Should SMFA transfer monitoring be turned back ok? MOD NOTE POST 1

Seaneh

MOD NOTE :
Okay Lads. Given that my previous amendment to the rules evidently hasn't allowed for an open debate, I shall allow the use of any examples of transfers that, you strongly feel, have exploited the "Monitoring Off" rule. When using these examples, explain why you think they are exploiting the rules in a civilised, and mature manner.

However, as a result, this thread will now be run with an iron fist where bans WILL be handed out if necessary and the thread may be locked entirely.

Seriously, we're all adults here! Let's have a mature debate. If your transfer get's mentioned as "suspect", a simple explanation as to why you think it was actually a fair one will suffice as a response. 20 page "bitchfests" will result in a banning, and the thread being locked.




P.S. I haven't banned anyone yet but, in truth, I'm looking forward to my first one. Don't let it be you!




Elmo's word of the day :

Mature.

End Mod Note.




Right lads. So this is something that's been talked about so I thought I'd get the ball rolling.

At the end of the current season we need to make a very serious decision about how our league works.

We've had monitoring off for a season and a bit now and as a result we've seen some not by the book deals happening. With monitoring on these deals would never happen or would be reversed instantly.

I believe that the protection that monitoring gives outweighs the inconvenience it causes and makes the game world a better place over all. Every other league I play in has monitoring on and I think they are better for it.

I've put up an open poll and the expiry date will be as far away as possible so people can vote and give their opinion on the subject.

JamboMac

No, leave it off.

MOD SNIP

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

MOVE ALONG

Hercule Poirot

No, leave it off.

While having the monitoring off has been convenient (ie, when I swapped two 88's for an 89) - turning if off will prevent some of the shady deals that have been taking place.

The Governor

Lads as opposed to sending PM's about the damage, I'd actually rather see people put up here examples of deals they think abused the system.

I don't pay massive attention to a lot of deals so I'm not being smart but if you think certain deals were dodgy your gonna have to put it all out there so lads not in the know have a chance to make up their minds with some hard information.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

I think it's better if people just make their point without naming names and starting 3-4 page bitch-fests.

That's what I Pm'd mac, just asking him to make a mod note saying that people should keep it to expressing their views without giving examples of things they consider against the rules.

The Governor

Seaneh wrote: »

I think it's better if people just make their point without naming names and starting 3-4 page bitch-fests.

That's what I Pm'd mac, just asking him to make a mod note saying that people should keep it to expressing their views without giving examples of things they consider against the rules.

But sure what about the lads that haven't seen these dodgy deals yourself and Her above refer to? Again genuinely not trying to be awkward, don't get how a vote can be conducted with a simple "there have been dodgy deals lads" from some posters and then others just thinking what were these dodgy deals so I can decide if it was dodgy in my opinion.

Like I and I'm sure theres others don't know what is supposed to have gone on so will have to abstain from voting without some actual examples of what went on you know?

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

Read post 1 again lads

JamboMac

No, leave it off.

The Governor wrote: »

But sure what about the lads that haven't seen these dodgy deals yourself and Her above refer to? Again genuinely not trying to be awkward, don't get how a vote can be conducted with a simple "there have been dodgy deals lads" from some posters and then others just thinking what were these dodgy deals so I can decide if it was dodgy in my opinion.

Like I and I'm sure theres others don't know what is supposed to have gone on so will have to abstain from voting without some actual examples of what went on you know?

I like how we are aloud go personal with little catty comments.

Where's the mod snip.

Feels like Stalinist Russia.

The Governor

MrMac84 wrote: »

Read post 1 again lads

Cheers for the clarity man, I get you don't want a big thread of fighting.

Am gonna bow out now as it's impossible to vote without an idea of what was going on imo.

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

The Governor wrote: »

Cheers for the clarity man, I get you don't want a big thread of fighting.

Am gonna bow out now as it's impossible to vote without an idea of what was going on imo.

Im sure people can argue too and for without bitching back and forth so keep checking in

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

JamboMac wrote: »

I like how we are aloud go personal with little catty comments.

Where's the mod snip.

Feels like Stalinist Russia.

Im lost??

ctrl-alt-delete

No, leave it off.

The Governor wrote: »

Cheers for the clarity man, I get you don't want a big thread of fighting.

Am gonna bow out now as it's impossible to vote without an idea of what was going on imo.

I have voted, but I agree with you.

I don't agree that people cannot use examples, but understand that it will make things easier for the mods and that is fair enough.

I dare say the yes and no campaigners will take it to Pm's anyways.

pepper180

Where's Tupac & Seaneh??

There is bound to be an argument on this thread...


I vote monitoring - OFF!!

Hercule Poirot

No, leave it off.

pepper180 wrote: »

Where's Tupac & Seaneh??

There is bound to be an argument on this thread...


I vote monitoring - OFF!!

Thank you for your dazzling contribution

pepper180

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Thank you for your dazzling contribution

Always happy to help sir!

The Governor

JamboMac wrote: »

I like how we are aloud go personal with little catty comments.

Where's the mod snip.

Feels like Stalinist Russia.

I didn't make a catty comment at anyone?

pepper180

Vote OFF - For a better future!!

Mr Blobby

I voted to keep monitoring off.
There have been plenty of deals reversed that were perfectly legitimate. Then after the deals had been reversed the managers could not do any deals between there clubs again... Which is way too harsh and straight up idiotic!!

Also without be allowed to give examples of dodgy deals this becomes rather pointless.

Hercule Poirot

No, leave it off.

pepper180 wrote: »

Always happy to help sir!

I'm sure you are, and why perchance do you wish for it to remain off?

Al Capwned

I'm not voting just yet, but unless someone can come up with a bloody good reason as to why it should be turned back on, well then I'll be voting to keep it off.

pepper180

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I'm sure you are, and why perchance do you wish for it to remain off?

I think there has been a few complete normal deals done that should not have been reversed... (Without mentioning any names).


BUT on the other hand..
Also there has been a few deals done to help friends/family out that couldn't be reversed as it was turned off.

---

But damage has been done with the reversed deals so move forward we shall..

Hercule Poirot

No, leave it off.

pepper180 wrote: »

I think there has been a few complete normal deals done that should not have been reversed... (Without mentioning any names).


BUT on the other hand..
Also there has been a few deals done to help friends/family out that couldn't be reversed as it was turned off.

---

But damage has been done with the reversed deals so move forward we shall..

Some good points, eloquently made, but the SMFA reversed deals for a reason and I didn't see any othem re-reversed - for a reason.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

Yup we should more forward, turn it back on and make sure people like me don't make deals that bend the rules any more.
I put my hand up and admit I took advantage of monitoring being off and wish I hadn't.

Don't do what I did, learn from my mistake, turn monitoring back on so people like me can't pull a fast one!

Mr Blobby

Seaneh wrote: »

Yup we should more forward, turn it back on and make sure people like me don't make deals that bend the rules any more.
I put my hand up and admit I took advantage of monitoring being off and wish I hadn't.

Don't do what I did, learn from my mistake, turn monitoring back on so people like me can't pull a fast one!

But there's a little issue a lot people here are leaving out.

If your deal is reversed you can be banned from doing deals with the club you made the transfer with.

It already happened to me with a perfectly above board transfer. Me and the other manger were then banned from doing any deals with each other. My biggest worry is that if monitoring is turned back on the ban will be back on.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

Mr Blobby wrote: »

But there's a little issue a lot people here are leaving out.

If your deal is reversed you can be banned from doing deals with the club you made the transfer with.

It already happened to me with a perfectly above board transfer. Me and the other manger were then banned from doing any deals with each other. My biggest worry is that if monitoring is turned back on the ban will be back on.

The ban won't be back on. It will be as if monitoring was just turned on for the first time.

I had transfers reversed and they just completed them 2-3 days later.

GT_TDI_150

Ok,

Firstly, I voted to keep monitoring ON first time this was voted on ... I havent voted (yet)this time around but I do feel I need to add the following few points ...

Mods, not sure if this is overstepping the mark ... if it is feel free to snip but I do feel the topic need some context... it is hard to debat the merits of this issue without some examples ... I used vague ones or my own deals ...

• FIRST POINT:
  When monitoring was off :
  I sold S. Jovetic(91) for 8.1M and Álvaro MORATA(86) and Daniele RUGANI(80). I really wanted Morata and struggled to make Jovetic work in my first team. Not a murmor of it being an unbalanced deal ... no issues
  
  I also sold S. Radu (89) for 310k and Balde KEITA(83) and Vincent ABOUBAKAR(86) to the same manager, and again not a whisper from the GW of the deal being unfair.
  
  When Monitoring was on:
  I bought Ricardo Rodriquez(89) for cash and 2 85-86 rated players( cant remember who they were but my 85-87s are/were decent).
  
  I then at a later point bought Akinfeev(91) from the same manager for who ever my GK was at the time, so I think it was an 88 or 89 and an 85-86 (i think) and cash ( I think)
  
  One or both of these deals got reported and reversed.
  
  I find it hard to see the difference between the on and off scenario other than reporting facilitated the latter being reversed
  
  
• SECOND POINT:
  I bought M.Salah from Genoa with the Genoa manager leaving the GW soon after ... This deal got reversed - probably right to.
  
  
• THIRD POINT:
  The recent 'fire sale ' at Newcastle wouldnt have been possible if monitoring was turned back on ... doing 2-3deals to complete the signing of a big name would not be allowed with monitoring off UNLESS the deals are well spread out ( which could leave people open to a manager leaving the GW 2/3 though these multi faceted deals
  
  
• FOURTH POINT:
  We have a fair bit of movement amongst managers, a possible scenario with monitoring on could be that
  Club A sell a player to Club B.
  Club C manager leaves.
  Club A manager applies and gets job at Club C.
  Deal between Club A and B gets reversed as the manager sold a player prior to leaving

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

All of the deals outlined above are perfect examples of why I feel monitoring SHOULD be on.

The Salah deal was bad form from the Genoa manager if he knew he was leaving (I have no idea if he did or not) and the deal for Akinfeev was horrible, far too weighted in your favour. There is a reason deals get reversed, they benefit one team more than the other.
When an inactive manager only does deal that benefit the buying club more then his own the system is of course going to flag it and people are of course going to report them.

I'm not saying that's YOUR fault but I think it's a good think that Akinfeev deal was reversed, you made the offer you made because you felt that's what he was worth, but he should never had accepted it. On the open market he, anyone, could have got a much better deal.
That's why it got reversed.

The transfers that get reversed are either (1) unevenly weighted in one teams favour or (2) against the rules.

Don't bend the rules, you won't have an issue.


Like when I signed Matri, it was reversed 2 or 3 times, then we tried again and it when through. It wasn't a bad deal, I was the highest bidder and the manager didn't need him but it was cancled by SMFA a few times before it worked, but it worked eventually because it wasn't a bad deal.

SMFA only flags deals that LOOk dodgy (whether they are or not), if you make sure you aren't involved in pointlessly messy/complicated transfers, you don't have to worry.

The pointlessly messy/complicated deals almost always end up being a bad idea anyway.

GT_TDI_150

Seaneh wrote: »

All of the deals outlined above are perfect examples of why I feel monitoring SHOULD be on.

The Salah deal was bad form from the Genoa manager if he knew he was leaving (I have no idea if he did or not) and the deal for Akinfeev was horrible, far too weighted in your favour. There is a reason deals get reversed, they benefit one team more than the other.
When an inactive manager only does deal that benefit the buying club more then his own the system is of course going to flag it and people are of course going to report them.

I'm not saying that's YOUR fault but I think it's a good think that Akinfeev deal was reversed, you made the offer you made because you felt that's what he was worth, but he should never had accepted it. On the open market he, anyone, could have got a much better deal.
That's why it got reversed.

The transfers that get reversed are either (1) unevenly weighted in one teams favour or (2) against the rules.

Don't bend the rules, you won't have an issue.


Like when I signed Matri, it was reversed 2 or 3 times, then we tried again and it when through. It wasn't a bad deal, I was the highest bidder and the manager didn't need him but it was cancled by SMFA a few times before it worked, but it worked eventually because it wasn't a bad deal.

SMFA only flags deals that LOOk dodgy (whether they are or not), if you make sure you aren't involved in pointlessly messy/complicated transfers, you don't have to worry.

The pointlessly messy/complicated deals almost always end up being a bad idea anyway.

Just out of interest .... do you think my Jovetic or Radu deal should have been reversed too? There was probably managers willing to offer more than what I got but I really wanted Morata.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

Jaysus the 'turn it back on camp' are severely hampered when we can't use any examples, those being the main reasons for turning it back on!

I've voted to turn it on, I'll bow out at that. Ridiculous thread is ridiculous.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Just out of interest .... do you think my Jovetic or Radu deal should have been reversed too? There was probably managers willing to offer more than what I got but I really wanted Morata.

You got cash and 2 players, looks to have been close to the buying manager's max bid and morata was a good prospect.

The other time you sold him you got cash and one of the best young midfielders in world football (Pjanic) so that seems fine.

For the Radu deal you got two young players who are highly rated in Italy France in exchange for a very average defender so I don't think that would be reversed either and EB could have gotten a premium for Keita Balde from anyone tbh, it's not like you did him a favour.