To show you are not HAM-fisted, I challenge Vincent to go and find a friend, or go onto soccer fans forums, and recruit a newbie for SESL this week. Then offer to spend a month showing them the ropes, and if your "only motivation" is for the good of SESL then you may turn down the 3CP on offer if you wish.

Got anymore excuses Vincent, or are you up for the challenge?
(try and keep your reply brief)

No excuses, it’s just that you implied I was lucky to get away with a point this week, then that I played the wrong tactics, and misrepresented the facts (clutching at straws?). All I did was answer your point, and tried to correct your misrepresentation of me. So I’m not sure why you say I’m coming up with excuses, when all I’ve done is correct you on points which I felt you were wrong with. I just don’t like it when people misrepresent me, by implying I’ve said or done something when I’ve not. I hope this is understandable. For example, the question with the ‘Finders Fee’, I’d actually drawn a line under it after Mark gave his verdict. The Elgin manager revived it, and yet I’m accused of ranting when I try to answer his points.

Anyway, on an informative and tactical note, (no offence intended if you already knew this). Man marking has no effect on set plays themselves, but tends to actually weaken your defence (depending on tactics used) and so create more shots for the opposition in open play, although it does reduced the chance of the marked player getting a chance in open play. Playing defensive, such as Stall has no effect on free kicks as this is completely dependant on the chance of being booked:
• For every booking, there's a 50% chance of a FK for the opposing team
• Every minute, each player has an additional chance of causing a FK that is 150% of the chance he has of being booked.

Alternatively, playing defensively would have actually increased number of corners. As corners are awarded:
• For every save made by the GK, there's a 50% chance of getting a CK
• Depending on possession, each team has a 0-1% chance each minute of getting a CK (if a team's possession that minute is 0, it gets 0%, if it's 100, it gets 1%).

Playing defensive, would have actually increased the number of corners as a result of increased Celtic possession. I know we’re having a disagreement, but I hope this tactical note will be of use to other managers too.

The referee was actually far worse than I antcipated, and I usually base my expectations on a pessimistic light. You just can't plan for extreme luck.

I remember HAM man marking as many CEL players as possible last season when teams met.

I think HAM has been rumbled as he conveniently choose to ignore the HAM challenge as set out above.

Can this topic be closed now?

HAM were unlucky in their game against us......

Referee bias can have a big effect in SESL.

This challenge idea sounds interesting right enough!

Sorry, You must have posted this as I've posed mine. Anyway, All your points are already met.

1. I brought in Steve the Montrose manager into the SESL several seasons ago, and have done my best to help him with all he's needed. whilst I agree more would be better; I'm one that believes in quality over quantity, and I'm sure you will agree Steve is a first class manager? So, I've done this in the past without any need for a reward, and will do so again if I find a suitable manager. The reward on offer doesn't act as incentives as I enjoy the SESL, and I'd like my friends that seem suitable to also enjoy the experience. Thats enough for me.

2. I've constantly offered to help Mark with newbies, as have other managers for NO reward. If you don't believe I'm willing to continue to help new managers or have not offer Mark such help, ask him.

HAM Challenge MET

Is it really that hard to believe managers will introduce new managers without offering a reward or that other manager will try to help out Mark simply because they can spare the time?

(Brief Enough?)