However, having said that, there is of course a questionable side in this, as some purists would say. I think if you've gained more salary by purchasing back your own draftees (selling when salary was lower than when you purchased them back), then for the sake of openness and fairness I think we could/should make some kind of compilation/table/information page of all teams together (in one table) into which we sum up some essential information such as certain team wages (for instance top 8 or top 12 players salaries), and into that table add for example following symbols:
+++++ = team has never purchased any players
++++ = team has never purchased other players than their own draftees and has not gained a current salary advantage with such purchases
+++ = team has never purchased other players than their own draftees and/or players of their teams nationality
++ = team has purchased players before, but is now fully homegrown (as per Eliocroca CB's manager LOPO_s' original definition - or we could add a link to MrJs' article too) and has not received a current salary benefit by buying own draftees back
+ = team has purchased players before, but is now fully homegrown (as per Eliocroca CB's manager LOPO_s' original definition of homegrown - or we could add a link to a MrJs' article too) but has received a current salary benefit by buying own draftees back. In this case, the amount of benefit in $ would be mentioned in parenthesis after a + sign.
For instance, you've initially sold 3 players with total wages of $15000, and now buy them back and their total salary is $215000, so by your team in that table there would read "+ ($200000).
I think this would be very welcoming addition, so that everyone can see with a one glance which kind of former strategy each one of us have chosen, and most importantly, whether or not we have received a salary (read: skill) benefits by purchasing back our own draftees.
Firstly, Wagner, I would like to thank you for all your time and effort regarding the planning of this league. You certainly are putting a lot of thought into what is needed.
Secondly, and with respect, I disagree with what you are suggesting regarding 'labelling' HG teams because of their purchases or lack of. For me, you are either HG or not. Simple. I think if we start adding all of these symbols (labels) then we are going to start creating 'classes' of HG teams. I think you would agree that this is not the best way to begin a new community.
I am not just saying this becuase I would have a '+' or '++' rating next to my team's name, but because I can't see how the labelling of teams in this manner would be a positive thing for our new league and community.
Yes, there is a small opportunity for teams to exploit the HG aspect in the way you have mentioned (increased salary by buying back previously sold/fired players), however, this would be more an exception than the rule. Furthermore, what is the real problem if this did occur more?
What are some scenarios:
A) A team deliberately, premeditatively, fires/sells players drafted regularly, then waits (seasons!) in the 'hope' of one day buying them back...to win more games? I don't know about you, but if I adopted that strategy, how could I ever know when it might pay off...if ever!
B) A team happens to buy back a former player which increases their team's salaries and their chance of more wins in the HG League.Again, why should such teams be labelled as different because they had the funds to improve their team within the definition of being HG?
I'm sure there are other scenarios, Wagner. But, again, I do not see how labelling teams in the manner you suggested, essentially creating 'classes' (never been good in RL historically) of HG teams, will add value to our newly created league.
These are my own opinions and I welcome constructive criticism.
Home Grown; for teams who like a challenge!