Youth rider limit

[Robyklebt]

Second try, first one was shot down by bad Cerro (and probably nobody agreed but tought Cerro did a good enough job)

Inspired this time by:

a) Thread in the italian technic part by pirati-pirkio-aux
b) still Lunas old "Jugendwahn"thread in the old forum
c) my own conviction.


The problem: Youth youth youth, everybody buys youth, only youth, not perfect training, kick the lazy fuck, can't ride with a climber who has less than 88 mountain, can't have a classic leader with less than 74 mountain-80 flat and 65 sprint. Etc. An unbelievable amount of excellent riders is bought, and then sold soon later after average training sometimes even, because too many want the perfect star. Climber at 83 at 23? SOLD! Sprinter at 91 at the end of 23? SOLD. Classic guy misses 2 trainings at 24, Only 70-80 then? SOLD. And those guys then by being so expensive are usually not bought only 5 months later. When they are cheap. Not when the 83-60-79-50-50 with 50 reg could still become a 90 climber. Or very likely will become an 86 climber. No at thirty when he's cheap and will stay what it is. Too many good riders wasted.

Then, what the Italians discussed:

The restart, sell all, buy a bunch of 21 year olds, go down to D3, D4 since they suck and you have no points, but then you climb and climb and climb and have superstrong generation all peaking at roughly the same time, and earn enough money to regularly refill that generation with missing pieces. Dominate, then do the same. My policy so far was to insult those guys, especially since too often they think they did a really difficult thing and even brag about it...

Just some numbers:
D1 winners in 2010:
Adler 4: He did that restart thing in 2009
Gaurain 2: He did that restart in 2009
Hansa 1: No restart
Alk 1: No restart
Skull 1 no restart
Quick 1: I think no restart, at least not a real full one.
francais 1: No restart
Gala 1: No restart

So 6 of 12 D1 winners did it with that complete restart thing. 50%? Just a special situation in 2010? They weren't just "normal" restarters, but good ones, Adler certainly knew how to build a team, Gaurain certainly knows how to ride (not to say he doesn't know how to build a team)? Let's look at 2011

Jan: Kaju: Restart from last february on, not a 100% complete Adler one it seems, but a bit more in rates, feb, march, then april may some more. But counts as a restart
Feb: JPS: Restart with money buying selling in his inactive time.
March: Fight between JPS see above, and Alk, no restart

So already 2 out of 2, good chances it will be 3 out of 3 in 2 weeks.

So IMO (and the Italians agree) just too easy that way. Of course not everybody reaches the title, but even look at ZL: After years in D2-D3 last year after a long time he reached D1 again. Not because he's a better manager, he is D1 class anyway, he just doesn't ride enough, but even without really riding more he came back to D1. For one simple reason. He had one generation peaking at the same time. Even though some of his stars had H O R R I B L E training, Bangerter... he just did it with the mass, there. And could sell the fist climber that didn't train without problems. Too easy.

So why not do something against that, AND against the nonstop selling of young riders that don't train too well at the first opportunity?

Introduce limits:

1: Max 3 riders at 21
2: Max 5 riders at 21+22
3: Max 6 riders at 21+22+23

So if you want you can do the restart in rates, buy 3 then 2 then 1, then 3 again, then 2 or maybe 3 if one of the earlier ones wasn't training etc. It still isn't impossible to do the restart, but it becomes a bit more challenging. Because right now it just isn't a challenge at all.

Second, I still would like to see a limit per year or six month. So that you can't buy 3, sell the worst trainer, buy another 3, sell the 2 worst trainers, buy another 3. And against the repeated selling of good but not perfect riders, just to get the superstartrainer, sell until you get him. Not sure about the limit here: 10 for 6 months? 20 for a year? Too much? Not enough?

Advantages:

- It makes the easiest and IMO most boring teambuilding harder. But not completely impossible.
- It makes the auctions, that are coming, "fairer". Those restarters with all their money otherwise would have an immense advantage. Like that they still have one, but at least they'll be limited to buying x riders. Not like now where they can buy 10 or more depending on the money. With the auction system maybe somebody who buys 12 now, then could only buy 11, but he could overspend, without having to think too much. He will not have money problems in the near future, he will hava a cheap team that only brings money.
- Less waste of talent. Hurts my sensible soul to see a 73-52-77-50-50 with 65 reg bought, only to be sold with 24 because he's only 85-55-77-50-50 and soooo expensive.

Disadvantages:
- It hurts real restarters. Like ZL was for example. He had a 4 months break (yes, the bastard had 4 months paid holiday), so sold his riders, then once back in Swi he bought new ones. Which is ok and even better than letting talented guys sit at home and wait for him, or buying young ones the moment he leaves to have them ready to perform when he's back. It will hurt those guys.
-Less freedom for normal teambuilders as well. It can happen that somebody buys 4 21 year olds in a month, even if he usually buys one, or 0.


Not a real argument btw is reality. Yes, it's unrealistic that a team sells all his riders, than buys 10 21 year olds. But it's as unrealistic to do what I do, buy 1 a month who then spends the whole career at my superteam. Which is something that I would kind of like to change too, but each time I bring that fantastic proposal, Buhmann and ZL counter with a completely idiotic proposal, so for the moment I won't even start that...


Another option of course would be:
Change the whole system, go to a system, money according to your division placing, contracts, etc. the Italians were going in that directions, which I don't dislike but looking at Buhs workload.. utopic at this point.

This one here isn't utopic. It's another limit, like we have a few, it makes sense in my opinion, the + is bigger than the - (even if I probably forgot some -, post them) the results from the last year are clear, from this year too, it's too easy compared with other ways, the concern about the auction IMO is more than a concern, have no doubt that the liquidity advantage of those teams would be too big.

Everybody read. Bring concerns, stuff I haven't considered.
Buhmann, read it, read the concerns, think it over, decide.

[Luna]

I love it. Don't remember my "Jugendwahn" thread though. Only the name of it, but less its content. Must be decades ago, I guess. But you're expressing exactly what I feel.

Your proposed limits are fine. Completely agree with 1, 2 + 3. No opinion yet to the haly year and year limits.

Changing the whole system at this point of RSF like the Italians discuss is maybe not the most necessary things. The auctions are coming. I'm curious about what they bring. Although contracts et al remain a possibility worth to keep on the agenda. But small steps make the progression more likely to move forward. And introducing that limits wouldn't rule out any other future development in this sector.

Also reality could be an argument. The fact that many of us, including myself, tend to lifelong bindings to the riders does not prevent from seeing it as an unreal excess. This is a pint I nearly had started a topic about in the past. I see it more and more as an obstacle for me to actually come to a feeling of running a bike race team. I even started thinking about quitting the Escobar dynasty in favor of a more flexible and thus more realistic way of treating the relationships to my riders.

The liquidity advantage concern related to the new auctions can still be discussed. We could introduce a use-by date. Money not spent in a period of x simply vanishes. And other ideas come to my mind right now. But maybe that's something for the appropriate thread.

[sylvainmeteo]

It's a good idea, and I totally agree with it...
Personally, I buy 2 youth riders per month maxi, often 1 per month...
The advantage is that my team is always competitive

[auxilium torino]

Thanks Roby...i think that perfekt idea!

At least, this idea give the same chance to all the manager, while a total renew or the team is garanted, if you change 20 riders, but is a risiko, if you have only 9!

[Pirkio]

same like sylvainmeteo my team have 10 riders from 26 to 21 years old the politic of my team is "buy always youngs boy" if i want to buy a great racers i have to sell one of the leaders and maybe one helper and this is a risk for the finances of the team. So my only opportunity is to gain money after money and when i have the money buy the rider. I think with this "green" politic and a lot of patience i can have a good team always and not just for 3 - 4 month each year

[auxilium torino]

the real problem of the game is the training..in moment the game balance to win a race is
training 75%
manager 25%

have you 2-3 bad training, is your team without a chance to win.
another problem, reg factor...
in RL, looking last year the Giro
20 individual stage, only Farrar get a double stage win.
normaly, in a tour, the riders that get all to win a stage, is the day after tired...in RSF, a 35 reg riders, can win 3-4 mountain stage below.

[Luna]

the real problem of the game is the training..in moment the game balance to win a race is
training 75%
manager 25%

have you 2-3 bad training, is your team without a chance to win.

I don't see that as a problem. Not everbody can have a strong team at the same time. The problem in my eyes is that it's easy to buy strong riders, so that nobody is really forced to deal with a medium team of rider. So this is only a game of putting together as high rider skills as possible, except you chose a different way deliberately. But this may change a bit after introduction of the auctions, although the palmares of the last 4 years stay distorted by it; and although the teams that profited of easy monster team building keep their growth advantage that came by the successes they had in the past

another problem, reg factor...

Agree. For long I am of the opinion that every rider should have 10 reg points less, without getting cheaper.


But both is slightly off-topic and wouldn't be touched by the youth rider limit.

[Us Lecce]

Wer Spaß hat darf es gerne übersetzen.

zum ersten Punkt von Roby:
Es wird schwieriger ein Team aufzubauen, das ist klar, aber die Teams werden auch viel unhomogener und lutscherfreundlich. Man sieht es ja an meinem Team (Adler), Tirreno hatte ich einen alten Kapitän mit Rosi und junge Fahrer als Helfer, was eigentlich ne Katastrophe ist und war. Wenn ich jetzt ein Team neu aufbauen soll, dann kaufe ich mir natürlich einen älteren Kapitän und 3 junge Klassikerfahrer, weil auf dem Markt nur schrott Klassiker sind, dann kaufe ich halt ältere Helfer, also bleibt das Team ne lange Zeit unhomogen, bis halt die Klassiker ihr Niveau erreicht haben. Wenn alle gleich alt sind, passen sie viel besser zueinander und man muss nicht auf die Hilfe anderer Teams zurückgreifen.
zum zweiten Robypunkt:
Auktionen sind ne Sache für sich, gibt bestimmt auch Teams die nur einen Fahrer haben wollen, den mit den perfekten Werten und geben alles Geld dafür und nach ein paar Monaten sitzt er auf der Straße weil er nicht trainiert hat, so sieht es nämlich auch beim Transfermarkt aus, es kommen nämlich nicht alle jungen verkauften Fahrer von "Aufziehteams" sondern halt daher, dass sie bei einem "normalen" Team nicht gut genug trainiert haben.
3. Punkt:
Es wird noch mehr aussortiert an Fahrern, da diese in den ersten Trainings nicht trainiert haben, und so besser Platz für andere machen sollen. Sehe da also auch keinen Vorteil für den Transfermarkt und den jungen Fahrern.


Und noch was in eigener Sache:
Es wäre vlt eher sinnvoll die Anzahl an verkäufen zu regulieren, denn dann wird das "farming" von Überklassikern vermindert, da das verkaufen sich nicht lohnt. Ich habe ja im ganzen letzten Jahr nur Fahrer verkauft, weil sie über 34 waren und nicht weil sie schlecht trainiert haben.

MFG Adler

[Luna]

Stop sharing forum accounts! Someone of the moderators please prevent them from doing this. Delete the postings. Ban Lecce if he doesn't hide his password. Whatever.

[auxilium torino]

Wer Spaß hat darf es gerne übersetzen.

zum ersten Punkt von Roby:
Es wird schwieriger ein Team aufzubauen, das ist klar, aber die Teams werden auch viel unhomogener und lutscherfreundlich. Man sieht es ja an meinem Team (Adler), Tirreno hatte ich einen alten Kapitän mit Rosi und junge Fahrer als Helfer, was eigentlich ne Katastrophe ist und war. Wenn ich jetzt ein Team neu aufbauen soll, dann kaufe ich mir natürlich einen älteren Kapitän und 3 junge Klassikerfahrer, weil auf dem Markt nur schrott Klassiker sind, dann kaufe ich halt ältere Helfer, also bleibt das Team ne lange Zeit unhomogen, bis halt die Klassiker ihr Niveau erreicht haben. Wenn alle gleich alt sind, passen sie viel besser zueinander und man muss nicht auf die Hilfe anderer Teams zurückgreifen.
zum zweiten Robypunkt:
Auktionen sind ne Sache für sich, gibt bestimmt auch Teams die nur einen Fahrer haben wollen, den mit den perfekten Werten und geben alles Geld dafür und nach ein paar Monaten sitzt er auf der Straße weil er nicht trainiert hat, so sieht es nämlich auch beim Transfermarkt aus, es kommen nämlich nicht alle jungen verkauften Fahrer von "Aufziehteams" sondern halt daher, dass sie bei einem "normalen" Team nicht gut genug trainiert haben.
3. Punkt:
Es wird noch mehr aussortiert an Fahrern, da diese in den ersten Trainings nicht trainiert haben, und so besser Platz für andere machen sollen. Sehe da also auch keinen Vorteil für den Transfermarkt und den jungen Fahrern.


Und noch was in eigener Sache:
Es wäre vlt eher sinnvoll die Anzahl an verkäufen zu regulieren, denn dann wird das "farming" von Überklassikern vermindert, da das verkaufen sich nicht lohnt. Ich habe ja im ganzen letzten Jahr nur Fahrer verkauft, weil sie über 34 waren und nicht weil sie schlecht trainiert haben.

MFG Adler

so ist aber ganz unfair, weil du kannst dich 20 fahrer zu tauschen erlauben, die neue haben nur 9...bei dir sind 3 kapitÄne dran, bei ein Portiolo nur eine...trainiert der fahrer nicht muss her wieder 3-4 monaten warten um an sieg zu kampfen
mit der roby proposal wäre das fair, und musste man mehr auf seine manager qualität spielen, als auf die training glück

naturlich, alle die team mit 20 fahrer bleiben in vorteil, aber zu mindesten wird dieses nicht so gross wie jetzt

[Robyklebt]

Can we go back to english?

There was really nothing of interest in Adlers post anyway from my point of view, ok, he doesn't know the word "heterogen" exists too, but apart from that... was there a specific point? Not really.

[skull]

i dont like this 3+2+1 thing
thats not suitable in this game

Skull 1 no restart

thats wrong - i do a restart every season - and i dont see ANY reason why this should be forbidden

when farming is your problem do the following:
the value dont rise for selling
means: buy a rider for 3,000,000 - the maximum resell price is 3,000,000 minus tax - even if he is worth 4,000,000
the next manager buying this guy must pay 4,000,000 of course

when kicking riders cause of bad rolling dice is your problem:
just replace rolling dice with half-decent training

[Robyklebt]

i dont like this 3+2+1 thing
thats not suitable in this game

Don't like it, ok, not suitable, I think it is.

Skull 1 no restart

thats wrong - i do a restart every season - and i dont see ANY reason why this should be forbidden

It still isn't impossible to do the restart, but it becomes a bit more challenging. Because right now it just isn't a challenge at all.

So nobody is trying to forbid it here

As for your restart, in 2009, sorry, won't add you to the list. Maybe restart is the wrong word, complete overhaul in less then 3 months is better?
Just assuming with the guys on the first of a month they were 21 years old.
2 21 year old in August no problem: You can get max 3
2 in september No problem, max 5 21+22, you have 4, max 3 21, 2
2 in october no problem, max 6 21-23, you have 6, still max 3 21
0 in november no problem still
1 in december still no problem

You just proved that you can do the restart according to the my proposal, thanks.

2010 restart for 2011

5 21 year old in september: BUHHH fail, max 3
2 21 in october: BUH, still from september of course anyway, plus now you have 7 riders under 23 and 7 under 22 both over the max

Here, according to the proposal you would have had to adapt somehow. You proved that it's possible in 2009, no reason it should be impossible in 2010. You basically do your renewal with 6-7 riders a year. No problem with that, problem with the 9 plus add ons with the money gained in the first 3 months or so that makes it go up to 12-13 in 4 months. That becomes impossible. 9 in 4 months would be the maximum. Which doesn't strike me as overly restrictive.

Find a way to minimize those complete overhauls in few months without restrictive rules but with incentives, and I might go for the incentive version too. I couldn't come up with anything until now.

when farming is your problem do the following:


No, farming is not the concern.
the value dont rise for selling
means: buy a rider for 3,000,000 - the maximum resell price is 3,000,000 minus tax - even if he is worth 4,000,000
the next manager buying this guy must pay 4,000,000 of course

- Newcomers can't make money from riders anymore. Shouldn't be forbidden, see no problem with it.
- Newcomers are less flexible once they get bigger and get a tax that is felt. Sprint team, want to change to something else, new focus, tax at 30% now, much harder to change. Can't test around a bit anymore while growing, have to stay small while testing.
- Seriously diminishes the selling of riders, since they go back towards their starting market value only when they get old. One bought with 28 only loses value? Yes, but who's going to sell him so he can be bought at 28? Only 27 year name geben would really be sellable for most teams.

A much more restrictive idea that is having a different goal, has only a minimal impact on the target of my proposal.

when kicking riders cause of bad rolling dice is your problem:
just replace rolling dice with half-decent training

One of the goals, the per annum clause would be for that. Since 3-2-1 wouldn't really have any effect.
I generally like the training here. What do you mean with half decent training? More predictable? Horror.. so every 56-74 will surely be in the 76-82 to 72-78 range? Every climber in the 89-87 range if he trains mostly mountain? Much better like now, can end up like Bangerter at 69-80 or like Urganov at 82 (will be 89 for the Andes though, he promised it) and Qian at 77-82 (ok, he started at 55 even) or Coulieu 90. Too guided, no good, as we see 4 times a year too many too similar teams (and that's what would happen) block the race too much. Yes, we haven't enough imagination to try something new in those races maybe, but then Buh needs to rewrite the users too, not only the training.

Luna:

Your Jugendwahn was basically my post without the proposal, description of the problem. And less about the "complete renewal" since that was less prevalent at the time, more about the repeated buying if a rider doesn't look like he'll become the next 88 mountain 65 TT etc. Which the 3-2-1 or 2-2-2 doesn't really address, that's the reason for the max number per year, which I'm not sure about if 10-20 is a good number either. Down to 10 per year maybe a good idea, it then would force people like me to buy old (24+) too sometimes. Don't know.
Reality, yes, but hypocritical to sell it as reality while not at the same time proposing something against the equally unrealistic system I use for example.
The restart, or complete short term overhaul of the complete squad if that's clearer, is a bigger game-play problem, distortion than the live long employment system. Both are equally unrealistic... so since here I only really adress one, I focus on the reason that makes me focus on that one first.

Aux:

the real problem of the game is the training..in moment the game balance to win a race is
training 75%
manager 25%

Disagree with the numbers. Training very important if you want to win with home grown riders, but you don't need to rely on the training. There is the possibility to go the Ticos/Mangahn way.
So: Rider values, not training is the nr 1 factor, not training.
nr 2 is luck in races. which will always be there, usually only noticed when somebody else has luck. Since I "lost" (wrong word actually, you just don't win, can't lose" more races than anybody else here obviously I notice the luck more

2-3 bad trainings, no chance to win... long term planning can help with that. Know your goals, plan accordingly, have a plan b in mind. Urganov for example not training for sure has hurt my Girohopes a lot, plan b is Fahrny, if that one doesn't work out, there is 2012, a plan that is in full progress by buying cheap flatriders for the moment, to keep the salary low in summer-autumn when I'll need to finance my 2012 team. So see that like Luna, you don't always have to be among the favorites even for your main goals. You have to be ready to be the punching bag too sometimes. I still have Conti? Yes, big teams have many riders, unlikely that all of them fail completely, will almost always have one that has his chances. Can happen, but I've yet to see a big team that was basically chanceless on all terrains for a long period of time. Robyklebt September-October 2009 might be the record. I blame leso for that btw. Small team on the other hand have the low tax so they are flexible and can sell and replace fairly easily. But wrong thread for that, like the reg, where we already moved to another thread.

[Luna]

Review your post and put your quote-marks in order....

[skull]

hm, your research for my 10 season is bad - but anyway, it had worked with your system
but the seasons 09, 11 and 12 dont work
dont make more crazy limitations restricting serious teams playing the game

[Luna]

I guess an equal and simple limit of two 21yo per month would help, too. And it would be easy for everybody to keep track of the limit, without that 3 month period. At the same time it doesn't hurt the serious players too much.

[Pirkio]

is not cool see superteam with 1 34 and 12 21 we have to make a choise. Make rsf real or unreal.. but if choise is make it unreal so let's pull the mountain limit to 100 let's give 8 training for month and let's have infinite reg for all

[Luna]

edited my message. forgot "two"

[Robyklebt]

Ok, now I got Lunas message. No 2

2 per month? Like that much less. Actually don't really like it.

Reason 1: more restrictive in a certain way. Only buy 2 very young guys instead of 3 "hits" more people than 3-2-1 in my view. Althoug that is weakened a bit by my next point.

Second, see another thread, I would like to see Buhmann changing the starting values for 21-24 year olds sooner or later (hope sooner, expect later, 2015 maybe?) too. The system now is just.... 21 or too late for most types of riders. No reason that a guy that turns pro with 22 is clearly weaker than a 21 year old and costs more too. 76-55-76-54-47 with 54 reg for 3,496, 22 years old. Urganov when bought was 73-52-75-54-47 with 53 reg. 21 years old 3,175. 300k cheaper for the more. After all you can expect that he will be 77-55-75-54-47 after 1 month, which is exactly what he was. So 1 mountain more, 1 downhill less, one reg less than the guy who is one year older and costs 300k more. And you can't even buy something that comes close to 73-56-79 at 21 with 22, max 76-56-??. And will cost more. Senseless, offer them roughly the same strenght, 77-59-??. And they cost more still, no problem. Same for all type, right now for most types the 22 year olds just make no sense. If I ever convince Buhmann to change that, the 2 21 year olds then wouldn't hit the complete overhaulers that much. Instead of one month at 10-12 21 year olds, make it 2 months with 2 21 year olds, 3 22 year olds. and the third month with another 2 21 year olds. You still have those easy to build superteams. So while that change for the moment is still utopic, try to make other great plans compatible with other great plans I have....

And even if Buh doesn't change that. 2 leaders 21, 3 cheap 46-74, but 22 year olds, so it will be 48-77 which cost more, but well, not that much. And 22 or 21 for those in the end is secondary. Next month the same: 10 riders, 4 leaders 6 helpers, 21-23 year old, a month later another 2 leaders or 70-80 support riders, and instead of doing it in one month, you do in three. Not much changes. The "hit" for those I want to "hit" here is minimized. Becomes a fairly nonsensical restriction.

The 3-5-6 (total allowed rider under 21/22/23) or 3-2-1 is much much more effective. Since then in 3 month you really only could get 6 young riders. in that 3 year age group. Not 10 in 2 months like the 2 rule. Or if you want and have enough money even 20 in 2 months... The 2 rule would just make the "Beigemüse" a bit more expensive and a bit weaker, but then the strength are not based on that so much. It's the money saving that they assure, superstrong team, but not 600k every race, you still can start at 375 or 400 some days. The 3-2-1 would make the Armada of 2 sprinters, 2 climbers, 3 70-80s of all the exactly same age with a flat armada at the same age, and some 60-80 too, that with time just becomes too strong, without having money problems at all first the first months impossible. A good thing. It doesn't make a strong team, whose main riders all peak at roughly the same time impossible. 1 climber-sprinter-56-74/2. climber-56-74 3 56-74 4 sprinter/56-74/whatever. In 4 month 9 strong riders. But the support riders will have to be left overs or bought at 24. Or bougth later. It just takes a bit more planning. It's more than just the mindless depleting of the youth market in one month buy all perfect riders, as soon as you see them, you have at least to chose which perfect rider you want first, 2 climbers first? But then the tax for eventual sales of non training (only took 4+3 at 22!!!!!!) stars will rise faster. the 55-74-76 with 45 reg, great, shit, now the 56-74-79-50-50 with 35 reg is there, already have 3 young ones, fuck fuck.. shouldn't have bought 55-74. Or the oppositie, 55-74, no I wait... fuck fuck, nothing good came anymore... Right now is just. BUY IT. You have the money, you have the rough plan, 2 of those, 2 of those 3 of those, ah, maybe 4... 55-74, cool. 56-74-79, cool too. Oh, 56-74-79 again, 2 of them? HEy, I change the plan, buy 4 70-80es now. Too fucking easy. A bit more difficult? Some choices? Like all other methods have to. (Lack of money, lack of flexibility, 50 day rule)

3-2-1 makes the planned strong team more difficult, not impossible.
It doesn't influence a great part of the managers, 2 would influence more.
It does make life a bit more harder for some managers, see skullz.

My analysis of his 2010 might have been wrong (no wonder with the fantastic closing popups as soon as you open the second layer...) but his analysis of what is possible and not is wrong too. 2009 (without looking) and 2011 (remembering) would have been possible. Not in the exact same way, that's true. 7 21 year olds in 2 month? 5 in one, 2 in the next? Make it 3 in one, 2 in the next, the core isn't hurt. Then 1+1, you need 2 months more. It's possible. And it's limitations, yes, but not crazy.

Identify the problem: Too big advantage for complete overhaul teams.
Solution: Make the advantage smaller. Restrict the number of youth riders that can be bought over a short period of time.
Assess the negative effect on non-targets: Depending on the team philosophy: none to small

Teams like Skulls are not the target. They still suffer from it, yes. Just looking at the fact that he couldn't buy 5 in a month anymore the effect would even be medium maybe. Or lower medium. But on the other hand they profit from it too, more riders available on the youth market, less "hamsterkäufe" of complete overhaulers. Downgraded to small.

Show me a solution, with restrictions or with incentives, don't care which, that makes the complete overhaul less advantegeous to other methods (yours, mine, the buy-and sell of Mangahn and Ticos, any others I don't know) without having the small negative effect on any of the other methods and I'll support that one.

But for the moment still like my proposal. The advantage of the complete overhaul/complete restart with youth riders method just is too big, and it's too easy in my view. Make it a bit harder to build. Without making it impossible. Ok, if you don't see it as a problem, then of course you don't need a solution. I see it as one, bigger one than the advantage that the dealing method has, that advantage is there but kind of regulates itself, only works if a minority does it, if too many do it the market doesn't have enough material, the dealing method weaks itself, other methods get more competitive. Here not, if more people do it, the other methods don't catch up, on the contrary.

[Luna]

Another way of restricting complete team overhauls with youth riders could be to only allow buying 20yo as long as you have at least 8 active riders on the team. That would be an easy rule. It wouldn't hurt teams like skullz. It would still allow to sell an old rider some days prior to the season change (or even a month, be it so). But it would make it nearly impossible to buy 9 young riders that would peak at the same time. You would need to got huge money reserves to buy a full generation of riders without selling nearly the whole team. But if you maybe have 18 riders plus a very big bank account then it could be possible to sell 10 and add 8 to 15 millions cash. That would be very seldom to see. And it would be a well deserved extra opportunity to burn money.

EDIT: Anther reason: Young riders that join a pro team like do so in prospect of a running team with a good racing program and experienced riders by their side to learn from them. Otherwise they could have stayed in the youth class where they could compete in equal competition.

[Robyklebt]

Sounds good actually.

The ape will go in thinking mode to see if he misses something now.

[auxilium torino]

i think that another idea can be to restrict the training point for the young riders(to 24 years)...
like a training camp, at last you must decide: maximal 50-60% of their to can stay in team, the other will be sold for a reduced price(50%)

[auxilium torino]

why not a little change in the training effect for the young riders
in mom we have the training with percent related to the age.
my suggestion is to implement a bonus related to the old riders in team(experience)
p.example, i have 2 riders old as 27 years with more than 80 mountains,everone old rider give a 3% more in training, give me an 6 extras % points-training(6%) in mountain, that must divided to the young riders(21-24).
if i have 2 young rider everyone become 3 points(3 %)
Riders A have normaly 46% chance to become 1 point value in mountain, + 3% from the old rider bonus

[Luna]

Could be that way, too.

But I would make it the other way around: not that the youth riders get a bonus when there are experienced riders, but that they get a malus if the experienced riders are missing.

A little complicated though.

[Robyklebt]

Lunas idea:

Another way of restricting complete team overhauls with youth riders could be to only allow buying 20yo as long as you have at least 8 active riders on the team.

In principle see no problems...
Thinking a bit about including 21-23 and making "active" riders = riders over 24,
But in principle would do what I want it do do, so ok. The question now is, does Skull see problems?

Aux idea... a bit complicated as Luna says.