Was thinking about development teams at work today (it was slow, I promise) and wanted to clarify who would actually select the development tracks for riders on those teams. I assumed that it would be:
- the manager who retained rights to the rider using comment 7a; for their individual rider
- the development team manager who retains the right to an individual rider within their own team - for that individual rider
- collective decision by the combined management for the remaining riders
Is this correct?
I think this is correct. Not sure on the OVL question, will certainly rely on the results adjustment to help adjust salary demands.
Totally understand that results adjustments will help a bit, but I don't think that's sufficient because (1) it doesn't affect RD allowances, and (2) more importantly, results modifiers historically really only target overperformance rather than underperformance. That makes sense for instances where the a rider just got unlucky one year, but not really where we know there has been a systemic stats change which will be the same in the next season with the same PCM. A team is basically forced to either release their rider to get some semblance of wage value short term, or carry an albatross contract hoping the OVL adjusts in some unknown future season. They can't negotiate around it.
I know we've been more resistant to making OVL changes year on year in the last half decade or so, but to me this is a small and straightforward adjustment that is really needed.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
On dev teams I think what we proposed is noy that different from what you are describing, except the exclusion of CT teams. The differences seem to be:
For the record the only time I was around for dev teams before (2019?), CT teams couldn't play (I know I was one) but I assume in earlier years they could. I would be open to changing that, I could get over the conflict thing.
(...)
I think it would be good to provide more options for CT managers, and not exclude them from dev teams. I get that there can be a conflict in theory, but in practice that should be small if even there at all.
Please note two updates to the rules (also updated in the first post, marked in italics)
Replacing Stagiaires with Junior Riders (only for CT)
Spoiler
...
4. Junior riders will have 40 RDs at any time of the season.
5. The minimum wage for Junior Riders will be 20k.
...
Development Team Rules
Spoiler
...
2. Managers from any division are allowed to have Development Teams.
3. Dev teams must be made by two managers teaming up, but they must be from different divisions. If more managers are interested in managing development teams than there are team slots, managers will be selected at random from interested managers. Mangers not participating in one season will be given a preference in the next.
...
Please note two updates to the rules (also updated in the first post, marked in italics)
Replacing Stagiaires with Junior Riders (only for CT)
Spoiler
...
4. Junior riders will have 40 RDs at any time of the season.
5. The minimum wage for Junior Riders will be 20k.
...
Development Team Rules
Spoiler
...
2. Managers from any division are allowed to have Development Teams.
3. Dev teams must be made by two managers teaming up, but they must be from different divisions. If more managers are interested in managing development teams than there are team slots, managers will be selected at random from interested managers. Mangers not participating in one season will be given a preference in the next.
...
The Junior Riders updates are IMO an improvement as now managers won't have the huge dilemma of spending 100k in wages on either 2 full-time riders or 4 Junior Riders. The 10 RD boost is also welcome.
Having Dev Teams being open to all managers is a neat idea, but I think there should've been a condition for CT managers that want to be involved - like for example surrendering their 2 free rider spots in order to pair up with another manager for a Dev Team. It's either one or the other - can't have both.
