if he doesnt play why should you pay?
Why would you buy him if he won't play? So they play, believe me (as they did, check box score). But if they play why shouldn't you pay?
Transfer price is payed by the seller, not the buyer so don't count it as a "price for playing"
In a certain point of view I agree with you. I always said that training these kind of monsters are pointless as it is hard (or impossible) to keep them. I'm against farming as well. I also think it's not cheating as it isn't against rules. My point is that it's unfair. It's unfair that this guy bought two players for 22k, their salary would have been 450k+ and he could fire them without paying. In other words he had a huge advantage against others who are paying their players every week. And he can do that every week, saving even 500k a week. If he should have payed a week of salary he would have payed 450k for two players job that is worth 450k. Sounds more fair to me.
In my eyes hes doing a great job for both managing his team to win some games and to punish farming and obesed nt enthuziasts.
And in my eyes he found a whole in the rules and used it unfairly. And he is not Robin Hood to "punish" anybody. By the way I'm pretty sure he's not doing it to help the game or anybody, but to earn some extra (unfair) advantage over his rivals. To me is like exploiting a bug which shouldn't be rewarded but repaired.
I know those players would be retiring soon and no problem with that. The problem is that he got unfair boost from them. I don't mind if he buys these kind of players for a week but he should pay at least one week salary for their play as he used their skills and they helped him win.
I still don't understand what is your problem with this suggestion. The monsters would be retiring anyway. If there would be a restriction on firing them like on selling them, it would change only one thing: nobody could get extra advantage on these players for free. What's the problem with that?