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:

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

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)

Lord TSC

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

tupac_healy

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?

Lord TSC

tupac_healy wrote: »

Is that not your job to provide that?

You've already had examples given of the dangers turning it off can cause. But you just dismiss them out of hand and go "Nah". I can repeat them if you want, but you've obviously made your mind up. No amount of paraphrasing what me and others have said will change the fact you want it off, so please stop pretending that your mind can actually be changed on the matter.

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

You've already had examples given of the dangers turning it off can cause. But you just dismiss them out of hand and go "Nah". I can repeat them if you want, but you've obviously made your mind up. No amount of paraphrasing what me and others have said will change the fact you want it off, so please stop pretending that your mind can actually be changed on the matter.

Sorry man, same old rehash of non specifics.....

Tell ya what, go through the scenario provided above and if you can make a water-tight in arguable case then I'll even change my vote.

Please, don't respond with with more dancing around the subject either as its pointless...


As I said, I'll change my vote if you can do it

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, keep it On, as is.

Whilst it is a forum and a place too debate things let's try too be civil. Some people are soley against it and some totally pro it. If another poster doesn't share your opinion then thats fine but don't make it personal. I was in the leave it as is camp and now I'm interested in trying it off. Either way no matter what the outcome is it's just a trial! It may or may not improve transfer activity ( I belive it will) also lads comparing this world too other worlds is unfair. Any game worlds with only 15-20 managers will allways be easyier too buy and sell in and worlds with 70-80 managers are normally more P/E orientated. People are saying the deals are always one sided but I don't believe so. If you sell a 90+ player for 2 "prospects" and minimal cash the person buying the 90 player is getting a better deal right now! I'm on soccermanager manager years now and for every Marco Rues theres 10 Milhomem Guilherme's. Yes when you bid 18 million for a 90 rated left back and you get countered with Bale, Ronaldo & 50million thats ridiculous carry on. But someone countering 18 million with say Adnan Junazai, James McCarthy and 2 million isn't ridiculous! McCarthy will prob never reach 90 (IMO) Januzai may but not for 18 months (again IMO) and 2 million buys another 10 youngsters and people are dismissing these deals straight off! Thats where it comes down too managers decisions as I'm sure some managers here see McCarthy following Fellaini and Arteta in to the 90s and others see Januzai as the next Messi but again thats all down too choice of managers!

Lord TSC

Mac, thats fair enough but how does monitoring, on or off, affect that? How are those sort of deals not possible now with it on?

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Mac, thats fair enough but how does monitoring, on or off, affect that? How are those sort of deals not possible now with it on?

Because to complete a deal like that would take 3 transactions when it should only take one! That's you done with that club for the entire season!

Not helping the market, that's a fact

Lord TSC

tupac_healy wrote: »

Because to complete a deal like that would take 3 transactions when it should only take one! That's you done with that club for the entire season!

Not helping the market, that's a fact

So its a laziness problem? Also again I ask, does turning it off remove the limitation of only buying three players from a club?

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, keep it On, as is.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

So its a laziness problem? Also again I ask, does turning it off remove the limitation of only buying three players from a club?

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

GT_TDI_150

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

people need to be clever when doing more than one deal with a club, I bought 3 from Newcastle in the first few weeks of the GW, but not all in 3 days time :rolleyes:

Wilberto

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.

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

Wilberto wrote: »

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

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

So its a laziness problem? Also again I ask, does turning it off remove the limitation of only buying three players from a club?

No not laziness! You missed the he point, take the Remy deal as example...

If we completed that deal using 3 seperate transfers no more transfers between us for the season....

Why should it be that way, nothing to do with laziness, spending hours on end scouting players for on one end of the planet to the other compiling shortlists over well over 1000 players and suddenly it becomes a laziness issue when it comes to doing the deals, ah please come on let's talk properly....

KERSPLAT!

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.

tupac_healy

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?

Wilberto

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

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.

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.

KERSPLAT!

No problem with I them :rolleyes:

tupac_healy

No, keep it On, as is.

Wilberto wrote: »

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....

The Internet

With the monitoring on every transfer between two managed teams can be reported it doesn't make a difference if someone bought Ronaldo for max or min cash or any amount in between it could still be reported