1. The Hold List would need its own limitations (max players based on Gaming House Level, scaling up much much slower).
1.1 Example: A House with only 5 players may not be able to afford a Hold List at all. First slot for Hold List opens around level 2-3 and would increase one slot every 4-5 levels of Gaming House: (ie) 3, 8, 13 being the increase margins.
1.2 It is also important that the Hold List is staggered and separate from the other benefits of Player and Staff increase since most players likely will not be utilizing this Hold List.
2. The Hold List would not benefit the team in any way (streaming or team games).
3. The Hold List players would still be getting paid while they are on the list.
3.1 I wouldn't mind there being an "extra" cost to having them on the Hold List, as they need accommodations, as well, (ie) maybe an additional 50% cost on top of their wage.
4. The Hold List players at this point may or may not play Solo Queue games, as they still are individuals that play the game.
4.1 Energy Costs may be tampered with accordingly to make this "fair".
5. If a Player slot is not opened up within 2 days' updates (2 "weeks" of games, basically), then the Hold List player is treated as if fired and is a free agent, available for scouting.
5.1 This could incur the firing cost, as well, for a full duration contract, which would be 2.5x (25*.1) the wage of the player.
Thoughts on this? I can't see it being abuse with many restrictions on it that keep teams from "hoarding" good players and putting a huge cost on not following up on the player and not hiring.
To prevent that case, instead of having a hold list, how about a "probation list"?
You can mark players as on "probation" and have a ranking list for the order in which players can be removed. The number of players you can have active bids for is the number of players on probation, and bidding LOCKS them into probation status. Every bid you win then fires the player who is ranked highest on the probation list and hires the new player to fill their slot.