Soccermanager.com

Rayne Wooney

MrMac84 wrote: »

How about 10 million and you go dig up Jimmy Taroae (where ever he is these days) and add him too the deal?

I can get him for 4 million, bargain.

swoody

Bobo Balde is on a free if that interests you (well 75% of his value)

eireannBEAR

some one has reported swoodys and kyivs transfer for lich??? i wonder who did that? and who ever did report it would of read that accepting bids a little higher/less is not a reason to report!!!

is there any way of officially finding out whos doing this and banning them???????

the melo transfer wasnt reported tho.

batistuta9

how do you know its been reported?

Mr Blobby

This is why I've started doing transfer's through Pm's

eireannBEAR

batistuta9 wrote: »

how do you know its been reported?

you can go in to lists of transfer deals and i seen liches has question marks beside it so i clicked on them and it read already reported!!!. i never knew about this list you have to type a 100 letter report to make a complaint.

batistuta9

eireannBEAR wrote: »

you can go in to lists of transfer deals and i seen liches has question marks beside it so i clicked on them and it read already reported!!!. i never knew about this list you have to type a 100 letter report to make a complaint.

you weren't going into report it yourself?

eireannBEAR

batistuta9 wrote: »

you weren't going into report it yourself?

oh yes of course i was :pac:

irishgoldberg

can anyone loan me a forward rated 85+ for the next few matches? Have 2 forwards banned and 1 injured .

eireannBEAR

irishgoldberg wrote: »

can anyone loan me a forward rated 85+ for the next few matches? Have 2 forwards banned and 1 injured .

bayern munich.

tonic wine

irishgoldberg wrote: »

can anyone loan me a forward rated 85+ for the next few matches? Have 2 forwards banned and 1 injured .

I can loan you two I don't use, one rated 86 and one rated 85 if that's any help?
Mehmedi has 9 appearances and 4 assists av rating 7.09 division 2
Kyiv.

irishgoldberg

tonic wine wrote: »

I can loan you two I don't use, one rated 86 and one rated 85 if that's any help?
Mehmedi has 9 appearances and 4 assists av rating 7.09 division 2
Kyiv.

cheers mate, tho yer chairman wont loan mehmedi, iv put a loan offer in for the other guy, thanks.

tonic wine

irishgoldberg wrote: »

cheers mate, tho yer chairman wont loan mehmedi, iv put a loan offer in for the other guy, thanks.

Chairman wrecks my head over transfers and loans deals.
Accepted your loan offer for Aboubakar.
Sent you a PM on SM

GT_TDI_150

eireannBEAR wrote: »

bayern munich.

have a look at porto, my chairman can be a bit of a prick but see how you go, I've some 86-87 rated yokes

Rayne Wooney

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I've some 86-87 rated yokes

Where we heading this weekend?

:pac:

nua domhan

tupac_healy wrote: »

Probably shouldn't say this as the place will probably go mad again but.....


Time to revisit the whose 'SM transfer monitoring' option??? Am I right in saying this option can be turned off???

The one thing about competitive game word transfers is that there are often add ones and agreements that SM no nothing of, such as the arrangement Sunderland and Juve had, sure SM don't know about this they just go by the deal that is on the table.....


Probably a can of worms, but I suppose its worth revisiting as its a recording problem at this stage!


Just for the record, I was delighted with it being done as Juve we're plaguing me to buy him!!!!!!!

From my experience it's best to leave it on as it ultimately makes the game world more fair.

Imagine a couple of friends getting together and deciding that they'll basically sacrifice 1 club, to make sure the other one is unstoppable - selling 70 rated players for a couple of million to build up cash reserves, then buying the other teams best players for minimum money.

Thats why the transfers are monitored. If Soccer Manager reverses a deal it's because it looks dodgy - players being way over valued or one team doing way better from the deal than the other, or both teams being signed in from the same IP address etc.

And all this paranoia "Talk to me here not on SM" stuff is a bit tin hat isn't it? I seriously doubt staff are reading your PM's waiting to scupper a deal.

GT_TDI_150

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Where we heading this weekend?

:pac:

Tesco's car park :cool:

batistuta9

i don't think they ever look at deals unless they're reported, anyone know if that's right?

irishgoldberg

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

have a look at porto, my chairman can be a bit of a prick but see how you go, I've some 86-87 rated yokes

thanks for the offer but yer right about the chairman - prick! wont let any players go on loan!!!:mad:

Rayne Wooney

batistuta9 wrote: »

i don't think they ever look at deals unless they're reported, anyone know if that's right?

It has to be, when you look at how many transfers we've had in the GW, 2324 and then you have to think about all of the other GWs with a lot more transfers than ours. They haven't got the man power to look at every individual transfer.


The only transfers they look at are the reported ones. The bad thing is that I don't think there's any repercussions for reporting a transfer that there's nothing wrong with.

Mr Blobby

selling 70 rated players for a couple of million to build up cash reserves, then buying the other teams best players for minimum money.

That happens already in fairness. As long as there paying the chairman's valuation then there isn't a problem.

Thats why the transfers are monitored. If Soccer Manager reverses a deal it's because it looks dodgy -

The Juve deal today seemed fine... Yet it was reported and stopped. The same thing happened with Me and Madrid.




You have to remember that if SM think a deal is dodgy they can stop both managers from doing any deals with each other.

Thats a big issue... It's one thing to cancel a deal. Its another to totally stop transfers between clubs.

GT_TDI_150

nua domhan wrote: »

From my experience it's best to leave it on as it ultimately makes the game world more fair.

Imagine a couple of friends getting together and deciding that they'll basically sacrifice 1 club, to make sure the other one is unstoppable - selling 70 rated players for a couple of million to build up cash reserves, then buying the other teams best players for minimum money.

Thats why the transfers are monitored. If Soccer Manager reverses a deal it's because it looks dodgy - players being way over valued or one team doing way better from the deal than the other, or both teams being signed in from the same IP address etc.

And all this paranoia "Talk to me here not on SM" stuff is a bit tin hat isn't it? I seriously doubt staff are reading your PM's waiting to scupper a deal.

This.

If un-monitored whats to stop serious colluding?



Last few days people have been wanting to sack managers, change transfer policies, limit squad sizes, ...


lets just play within the parameters provided at the start?



Edit: No snitch here, didnt report a deal I was sour about few weeks back, didnt report one that didnt affect me at all this time ...

GT_TDI_150

by the way, I would assume that SMFA have code that looks for transfers to review in the DB, they arent going to go through each transfer manually

tupac_healy

nua domhan wrote: »

From my experience it's best to leave it on as it ultimately makes the game world more fair.

Imagine a couple of friends getting together and deciding that they'll basically sacrifice 1 club, to make sure the other one is unstoppable - selling 70 rated players for a couple of million to build up cash reserves, then buying the other teams best players for minimum money.

Thats why the transfers are monitored. If Soccer Manager reverses a deal it's because it looks dodgy - players being way over valued or one team doing way better from the deal than the other, or both teams being signed in from the same IP address etc.

And all this paranoia "Talk to me here not on SM" stuff is a bit tin hat isn't it? I seriously doubt staff are reading your PM's waiting to scupper a deal.

Yet... deals have heen scuppered..... lads ive no vested interest as ive my own targets in mind but I think its somethin that should be at least debated as this sort of thing has got out of hand, lots of clubs now missing out on good deals because of it...


If it does happen to me (chances are it will, dont know why, feck all luck!!!!!) I will totally snap!!!!!!! Its fine for the rest of us but must be so frustrating for those involved in the deals, may even affect their interest in the game, and considering the gameworld Mac has built here we badly badly need to protect that!


I think fairest way would be to have a vote on another thread about closing this option off next season?


Can we agree to that? Oh if we plough on with a vote can someone else make the thread as im on my phone these days!

Al Capwned

Eh, can someone please explain what happened this evening.

I just logged in to see a bid on one of my players but also withdrawn from Sunderland - would definitely have considered it.
This got anything to do with the current drama?

Al.

tonic wine

Al Capwned wrote: »

Eh, can someone please explain what happened this evening.

I just logged in to see a bid on one of my players but also withdrawn from Sunderland - would definitely have considered it.
This got anything to do with the current drama?

Al.

Most of it is explained on P549. Sunderland had over 40m to spend as two of his transfers got blocked, he got the transfer fees back and the players returned to their original clubs.

I'd guess he bid for one of your players but landed another target in the mean time so withdrew the offer.

tupac_healy

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

This.

If un-monitored whats to stop serious colluding?



Last few days people have been wanting to sack managers, change transfer policies, limit squad sizes, ...


lets just play within the parameters provided at the start?



Edit: No snitch here, didnt report a deal I was sour about few weeks back, didnt report one that didnt affect me at all this time ...

Not being pedantic, but what's stopping colluding as it is??? Before I say the next sentence.... MADRID, NO DISRESPECT AND IM WELL OVER IT BUT IM USING IT AS ITS A GOOD EXAMPLE, IM ASKING NICELY, PLEASE DON'T TAKE EXCEPTION IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM......


was the Pato deal to Bremen not some form of colluding? Again, that deal is done and been discussed to death here and I'm sorry but its a good example to use in this situation.......


Colluding will happen regardless, maybe not on the scale mentioned but SM are certainly not regulating it properly that's for damn sure, they are cancelling deals that should have not been interfered with, only reason I'm banging on about this is because if it happens to me I will be less than impressed

tupac_healy

Era I put up a poll anyway!!!!


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056993524#

hufpc8w3adnk65

nua domhan wrote: »

From my experience it's best to leave it on as it ultimately makes the game world more fair.

Imagine a couple of friends getting together and deciding that they'll basically sacrifice 1 club, to make sure the other one is unstoppable - selling 70 rated players for a couple of million to build up cash reserves, then buying the other teams best players for minimum money.

Thats why the transfers are monitored. If Soccer Manager reverses a deal it's because it looks dodgy - players being way over valued or one team doing way better from the deal than the other, or both teams being signed in from the same IP address etc.

And all this paranoia "Talk to me here not on SM" stuff is a bit tin hat isn't it? I seriously doubt staff are reading your PM's waiting to scupper a deal.

I think you have it spot on here.

batistuta9 wrote: »

i don't think they ever look at deals unless they're reported, anyone know if that's right?

Nope they have an algarythem (sp) for transfers it was on the forum before.


I "think" im in favour of letting it on and can't see my self changing my mind. If deal's are 100% legit then the SMFA wont reverse them. All these first refusal type deals get messy. Ive played worlds where it was turned off and it's rife with cheating! The ban on lads doing transfers with each other isnt permenent and besides even if we turn SMFA monitoring off all that happen's is the chairman becomes an even bigger pain. Every week lads are looking for way's too improve the game i'd suggest posting in the Soccermanager.com forum these suggestion's.

IvySlayer

One of my youths has gone up to 85 from 83