The main way for me to move talents down from pt to lower dimensions is either make it harder and/or more expensive for pt teams or make it cheaper for lower division teams. Increasing loan cap etc wont do anything about that
As someone who just promoted from CT I think the wage cap is harsh but it is possible to work with. Could maybe be raised a little but it is there as it is supposed to make the division weaked and not have a chance at the top riders. Going talents is a choice with consequences (relgation, bad short term results etc) and I know of like the jump from CT-PCT-PT that we have at the moment (though I wouldn't be very against a slight increase for CT)
I do disagree with Ezee here however, keep a hard cap. The soft cap would just move the cap /increase the cap and make the richer teams even better. I like the hard cap and it makes us have to consider every bid and purchase we do
Some things I would look at changes for:
1) Training
Training, as discussed on discord and on the forum. I would love for it to be split into different skills (so Mon, hill, cobbles sprint, tt more expensive than Flat, Sprint, Stamina that is more expensive than Fighter, downhill etc). Also building a ladder who makes it cheaper to train a 72 rider/stat but much more expensive to train 77, and even more expensive to train 83. Making it easier for CT teams to build riders via training and harder to make too strong riders via training
2) Talents
Then I'd like for us to find a way to make talents even harder for PT teams to get. In other words, easier for CT and PCT to get talents. In my mind PT should be the pinnacle division where the best riders should be, and not a development division. This would also make it harder for a PT team to always pick up the next leader and develop them, and hopefully make it harder to stay on top.
Here I am just throwing out ideas:
Increase the 1->3 price (minimum price) - Make it even harder to loan them out and get someone to develop them. Maybe only allow a team to loan out 1 lvl 1 rider. So it is still possible, just harder and more expensive
Make some kind of discount on wage for CT teams (and maybe PCT teams) (count 90% against wage cap but still 100% against budget or something) as an incentive to get talents.
As someone, who rarely signs talents and instead loans them to get cash (in theory), I don't think this will fundamentally change it for the better. In fact there will be either a bunch of unsigned talent or reaching max level by the age of 26-27. Maybe a change of the XP scale needs to be considered to make it easier for teams in any division to develop riders without any worries about loans. Then again, it will kill the entire purpose of the loan system.
That would make it even easier for PT teams to get talents early and and keep them. Currently the "big and rich", meaning PT teams, can sign talent and develop them while also having enough cap space and money to build competitive teams. In CT you have close to no chance in going for talents while also fielding a competitive roster. Good talents go for around 300-400k wage, that is around 30% of the wage budget of a CT team. And then they still have 14 other riders to sign with about 850k budget left, that is an average of 60k salary per rider.
This let's the big teams fish for talents and stay on top while new or low division teams have a really hard time to get better.
So either we raise the CT wage budget or we make it harder for big teams to sign good talents.
Another way would be the american way: draft system for new talents ahead of free agency. Worst team gets 1st pick on any lvl 1 rider and so on, do it for 1 round so each CT team gets 1 talent. Talents not drafted go into the FA pool.
No matter how we do it, it would make the MG experience more "rounded". Currently many PT teams have an easy time staying on top. Even if they relegate, they can get back to top much easier than ct promoters can stay in PCT.
Not saying we shouldn't look for ways to improve the MG experience, but I personally really like the fact that MG rewards competitiveness via promotion/relegation and the perks and challenges that come with it. Everyone can manage their team the way they want, but I think having incentives like that helps the game as a whole.
The best managers stay on top, because that's what they are, the best. Myself and the others can struggle to be competitive whether we sign expensive talents or not
My 2 cents on this...
I think it's a fundmental question about how the ManGame should work. In my opinion, it should kind of reflect reality. In reality, which teams do the biggest talents usually sign their first pro contract with? Conti teams?
I get that it is frustrating as a CT team not to be able to compete for big talents. It's not impossible - you can always take example on Ulrich who signed McNulty in his first season. He knew he'd struggle to score for a couple of years with that strategy (even though he had a fantastic Holloway in his first year as well) - it demands patience. A lot of it.
It might also be true that talents got more expensive on average in recent years, just because there's less of them (to fight inflation). But with let's say 400k, you could still sign some really nice talents this year. The consequence is that you won't have tons of money left to be competitive, and you'll need a long-term approach. I think that is fine.
And I think many also overestimate the PT teams' capacity of endlessly signing talents. There are two teams this year who go big on quite some talents - I'd be surprised if they didn't relegate. Grieg digged big for Del Grosso and relegated. Rabobank almost relegated twice in a row iirc. Yes, PT teams do have a cap advantage - but if the other teams mostly use their cap to be as competitive as possible, it's very likely the team that digs deep for a talent that will relegate. "Talent hoarding" will rarely to never work out imho, PT is just too competitive for that. And don't underestimate that it's really expensive for PT to develop big talents - money that will be missing elsewhere. PT budgets aren't bigger by default - if you fail your goals, you have little money. That's as true for PT as it's for CT.
Relegating is never fun btw, neither from PT to PCT, and even less from PCT to CT. Tough decisions have to be taken. Grieg have lost Del Grosso, which must hurt big time. Banco Vaticano will (most likely) lose Del Toro. Going for talents is a risky strategy, that can work out - but it's far from being guaranteed.
Now, I would absolutely not be opposed to a slight bump of the CT wage budget. The jump from CT to PCT is huge, as you get over 100% more budget! From PCT to PT, it's just 40%. However, you have to consider that PCT and PT teams need 5 additional riders compared to CT. I'd agree on 1.3M for CT with the same constraints on rider numbers, or 1.5-1.6M if CT teams also have to sign 20 riders.
In short, I don't think the current system is fundamentally broken. If you're successful, you get the chance to sign big talents (starting from PCT). Big talents usually (IRL) pick rather successful or promising teams. Nothing wrong about that imho. CT cap situation could be slightly improved, but that's all I'd change.
