SoccerManager.com (#2) The Boards.ie World

Slide Rule Pass

JamboMac wrote: »

Do you not already have 3 loans

sent one back today.

Lord TSC

swoody wrote: »

watch out for his dirty tactics.




and of course he'll play Bale since we'll be playing our toddlers

What's that? I can't hear you from my pedestal with my Shield :P

no seriously, no chance I am letting him get p.o. over a lack of game time.

JamboMac

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

What's that? I can't hear you from my pedestal with my Shield :P

no seriously, no chance I am letting him get p.o. over a lack of game time.

I hope to take the worries of the shield off your back when we play.

ctrl-alt-delete

I don't know if anyone has missed me on here but all has been revealed. . .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2420658/Genoa-coach-caught-hiding-bushes-camo-gear-spy-rivals-Sampdoria.html

swoody

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I don't know if anyone has missed me on here but all has been revealed. . .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2420658/Genoa-coach-caught-hiding-bushes-camo-gear-spy-rivals-Sampdoria.html

pics or gtfo......

Mr Blobby

swoody wrote: »

pics or gtfo......

It was the Goalkeeping coach.
He's also been suspended.

king size mars bar

Mr Blobby wrote: »

It was the Goalkeeping coach.
He's also been suspended.

What am i looking at , i cant see anybody?????

Munster Magic

The deal involving Dynamo Kyiv and Newcastle United regarding Alessandro MATRI has collapsed as the SMFA has blocked the deal.

The deal involving Sporting CP and Newcastle United regarding Alessandro MATRI has collapsed as the SMFA has blocked the deal.

Can understand the Sporting one as I bought Dier last weekend but no idea why they have blocked the deal with Kiev

swoody

Munster Magic wrote: »

The deal involving Dynamo Kyiv and Newcastle United regarding Alessandro MATRI has collapsed as the SMFA has blocked the deal.

The deal involving Sporting CP and Newcastle United regarding Alessandro MATRI has collapsed as the SMFA has blocked the deal.

Can understand the Sporting one as I bought Dier last weekend but no idea why they have blocked the deal with Kiev

how are 2 clubs blocked at the same time.... you cant accept 2 bids

also

why are there offers still in for him? if you accepted the 2 above the others disappear off your transfer offers.

tonic wine

Munster Magic wrote: »

The deal involving Dynamo Kyiv and Newcastle United regarding Alessandro MATRI has collapsed as the SMFA has blocked the deal.

The deal involving Sporting CP and Newcastle United regarding Alessandro MATRI has collapsed as the SMFA has blocked the deal.

Can understand the Sporting one as I bought Dier last weekend but no idea why they have blocked the deal with Kiev

I'll pm you on SM.

Munster Magic

swoody wrote: »

how are 2 clubs blocked at the same time.... you cant accept 2 bids

also

why are there offers still in for him? if you accepted the 2 above the others disappear off your transfer offers.

I tried to accept the offer from Sporting but that was blocked so then I tried to accept the offer from Kiev but that was blocked as well

I wasn't actually able to accept either of the offers hence the other offers are still there

Seaneh

This is bullsh*t.

tupac_healy

Seaneh wrote: »

This is bullsh*t.

Dont bother man, its not worth the heartache you'll bring upon yourself.... trust me ive tried......


Oh yeah.... Diego sent back too. Thats 2 now for me.


Not going to lie and say I hadnt considered packing it in. After all, if I can't do the deals I wan whats the point?

hufpc8w3adnk65

tupac_healy wrote: »

Dont bother man, its not worth the heartache you'll bring upon yourself.... trust me ive tried......


Oh yeah.... Diego sent back too. Thats 2 now for me.


Not going to lie and say I hadnt considered packing it in. After all, if I can't do the deals I wan whats the point?

If its gettin that bad i may consider turning it off for a season too see how it goes if possible

KERSPLAT!

There ya go Tupac ya finally got your way, anything else you want changed?

Mr Blobby

If it is getting turned off then there needs to be a minimum post count on Boards before people can join our league.

ctrl-alt-delete

Don't forget it needs to go to a public poll first.

PerrinV2

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Don't forget it needs to go to a public poll first.

Thought it went to a vote already?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056993524&page=8

Mr Blobby

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Thought it went to a vote already?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056993524&page=8

That pole was pointless since we couldn't see who voted.

tupac_healy

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

There ya go Tupac ya finally got your way, anything else you want changed?

I dunno, ill have a think about it

EDIT - you dont read very well do you? Mac said he would CONSIDER it.....


Since this is the third time you've called me out for voicing an opinion (which once AGAIN was in response to the subject, I didnt bring it up!!!!!) I feel as though you are singling me out, if you dont want to sign 90 players for 'side' deals and are happy to continue playing as you are then fine, I dont criticize you for playing that way, why are you criticizing me for playing the game in which I (and I'm not alone reading last few pages) want......

swoody

why not get whoever owns diego to sell him to an external.....? then pick him up in 2 months?

Rayne Wooney

People need to grasp that a transfer with a "side deal" is bypassing the chairman and soccermanager no likey.

I've done 50 transfers smoothly with no side deals and yet nearly every outraged post in here about transfers has involved a side deal, actually not nearly, every deal has.

No side deal = smooth transfer

Side deal = chancing your arm

And I'm making a suggestion here, if you absolutely must do side deals to survive, it which normally involves young potential risers, then why not wait until next season to do so? Doing it a few days apart will get reversed, I can't see them finding a link between deals seasons apart.

PerrinV2

tupac_healy wrote: »

I dunno, ill have a think about it

EDIT - you dont read very well do you? Mac said he would CONSIDER it.....


Since this is the third time you've called me out for voicing an opinion (which once AGAIN was in response to the subject, I didnt bring it up!!!!!) I feel as though you are singling me out, if you dont want to sign 90 players for 'side' deals and are happy to continue playing as you are then fine, I dont criticize you for playing that way, why are you criticizing me for playing the game in which I (and I'm not alone reading last few pages) want......

Relaxe Tupac no1's singling you out,shure you've had arguments with everyone here :pac:

hufpc8w3adnk65

Right so heres how it stands i can "edit" the rules once a season. At the minute SMFA monitoring is on. So we could turn it off for one season if people want ? If there was alot of unusual and/or dubious transfers we turn it back on at the end of said season?

Yay or Na?

swoody

MrMac84 wrote: »

Right so heres how it stands i can "edit" the rules once a season. At the minute SMFA monitoring is on. So we could turn it off for one season if people want ? If there was alot of unusual and/or dubious transfers we turn it back on at the end of said season?

Yay or Na?

Lord TSC

I still stand by nay.

No offence to Tupac, but it was always obvious the Diego deal was going to throw up flags. A team's best player going for face value in a world where 90s go for 4 or 5 times their value was ALWAYS going to alert the system. You can argue about side deals or what the player's status is in the real world all you want, but the system cannot work based on those. It only goes on what the deal actually is, and in this case, the deal would have looked extremely suspicious (not saying it actually was, just the way it looked). I still stand by, however, the notion that 99% of transfer deals go through without a hitch and that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

But IF it's to be turned off, I agree with the idea that a poll should be run first, AND that it's made public; we need to make sure it's actually being voted on by the people playing the game. If people don't want their names actually out there though, perhaps it could be run as a PM based poll? Have it that one person (and I'll do it if people want) is PM'd a vote, with the voter naming what team they have in the world, and a private list is made. If there was worry about biasness, it could also be organised that two other people can have access to the list of Yays and Nays. But I think we'd definitly need it to be limited to actual managers, AND that we'd need to hit a certain quota of voters; in a world with 80 managers, nothing should be done unless there's actually a decent majority of people for or against it, as opposed to a very vocal minority.

KERSPLAT!

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I still stand by nay.

No offence to Tupac, but it was always obvious the Diego deal was going to throw up flags. A team's best player going for face value in a world where 90s go for 4 or 5 times their value was ALWAYS going to alert the system. You can argue about side deals or what the player's status is in the real world all you want, but the system cannot work based on those. It only goes on what the deal actually is, and in this case, the deal would have looked extremely suspicious (not saying it actually was, just the way it looked). I still stand by, however, the notion that 99% of transfer deals go through without a hitch and that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

But IF it's to be turned off, I agree with the idea that a poll should be run first, AND that it's made public; we need to make sure it's actually being voted on by the people playing the game. If people don't want their names actually out there though, perhaps it could be run as a PM based poll? Have it that one person (and I'll do it if people want) is PM'd a vote, with the voter naming what team they have in the world, and a private list is made. If there was worry about biasness, it could also be organised that two other people can have access to the list of Yays and Nays. But I think we'd definitly need it to be limited to actual managers, AND that we'd need to hit a certain quota of voters; in a world with 80 managers, nothing should be done unless there's actually a decent majority of people for or against it, as opposed to a very vocal minority.

I agree with all that except the PM just make it a public poll, simples

KERSPLAT!

@Tupac, I'm not singling you out. You keep pushing and complaining about this, more than anyone else so its you I respond to. We had a poll that ended up a draw yet this is now being forced into play because of a few deals.

As a side note, you getting a 90, or whatever he was, for his actual value is shady as ****

As TSC said, they normally go for 2x, 3x or even 4x their price

Al Capwned

Public poll means that everything is fair and transparent.

btw I completely agree with Rayne Wooney's post above, and would thank it again if i could!

Lord TSC

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

I agree with all that except the PM just make it a public poll, simples

Yeah, just trying to offer a viable alternative I notice in the current poll up at the moment, there's been 40 votes. Now, presuming that all 40 of those are managers (and current ones at that), that still only equates to half the gameworld population. Personally, I think we'd need to hit at least 60 of the 80 to be 100% fair as well, but think that could be achieved if Mac sent round a quick PM to all managers asking them to vote.