Boards.ie League SMFA monitoring transfers On/Off

ctrl-alt-delete

So it is that time of the year again where the discussion turns to whether or not SMFA monitoring of transfers in the gameworld should be turned on or off.

As it stands it is On, Below is what the SMFA have to say on the matter.

Soccermanager wrote:

Please be advised that if the SMFA is turned off it could result in unusual and/or dubious transfers. We only recommend turning this feature off if you are playing with friends and/or work colleagues in a Private Game World.

The below link will divert you to the previous discussion and vote on the matter.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056993524&page=4


Please be advised that the Voting is set to Public and only votes by boards.ie Soccermanager players will be counted come the end of the voting period.


Please be further advised that if the majority vote Yes, the change can only come into effect before turn 1 of next season, this is a feature built into SM and these advanced rules can only be changed once a season before the first set of matches in a season.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it as it is.

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

Off, don't think I need to state my position on this yet again

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, keep it On, as is.

I think off also

If we turn it off one of the pros will be the big teams parting with 90+ players IMO. As the small teams can offer 3r4 young talents.
I know I'd listen too offers for at least 2 90+ players if I was gettin 3/4 prospects

ctrl-alt-delete

No, keep it On, as is.

I can see the good and the bad points for either option myself.

Previously i voted to keep it on.

This time I am going to vote to switch it off, as I think it will be good for the transfer market (and in turn the gameworld). I think people on here can see the value of potential risers, something the game obviously cannot have built in and as a result of this we might see some more movement of higher rated players.

I don't fully understand why, but cash is no good in this gameworld at this moment in time.

I would like to think it will not be abused, and would also like to think we can switch it back on again after another vote if people feel it is not working, or if it has had a negative effect.

GT_TDI_150

On.

It aint broke.

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, keep it On, as is.

It's only a trial period and I cannot see it been abused as it's a closed game world

ctrl-alt-delete

No, keep it On, as is.

Just to add Mac, can you send out that gameworld PM.

The poll will close 21 days from today.

Looking at the gameworld only 3 players, the managers of Besiktas (8 days), Marseille (15 days) and Zenit (16 days) have not been on within the last week, which given the activity in here surprised me.

Every other manager has logged on within the last 3 days except for one who was 6 days.

So people should get the PM and will have had their chance to vote on the matter.

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, keep it On, as is.

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Just to add Mac, can you send out that gameworld PM.

The poll will close 21 days from today.

Looking at the gameworld only 3 players, the managers of Besiktas (8 days), Marseille (15 days) and Zenit (16 days) have not been on within the last week, which given the activity in here surprised me.

Every other manager has logged on within the last 3 days except for one who was 6 days.

So people should get the PM and will have had their chance to vote on the matter.

Will do now bud

bazarakus

No, keep it On, as is.

FIXED IT FOR YA Originally Posted by Soccermanager
Please be advised that if the SMFA is turned off it could result in unusual and/or dubious transfers. It could also result in every prissy sap getting your transfers reversed cos you didn't accept the deal he offered. We only recommend turning this feature off if you are playing with friends and/or work colleagues in a Private Game World.

Jimmy Rabbitte Snr

Keep it on.

Lord TSC

On.

Asked this on the other thread; will turning it off let you buy more than 3 players from a team? If not, then...

If we turn it off one of the pros will be the big teams parting with 90+ players IMO. As the small teams can offer 3r4 young talents.
I know I'd listen too offers for at least 2 90+ players if I was gettin 3/4 prospects

...I don't see how this can't be done already as it is. Do separate deals and you can easily get 3 prospects for the 90+ rated player if you want.

I cannot see how turning off the monitoring doesn't just open everything up to abuse. I get there's a handful of deals which have been reversed annoyingly, but nearly all of the recent ones I could have called. And for every one that gets turned back, there's dozens and dozens of transfers that go through with zero hassle.

I don't think turning it off will make people willing to part with good players; if they aren't now, then I don't see how they will be willing to afterwards. And it just leaves the system so open to abuse.

Burlap_Sack

No, keep it On, as is.

Would like to keep it on but the transfer market is so stagnant I think it will get things moving if it's off.

unkymo

Voted to keep it on.

Lord TSC

I've decided if it is turned off, I'll be offering real money to people (via paypal) if they give me their best players at face value

Seamo87

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I've decided if it is turned off, I'll be offering real money to people (via paypal) if they give me their best players at face value

Can I join this league............. please lol

bazarakus

No, keep it On, as is.

oof

neck and neck!

Al Capwned

No, keep it On, as is.

Previously was vehemently against turning this on, but I am kinda in two minds now, given recent experiences...
Will have a further think about if before committing to a vote!

Wilberto

Al Capwned wrote: »

Previously was vehemently against turning this on, but I am kinda in two minds now, given recent experiences...
Will have a further think about if before committing to a vote!

I'm in the same boat really.

To be brutally honest, I'm not sure how much the argument that "managers will part with players if the monitoring is turned off" stacks up. Is the reason that managers aren't selling purely down to the SMFA monitoring? Or are managers just too afraid that the second the let a player go, they'll get a rise of +2 and will be worth about 10 million (possible exaggeration) more than what they sold him for? Personally, I think the latter is the more influential reason. Fear, pure and simple.


However, I also feel that if it were to be left on, it may cause more discontent (particularly in the forums) than if it were turned off. The key attraction with this league (for me anyway) is the banter in the forums. If it is left on, managers may become increasingly frustrated, especially when other posters essentially tell them "I told you so" (Again, another slight exaggeration) and as a result their participation levels in the forums may fall, along with their activity level over on Soccer Manager. This can only have a detrimental effect on the league.


Now, I know that second reason probably sounds something like "Oh fine, give it to them!. It might stop them whining on about it!" (Sorry ) but I genuinely believe that it could actually end up being worse if it's not turned off.



That said, I'm still really unsure of how to vote. I'm slightly leaning to the "Yes" side at the moment, however, tomorrow I could be leaning towards a "No" vote. As it's so close in the polls (8 Vs 8 at the time of writing), I would hate to have my "unsure" vote be involved in a poll with only a one vote difference.

So I may just spoil my vote. :P:D

GT_TDI_150

Question, monitoring off, does it mean just that OR does it also mean that if we find some-one to be doing overly dodge deals that they can not be reported?

I've not reported any one (yet) but there is more scope for suspect deals when monitoring is off so ...

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, keep it On, as is.

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Question, monitoring off, does it mean just that OR does it also mean that if we find some-one to be doing overly dodge deals that they can not be reported?

I've not reported any one (yet) but there is more scope for suspect deals when monitoring is off so ...

We can't report it but the chairman stil has too be happy with the deal!

Lord TSC

Wilberto wrote: »

To be brutally honest, I'm not sure how much the argument that "managers will part with players if the monitoring is turned off" stacks up. Is the reason that managers aren't selling purely down to the SMFA monitoring? Or are managers just too afraid that the second the let a player go, they'll get a rise of +2 and will be worth about 10 million (possible exaggeration) more than what they sold him for? Personally, I think the latter is the more influential reason. Fear, pure and simple.

I agree it's fear, but for me, it's a different fear, and I think it is for others as well.

I think it's a fear that by selling a player, the team will only get weaker. I think people refuse to take just cash cause there's zero confidence that they'll be able to take that cash and use it with other managers to strengthen the team. So all deals for any decent player MUST be p/e. Worse, it must be a lob-sided p/e; people will only trade their players if they are getting younger, higher rated versions of who they are losing. But bids of 4 or 5 times the value of players are turned down cause people don't think they'll get other managers to do deals for cash either.

Imagine if the real world worked like that; "I'll only sell you this player if you give me a better player from your team!" Imagine if Everton had asked for Rooney when United wanted Fellaini over the summer? Imagine if Spurs had demanded Ronaldo in p/e for Bale?!?

Over in THE GOOD LEAGUE, I sold my best player a few weeks back, an 89 rated midfielder. Was offered 26m for him and it was too much cash to turn down. But the decision was made easier by the fact I knew I could turn that 26m into more players; I managed to buy 6 players with that cash and upped my squad average from 86 to 88. I sold my best player cause I knew I could buy other players from other sources and improve my team.

I fear that can't happen in this gameworld, and I don't see how the monitoring being turned off will change that one bit. If anything, it opens things up to even more ludicrous expectations. What will help the gameworld is if people can somehow grow confident that they can do a deal to sell to Manager A, and then do a deal to buy from Manager B, who in turn will have to be confident of finding a Manager C to further the chain.

(That, btw, isn't to say you should have to sell a player if you don't want to. There's certainly players on my team that are not for sale cause I just like them as players and are fans of them irl.)

Manzoor14

No, keep it On, as is.

Off, at least give it a go for a season!

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

MrMac84 wrote: »

We can't report it but the chairman still has too be happy with the deal!

But is that not the whole point? Is the chairman valuation variation not enough? Why do we even have if SM are going to revoke transfers? In all honesty, why do we have a minimum acceptable offer if for all effective purposes ITS NOT a minimum acceptable amount? Its self-defeating......


I'm pretty happy to see that there has been a change in thought in regards this considering how definitively shot down it was first time round, and there are people out there that have taken on board the merits of change.... I also owe Mac and apology as I told him he was wasting his time bringing this back up for discussion....


What does interest me though is all this talk of what might happen if we turn it off.... Instead of scare mongering, why don't those opposed to changing it present a possible scenario with real players/real amounts/real clubs and lets just see exactly what is going to happen if its turned off.... If you want I'll do the same for keeping it on, actually no need for an made up example really, is there?



So lets just say.....

**Obviously hypothetical scenario**
I think that if SM is turned off the problem will be (Insert club) will sign (insert player) for (insert cash) and it will be wrong because (insert valid reason)

Anyone want to have a shot?




EDIT: One more thing....... All of these evils that will be laid upon us if we turn it off....... Remember, the 'ACCEPT' button will still be in effect..... No external teams or unmanaged teams are somehow going to snag Rooney or RVP from Man U or magically make Reus appear for Juve (stick to the sigs I'd say on that one Swoody) without that Accept button, no apocalyptic transfer saga will take place.

Lord TSC

I think that if SM is turned off the problem will be (clubs where managers are leaving) will (sell all their best players) for (no cash) and it will be wrong because (it completely wrecks the balance of the game).

I think that if SM is turned off the problem will be (managers creating multiple accounts) will (sell all of their best players from one team to another) for (sweet F all) and it will be wrong because (it destroys the balance of the game).

I think that if SM is turned off the problem will be (clubs selling players) will (have even loftier expectations) for (cash and players) and it will be wrong because (it only makes it harder for the majority to do deals).

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I think that if SM is turned off the problem will be (clubs where managers are leaving) will (sell all their best players) for (no cash) and it will be wrong because (it completely wrecks the balance of the game).

I think that if SM is turned off the problem will be (clubs selling players) will (have even loftier expectations) for (cash and players) and it will be wrong because (it only makes it harder for the majority to do deals).

Ok, about this, lets just say I decide to strip Lazio tomorrow, SM on or off it will make no difference, I can SELL for a reasonable amount (sure why do I care how much it is, I'm leaving) that will not flag SM and nobody will be the wiser, on the flipside of it, its not possible to BUY these players when you don't have the money but have the assets (i.e. potential players)



Loftier expectations? Again this is being vague... Just give an example using real life player/clubs/amounts and we will go through the likleyhood of it then.

ctrl-alt-delete

No, keep it On, as is.

Am I right in thinking the rule of 3 transfers between clubs per season will still be in effect?

KERSPLAT!

Ok, two brothers, one at Madrid the other at wherever he is.

Madrid:"I'm quitting, do you want ronaldo"

"Yeah sure"

Madrid:"cool, fire in the lowest offer possible and I'll accept"

"Thanks brother you're awesome!!"

If monitoring is off this can happen, if it's on people can report it, have it reversed and the Madrid team is left intact for the next deserving manager*


*fictional characters were used in this example, no animals were hurt in the making of this example

** I know you like winkyfaces so I said I'd throw one in

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

Ok, two brothers, one at Madrid the other at wherever he is.

Madrid:"I'm quitting, do you want ronaldo"

"Yeah sure"

Madrid:"cool, fire in the lowest offer possible and I'll accept"

"Thanks brother you're awesome!!"

If monitoring is off this can happen, if it's on people can report it, have it reversed and the Madrid team is left intact for the next deserving manager*


*fictional characters were used in this example, no animals were hurt in the making of this example

** I know you like winkyfaces so I said I'd throw one in

Same scenario, with SM on.....
Ok, two brothers, one at Madrid the other at wherever he is.

Madrid:"I'm quitting, do you want ronaldo"

"Yeah sure"

Madrid:"cool, fire in A LOW OFFER THAT SM WILL NOT FLAG, NOT MINIMUM BUT NOT MAXIMUM (AFTER ALL I'M LEAVING SO I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE MONEY) and I'll accept"

"Thanks brother you're awesome!!"

If monitoring is ON this can happen, if it's on people can't report it as it will not throw up an 'illegal' flag, can't have it reversed and the Madrid team is left fecked for the next deserving manager*


*fictional characters were used in this example, no animals were hurt in the making of this example

** I know you like winkyfaces so I said I'd throw one in


EDIT, I did already answer this before you asked, I said if I wanted to asset strip Lazio to the bare bones I could do it even with SM on, so no point in going through this scenario, how about we go through the scenario that all the scare mongering is about, you know the one where the manager is not leaving and magically all these external/unmanaged clubs aquire all the top players?????

You know, the one that we are all supposed to be afraid of happening if we turn it off???

KERSPLAT!

So either way it won't work?

Atleast there'll be more money for the next Madrid manager, and alot more at that I'd say considering how sensitive the monitoring seems to be, but sure you know that yourself

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

So either way it won't work?

Atleast there'll be more money for the next Madrid manager, and alot more at that I'd say considering how sensitive the monitoring seems to be, but sure you know that yourself

Or you could answer the question :rolleyes: