Clearly my roster skills are that good I never even considered that retiring 2 players would be seen as an issue. I knew that there was a minimum squad size but assumed checks would be in place should I breach. You know what they say about assume though.... 

Happy for Monty to be 'returned' in whatever way commish can make it happen, I miss having 2 in my side anyway, because that makes the roster management even easier so it does. 

While it is probably just a mistake, even from a very experienced manager, the rules have been broken and a solution needs to be found. The retire oldies for cash rules state that a retirement cannot be reversed however I would suggest that a new player is created to replace one of those retired at COW and cash removed from COW account to compensate.

That's what I would do.

Looking at our next match I notice that there are no goalkeeping stats for Cameron's keepers at Arbroath despite Norris  losing 4 goals from 5 shots - having replaced Gunn after 4 minutes and Gunn not having faced a shot. Just strange that's all  :-)

It probably is the 17 man roster that's causing the problem. Normally you can't retire players to drop to 17 players but if you have 19 you can retire 2 as long as you stay on the transaction page.

It looks like a system eror to me.  The NMR lineup stopped adding players when it found no MFs.  

It looks like it does not assign OOP players automatically...

(So if you don't have any MFs you can't NMR... ;)

I accepted a trade from COW for resources but inbox says COW breaks roster rules.

Just 17 players maybe?

Is there an argument to get rid of Bosman freebies 1/8 and 1/10?

Maybe default to 1/12, but also increase the 1/16 ceiling to 18 or 20 skill level to help the weaker teams.

The following teams receive retire for cash through on 26 Nov:
ALB(442) ARB(188) BRE(8) COW(208) DUM(168) DEE(40) EF(110) EDI(96) FAL(415) FOR(444) FRA(237) HEA(200) HIB(120) MOT(240) NAI(132) QP(32) RR(30) STJ(208) STI(312)

FOR sends 107k to ARB for Colin Montgomery (1/10 DF)

From the wiki rules Roy:-

"A team MUST start match with 11 players. If this does not happen for any reason (e.g. NMR program cannot field a valid lineup due to low EL) then the team loses the gate receipts from that match. The only exception is if a software bug causes the issue."

While it's a nonsense a squad having no MF'ers (presumably to make your lineups predictably Early Cross) I would say to also fine MON gate receipts may be harsh.  Blowout seems sufficient.

Chelsea 2 - 2 Arsenal

Brentford 0 - 0 Burnley

Man. City 3 - 0 Leeds United

Nottingham Forest 3 - 2 Brighton

Aston Villa 3 - 1 Wolves

West Ham 0 - 1 Liverpool

Everton 2 - 1 Newcastle

Sunderland 2 - 2 Bournemouth

Tottenham 4 - 0 Fulham

Crystal Palace 2 - 1 Man. United

PS I would agree to refund MON their blowout fine.. 

I would hope the blowout would be refunded as the manager isn't deliberately fielding a weak team if they NMR

The NMR facility appears to have struggled to field 11 players for MON in match 28.

A quick glance shows the MON roster has no MF players.

None.

Zero.

Zilch.

Is there a bonus payment if you make EPL predictions in bold text

🤔

Chelsea 1 - 2 Arsenal

Brentford 2 - 0 Burnley

Man. City 2 - 0 Leeds United

Nottingham Forest 2 - 2 Brighton

Aston Villa 3 - 0 Wolves

West Ham 1 - 1 Liverpool

Everton 2 - 1 Newcastle

Sunderland 2 - 2 Bournemouth

Tottenham 1 - 0 Fulham

Crystal Palace 2 - 1 Man. United

HIB sends 5 TP to AI for Charlie Telfer (4/23 MF)

The following teams receive an MVP bonus after match 28:
Falkirk - MVP #5: 25k (WWw)
Hibernian - MVP #2: 1 TP + 25k (WdW)
Stranraer - MVP #4: 1 CP (WWw)
Alloa Athletic - MVP #4: 1 CP (WwW)
Rangers - MVP #2: 1 TP + 25k (DWw)
Partick Thistle - MVP #4: 1 CP (DWw)
Motherwell - MVP #4: 1 CP (wDw)

Chelsea 1 - 1 Arsenal
Brentford 2 - 0 Burnley
Man. City 6 - 0 Leeds United
Nottingham Forest 0 - 2 Brighton
Aston Villa 3 - 0 Wolves
West Ham 1- 2 Liverpool
Everton 2 - 1 Newcastle
Sunderland 1 - 0 Bournemouth
Tottenham 3 - 0 Fulham
Crystal Palace 3 - 2 Man. United

Chelsea 1 - 2 Arsenal
Brentford 0 - 0 Burnley
Man. City 2 - 0 Leeds United
Nottingham Forest 1 - 0 Brighton
Aston Villa 2 - 0 Wolves
West Ham 0 - 2 Liverpool
Everton 1 - 0 Newcastle
Sunderland 1 - 2 Bournemouth
Tottenham 1 - 1 Fulham
Crystal Palace 1 - 1 Man. United

Chelsea 1 - 2 Arsenal

Brentford 2 - 0 Burnley

Man. City 2 - 0 Leeds United

Nottingham Forest 1 - 2 Brighton

Aston Villa 2 - 0 Wolves

West Ham 0 - 2 Liverpool

Everton 1 - 2 Newcastle

Sunderland 1 - 2 Bournemouth

Tottenham 2 - 1 Fulham

Crystal Palace 2 - 1 Man. United

A very good week for my predictions

Alon Atie                       13

David Blair                     8.5

Andy Shaw                     8.5

Paul Cockyne                 8.5

William Bushby                7.0

James Tucker                   6.5

Andrew McCumiskey       4.5

Bill Ramsey                       3.5

I have four old duffers I want send to retirement home, but my squad is too small.
So what Roy at STI has done makes some sense (assuming no TP will be wasted on such duds)

Getting 4 seasons out these 1/10 fillers as subs seems a decent mid-term strategy.

As a 1/10 reaches 4/5 without any coaching this is 3 seasons of service for the cost of around 25K, if the oldie sell off continues,  or if you like the value of this post!

With MSA hitting a number of my T-17 players I was in need of better support for the team.

The selling off oldies scheme is great for getting rid of deadwood for a small profit but it has also taken away the chance to buy those players as they're not really worth the oldies conversion rates. (A bit like selling the family car for scrap to get a discount of a new car).

I had just acquired another TP through an MVP and looking at the teams with 24/25 players noticed the 1/10 Bosman players just sitting there so I thought let's try that. 3TPs, 3 1/10 players who won't age as quickly.

I'll see how it pans out, but I'm also wondering whether I could have done this sooner. But then I didn't have the spare TP at that point and the going rate is well below 300k (especially with the resources auction coming up).

Cash-in your old players for money by retiring them before match 28 kicks off on 26th November..

There is no requirement to buy an apprentice as 2nd option of season is just a straight cash-in.

Managers will post on Notebook what the aged SL and value is of players being retired, plus a total amount due.

Managers will retire players themselves before Sesl cup match kick offs Wed 26th Nov, 3pm.

Commish within 24 hours will add cash in full of the players that were retired before deadline noted above.  

any player age 4+ with SL12 or less is eligable to be cashed in.
Age 4 players at 15k per SL
Age 5 players at 12k per SL
Age 6 players at 10k per SL
Age 7+ players at 8k per SL

Ta!

"Managers will post on Notebook what the aged SL and value is of players being retired, plus a total amount due.

Managers will retire players themselves before Sesl cup match kick offs Wed 26th Nov, 3pm."

Are the retired players able to play game 28 as the deadline for retirement and play the game 28 are the same time?

FOR sends 220k to COW for 2 CP

PET sends 600k to ALO for 6 TP, John Fraser (7/2 DF), Bernard Gallacher (7/1 MF)

Rightly or wrongly I usually take a defender and coach up as I don't think defenders need to be that higher to be useful.    Then again based on my goals against I'm probably wrong on that score.   I also use have a squad filling midfielder as a 3rd or 4th choice.   Can flog them for the same amount as you pay for them at age4

HIB sends 6 TP to SRA for 150k, Magjust Lekburn (4/23 DF)

As STI roster stands just now, only 3 TP are needed from resource bank to fully train the age 0 GK.

So STI had 3 TP spare.  Prob could have got near 300k for the spare TP, but he went with squad fillers which kinda makes sense. 

These 1/8, 1/10 and maybe even 1/12 type free Bosmans seem kinda worthless to me, and 90%+ are not going to see any TP added to them.  Hopefully.

And unlikely they will be trained up as 3TPs were used to buy the lads in. Still guessing there is a strategy and good luck to STI. And 3 clubs have got a TP and got shot if 3 lads going nowhere. 🤔

COW sends 190k to PT for 2 TP

Curious to strategy of STI buying up these 1/10 players.

Allowing handful of older players to be retired for cash maybe.

STI sends 1 TP to SRA for Plenton Yuri (1/10 FW)

Completed

STI sends 1 TP to STJ for John Collins (1/10 MF)

Coming back to management with the mighty Nairn County has felt like jumping back on a rollercoaster you swore you’d never ride again; equal parts thrilling, chaotic, and oddly enjoyable. We’ve had a surprisingly strong start, bagging three wins and only narrowly losing to partick Thistle who are currently flying high in Div 2. The defence has been the real stars of the show, racking up three clean sheets as if they’re trying to convince everyone they’re actually a laundry service. And that first win? Let’s just say it was controversial, the sort of match where the Edinburgh City fans probably left the stadium muttering about referees, fate, and possibly witchcraft. Sorry Bill. Looking forward to see what unfurls in the cup...

STI sends 1 TP, Christian Dailly (7/2 DF) to DUM for Submit Preseason (1/10 DF)

We meant to take part but unfortunatly real life got in the way.

A last minute work trip to Malaysia was and still is an unwelcome distraction

When will you ever listen to me - Forest will always spoil your predictions 

The following teams receive an MVP bonus after match 27:
Stenhousemuir - MVP #6: 25k (wwW)
Stirling - MVP #2: 1 TP + 25k (WdW)

The following teams receive an MVP bonus after match 26:
Dundee FC - MVP #7: 25k (WwW)
Annan Athletic - MVP #2: 1 TP + 25k (WwD)
Nairn County - MVP #1: 1 TP + 25k (WWw)
Airdrieonians FC - MVP #3: 1 TP (WwD)

Yes, get well soon - SESL can help take your mind off the pain, hopefully. 👍

Last week I got eczema, diarrhea, and hemorrhoids.

It was the first time I have ever won a game of scrabble.

Get well soon Alon

Another 6 point session today for FRA may help.

Whilst I do posibly have concerns about these,that is not the reason I did not use them.

I had a minor opperation with very painful recovery(haemoroids) so to be honest I have not been able to give propper attention to anything requiring brain power.

Hopefully getting to the end of my recovery soon.

The following teams receive cost to change Captain through refund of Captain change request:
DEE(100)

It's a fundamental rule - no player shall have more than 10 PU in a season. It is there for a reason and should NEVER be broken or abused.

Gents, the 30 teams who paid for a +10SLs on an age 5 or older player have all had their lad's PU updated to show 10, meaning they can't receive any more PUs.

Mark asked me to do the job as he is busy on a business venture and says if anybody has a query on their player at all PLEASE blog it before tomorrow's games and I will deal with it. (I am human so the odd error just might appear - but it can be sorted if I know about it.) Thanks.

mmmm....
I must have done something wrong. Thought I "ordered" a senior citizen, but nope.

Think I forgot to save or something..Annoying, but my bad.

Just made it a bit harder to survive this season (allthough chances were bleak to start)

Thanks Mark, although as mentioned by colleagues in blogs I wouldn't have trained up my lad further either. But this way we know what's happening. 👍👍

I will make all senior citizen boosts be added to PU tomorrow.

That is what I originally meant, but I have caused the confusion by my comment yesterday at end of Notebook posts.  I have been distracted lately and not given my full attention to Sesl and I apologise for my mistake on the Notebook entry.

Any team that got senior citizen boost that no longer wishes it can have it backed out and money refunded ofcourse, but this request must be made in Notebook with a time stamp of Friday (tomorrow) on it.  I can not risk a +10 SL player featuring in matches this weekend when manager wants to back out and I may not have time to adjust before matches kick off.

In the spirit of the game and fair play this seems best resolution that no player can have more than 10 SL added in a season.

Sorry for confusion this has caused.

I think that we can all agree to not train the "senior citizens" that got the boost.

In reading it one more time I think it is clear that the PU should have been updated to 10.

"D) Senior Citizen: add 10 SL to a single age5+ player up to usual maximum PU of 10."

Even if the PU does not get fixed I will not train my player.

My understanding was up to the usual maximum PU of 10 implied that the 10 SL would include PU 

Skill Level over 40 seems ridiculous so needs a cap on it, as the mid season aging and post season aging equations may not have been designed to deal sufficiently with such mega players.

Still time to resolve this PU blip tomorrow before next matches kick off.

I understood 10 SL age 5 was PU10 max.  Eg. DUU picked a player with a couple of PU so he got a 8SL boost. This suggests 10 PU max.

I agree with majority voices, and DEE seem the sole voice against.

To be fair to DEE, the age 5 auction player may have been bought with staff boost in mind - so maybe the league could buy that player back from DEE for half the cost Ed paid?   He still got 10 games maybe with 28 SL on that (unwanted) age 5 now.

I have no agenda for SL10 or not, as I picked a player position change option instead.

It looks like the solution is to up the PU to 10 when this is applied.

The next question will be what happens if you pick a player that has some PU already.  I would say that if you select a player for this boost then you should only get whatever PUs you are missing to the 10 PU max.

And the PU for said player should be upped to 10.

That solves the potential 20SL boost problem...

Up to the usual maximum PU of 10 implied to me that the 10 SL would include PU so how could I have a strong opinion against it?

A few years ago I quit SFLSL because the then Commish was allowing PU to go above 10 amongst other things.

If the senior citizen conditions were that clear then Mark would not have needed to add the ammendment 3 hours and 15 minutes(approx) prior to the deadline and i would guess that many more managers would have bought into the extra 20 SL idea but simply did not have time due to being unaware...

But it was not clear to many of us even though it has been stated that it was ?

Surely fairness should prevail whereby the age old rule of a MAXIMUM of 10 PU stands.

A little help from the blog archive ...

Mark posted 24/09

Wiki rules have been updated to reflect the 5 staff member options a team may buy mid season.

one maximum per team.

This initiative will be reviewed at end of season 60.  

http://www.vanillaconsulting.biz/seslwiki/index.php/SESL_Rules#*NEW_for_season_60*_Staff_Purchase_mid_season

Anyone else with strong opinions either may can put them on blog,
but the rule needs set in stone before first league matches in 10 days time.

"Most managers would have picked their captain before we knew we could add 20 SL."

So, while most of us had probably placed our pre-season orders by then, there was still a window of opportunity.
Arguing with most is, as usually, rather pointless anyway. 
Most of us win neither the wooden spoon nor the SESL Cup any season.

Sample: DEE's decisions 
The (only) initial captain choice was a weak 5/20 FW.
BUT the relevant decisions remained: 
1. When to buy a high-SL age 5 at what price, given the higher expected offers due to the SC option?
2. When to turn the new age 5 into a captain?

Decision #2 isn't as trivial as it looks, given that a 5/28 delivers much better coaching rewards than a 5/20.

So yes, those have been non-trivial decisions, well ahead of yesterday.

BTW: nobody "with strong opinions" against showed up.

"Some of these decisions were made some time ago (e.g. player purchases and captain's choices)."

The final staff positions were announced via a link to wiki rules on 24th September (I think - t's in the blog archive and I can't remember which it was) and on Notebook on 25th. The first match was 27th September. Most managers would have picked their captain before we knew we could add 20 SL.

I had assumed that it was 10 PU, otherwise I would have used it on my captain who in a struggling season has yet to gain a CP for a captain's bonus, maybe there are others who did the same?

I'd vote the add the PU10 now on senior citizen boosts done yesterday before matches next kick off.

The line on that option does mention 10 PU maximum, and I understand how DEE for example may read it one way.  While MOT boss read it differently.  I think most would read it same way as Andy MOT did.

We maybe need read a handful more opinions.   

Certainly there's "still time to change the PU" for the SCs.
Just as well there's still time to set all SLs of age 7 players to 42.
Both scripts can be run in seconds.
In both cases: Why?

There is a rule:

D) Senior Citizen: add 10 SL to a single age5+ player up to usual maximum PU of 10.

It is not stated that an SL increase is PUed.
Nowhere in the rules does it state that each and any SL increase is PUed.

Some players may have noticed this and made decisions based on it.
Some of these decisions were made some time ago (e.g. player purchases and captain's choices).

Should those players who read the rules be punished retroactively?

I am all for dropping the SC option, as well as the staff options altogether.
If we keep it, then please make it PUed.
In fact, I'd prefer it if all SL increases were PUed.

But that's for next season only.
 

Just been reading the concerns about the age 5 lads getting their +10SL boost BUT not altering the PU to 10 rfor each of them.

It does seem bizarre to basically know your boy can get +20SLs in a season when younger ones can't and it would mean a superclass of 40+SL players in the league. This would add a couple more years to such a players career and next season another one adds to the total (or worse still, the now age 6 player can move even higher up.

I would be in agreement that these lads (including my GK Bursik) have their PUs changed to 10. 

Why not make all the age 5 senior citizen boosts added to PU before a ball is kicked this Saturday.

That seems the interpretation of the boost from those that have given feedback so far.

DEE may wish to change captain to his age 6 FW now instead, but that is about all the tweak needed.

Just seen the reasoning and the previous correction of the error at auction.

'Trade: DEE - CB

DEE sends Budgie McGhie (1/14 MF) to CB for..

Traded(?) the day after being acquired by DEE in the latest auction now on the CB roster.

Must be an error surely ?

I think it's important to note that MOT will benefit about the second most in the league from this rule interpretation. MOT will be able to get a 5/40 winger out of it, as we can afford the captain change cost and are fairly likely to get a bunch of captain's bonuses due to our high squad level. I am not raising these concerns out of jealousy or regret, as I will benefit more than most anyone.

And this is coming up now and not months ago because now is the first time anyone specified that this +10 boost would not count towards PU.

I am raising my concerns because it's easily abusable. If this is the method, I will keep GKs at max PU until age 5, and then build towards a 5/41 or 5/42 GK in the second half of the season. The best people without an age 5 GK will have is around a 3/34. That's a pretty huge top end boost that will warp cups and leagues, in my opinion. And that boost will only be available to the already successful teams that can get 10 captains bonuses quickly. 

It's a huge "the rich get richer" where the benefit goes only to already successful teams. If we think division 1 consistency is hard to break into now, wait until the d1 top teams all have 5/40+ super captains

On Sept 25th I said  'More I think about it the more I dislike these perks."

And at that time Senior Citizen was only 2 SL for all age 5+ players.

The 10 SL was very recently announced and, like Andy, I assumed it included 10 PU being added. Just because I don't like it doesnt mean I'm not going to take advantage.

I also assumed these bonuses were being added at MSA - the clue being in the title "mid-season staff buying" otherwise I would have made sure Slater was EL 8 right now.

Slater is 10 SL better than he was and after 2 games he will be 9 SL better than he would be. He's T11 player that would have ended up a T17 player. It's too powerful a boost for 100k. And the fact that he can get more SL is wrong IMO. It doesnt matter that he will lose loads of SL as he was going to anyway. 

ALO player Slater will lose 7 SL at mid season, and 9 SL i think at end of season.

Perhaps as Captain he may earn a few more SL but still end season less SL than started with.  Suppose a few teams can get 10 Captains bonus in just 2nd half of season after mid season staff purchasing, but that would be a huge minority.

Similar to Andy's concerns of 5/28 auction buys becoming max high SL - there has been 3 such players at auction, so means a minimum of 45 teams won't have this benefit.

Generally speaking, Paul at EF came up with idea in August of staff, and myself and Eduard at DEE offered ideas.

Clearly the age 5+ SL boost was the most popular choice.  Few raised concerns when options discussed mid September, so a tad churlish in hindsight to now cry foul?

My Captain is on 8 PU I think so hopefully I'll be asking for another Captain soon. It was going to be Slater my DM rather than Doidge my FW playing in MF. I'd forgotten all about this mid-aeason bonus.

Giving Slater the 10 SL was a no-brainer and I assumed I'd be making Doidge my captain. 

It's sheer madness that Slater can potentially get another 10 SL.

+10 with no PU seems to break the precedent of the PotS getting +1/+2/+3 but those counting against PU. I believe part of the reason those PU restrictions were put into place was to prevent pushing towards super players. With this change it should be pretty reasonable to turn an auction purchase into a 5/41 by the end of season, which seems rather silly.

Why would we want players getting +20 in one season?

D) Senior Citizen: add 10 SL to a single age5+ player up to usual maximum PU of 10.

Seems to make it clear that the players getting +10 would also move up to 10 PU and not stay on 0 PU

No, it doesn't. 
I admit that I misunderstood the rules in the same way as you did, but Mark clarified them today.

Idea was so a Captain already on PU 10 did not get another 10 SL added.
The boosted senior citizen can go on and earn another 10 PU 2nd half of season, but for mid season maximum of 10 SL added before mid season boost.

So the effective training limit pre-senior-buff is 10 PU.
The PU after the buff remains the same (0 or whatever) as it was - and so the post-buff training potential stays.

A bit confused by what has happened with the following:

D) Senior Citizen: add 10 SL to a single age5+ player up to usual maximum PU of 10.

Seems to make it clear that the players getting +10 would also move up to 10 PU and not stay on 0 PU

It was a blunderful start to the festive season at SESL HQ as Plunder Ghench (SW 5/24) got an unexpected +10SL?! The olde Sweeper was running around the training area like a rampant gazzelle before Manager McCumiskey pointed out that his twin Ismaning Ghench (WG 5/20) should have gotten the SESL injection. 30 minutes later and all was sorted. Winger Ismaning was slicker than snot on a glass doorknob. Plunder meanwhile had to be removed by Air Ambulance to the rest home.........

39 teams took advantage of the pre season staff purchase

Options will be reviewed before next season and tweaked, and the idea was to make it affordable for all with options from 50k to 700k

I'd be keen to hear from the 9 managers who never took part,
AYR CEL CLY DFA FRA KIL MON PET QOS
and their feedback will form part of the changes of staff offers next season.

The following teams receive mid season staff purchase through Notebook entries:
ABE(-50) AI(-50) ALB(-150) ALO(-100) ANN(-100) ARB(-150) BER(-50) BRE(-50) CB(-100) COV(-600) COW(-100) DEV(-300) DUM(-700) DEE(-150) DUU(-100) EF(-100) EST(-50) EDI(-200) ELG(-100) FAL(-50) FOR(-100) GM(-50) HAM(-150) HEA(-150) HIB(-100) INV(-500) LIV(-300) MOT(-150) NAI(-100) PT(-200) QP(-50) RR(-150) RAN(-150) ROS(-50) STJ(-150) SM(-100) STE(-150) STI(-50) SRA(-150)

The following teams receive cost to change Captain through Kerr Waddell:
DEE(-100)

I was sitting in the staff canteen, probably in 2006 I think, with a young(ish) man who was bemoaning England's exit from the competition.  

"Surely", he said "I am entitled to see England win the World Cup once in my lifetime"

To which I replied that if it was once in a lifetime he'd have to wait until I was dead, as I'd watched proceedings in 1966, aged 12.

New Captain: Kerr Waddell

The following teams receive an MVP bonus after match 25:
Elgin City - MVP #5: 25k (WwD)

Coach: Ally MacLeod                Age: 47   26 Feb 1931

The first WC that I remember (and it was a huge dissapointment for Uruguay as Peru knocked us out of it)

Look at this (the team that beat the Dutch!):

     SCOTLAND                       AGE   D.O.B.        CLUB
      1 GK Alan Rough                26   25 Nov 1951   Partick Thistle
      3 DF William Donachie          26   05 Oct 1951   Manchester City (ENG)
      4 DF Martin Buchan             29   06 Mar 1949   Manchester United (ENG)
     13 DF Stuart Kennedy (C)        25   31 May 1953   Aberdeen
     14 DF Thomas Forsyth            29   23 Jan 1949   Glasgow Rangers
      6 MD Bruce Rioch               30   06 Sep 1947   Derby County (ENG)
     10 MD Asa Hartford              27   24 Oct 1950   Manchester City (ENG)
     15 MD Archie Gemmill            31   24 Mar 1947   Nottingham Forest (ENG)
     18 MD Graeme Souness            25   06 May 1953   Liverpool (ENG)
      8 FW Kenny Dalglish            27   04 Mar 1951   Liverpool (ENG)
      9 FW Joe Jordan                26   15 Dec 1951   Manchester United (ENG)

The hall of fame has your man at #1 and Alan Rough at #2 on 38.

I happened to notice that my former 'Bulgarian fly-catcher' GK Gadzhalov has evolved.

Player Achievements 
 Man of The Match      39 
 All-Time Top 10 MOM Awards      #2 
 
I looked into some of the usual suspects, but I couldn't find any player with more than 40 MoMs.
Does anyone know who is (still) number one?
 

Ally's Tartan Army Lyrics:
"We're on the march wi' Ally's Army / We're going tae the Argentine 
And we'll really shake them up / When we win the World Cup …
As Scotland are the greatest football team"

I think Ally McLeod actually believed that at the time.

I quite enjoyed that Rod song, there are worse football songs!  So much so I listened to it twice, once with fan made clips added to it.  That 1978 squad had some talent.

Lifted from Wiki - In his autobiography, The Ally MacLeod Story (1979), he wondered whether he had "generated just too much excitement. Had I raised the level of national optimism just too high?" But he was able to console himself: "Would the Scottish fans have tolerated anything less from me than whole-hearted conviction?" MacLeod also reassured the reader that he, for one, never thought that Scotland were invincible, and claimed to be perfectly at peace with himself. "I am a very good manager who just happened to have a few disastrous days, once upon a time, in Argentina."

The worst Scotland WC song was by one of my favourite bands Del Amitri. I think in was for 1998. I sometimes have the Dels on Spotify and that song comes on. I cannot hit fast forward fast enough. Dreadful. You will have to look it up yourself as I can't bring myself to post it.

I have never heard that Rod Stewart song before now but I can confirm, it's horrific. Danny McGrain gets a mention. Oh dear....

.....got to be worse than the actual team? Who will dare do the 2026 song?

To prove the point here's the link to Rod's 1978 effort "OLE OLA".....?!? Dare you to listen to the whole thing.

https://youtu.be/I4bqACNrVqs

I also remember Andy Cameron serving up Ally’s Tartan Army on Top of the Pops before the 1978 Argentina WC?!? Bring back the Vuvuzelas to drown the crap......

......also has no MSA......

Brighton 1 - 1 Brentford
Burnley 0 - 2 Chelsea
Leeds United 2 - 1 Aston Villa
Wolves 0 - 1 Crystal Palace
Bournemouth 3 - 0 West Ham
Fulham 1 - 1 Sunderland
Arsenal 2 - 1 Tottenham
Man. Utd  3 - 1 Everton
Liverpool 2 - 0 Nottingham Forest
Newcastle 2 - 2 Man. City

To Scotland for qualifying to the WC!!!

Cheers!

Robert, 

Remember that it costs 2CP to raise OTF by 1....so 5 OTF costs 10CP....

When Kenny McLean scoring a goal from the half way line is only the THIRD best Scottish goal of the match!

1Robert, you hardly play L and never play E so OTF will benefit.

5 OTF will add 5 OFF and 5 DEF when you play N. OTF "plays" every game as it doesnt lose EL.

5 CP could add 5 OFF for a FW (and improve his chance of scoring),  or 3 75 OFF plus 2.5 DEF for a MF, or 3 GP, 5 DEF and 1 OFF for a DF. And that player will only play 2 games out of 3. Adding the 5 CP will take 5 games (and could cost 25k per extra slot), and you might not win it at the auction anyway.

Must admit, I enjoyed watching that.

Glorious win for Scotland tonight to reach World Cup finals for first time in 28 years.

Maybe it's no longer crap being Scottish.

500k for 5 OTF looks a decent mid season staff purchase tomorrow -
- however what are the main benefits of adding another 5 OTF?

I leaning towards 5 more CP at auction this weekend for a similar amount of money may suit better.

Dilemma

Brighton 3 - 1 Brentford
Burnley 0 - 3 Chelsea
Leeds United 0 - 2 Aston Villa
Wolves 1 - 2 Crystal Palace
Bournemouth 2 - 0 West Ham
Fulham 2 - 1 Sunderland
Arsenal 2 - 0 Tottenham
Man. Utd  2 - 0 Everton
Liverpool 3 - 0 Nottingham Forest
Newcastle 1 - 2 Man. City

Brighton 2-1 Brentford

Burnley 1-3 Chelsea

Leeds United 1-1 Aston Villa

Wolves 1-1 Crystal Palace

Bournemouth 2-1 West Ham

Fulham 1-0 Sunderland

Arsenal 2-1 Tottenham

Man United 2-1 Everton

Liverpool 3-1 Nottingham Forest

Newcastle 1-1 Man City

Brighton 1 - 2 Brentford
Burnley 1 - 4 Chelsea
Leeds United 0 - 0 Aston Villa
Wolves 1 - 0 Crystal Palace
Bournemouth 2 - 0 West Ham
Fulham 0 - 1 Sunderland
Arsenal 2 - 0 Tottenham
Man. Down  2 - 0 Everton
Liverpool 3 - 0 Nottingham Forest
Newcastle 1 - 0 Man. City

Brighton 1 - 2 Brentford

Burnley 1 - 4 Chelsea

Leeds United 0 - 7 Aston Villa

Wolves 1 - 2 Crystal Palace

Bournemouth 2 - 0 West Ham

Fulham 1 - 1 Sunderland

Arsenal 2 - 0 Tottenham

Man. United 1 - 1 Everton

Liverpool 3 - 0 Nottingham Forest

Newcastle 1 - 2 Man. City

Brighton 0-2 Brentford

Burnley 1-2 Chelsea

Leeds United 0-3 Aston Villa

Wolves 1-2 Crystal Palace

Bournemouth 1-1 West Ham

Fulham 2-1 Sunderland

Arsenal 3-1 Tottenham

Man. United 2-0 Everton

Liverpool 3-0 Nottingham Forest

Newcastle 1-2 Man. City

Brighton 2 - 2 Brentford

Burnley 0 - 3 Chelsea

Leeds United 0 - 2 Aston Villa

Wolves 0 - 2 Crystal Palace

Bournemouth 2 - 1 West Ham

Fulham 1 - 1 Sunderland

Arsenal 2 - 0 Tottenham

Man. United 1 - 1 Everton

Liverpool 2 - 0 Nottingham Forest

Newcastle 1 - 1 Man. City

Returning after the international break

Brighton 2 - 1 Brentford

Burnley 0 - 2 Chelsea

Leeds United 1 - 2 Aston Villa

Wolves 1 - 2 Crystal Palace

Bournemouth 2 - 0 West Ham

Fulham 2 - 1 Sunderland

Arsenal 2 - 0 Tottenham

Man. United 2 - 1 Everton

Liverpool 2 - 0 Nottingham Forest

Newcastle 1 - 2 Man. City

Thanks for the comparison Steve.

It all makes far more sense now.

Ludo - pretty much a totally random game, especially as regards whether you roll a 6 to get a man out. The fact that Ashley didn't roll a 6 in 15 attempts was very unlucky but despite his mum and uncle getting 2 or 3 out in that time he didn't complain.

SESL - pretty much a totally random game, especially as regards whether you get the shots you'd expect with average luck 

DEE sends Budgie McGhie (1/14 MF) to CB for

The following teams receive Adjustment through auction 5, bid 5, blip:
CB(-223) DEE(413)

Are EDI being far too cautious?

WG sl 29 is sat on EL 10

FW sl 29 is sat on EL 9

FW sl 39 is sat on EL 8.

Rival teams have their top players on far lower EL.  None of those 3 top EDI goal score threats need be above 6 EL.  They may be subbed off when a match is won.  What are they saving EL for currently?

Last 3 matches EDI have failed to score as the above 3 goal threats spending too long on the bench saving EL I guess.  If all 3 and played at same time for minimum 60 minutes each, I'd bet my house they would have scored.

Last 3 matches EDI have fielded 54% against opposition 66%, EDI field 61% vs 66% opposition, and EDI fielded 61% against other team 66%.

EDI have only one player above SL29.   Compare this to your rival teams.   

I'd still bet EDI make top 4, as over the course of a season the best teams win promotion and play in latter stage of cups.  That is not coincidence.  Some teams have good luck in specific games, and EDI have been unlucky too, but the law of averages suggest there will be a match that EDI has won this season, or scored more than expected this season, but human nature dictates we overlook these facts when we feel hard done to.

What can EDI try to tip randomness in their favour?  Take the shackles off, and get far more SL on the pitch at same time, and push the EL's far far lower, and EDI will surely see out rest of season with more triumphs than troughs.

Steve said  in response to my question re Game #23.....

'Years ago me, my sister and young nephew  played Ludo where it's roll a 6 to bring a man out. After about 15 rolls, Ashley still hadn't  got a man out - a 6% chance.

EDI were unlucky.'

MMmm....Hopefully Steve will now explain the rules and relevance of 'Ludo' to SESL game outcomes ???

In advance...many thanks Steve

After reading the very constructive suggestions of the IT guys(?) who have access to the workings of SESL....

EDI have rolled the dice (LUDO style) and are certain of 6 points in the upcoming league session.

Of course, if EDI fail to secure 6 points...Mrs Turner is sure to explain (IN FULL) why his advice fell short.

Looks like an honest mistake by DEE to bid on resources rather than an auction player.

Why the game engine didn't void the player lot number 5 bid for having no name is a mystery.
But that is not DEE's fault.

Moreso because ELG bid on same lot 5 was voided. 
So game rules ought be applied and DEE bid also made void on lot 5.  

With Eduard's aggreement first though, player 5 ought go to next highest bidder CB.

Completely correct. 
I contacted Mark yesterday already and he offered to process lot #5 in CB's favour, especially since there are no dependencies in the bids below.
The reason why DEE's blank order was processed could not be determined.

Of course, this assumes that Craig/CB is still interested.
If not, I'll accept the trade as it is and just rename the player.

Looks like an honest mistake by DEE to bid on resources rather than an auction player.

Why the game engine didn't void the player lot number 5 bid for having no name is a mystery.
But that is not DEE's fault.

Moreso because ELG bid on same lot 5 was voided. 
So game rules ought be applied and DEE bid also made void on lot 5.  

With Eduard's aggreement first though, player 5 ought go to next highest bidder CB.

His name is the invisible man. 

Was 1/14 won at auction with no player name entered?  

ELG bid on same lot was ignored for same reason.

Hopefully pages should load quicker for us all just now.

"A fatal javaScript error has occured" is what I arrived home to on server after being away from home 4 days.

I reset server and things about 2 hours ago, and auction appears to have ran in under a minute.

I'll raise an IT support call to server company if same issues occurs over next few days.

13 GB of space remains of my 60 giga bytes server so storage not an issue this time thankfully so no extra costs to pay.

LIV sends 3 TP, Rab Jones (1/18 DF) to DEV for 6 CP, Louis Gabriel (3/24 DF)

Makes sense 10 game embargo to trade.

Avoids players being loaned.

Avoids a huge SL player being transfered in for latter stages of cup that happened last season, when cup-tied is not a current rule.  Player could then be passed on to another team in next round of cup. There was a hullabaloo last season on cup tied players, and despite some calls for a trade reversal it never came to pass.

New for season 60

Post on NOTEBOOK (button beside log out) before deadline 19 Nov 2025 at 3pm GMT

1.  Team name
2.  Which one staff member wanted.
3.  Cost

__________________________________________

http://www.vanillaconsulting.biz/seslwiki/index.php?title=SESL_Rules#*NEW_for_season_60*_Staff_Purchase_mid_season

Mid season opportunity to buy 1 staff member as a trial for Season 60

On 19 Nov 2025 at 3pm GMT is the deadline for a manager to post on Notebook page choosing up to 1 staff member to try help their team in current season.

A) Spains Juan Touch: add 5 OTF - up to maximum OTF total of 10 allowed.

                      Costs: D1, 700k  D2, 600k  D3, 500k

B) Mr Motivator: team morale increased to 0.9

                      Costs: D1, 300k  D2, 200k  D3, 100k

C) Ch-ch-ch change man: a single SW DF MF WG or FW can change position to one of these other positions

                      Costs: D1, 300k  D2, 200k  D3, 100k

D) Senior Citizen: add 10 SL to a single age5+ player up to usual maximum PU of 10.

                      Costs: D1, 150k  D2, 100k  D3, 50k
                      (remember mid season ageing may deduct 4 or 5 SL a week later) 

E) Physio: choose one player to be set to EL 10.

                      Costs: D1, 150k  D2, 100k  D3, 50k

The following teams receive Physio Boost through Leo Vaisanen:
GM(-80)

Hi William,

There's "good" news and bad news.
The bad news is that: EDI got an annoyingly low number of shots. As you correctly calculated, the expected shots were about 11–5.5 in EDI's favour.
BUT the "good" news is that: EDI's loss was still somewhat correct. 
The expected result was about 1.8–2.0, with the expected points at around 1.2–1.8 in NAI's favour - due to the GKs, shooters and offside.
So it's been certainly annoying, but not too unlucky.

The number of shots is by far the most random variable in the game engine, given it's calculated 90 times per match with a low probability each. Reducing the volatily would be rather easy, but it would take some major code changes.

So the only way to adjust is to make your squad even stronger - to survive the occasional bad rolls.
But even then, bad rolls turn up way too often (subjectively) - as proven by a recent cup tie.

It was that bad that after watching the DUU vs ALO game on viewer then going to the match report to comment and noticed we were still top on 29 points with Partick 2nd and Elgin 3rd on 27 points.

It wasn't until just now that I noticed Elgin have 30 points.

Mark needs to delete some database history.

There was similar craziness in the ALO vs EF game. ALO had a 10% to 8% advantage but after 11 minutes ALO were 2-0 up having had 5 shots to EF's 0.

Years ago me, my sister and young nephew  played Ludo where it's roll a 6 to bring a man out. After about 15 rolls, Ashley still hadn't  got a man out - a 6% chance.

EDI were unlucky.

There's been no change to the game engine - teams beginning with E always get shat on.

In a nutshell.....EDI start the game with DOUBLE the shot %age of the oppostion, by half-time,  NAI have DOUBLE the shots of EDI and are 0-2 up.  But to rub salt into the wounds, on 60 minutes NAI switch tactics to 'STALL'...2 minutes later NAI are 0-3 up.

So i am asking for an explaination for EDI losing that game 0-3....and please do not mention the term 'Random', this is beyond random in my opinion.

Please, please watch the game on 'Viewer' and give me the logic for the scoreline and the final result taking into consideration the STATS from start to finish.

Has someone changed the game engine this season and we have not been told ?

The following teams receive an MVP bonus after match 24:
Stranraer - MVP #3: 1 TP (WwW)
Partick Thistle - MVP #3: 1 TP (WdW)
Queens Park - MVP #2: 1 TP + 25k (WdW)

Yeah, I thought it was on my side too. Been in Spain for the past week (with PET manager, both neglecting our clubs! :D) so thought it was my connection! 

Yes have had the page time out a couple of times this week and taken longer than usual to load.

I thought it was my internet connection but everything else was working ok. Let's hope it returns to normal soon.

Since around Thursday I've found all pages were taking a long time to appear - thinking it was my computer. Might still be of course but just thought with today's games taking their time to play out then just maybe... 🤔🤔

Agree with DUU. Without it teams could effectively loan a player for an important title match or big cup game. And then reserve trade.  Madness I tell you.  Madness.

Timely reminder for others to donate to keep game server maintained.

The following teams receive an MVP bonus after match 23:
Stenhousemuir - MVP #5: 25k (wDw)
Clyde FC - MVP #1: 1 TP + 25k (WwW)
Falkirk - MVP #4: 1 CP (wDW)
Ayr United - MVP #1: 1 TP + 25k (WwD)

Just Div 1 & 2 games completed after 35 minutes.

If you remove this you also open the door to players effectively loaning to each other for a game or 2. 

Just to Raymond's point, we don't restrict the onward sale of TP/CP after an auction win, so this doesn't seem like a strong argument for a 10 game sales restriction.

I don't really see the objection to immediate sales of a player either, but don't really have strong feelings on it. Abandoning it might allow for some interesting triangular trades however.

Current process seems to work well.

Concern would be if an auction win was picked up for 1k or a low fee, then player could be exploited and sold on straight away for huge profit.

Poll vote on front page.  Let's be having you!