SoccerManager.com (#3) The Boards.ie World

eireannBEAR · 28-02-2014 11:51pm

Swoody

tupac_healy · 28-02-2014 11:55pm

Quick one for the 'On crowd'

Example:

(Let's just say the monitoring is OFF, FULLY OFF) if I agreed a deal for Januzaj 85 tomorrow, say to swap El Shaawary 90. With the monitoring off we could say 5 mil or so to make up the shortfall..... If both sides were happy REGARDLESS OF WHAT OTHERS THINK that deal would happen and no chance of it being reversed...

That's a 90 for a promising 85, that is the kind of thing that is achievable with the monitoring off, I.e.both parties happy

With the monitoring on, NEVER EVER EVER going to happen even though most will agree the 85is the better player,

Why is that fair?

Bearing in mind that is only an example and not a deal on the table but its a good pointer as to why it should be off.... PROPERLY OFF

another reason being GT was/is pretty close to jacking because of this and I wouldn't blame him, its pretty shabby carry on in fairness....

I had a deal lined up with Sporting when I had a transfer banned player free but I'm not even going to waste my time putting in the offer at this stage...

Pathetic carry on. It really is

swoody · 28-02-2014 11:55pm

eireannBEAR wrote: »

Swoody

shhhh! everything will be okay...........i promise!

FW1tp.gif?1

swoody · 01-03-2014 12:03am

tupac_healy wrote: »

Quick one for the 'On crowd'

Example:

(Let's just say the monitoring is OFF, FULLY OFF) if I agreed a deal for Januzaj 85 tomorrow, say to swap El Shaawary 90. With the monitoring off we could say 5 mil or so to make up the shortfall..... If both sides were happy REGARDLESS OF WHAT OTHERS THINK that deal would happen and no chance of it being reversed...

That's a 90 for a promising 85, that is the kind of thing that is achievable with the monitoring off, I.e.both parties happy

With the monitoring on, NEVER EVER EVER going to happen even though most will agree the 85is the better player,

Why is that fair?

Bearing in mind that is only an example and not a deal on the table but its a good pointer as to why it should be off.... PROPERLY OFF

another reason being GT was/is pretty close to jacking because of this and I wouldn't blame him, its pretty shabby carry on in fairness....

I had a deal lined up with Sporting when I had a transfer banned player free but I'm not even going to waste my time putting in the offer at this stage...

Pathetic carry on. It really is

your registered over in the SM Forum......can you ask them to look into why its not working?

tupac_healy · 01-03-2014 12:07am

swoody wrote: »

your registered over in the SM Forum......can you ask them to look into why its not working?

Will do!

The Internet · 01-03-2014 12:07am

swoody wrote: »

your registered over in the SM Forum......can you ask them to look into why its not working?

If the setting was changed in turn 1 of this season then maybe it's not going to come into effect until next season

Lord TSC · 01-03-2014 12:07am

tupac_healy wrote: »

Why is that fair?

Its not. But then the argument has never been that it is, and its disingenuous to try and act as if it was.

The argument simply is that the dangers of turning it off outweighs the fact the odd deal here and there gets reversed. That far more damage can be done, long term, by players who abuse the system, and that leaving it on protects teams from being ****ed before a manager leaves, and stops multiple accounts, unfair deals, etc.

tupac_healy · 01-03-2014 12:21am

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Its not. But then the argument has never been that it is, and its disingenuous to try and act as if it was.

The argument simply is that the dangers of turning it off outweighs the fact the odd deal here and there gets reversed. That far more damage can be done, long term, by players who abuse the system, and that leaving it on protects teams from being ****ed before a manager leaves, and stops multiple accounts, unfair deals, etc.

I agree that the monitoring helps with multiple accounts and what not, but again I stress that if I wanted to quit and asset stip Lazio with the monitoring on, it could be done..... A little harder but it could be done no less.... Somewhat related (not asset stripping but squad revamp) would be Swoody rebuilding his squad with the monitoring on..., similar to that but on a different scale (I.e. asset stripping)

I'll take on board and concede about the multiple accounts though, but I can't accept it stops asset stripping becuase it simply dosent....

Anyhow as far as I can see having it on/off is making no difference in this GW so decide amongst yourselves as to the future of it, all I'll say is that there are heavily more pros out there for it if your a manager of a smaller club....

All about opinions/views on it though, but take tonight and GT as an example of the effects it can have, loose him and you have your answer right there.....

GT_TDI_150 · 01-03-2014 12:36am

So anyone willing to do a deal for a young decent DRC that isnt goint to get reported?

Lord TSC · 01-03-2014 12:44am

tupac_healy wrote: »

I agree that the monitoring helps with multiple accounts and what not, but again I stress that if I wanted to quit and asset stip Lazio with the monitoring on, it could be done..... A little harder but it could be done no less.... Somewhat related (not asset stripping but squad revamp) would be Swoody rebuilding his squad with the monitoring on..., similar to that but on a different scale (I.e. asset stripping)

It can be done but it's far, far harder. The Salah deal shows that if you sell your best player (singular), it can be reversed. If a team, a whole squad was stripped, and the manager left, it can be reported and reversed. And honestly, I don't see how Swoody relates at all to the point at hand; he rebuilt his squad, but through deals that rarely looked out of place (at least in terms of what the system thought was fair).

Peanut Butter Jelly · 01-03-2014 12:44am

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

So anyone willing to do a deal for a young decent DRC that isnt goint to get reported?

I could sell/loan you a 29 yo 87 D,DM,M (R) if you need him quick. Probably not what you're after but if it helps.

Click me!

Wilberto · 01-03-2014 12:48am

swoody wrote: »

your registered over in the SM Forum......can you ask them to look into why its not working?

swoody · 01-03-2014 12:48am

SMFA logic......

example (note - i think he's the worst football player ever and this transfer will never happen).....

if i wanted to buy tom "i only pass sideways" cleverly for 90M cash - "sure no problem would you like fries with that?"

if i wanted to buy tom "i only pass sideways" cleverly for 10M + Cabella and Gabbiadini - "the fcuk you are you chancer"

nice one SMFA nice one.

GT_TDI_150 · 01-03-2014 12:50am

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

I could sell/loan you a 29 yo 87 D,DM,M (R) if you need him quick. Probably not what you're after but if it helps.

Click me!

Thanks mate, if I'm going to invest it might aswell be in a young player ... thanks for the offer though

Rayne Wooney · 01-03-2014 12:51am

tupac_healy wrote: »

Quick one for the 'On crowd'

Example:

(Let's just say the monitoring is OFF, FULLY OFF) if I agreed a deal for Januzaj 85 tomorrow, say to swap El Shaawary 90. With the monitoring off we could say 5 mil or so to make up the shortfall..... If both sides were happy REGARDLESS OF WHAT OTHERS THINK that deal would happen and no chance of it being reversed...

That's a 90 for a promising 85, that is the kind of thing that is achievable with the monitoring off, I.e.both parties happy

With the monitoring on, NEVER EVER EVER going to happen even though most will agree the 85is the better player,

Why is that fair?

Bearing in mind that is only an example and not a deal on the table but its a good pointer as to why it should be off.... PROPERLY OFF

another reason being GT was/is pretty close to jacking because of this and I wouldn't blame him, its pretty shabby carry on in fairness....

I had a deal lined up with Sporting when I had a transfer banned player free but I'm not even going to waste my time putting in the offer at this stage...

Pathetic carry on. It really is

That is an absolute extreme example which should hold little weight in arguments, especially this one. Transfers reversed seem to be around 1 in 500 in this game world, the extreme example you used would be far beyond that 1 in 10,000 maybe.

There are only a handful of promising players that could work with your example, therefore it doesn't reflect transfers in the game world.

Peanut Butter Jelly · 01-03-2014 12:51am

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Thanks mate, if I'm going to invest it might aswell be in a young player ... thanks for the offer though

Do you want to loan him until you find a permanent replacement? It's no difference to me.

Lord TSC · 01-03-2014 12:58am

swoody wrote: »

SMFA logic......

example (note - i think he's the worst football player ever and this transfer will never happen).....

if i wanted to buy tom "i only pass sideways" cleverly for 90M cash - "sure no problem would you like fries with that?"

if i wanted to buy tom "i only pass sideways" cleverly for 10M + Cabella and Gabbiadini - "the fcuk you are you chancer"

nice one SMFA nice one.

Yes, cause any chairman would let Cleverly go for 90m :rolleyes: And honestly, I don't see why the monitoring would block that second deal at all

The manager might refuse, but that deal would likely sail through when it comes to the monitoring.

Honestly Tupac, I respect your position on this matter. It's just a shame you let your argument down by retreating to the extremes so quickly when discussing the matter...

EDIT: Was Swoody. Whoops. Point stands for both though :P

GT_TDI_150 · 01-03-2014 12:59am

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Yes, cause any chairman would let Cleverly go for 90m :rolleyes: And honestly, I don't see why the monitoring would block that second deal at all The manager might refuse, but that deal would likely sail through when it comes to the monitoring.

Honestly Tupac, I respect your position on this matter. It's just a shame you let your argument down by retreating to the extremes so quickly when discussing the matter...

swoody made that point

not tupac

swoody · 01-03-2014 1:01am

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Yes, cause any chairman would let Cleverly go for 90m :rolleyes: And honestly, I don't see why the monitoring would block that second deal at all The manager might refuse, but that deal would likely sail through when it comes to the monitoring.

unless he gives me the 10M you mean.....right? :pac:

swoody · 01-03-2014 1:20am

united and madrid are having a right ding-dong for ozil.

GT_TDI_150 · 01-03-2014 1:27am

swoody wrote: »

united and madrid are having a right ding-dong for ozil.

better make sure its a fair deal :P

swoody · 01-03-2014 1:30am

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

better make sure its a fair deal :P

madrid want rid of a rapist + cash but united wants just fab...

GT_TDI_150 · 01-03-2014 1:38am

swoody wrote: »

madrid want rid of a rapist + cash but united wants just fab...

without looking at(knowing) real madrid's squad that could be a fair few players if it is an alledged one

12gauge dave · 01-03-2014 1:56am

ha guys man united manager will only accept fabregas in a part exchange and i dont think thats fair on me to be honest so no deal will be going through.

a hard man to deal with man united manager :P

see swoody if youd just sell me vidal this would all be okay :P

Mr Blobby · 01-03-2014 2:33am

12gauge dave wrote: »

ha guys man united manager will only accept fabregas in a part exchange and i dont think thats fair on me to be honest so no deal will be going through.

a hard man to deal with man united manager :P

see swoody if youd just sell me vidal this would all be okay :P

I'm easier to deal with

tupac_healy · 01-03-2014 8:06am

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

That is an absolute extreme example which should hold little weight in arguments, especially this one. Transfers reversed seem to be around 1 in 500 in this game world, the extreme example you used would be far beyond that 1 in 10,000 maybe.

There are only a handful of promising players that could work with your example, therefore it doesn't reflect transfers in the game world.

OK that's an extreme example... Fair point...

Let me think if I can maybe come up with another one, oh yeah!

GT's 2

tupac_healy · 01-03-2014 8:12am

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Yes, cause any chairman would let Cleverly go for 90m :rolleyes: And honestly, I don't see why the monitoring would block that second deal at all The manager might refuse, but that deal would likely sail through when it comes to the monitoring.

Honestly Tupac, I respect your position on this matter. It's just a shame you let your argument down by retreating to the extremes so quickly when discussing the matter...

EDIT: Was Swoody. Whoops. Point stands for both though :P

To be fair the only reason I started my point at an extreme case is because I did try to explain previously about discussing trading 2 prospects + cash for an established player and it being reversed.....

Either way, the poibt stands, change the names if it makes people feel better or makes it easier to qccept but people are getting csusght up ib the extremely of the point and loosing sight on the fact that its the logic behind it that's sound....

Swoody's point is similar and also very correct. It basically boils down to managers views on player in game value/quality vs the SMFA...

That's all it is

tupac_healy · 01-03-2014 8:37am

In other news.....

SM are actually in fact currently working on the game engine... Ahem.., broken. To more accurately reflect results!!

Apparently there have been a high volume of complaints about this so hopefully its something that will be addresed sooner rather than later!

eireannBEAR · 01-03-2014 9:15am

tupac_healy wrote: »

Rabble,Rabble...transfers...rabble rabble 'my good name' rabble rabble injustice....rabble rabble rabble...:pac:

Oh i see,Um huh thats terrible tupac....just terrible and tell me, has this been going on for long?.

Lord TSC · 01-03-2014 9:59am

tupac_healy wrote: »

Swoody's point is similar and also very correct. It basically boils down to managers views on player in game value/quality vs the SMFA...

That's all it is

Agreed. But it's not that SMFA hide their valuation of the players. It's not a crap shoot as to weather your deal looks fair and balanced in the eyes of the monitoring. The valuations of the players are there to see quite clearly, and it's pretty obvious at this stage what sort of deals will and won't go through. And the reality is that we've had 1000s of deals go through without a hitch, 1000s of transfers complete with monitoring on and with both sides involved happy, and only a small, small percentage reversed. And I still say that a large chunk of the time said deals are reversed, it's pretty obvious why they were. You know you're playing their game, you know that its their rules while monitoring is on (and I thought the Salah deal made it pretty evident that it was still on) so you know it has to be a fair deal according to monitoring.

Out of interest, what was the exact deal reversed this time (as if what were the individiual transfers, not just one big deal)?

SoccerManager.com (#3) The Boards.ie World

Comments