Boards.ie League SMFA monitoring transfers On/Off

Lord TSC · 21-11-2013 6:46pm

MrMac84 wrote: »

That I'm not sure about. If someone can ask on the forum we mat get an answer. Not only that at the moment (case in point my Loic Remy deal) is agreed too do the deal over two transactions and both were reversed for "multiple deals" TSC I'm not sayin this will solve every transfer issue i just think it's worth a try thats all

But do you get my fear that in an attempt to sort out a transfer issue that only affects an absolutely minuscule amount of transfers, we open a door for quite a bit of abuse?

I just don't get the logic behind thinking it will lead to more transfers in a good way; you used the example of how people can now get 4 players for a 90 instead of 2. So now people will EXPECT the 4 players. That example actually is a major negative for me.

Though...

tupac_healy wrote: »

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....

I don't have a ****ing clue where that came from, and seems a blatant attempt at misrepresenting an arguement...

GT_TDI_150 · 21-11-2013 6:47pm

i think one of the differences between monitoring on and off is:

Player A decides they had enough and are going to sell a Ronaldo / Messi to their buddy for min allowed value...

With Monitoring off ... this deal will go through(player a can leave once the deal goes through) and there is NOTHING that can be done about it

With monitoring on ... a deal for Ronaldo(40m for me as Porto) /Messi at their minimum value (if it doesnt get over turned on the basis that one team is getting a better deal than the other) would mean Player A would need to stay in the game for a considerable time longer .... one of the things SMFA 'code ' looks for is buying/selling prior to vacating the game.

Al Capwned · 21-11-2013 6:50pm

No, keep it On, as is.

I get what you're saying GT, but is it not fair to say that the minimum chairman values are a reasonable barometer of what is a fair fee and what isn't. (Obviously leaving aside the massively inflated fees in this GW)

GT_TDI_150 · 21-11-2013 6:52pm

Chairmans values would have been a fair barometer if that was the values getting used all along, if we all started using chairmans values, people would loose a fair bit of money

Wilberto · 21-11-2013 6:55pm

tupac_healy wrote: »

Much like last time I made that point that its the smaller teams that will benifit from this which is why I applaud the bigger team managers who have publically supporting this. Nobody can deny the Market has stagnated and it would be easy for the big teams to wash their hands, but no instead its mostly the smaller teams that seem dead against?

Suppose would be no fun if it made sense!

That's not quite the point I was making if I'm honest.

My point is that the malicious transfers are more likely to involve one of the top teams with the top players. But as almost all these teams are managed by managers who seem genuine and fair, and are also active posters, it therefore reduces the likelihood that these teams will be involved in malicious transfers, and therefore the likelihood of any malicious or suspect transfers.

I wasn't actually referring to the transfer market at all.

tupac_healy · 21-11-2013 6:57pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

But do you get my fear that in an attempt to sort out a transfer issue that only affects an absolutely minuscule amount of transfers, we open a door for quite a bit of abuse?

I just don't get the logic behind thinking it will lead to more transfers in a good way; you used the example of how people can now get 4 players for a 90 instead of 2. So now people will EXPECT the 4 players. That example actually is a major negative for me.

Though...

I don't have a ****ing clue where that came from, and seems a blatant attempt at misrepresenting an arguement...

Its the quality of player involved rather than the percentage of reversals......

Expect 4 players? A bit of a random number picked out of the air I'd have said 2, but for arguments sake..... I'd rather see a gameworld where big players go for 4 (not my number) prospects rather than a dead transfer market....

I've provided a scenario where the 'leave on' crowd could represent their fears and we could talk positively rather than arguing a bunch of so and so vaugeness could happen.

Al Capwned · 21-11-2013 7:00pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Voted to turn it off.
Assume this would be on a trial basis for one season to gauge the result?

Lord TSC · 21-11-2013 7:00pm

tupac_healy wrote: »

Its the quality of player involved rather than the percentage of reversals......

Expect 4 players? A bit of a random number picked out of the air I'd have said 2, but for arguments sake..... I'd rather see a gameworld where big players go for 4 (not my number) prospects rather than a dead transfer market....

I've provided a scenario where the 'leave on' crowd could represent their fears and we could talk positively rather than arguing a bunch of so and so vaugeness could happen.

It was Mac's number.

MrMac84 wrote: »

I know I'd listen too offers for at least 2 90+ players if I was gettin 3/4 prospects

And it's really unfair to say "I only want specifics" when your asking to debate a topic that, for now, is entirely hypothetical. The point of this discussion is "What might happen if the monitoring is turned off?" so you can't just dismiss "vagueness [that] could happen". That's the entire point of having this discussion. And to basically say you won't listen to such arguments makes it clear as day you don't want to listen to any arguments at all. So at least admit that you've made up your mind and won't change it. And for what it's worth, I'm not trying to change your mind at all; I'm laying out positions for voters to read and contemplate.

KERSPLAT! · 22-11-2013 2:48pm

I'm guessing that the vote from someone who joined boards just 2 weeks ago and has never posted on the soccermanager forum will be discounted? Unless of course he/she is a rereg, then we should atleast verify the team they manage

swoody · 22-11-2013 3:31pm

i'll vote on the 11/12/2013 as i cant make my mind up.....

gerp99 · 22-11-2013 3:32pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Yes, turn it off, just to see if the transfer market gets better. US PALERMO

Lord TSC · 22-11-2013 4:27pm

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

I'm guessing that the vote from someone who joined boards just 2 weeks ago and has never posted on the soccermanager forum will be discounted? Unless of course he/she is a rereg, then we should atleast verify the team they manage

Yeah, I think two things need to be clarified.

1. When does this vote close? Either result, it's not fair if it just stays open till someone randomly declares it closed when it suits their opinion. Should set a hard date and time.

2. As annoying a task as it will be, I also think someone needs to sit down and make sure each vote comes from a manager.

hufpc8w3adnk65 · 22-11-2013 4:31pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Yeah, I think two things need to be clarified.

1. When does this vote close? Either result, it's not fair if it just stays open till someone randomly declares it closed when it suits their opinion. Should set a hard date and time.

2. As annoying a task as it will be, I also think someone needs to sit down and make sure each vote comes from a manager.

Vote is open for 21 days I belive and when it's closed the votes only from managers will be counted lads

TheGunns · 22-11-2013 6:53pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Voted to turn it off, interested to see how it would work without it rather than I want it off. For me at least I don't think it will impact or at least I can't see how

Al Capwned · 22-11-2013 7:30pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Why cant I see who's voted what way any more?

swoody · 22-11-2013 8:19pm

Al Capwned wrote: »

Why cant I see who's voted what way any more?

your god damn useless.....

Al Capwned · 22-11-2013 8:23pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Yeah.
Except I'm not really!

Because I've voted already perhaps?

KERSPLAT! · 22-11-2013 8:29pm

I can see it and I've already voted

Al Capwned · 22-11-2013 8:39pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Ah i dunno so.

hufpc8w3adnk65 · 29-11-2013 1:15pm

No, keep it On, as is.

So it's 14/12 in favour of yes. Are all votes valid?

KERSPLAT! · 29-11-2013 1:29pm

MrMac84 wrote: »

So it's 14/12 in favour of yes. Are all votes valid?

I think 1 for the change is invalid bit I'm on my phone so I can't check properly.

Like I said, I'm all for democracy and if that's what people want, that's fair enough. The people against the change, IMO, weren't scare mongering as some people suggested. We were just giving points on what may happen, we couldn't give factual events as it has never been off in this world so that was an unrealistic request. Hopefully none of it does happen and the transfer market takes off

On to the next fight... Who's up?

Seaneh · 29-11-2013 5:46pm

MrMac84 wrote: »

So it's 14/12 in favour of yes. Are all votes valid?

Sure let it run until the poll closes, and then work it out. the season doesn't end for a while yet, no need to make the decision now.

hufpc8w3adnk65 · 29-11-2013 6:42pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Seaneh wrote: »

Sure let it run until the poll closes, and then work it out. the season doesn't end for a while yet, no need to make the decision now.

Yup your spot on

Al Capwned · 02-12-2013 8:43pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Its a shame that only 26 out of 74 managers in the GW have voted on this.
For me most of the appeal of the game is the relevant threads on here - Dunno if I'd be bothered with it otherwise!

TheGunns · 02-12-2013 8:48pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Al Capwned wrote: »

Its a shame that only 26 out of 74 managers in the GW have voted on this.
For me most of the appeal of the game is the relevant threads on here - Dunno if I'd be bothered with it otherwise!

I think it was the initial thread (it put me off too

) but it was an absolute mess and there would be 10 pages or more in a day which made it a chore to read

EDIT: I avoided this section until around a month or two ago

Wilberto · 02-12-2013 8:49pm

Al Capwned wrote: »

Its a shame that only 26 out of 74 managers in the GW have voted on this.
For me most of the appeal of the game is the relevant threads on here - Dunno if I'd be bothered with it otherwise!

Neither Swoody nor I have voted (yet) so at least that'll bring it up to 26!!

GT_TDI_150 · 02-12-2013 9:04pm

I found 26/28 is about the number of people that post here regularly ... When i tried to do the end of season awards for S1 mid 20s was all i got...

Al Capwned · 27-12-2013 11:25pm

No, keep it On, as is.

Presume this was passed then?

hufpc8w3adnk65 · 28-12-2013 12:00am

No, keep it On, as is.

Al Capwned wrote: »

Presume this was passed then?

Good question! Are all votes valid??

Al Capwned · 28-12-2013 12:59am

No, keep it On, as is.

Dunno - still cant see who's voted what way for some reason - cant figure that out.

Boards.ie League SMFA monitoring transfers On/Off

Comments