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

KERSPLAT!

As for your question on morality. I think you were right to pick up Williams or whoever it was, same goes for Ajax or whoever gets Klose. If the players are there, go ahead, take them.

Where this ties into my point is, I think they should be unavailable for all, for two weeks instead of one, that's all, nothing to do with morales

tupac_healy

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

As for your question on morality. I think you were right to pick up Williams or whoever it was, same goes for Ajax or whoever gets Klose. If the players are there, go ahead, take them.

Where this ties into my point is, I think they should be unavailable for all, for two weeks instead of one, that's all, nothing to do with morales

Ok..... so you didnt withdraw your bid for Klose because you felt it was morally wrong?


Oh cause I thought you did?


EDIT: never mind, I just realised its the time limit you have issue with, just waiting another 6 days to make your move yeah?

Seaneh

tupac_healy wrote: »

Ahem....

It is bollocks because it completely ignores what I was actually saying.

I was saying that unmanaged clubs shouldn't be able to sell players at all, neither to managed clubs or external clubs, I think my point was fairly obvious to be honest, so in that context, your argument is bollocks.

If it can be changed from 7 days, it should be, I'd vote for it to be changed to "indefinite" if possible.

Seaneh

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

Probably has you on Ignore, understandably.



:pac:



I kid, I kid

I actually don't have anyone on ignore, never have, and I've been here a while :P

KERSPLAT!

tupac_healy wrote: »

Ok..... so you didnt withdraw your bid for Klose because you felt it was morally wrong?


Oh cause I thought you did?


EDIT: never mind, I just realised its the time limit you have issue with, just waiting another 6 days to make your move yeah?

Everyone else seems to atleast acknowledge that it's a positive point, you just seem set on disagreeing for the sake of it. Don't get me wrong, that's fine, but I'm sure everyone else can see it too.

You keep missing the point, it will be detrimental to the GW to strip the clubs of assets, if adding and extra week to the bidding ban helps stop that and gives Mac more time, then I think it's a great idea and again, can see no logical reason not to add the extra week

tupac_healy

Seaneh wrote: »

It is bollocks because it completely ignores what I was actually saying.

I was saying that unmanaged clubs shouldn't be able to sell players at all, neither to managed clubs or external clubs, I think my point was fairly obvious to be honest, so in that context, your argument is bollocks.

If it can be changed from 7 days, it should be, I'd vote for it to be changed to "indefinite" if possible.

My argument? What argument did I make to defend it??? I'm here to defend my own actions IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RULES AS IS... not to justify of its right or wrong... like I said to you before, good luck getting that changed....

So for the last time, I did nothing wrong here and to call what I did 'bollox' is inappropriate as I acted within gameworld rules....

tupac_healy

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

Everyone else seems to atleast acknowledge that it's a positive point, you just seem set on disagreeing for the sake of it. Don't get me wrong, that's fine, but I'm sure everyone else can see it too.

You keep missing the point, it will be detrimental to the GW to strip the clubs of assets, if adding and extra week to the bidding ban helps stop that and gives Mac more time, then I think it's a great idea and again, can see no logical reason not to add the extra week

I dont agree or disagree with it being any point at all to be honest....

Do what ye like with the time frame, that does not concern me in the slightest, my ONLY concern here is that I did nothing wrong on that transfer and yet here I am defending (once again) my actions when its higly inappropriate.

Like I said previously regarding the time issue, you may think im missing the point, I'm not. Trust me I know what you mean, I jaust dont agree that adding another week will resolve that issue....


EDIT: why did you quote me in your last response and then totally avoid my question?

KERSPLAT!

tupac_healy wrote: »

I dont agree or disagree with it being any point at all to be honest....

Do what ye like with the time frame, that does not concern me in the slightest, my ONLY concern here is that I did nothing wrong on that transfer and yet here I am defending (once again) my actions when its higly inappropriate.

Like I said previously regarding the time issue, you may think im missing the point, I'm not. Trust me I know what you mean, I jaust dont agree that adding another week will resolve that issue....


EDIT: why did you quote me in your last response and then totally avoid my question?

I withdrew my bid because I need a DM among other reasons

My only concern is the timeframe so why are you arguing with me? Again, I've no problem with what you or Ajax have done, it's the system that allowed you to do it that I have a problem with.

Do you not agree that allowing Mac more time to fill the position and therefore preserving the cub for another week would benefit the GW? Genuine question. If you answer no, we may give up and stick each other on ignore because there's no point arguing for the sake of it. There's no logical reason that someone would disagree with an extra week being added, everyone still gets the same opportunity

tupac_healy

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

I withdrew my bid because I need a DM among other reasons

My only concern is the timeframe so why are you arguing with me? Again, I've no problem with what you or Ajax have done, it's the system that allowed you to do it that I have a problem with.

Do you not agree that allowing Mac more time to fill the position and therefore preserving the cub for another week would benefit the GW? Genuine question. If you answer no, we may give up and stick each other on ignore because there's no point arguing for the sake of it. There's no logical reason that someone would disagree with an extra week being added, everyone still gets the same opportunity

Its like I said, I dont agree or disagree with it because it will do nothing so I dont really have any comment as such on it.....

I know you want me to give you a straight answer but thats best I can do. Its not the soloution to the 'apparent' problem, merely postpone...

But by all means....

KERSPLAT!

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

He didn't say there was. What he is saying is, the teams are being stripped of any half decent players and any potential risers, who's going to want to take them over when they're left with a bunch of 85s and a world where it normally costs an arm and a leg for decent players

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

It's a tricky one. My stance would be, a week is too short. It should be at least 2 or maybe even 3. It gives plenty of time to find another manager. Clubs being stripped of all assets means they will, in all likelyhood, never be managed again or swap managers as much as Chelsea IRL.

What is your opinion on the turnstile type system there will be at these clubs, in regards to managers, when they see the crap that they've been left with?

My first and 2nd post on the issue and both sum up what I think. If possible the game world should allow Mac 2 weeks to find a new manager, after that, have the free for all. I've nothing against Tupac or Ajax for bidding/buying players. I have a problem with the system that allowed it to happen and think it should be changed, again, if possible

KERSPLAT!

tupac_healy wrote: »

Its like I said, I dont agree or disagree with it because it will do nothing so I dont really have any comment as such on it.....

I know you want me to give you a straight answer but thats best I can do. Its not the soloution to the 'apparent' problem, merely postpone...

But by all means....

So you're on the fence, fair enough. We've wasted enough of each others time at this stage I think

Anyone else care to jump in the ring???

hufpc8w3adnk65

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

Again Mac, as I've said a few times. I don't think the AI team should get them instead of a managed club, I just think that 1 week is too short. We now have about 5 clubs that'll be stripped of all assets soon and become pretty much unmanageable.

Whilst I agree they'll become hard too manage they'll be far from unmanageable as they should have a hefty bank balance for new managers. If they just sold too AI teams that balance may not be as hefty.

I would extend the non transfer period too 2,3 even 4 weeks if people wanted BUT the AI teams would have all the players bought by then

tupac_healy

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

So you're on the fence, fair enough. We've wasted enough of each others time at this stage I think

Anyone else care to jump in the ring???

I had a feeling you would say I was sitting on the fence, but im actually not....

I really dont care about the extra week, for me it has no real value so I can either take it or leave it.....

Thats my honest assessment, if it seems like sitting on the fence (which I freely admit it does look that way) its not meant like that at all! Its really how I feel about it.....

tupac_healy

MrMac84 wrote: »

Whilst I agree they'll become hard too manage they'll be far from unmanageable as they should have a hefty bank balance for new managers. If they just sold too AI teams that balance may not be as hefty.

I would extend the non transfer period too 2,3 even 4 weeks if people wanted BUT the AI teams would have all the players bought by then

Eh Sean, or seaneh sorry...

What you make of that? Not being smart or ttrying to start another rant or anything.
.

Thats the update we have so what do you thing is the way forward? Stick with 'bollox' or change the whole thing......

Seaneh

MrMac84 wrote: »

Whilst I agree they'll become hard too manage they'll be far from unmanageable as they should have a hefty bank balance for new managers. If they just sold too AI teams that balance may not be as hefty.

I would extend the non transfer period too 2,3 even 4 weeks if people wanted BUT the AI teams would have all the players bought by then

Is there no way to stop the unmanaged clubs from selling players, period.

That way external clubs buying them isn't an issue.

KERSPLAT!

MrMac84 wrote: »

Whilst I agree they'll become hard too manage they'll be far from unmanageable as they should have a hefty bank balance for new managers. If they just sold too AI teams that balance may not be as hefty.

I would extend the non transfer period too 2,3 even 4 weeks if people wanted BUT the AI teams would have all the players bought by then

You're missing the point, I would only want this introduced if the ban was across the board, managers and AI, I think that's how most people feel. The last thing I want is a load of 88s+ leaving our leagues and going to AI clubs for 3 months

And on the hefty bank balance... I think you know yourself that a hefty bank balance doesn't mean a good team. Though I do agree it's better that more is payed by managers than letting the AI take them for cost price

hufpc8w3adnk65

Lads easy soloution

Let's fill up the game world again. We all have friends on here in other forums etc.. Also a few managers went looking for teams and never got back too me in the waiting list thread... Anyone wana pm them I'm on my way too a match ??

hufpc8w3adnk65

Lads easy soloution

Let's fill up the game world again. We all have friends on here in other forums etc.. Also a few managers went looking for teams and never got back too me in the waiting list thread... Anyone wana pm them I'm on my way too a match ??

GT_TDI_150

Seaneh wrote: »

Is there no way to stop the unmanaged clubs from selling players, period.

That way external clubs buying them isn't an issue.

External clubs will pay less than managed clubs so i dont understand your issue here?!

KERSPLAT!

tupac_healy wrote: »

I had a feeling you would say I was sitting on the fence, but im actually not....

I really dont care about the extra week, for me it has no real value so I can either take it or leave it.....

Thats my honest assessment, if it seems like sitting on the fence (which I freely admit it does look that way) its not meant like that at all! Its really how I feel about it.....

If that's not on the fence then I dunno what is

For me, doubling the time for Mac and preserving the club for another week has huge value

Seaneh

tupac_healy wrote: »

Eh Sean, or seaneh sorry...

What you make of that? Not being smart or ttrying to start another rant or anything.
.

Thats the update we have so what do you thing is the way forward? Stick with 'bollox' or change the whole thing......

I said your argument was bollocks, because it is. I didn't say what you did was bollocks.

Can you seriously not wrap your head around what I suggested.

Stop unmanaged clubs from buying or selling players TOTALLY, not just to managed clubs.

Basically, when a club becomes unmanaged, it should have it's "assets" frozen, and the club kept as is until a new manager can be found.

This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp, why are you so hung up on a point nobody but yourself is trying to make?

If Mac can't do that, the **** it, who cares, but eventually there will be teams nobody will touch or if they do, it will be just to get their foot in the door and gone as soon as another clubs comes up.


Mac's reply of "having a good budget" is flawed too as, well, we all know money in this game world isn't worth a lot, as players are sold for 2-3 times their face value. It's near impossible to buy 88+ players.

KERSPLAT!

MrMac84 wrote: »

Lads easy soloution

Let's fill up the game world again. We all have friends on here in other forums etc.. Also a few managers went looking for teams and never got back too me in the waiting list thread... Anyone wana pm them I'm on my way too a match ??

Absolutely, my issue is when they can't be filled like now

Seaneh

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

External clubs will pay less than managed clubs so i dont understand your issue here?!

What about what you quoted don't you understand?

your reply literally misses the point entirely.

tupac_healy

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

If that's not on the fence then I dunno what is

For me, doubling the time for Mac and preserving the club for another week has huge value

Ok, ill choose a side so..... eh.....

I go against because I think a week is enough time

GT_TDI_150

Seaneh wrote: »

What about what you quoted don't you understand?

your reply literally misses the point entirely.

I actually miss read the first line of your comment.

Apologies

KERSPLAT!

tupac_healy wrote: »

Ok, ill choose a side so..... eh.....

I go against because I think a week is enough time

A week is enough time... yet we have 4/5 clubs unmanaged and being stripped as we speak. Baffling.

I've made my feelings known on the subject and I'm sure everyone is sick, as am I, of me repeating myself, so I'll leave it at that. Hopefully a few others can chime in on the debate instead of the usual few

tupac_healy

Seaneh wrote: »

I said your argument was bollocks, because it is. I didn't say what you did was bollocks.

Can you seriously not wrap your head around what I suggested.

Stop unmanaged clubs from buying or selling players TOTALLY, not just to managed clubs.

Basically, when a club becomes unmanaged, it should have it's "assets" frozen, and the club kept as is until a new manager can be found.

This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp, why are you so hung up on a point nobody but yourself is trying to make?

If Mac can't do that, the **** it, who cares, but eventually there will be teams nobody will touch or if they do, it will be just to get their foot in the door and gone as soon as another clubs comes up.


Mac's reply of "having a good budget" is flawed too as, well, we all know money in this game world isn't worth a lot, as players are sold for 2-3 times their face value. It's near impossible to buy 88+ players.

What argument is bollox thats what im asking you! What part of what I said is bollox?

I get your suggestion... it does not work, ive swen it in other gameworlds, what if clubs remain unmanaged for months or even a year or two, waste of players...

Again what point is it im getting hung up on? Stop being vague and come out with it.... I defended my transfer within the gameworld, I didnt set off on a crusade to change the gameworld rules (this time) you did....

Regards the 'budget' reply.... you ro realise that we are still paying that 2-3 times amount you quoted.....

Take Klose for example, eh 35 years old, I sold for 10 and now sold for 17, thats a profit.......

Seaneh

I'm not even going to bother addressing your last post because you're like a ****ing dog with a bone, you honestly can't comprehend what I actually said and instead of focusing on that you are obsessed with justifying your own actions in the game, which neither I, nor anybody else, ever said were wrong. You brought up the Williams deal, nobody else, you're perceiving a slight that was never made and frankly, that's your problem, not mine.

tupac_healy

Seaneh wrote: »

I'm not even going to bother addressing your last post because you're like a ****ing dog with a bone, you honestly can't comprehend what I actually said and instead of focusing on that you are obsessed with justifying your own actions in the game, which neither I, nor anybody else, ever said were wrong. You brought up the Williams deal, nobody else, you're perceiving a slight that was never made and frankly, that's your problem, not mine.

No, you wont address it cause ive asked you a number of times to clarify and you simply.cant....

Digitalism

Lads this is a trivial internet game... stop taking it so seriously.

I joined the waiting list for this, but never did join as its clear some people take this game far too seriously for it to be fun and it was off putting to me as a newcomer.