Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Boards.ie League SMFA monitoring transfers On/Off
Options
Comments
-
-
tupac_healy wrote: »Challenge is still there:
**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)
Out of interest, is there any possible scenario that you won't just dismiss
0 -
No, keep it On, as is.Teamshadowclan wrote: »Out of interest, is there any possible scenario that you won't just dismiss
Is that not your job to provide that?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 8510
tupac_healy wrote: »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!!"
True. There is nothing to stop this happening. For one transfer between these clubs. But as soon as they try another transfer that seems to favour one of the clubs over the other, it will be flagged, and most likely reversed, along with the first transfer. I'm fairly certain this has also already happened too, that a first transfer was reversed on account of a second transfer being "suspect". With SMFA turned off, several transfers can be made to favour that one club.tupac_healy wrote: »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.
Is this actually true? I was of the belief that the "Illegal" flag/option was available for every transfer between clubs in the gameworld, i.e. transfers between a GW team and an external didn't have an option to report it.tupac_healy wrote: »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.
Again, this is true. However, this will only be to the detriment of Lazio. With the monitoring on, as soon as you start off-loading several players to one team, those transfers will be flagged.
Hence, you won't be able to dramatically improve one particular team, (i.e. a friend's team). With monitoring off, this can very easily be done.tupac_healy wrote: »How about we go through the scenario that all the scaremongering is about, you know the one where the manager is not leaving and magically all these external/unmanaged clubs acquire all the top players?????
I'm not sure I follow this argument in truth, but I don't want to leave out any part of your post. I'm struggling to understand how external/unmanaged clubs will be affected in any way by a change in the transfer monitoring rule.
P.S. I'm don't mean any offence by just taking your post, but you've just offered some arguments and I'm just offering counter arguments.
0 -
No, keep it On, as is.True. There is nothing to stop this happening. For one transfer between these clubs. But as soon as they try another transfer that seems to favour one of the clubs over the other, it will be flagged, and most likely reversed, along with the first transfer. I'm fairly certain this has also already happened too, that a first transfer was reversed on account of a second transfer being "suspect". With SMFA turned off, several transfers can be made to favour that one club.
It could still be done over a period of time without detection with SM monitoring on, there is no arguing that, the point is valid, its the time scale that is only in question
Is this actually true? I was of the belief that the "Illegal" flag/option was available for every transfer between clubs in the gameworld, i.e. transfers between a GW team and an external didn't have an option to report it.
Nope, not every, hence rendering the minimum acceptable amount 'theory' as invalid, because lets be honest if the minimum amount value is subject to validation by SM monitoring then why does it exist???
Again, this is true. However, this will only be to the detriment of Lazio. With the monitoring on, as soon as you start off-loading several players to one team, those transfers will be flagged.
Hence, you won't be able to dramatically improve one particular team, (i.e. a friend's team). With monitoring off, this can very easily be done.
Again, its important to remember that I was speaking from a hypothetical standpoint, I have no intention of doing this, my point was to prove that it could be done regardless, I don't agree with your point, it could be done, again its just a question of time period as opposed to ability to do
I'm not sure I follow this argument in truth, but I don't want to leave out any part of your post. I'm struggling to understand how external/unmanaged clubs will be affected in any way by a change in the transfer monitoring rule.
LOL, that was my point.... they won't. I'm trying to get those not in favour to come clean and explain what exactly it is they are afraid of. They say this will happen that will happen but none of it actually will..... My point was to be more specific rather than throwing up generalizations & lets talk about things that might actually have a chance of happening if things change, not speculate
P.S. I'm don't mean any offence by just taking your post, but you've just offered some arguments and I'm just offering counter arguments.
No offence taken, we are talking and no personal insults were traded, others could take a leaf man
0 -
-
tupac_healy wrote: »Or you could answer the question :rolleyes:
Some man for the smilies winkyface 
You edited your post at 11.04 and my post was made at 11.05, there was no question when I read your original post
As TS said above you just dismiss everything out of hand, I've already debated this enough. I believe the monitoring should be left on and I've voted that way. I'm done with the thread till the vote is finished. If it's voted to be turned off, that's fine by me, democracy at work is a fine thing.0 -
No, keep it On, as is.Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »Some man for the smilies winkyface
You edited your post at 11.04 and my post was made at 11.05, there was no question when I read your original post
As TS said above you just dismiss everything out of hand, I've already debated this enough. I believe the monitoring should be left on and I've voted that way. I'm done with the thread till the vote is finished. If it's voted to be turned off, that's fine by me, democracy at work is a fine thing.
Question was there before I edited as I write 'edit', for my additions....
As for this 'dismissing out of hand' that would imply I don't respond with reason or explaination, which I do. Also further to this, I did actually state I would change my vote if someone could provide an undenyable scenario using the criteria I provided (nobody has taken this up though) so if im willing to change my vote, let alone my opinion then its hardly 'out of hand' the opposite is true in fact, I want to discuss the merits of it yet the opposition to it seem unwilling to accept the relevant points I made......
But your right, democracy.... Fingers crossed. What's your problem with smilies?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 8510
I agree. The only variable in this equation is time. However, if we are speaking in terms of a manager who is leaving then will they actually stay on that extra bit just to benefit their friends team? In order to do so, they may have to stay on an extra 6 months in order to have make any sufficient improvements to the other team whilst avoiding attention from the SMFA. But, as you say, there's no real way of knowing the length of time they'd have to wait between transfers.tupac_healy wrote: »It could still be done over a period of time without detection with SM monitoring on, there is no arguing that, the point is valid, its the time scale that is only in question
However, the only requirement for the leaving manager is to log on once every 20 days or so, maybe sign a few cheap youngsters, and then every 2 months offload one of the star players to the other team. Looking at it this way, this could be done over several seasons with very little effort. Or the leaving manager could just hand his SM password to his friend and he can do this.
Then again, having said all that, it does say somewhere under the SMFA transfer monitoring system, that it monitors past transactions between the two teams. This could suggest that it remembers all these transactions, in which case there is no time limit.tupac_healy wrote: »Nope, not every, hence rendering the minimum acceptable amount 'theory' as invalid, because lets be honest if the minimum amount value is subject to validation by SM monitoring then why does it exist???
I've looked at the transfer over the last 5/6 turns and it seems that all bar one transfer between managed clubs have an option to report the transfer as illegal. The other transfer was the transfer of Nzonzi to myself, which obviously wasn't going to show up an "Illegal" tag for me.
Now, that said, I don't think it was used anyway so I don't think it's of any significant importance. But maybe that's because everybody deemed the SMFA to be doing it's job properly.tupac_healy wrote: »Again, its important to remember that I was speaking from a hypothetical standpoint, I have no intention of doing this, my point was to prove that it could be done regardless, I don't agree with your point, it could be done, again its just a question of time period as opposed to ability to do
This has pretty much reached the same conclusion as the first point, but all I'll say is, if you do decide to strip your team then let me know!! Ciaran Kilduff for El Sharawaay sounds about right!!
tupac_healy wrote: »LOL, that was my point.... they won't. I'm trying to get those not in favour to come clean and explain what exactly it is they are afraid of. They say this will happen that will happen but none of it actually will..... My point was to be more specific rather than throwing up generalizations & lets talk about things that might actually have a chance of happening if things change, not speculate
Yeah, but I don't think anyone was making any claims about external or unmanaged clubs were they? The simple fact that transfers between unmanaged or external teams and managed teams can't be reported is enough to suggest that they wont be affected either way.0 -
-
No, keep it On, as is.I agree. The only variable in this equation is time. However, if we are speaking in terms of a manager who is leaving then will they actually stay on that extra bit just to benefit their friends team? In order to do so, they may have to stay on an extra 6 months in order to have make any sufficient improvements to the other team whilst avoiding attention from the SMFA. But, as you say, there's no real way of knowing the length of time they'd have to wait between transfers.
However, the only requirement for the leaving manager is to log on once every 20 days or so, maybe sign a few cheap youngsters, and then every 2 months offload one of the star players to the other team. Looking at it this way, this could be done over several seasons with very little effort. Or the leaving manager could just hand his SM password to his friend and he can do this.
Then again, having said all that, it does say somewhere under the SMFA transfer monitoring system, that it monitors past transactions between the two teams. This could suggest that it remembers all these transactions, in which case there is no time limit.
I've looked at the transfer over the last 5/6 turns and it seems that all bar one transfer between managed clubs have an option to report the transfer as illegal. The other transfer was the transfer of Nzonzi to myself, which obviously wasn't going to show up an "Illegal" tag for me.
Now, that said, I don't think it was used anyway so I don't think it's of any significant importance. But maybe that's because everybody deemed the SMFA to be doing it's job properly.
This has pretty much reached the same conclusion as the first point, but all I'll say is, if you do decide to strip your team then let me know!! Ciaran Kilduff for El Sharawaay sounds about right!!
Yeah, but I don't think anyone was making any claims about external or unmanaged clubs were they? The simple fact that transfers between unmanaged or external teams and managed teams can't be reported is enough to suggest that they wont be affected either way.
Think we pretty much agree on the time thing that whilst difficult it is not impossible so essentially SM monitoring is not preventing this..... Agree?
As far as I'm aware there was not an illegal option for say my Lennon deal? Could be wrong and maybe someone else could clarify what the situation is on this..
If I do, el sha is yours!
My point about unmanaged and externals goes back to o the original thread where those opposed to turning it off were afraid of what 'might' happen, without explaination..... same as on this thread when I asked for a possible example and no reply....
My point is some would have you believe such evil terrors will steal away your prize players if its turned off (only a few mind u, most have more sense) and cannot commit to how this will happen exactly....0 -
-
Advertisement
-
tupac_healy wrote: »Think we pretty much agree on the time thing that whilst difficult it is not impossible so essentially SM monitoring is not preventing this..... Agree?
As far as I'm aware there was not an illegal option for say my Lennon deal? Could be wrong and maybe someone else could clarify what the situation is on this..
On my phone and writing quickly so hope that makes sense
If I do, el sha is yours!
My point about unmanaged and externals goes back to o the original thread where those opposed to turning it off were afraid of what 'might' happen, without explaination..... same as on this thread when I asked for a possible example and no reply....
My point is some would have you believe such evil terrors will steal away your prize players if its turned off (only a few mind u, most have more sense) and cannot commit to how this will happen exactly....
Who? I don't think I'll lose any players, I have to accept the bid I do believe that it opens the world up to deals that may be underhanded, like in the "brothers" example I have above.
I mean take for example your deal that was reversed last week. It may have been legit but it looked seriously dodgy when he was already offered 20m by Everton but took your deal instead. If he was your mate and took the deal because of that, maybe sold you on another few players for fairly low bids and then left his team... That's not on and SM monitoring helps counter that.
Like I said, if it's turned off, fair enough. I don't think the gameworld is gonna explode or go tits up. What I do think is that leaving it on is better than having it off0 -
-
No, keep it On, as is.Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »Who? I don't think I'll lose any players, I have to accept the bid I do believe that it opens the world up to deals that may be underhanded, like in the "brothers" example I have above.
I mean take for example your deal that was reversed last week. It may have been legit but it looked seriously dodgy when he was already offered 20m by Everton but took your deal instead. If he was your mate and took the deal because of that, maybe sold you on another few players for fairly low bids and then left his team... That's not on and SM monitoring helps counter that.
Like I said, if it's turned off, fair enough. I don't think the gameworld is gonna explode or go tits up. What I do think is that leaving it on is better than having it off....... Because.......
Finished that off there for ya! Yet again left open ended instead of a clear unarguable example.
Above the Yilmaz deal, now this is where the 'off' comes into play.....
Hand on heart, if I was managing barca and was offered 20 mil (FOR A BARCA (IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THIS) SQUAD PLAYER) or Benzia (SERIOUS POTENTIAL) then what's 20mil? Why would Barca want 20mil? Who could you buy and why buy another squad player? Or keep Benzia in reserve and hope he becomes the player to take up the mantel in years to come?
Can't say this enough, not everyone plays the game the same...... Ask Barca, it took a lot of convincing ON HIS PART to get me to part with Benzia!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was offered 6 (the max) for him twice and wouldn't sell... Wouldn't have sold him for 20 cash either, just happen to really really rate Michu so did what I had to.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
them 
Advertisement