|
[2023] MG Renewals - Post Renewals DB
|
| ivaneurope |
Posted on 28-06-2023 10:57
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2933
Joined: 09-05-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
You know, screw common sense, I've added a brand new folder to store the 2023 stuff
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 28-06-2023 12:19
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Waiting for the DB with New Riders before renewals. As well as any official word from the MGUCI on if there'll be any changes to trainings, xp gains etc for the 2023 season.
|
| |
|
|
| jaxika |
Posted on 29-06-2023 13:01
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3148
Joined: 16-07-2008
PCM$: 9200.00
|
Hey, not related to renewals (only a little bit), but what i can do if one of my riders out on loan, the loan clause wasnt fulfilled? (Roman Seigle - max it loan clause) |
| |
|
|
| Fabianski |
Posted on 29-06-2023 13:20
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4667
Joined: 29-09-2018
PCM$: 185.00
|
jaxika wrote:
Hey, not related to renewals (only a little bit), but what i can do if one of my riders out on loan, the loan clause wasnt fulfilled? (Roman Seigle - max it loan clause)
I think he should get the level-up, as that was the clause. It's not your fault if the loaning-in team doesn't get their planning right.
Loan clause fulfillment is usually checked with the race planners iirc, but it looks like this one went missing 
As far as I can see, the XP calculation is right, he used 70 RDs to get 56 XP points, so it really looks like a wrong planning
|
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 29-06-2023 13:47
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
I think it was said in the transfer rules that the rider will reach the XP stipulated in the clause, even if the loaning in team fails to respect the clause, with the repercussions falling on the loaning in team.
|
| |
|
|
| Fabianski |
Posted on 29-06-2023 14:19
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4667
Joined: 29-09-2018
PCM$: 185.00
|
alexkr00 wrote:
I think it was said in the transfer rules that the rider will reach the XP stipulated in the clause, even if the loaning in team fails to respect the clause, with the repercussions falling on the loaning in team.
I somehow remember that as well, but couldn't find this wording anywhere now. The transfer rules state that the loaning in team has to fulfill the clause, but I couldn't find anything about XP being granted anyway (although I'm pretty sure that I have read this somewhere). It was also asked multiple times in the race planner threads of the last years, where the admins replied that planners would be checked for loan clauses. Guess it was just missed here. Only other explanation would be that Seigle was riding in a PT wildcard race, but didn't finish them - but on one hand I guess XP calculations are based on planners, not on results, and secondly the loaning-in team didn't have any PT wildcards anyway...
|
| |
|
|
| Jajajasper |
Posted on 29-06-2023 14:21
|
Free Agent
Posts: 126
Joined: 20-01-2021
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ready for R1! |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 29-06-2023 14:26
|
World Champion
Posts: 14562
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
Fabianski wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
I think it was said in the transfer rules that the rider will reach the XP stipulated in the clause, even if the loaning in team fails to respect the clause, with the repercussions falling on the loaning in team.
I somehow remember that as well, but couldn't find this wording anywhere now. The transfer rules state that the loaning in team has to fulfill the clause, but I couldn't find anything about XP being granted anyway (although I'm pretty sure that I have read this somewhere). It was also asked multiple times in the race planner threads of the last years, where the admins replied that planners would be checked for loan clauses. Guess it was just missed here. Only other explanation would be that Seigle was riding in a PT wildcard race, but didn't finish them - but on one hand I guess XP calculations are based on planners, not on results, and secondly the loaning-in team didn't have any PT wildcards anyway...
What if it was simply not possible? For example if the loan in team wasn't granted enough PT Wildcards to get the mathematicaly required XP?
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 21-11-2024 19:20
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Fabianski |
Posted on 29-06-2023 14:34
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4667
Joined: 29-09-2018
PCM$: 185.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
What if it was simply not possible? For example if the loan in team wasn't granted enough PT Wildcards to get the mathematicaly required XP?
You're right, it wasn't possible. The rider did the max PTHC RDs he could, and only HC otherwise. So apologies to the Admins, you surely did do the planner check and might even have contacted the manager pre-season.
But I guess the team didn't even apply for PT wildcards, as they got none, and there were quite some open spots last year. So it's not a question of not granted enough wildcards, but maybe not enough money to apply. They might not have taken into consideration that they'd need at least 4 PT RDs to max the rider (given PTHC clashes). Still, the loaning-out team can't be faulted for this, and the rider should get the missing XP imho.
Edited by Fabianski on 29-06-2023 14:40
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 29-06-2023 14:36
|
World Champion
Posts: 12187
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
Fabianski wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
I think it was said in the transfer rules that the rider will reach the XP stipulated in the clause, even if the loaning in team fails to respect the clause, with the repercussions falling on the loaning in team.
I somehow remember that as well, but couldn't find this wording anywhere now. The transfer rules state that the loaning in team has to fulfill the clause, but I couldn't find anything about XP being granted anyway (although I'm pretty sure that I have read this somewhere). It was also asked multiple times in the race planner threads of the last years, where the admins replied that planners would be checked for loan clauses. Guess it was just missed here. Only other explanation would be that Seigle was riding in a PT wildcard race, but didn't finish them - but on one hand I guess XP calculations are based on planners, not on results, and secondly the loaning-in team didn't have any PT wildcards anyway...
What if it was simply not possible? For example if the loan in team wasn't granted enough PT Wildcards to get the mathematicaly required XP?
IMO the punishment should be put on the party who doesn't hold up to his end. In this example the loaning in team. The loaning out team should not be punished.
The punishment could be equal to the cost of the needed wildcard races that should have been invested, and those are then deducted from next seasons budget.
|
| |
|
|
| jaxika |
Posted on 29-06-2023 14:56
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3148
Joined: 16-07-2008
PCM$: 9200.00
|
I didnt want punishment, just the max up  |
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 29-06-2023 19:18
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
SotD wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
Fabianski wrote:
alexkr00 wrote:
I think it was said in the transfer rules that the rider will reach the XP stipulated in the clause, even if the loaning in team fails to respect the clause, with the repercussions falling on the loaning in team.
I somehow remember that as well, but couldn't find this wording anywhere now. The transfer rules state that the loaning in team has to fulfill the clause, but I couldn't find anything about XP being granted anyway (although I'm pretty sure that I have read this somewhere). It was also asked multiple times in the race planner threads of the last years, where the admins replied that planners would be checked for loan clauses. Guess it was just missed here. Only other explanation would be that Seigle was riding in a PT wildcard race, but didn't finish them - but on one hand I guess XP calculations are based on planners, not on results, and secondly the loaning-in team didn't have any PT wildcards anyway...
What if it was simply not possible? For example if the loan in team wasn't granted enough PT Wildcards to get the mathematicaly required XP?
IMO the punishment should be put on the party who doesn't hold up to his end. In this example the loaning in team. The loaning out team should not be punished.
The punishment could be equal to the cost of the needed wildcard races that should have been invested, and those are then deducted from next seasons budget.
Seeing as it could be missed by poor planning instead of missing wildcard races, or not given enough wildcard races, then wouldn't a more consistent punishment be to relate it to either the cost of the loan clause or the wage of the rider loaned?
|
| |
|
|
| quadsas |
Posted on 29-06-2023 19:22
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2518
Joined: 18-01-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
The penalty should be massive. Like triple the wage + triple the cost if there was any. Gotta be punishing otherwise it's ripe for abuse. I could just loan dudes in for free and not ride them to make up numbers etc.
|
| |
|
|
| Bjartne |
Posted on 29-06-2023 19:22
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2907
Joined: 15-07-2007
PCM$: 300.00
|
Tafjord Kraft - Dropbox emptied and manager ready  |
| |
|
|
| Fabianski |
Posted on 29-06-2023 20:36
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4667
Joined: 29-09-2018
PCM$: 185.00
|
sammyt93 wrote:
Seeing as it could be missed by poor planning instead of missing wildcard races, or not given enough wildcard races, then wouldn't a more consistent punishment be to relate it to either the cost of the loan clause or the wage of the rider loaned?
As I said in my previous post, it wasn't actually poor race planning. The Admins stated in several thread that in such cases they'd just ask the manager to adjust the planning (only thing they have no control of is Avenir nominations, but that wasn't the issue here anyway).
The rider got the max possible amount of PTHC RDs, with the rest being HC - you can't do more. The part that was poor imho - without knowing about exact financial details etc. - was to not apply for PT wildcards. I don't think we can blame the admins for that - they can't keep track of this during transfers as well, and afterwards it's too late.
The ruling on this should obviously be done by the admins. Personally, I think something along the lines of SotD's would be fine, although I understand quadsas' point of it encouraging abuse if the penalty is neglectable. In the current case, I guess either the Classics and Monuments or the Stage Races package (€ 70,000 each) should have been chosen, as getting 4 classics or 2 monuments alone is unlikely.
On the other hand, as long as the rider gets the missing XP, I wouldn't even mind about not having any penalty at all. My opinion on this would be different if it was clearly something systematic or even unrealistic (e.g. taking a 4.00 rider on loan as a PCT team, depends a lot on wildcards). But here the manager chose the schedule giving the rider the most possible XP; it's not like he used him for C1/C2 races to really benefit from his skills. But yeah, I'm happy not to be an admin in this case 
|
| |
|
|
| DarkWolf |
Posted on 30-06-2023 06:28
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1025
Joined: 21-09-2020
PCM$: 700.00
|
Dropbox cleaned and ready to go.
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 30-06-2023 07:07
|
World Champion
Posts: 12187
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I agree with Fabianski. It's not like I want a penalty either, I was just stating how I would interpret a penalty. The team loaning out the rider should definately get the level up they were promised. The loaning in team made an honest mistake. A minor penalty or a warning is imo sufficient.
I do agree that we need to punish managers who exploit the game and/or other managers, but I definately doesn't see this as a such case, hence the small fine on budget being a useful solution, that doesn't tilt anything.
I can't remember having another situation like this in all my years so making up a huge fine would be drastically overkill. If we see an actual escalation of the issue meassures can be taken against it, but for now? Not a big deal really.
|
| |
|
|
| fjhoekie |
Posted on 30-06-2023 08:12
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4476
Joined: 25-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well there is precendent... I failed to meet clauses for Dzhus and Tanovitchii during the 2013 season, not applying the Avenir points first, but rather last causing them to not reach level 3. No penalty was given to me, both riders were leveled up to 3.00, and from reading back the old PMs some other manager also had a miscalculation with 1 of Avin's riders back then.
Manager of Team Popo4Ever p/b Morshynska in the PCM.Daily Man-Game |
| |
|
|
| jandal7 |
Posted on 30-06-2023 08:52
|
World Champion
Posts: 11392
Joined: 17-12-2014
PCM$: 1020.00
|
I'd be ok with what SotD is saying about a minor penalty/warning, provided it is made crystal clear going into next season and beyond what the penalty is for this going forward. As quadsas says, it's too easy a rule to exploit, either by loaning your riders out with impossible clauses and getting the free XP you couldn't otherwise, or taking in riders with clauses and not working to get them to the XP because you know they will get artificially levelled up anyway.
24/02/21 - kandesbunzler said “I don't drink famous people."
15/08/22 - SotD said "Your [jandal's] humour is overrated"
11/06/24 - knockout said "Winning is fine I guess. Truth be told this felt completely unimportant."
[ICL] Santos-Euskadi | [PT]  Xero Racing
5x  x5
2x  x2
2x  x2 |
| |
|
|
| Ezeefreak |
Posted on 30-06-2023 08:52
|
Domestique
Posts: 555
Joined: 06-07-2009
PCM$: 300.00
|
my 2 cents...
No matter what the reason was there has to be a punishment. I think the loan out team also deserves to get the rider has stated in the clause and especially because of that there has to be the punishment for the other team. Otherwise you can just abuse this whole system.
Its not up to me to decide what punishment but i think a budget cut of some % or the amount of money involved of the deal.
Also in the end its the task of the manager to make it work. The mg admins and people who work for the mg can't be put on blame here. They asrent there for pampering us.
Btw we are derailing this thread here quite a bit  Sorry Nemo 
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
