Buying From Unmanaged Clubs Poll

Peanut Butter Jelly

This poll will be open until 9pm, Monday 6th of January.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Cheers

KERSPLAT!

Needs to be public...

Peanut Butter Jelly

Don't think I can...

Seaneh

No we shouldn't.

This will stop unmanaged clubs ending up like Standard Liege and Gremio.

Unmanaged clubs will not be able to sell to external clubs either so there's no argument to be made about that either.

We will still be able to buy and sell to external clubs so that won't change at all.

All this will do is protect unmanaged clubs and make them a better proposition for new managers.


Anyone who thinks it's not a good idea to turn buying from unmanaged clubs off is an idiot. I've yet to see one single legitimate reason why isn't a bad idea.

Maldjd23

Well, i voted no anyway.

GT_TDI_150

Seaneh wrote: »

No we shouldn't.

This will stop unmanaged clubs ending up like Standard Liege and Gremio.

Unmanaged clubs will not be able to sell to external clubs either so there's no argument to be made about that either.

We will still be able to buy and sell to external clubs so that won't change at all.

All this will do is protect unmanaged clubs and make them a better proposition for new managers.


Anyone who thinks it's not a good idea to turn buying from unmanaged clubs off is an idiot. I've yet to see one single legitimate reason why isn't a bad idea.

nice way to argue a point, "dont agree with me ... you are an idiot" :rolleyes:

GT_TDI_150

I'm undecided at the moment ... I think when sooo many players have bought from externals, unmanaged become the one source of some talent ...

but I see the merit in keeping clubs attractive for incoming managers too

KERSPLAT!

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

nice way to argue a point, "dont agree with me ... you are an idiot" :rolleyes:

I don't think the people are idiots but the rest of his post is 100% right.

We need to preserve the team's for incoming managers, give them the choice to move players on or whatever

KERSPLAT!

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

Don't think I can...

No bother, I don't think it'll even be close so doesn't really matter

ctrl-alt-delete

I think unmanaged clubs need to be protected to remain attractive to potential new players,

However if left unmanaged they will try return to the team they have in real life and so is it worth trying to protect them?

KERSPLAT!

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I think unmanaged clubs need to be protected to remain attractive to potential new players,

However if left unmanaged they will try return to the team they have in real life and so is it worth trying to protect them?

AFAIK they don't, they stay as is until managed again

I'm open to correction on that

ctrl-alt-delete

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

AFAIK they don't, they stay as is until managed again

I'm open to correction on that

No, they are active in the market, when i quit Genoa, realised nobody was going to take them on, and so took them over again, they had made a couple of signings.

Seaneh

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I think unmanaged clubs need to be protected to remain attractive to potential new players,

However if left unmanaged they will try return to the team they have in real life and so is it worth trying to protect them?

If you turn it off, unmanaged teams cant buy or sell anyone, at all. They wont waste money on **** players from externals either. They stay exactly as they are.

Seaneh

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

No, they are active in the market, when i quit Genoa, realised nobody was going to take them on, and so took them over again, they had made a couple of signings.

That's only what happens when buying from unmanaged clubs is left on.

Turn it off and the clubs stay EXACTLY as they are.

Look at the likes of Zenith in Copa Del Boards, their squad is exactly as it was, nobody in or out.

ctrl-alt-delete

Seaneh wrote: »

If you turn it off, unmanaged teams cant buy or sell anyone, at all. They wont waste money on **** players from externals either. They stay exactly as they are.

Ah i get you now,

Then turn it off for me.

tonic wine

copied my post from the other thread highlighting the reasons for leaving it as it is

I think not been able to buy from unmanaged teams will be bad idea and take some of the fun and enjoyment out of the transfer market. It works now, don't change whats not broke.

My team Kyiv shows why it works.

When I took over all my good players were sold. I had one 90 rated player which I cashed in on to invest in a good squad. I bought most of my players from unmanaged teams. I've now built up my team and sit second in the league to get automatic promotion to the 1st division.

If you now turn this option off, all the clubs that have been raided will never be able to build and get competitive. When clubs raid they pay way over the odds as there competing against each other to get the signature.

This results in the unmanaged club having a big bank balance when a new manager steps in, and he's in a position to do the same to the next unmanaged club to build up his squad and the circle continues.

It also keeps activity in the transfer market, you get one player in, you sell on another to raise more funds. If players are not been sold from unmanaged clubs it slows down the transfer activity massively.

This effects the game as a whole from the top to the bottom. It also helps the smaller clubs to be competitive as we cannot compete for the best players. I'm speaking as a small club which as one of the smallest attendance in the league but I can be competitive by buying from unmanaged clubs and compete against the bigger clubs for signatures with cash.

I didn't have any good players that managers were interested in px. I can only be competitive with cash buying from unmanaged clubs.

Sorry to go on, just trying to get my points across to be taken on board

Peanut Butter Jelly

I understand where you're coming from tonic, but I think most will agree with me when I say that money is no good for buying the bigger players. You'll almost always need a high rated player to exchange with the cash to land that 90+ player.

tonic wine

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from tonic, but I think most will agree with me when I say that money is no good for buying the bigger players. You'll almost always need a high rated player to exchange with the cash to land that 90+ player.

That's my point, but you are on the wrong track.

You can only use cash to buy from unmanaged clubs. It's mostly the only use for cash as you said exactly, "money is no good for buying the bigger players, you will always need a high rated player to exchange".

Therefore when I started off with mostly 88 rated players, I would have had zero chance of getting any of the good players, as why would some take two 88's for a top quality player? Even now using two 89 rated players, managers have no interest in them as they don't improve their team.

I would never be able to build or compete for the best players. The game would have become boring very fast playing with average players against the best.

It's only buying from unmanaged clubs where I can compete against the top clubs for the best players buying with cash.

Change this will strangle the smaller clubs.

Edit: it's actually the only time you might pay realistic prices too. I've bid 30M for 90 rated players and its not enough to tempt players to sell. Therefore, buying from just managed teams will take a lot longer to build a team as you will pay a lot more in the long run and take a lot more time to build up the funds to try buy 90+ rated players.

Seaneh

Basically "I don't care if the league goes to crap once I can sign players".

It's short sighted and misses the entire point of protecting teams to protect the league.

Peanut Butter Jelly

tonic wine wrote: »

That's my point, but you are on the wrong track.

You can only use cash to buy from unmanaged clubs. It's mostly the only use for cash as you said exactly, "money is no good for buying the bigger players, you will always need a high rated player to exchange".

Therefore when I started off with mostly 88 rated players, I would have had zero chance of getting any of the good players, as why would some take two 88's for a top quality player? Even now using two 89 rated players, managers have no interest in them as they don't improve their team.

I would never be able to build or compete for the best players. The game would have become boring very fast playing with average players against the best.

It's only buying from unmanaged clubs where I can compete against the top clubs for the best players buying with cash.

Change this will strangle the smaller clubs.

But when someone takes over a smaller, unmanaged club, they'll be royally screwed when they go to buy players, because all they're higher rated players will be gone to other teams.

tonic wine

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

But when someone takes over a smaller, unmanaged club, they'll be royally screwed when they go to buy players, because all they're higher rated players will be gone to other teams.

They will be royally screwed if buying from unmanaged teams is turned off.

They have been raided, but you have a big balance as a result of this. At least with unmanaged clubs, you have the chance to build again with all the cash you received.

If you can't buy from unmanaged clubs, your cash is now not much use as you said yourself. You will also have a very slim chance of buying any quality players.

Anyways, I've said my points. I'm not getting into a 10 page disagreement going around in circles.with certain people.

mackeire

Is it not for a season long trial to see if it makes the game world better?
Like turning off the sm monitoring is a season long trial.

Might aswel try it for next season

Seaneh

mackeire wrote: »

Is it not for a season long trial to see if it makes the game world better?
Like turning off the sm monitoring is a season long trial.

Might aswel try it for next season

Exactly.

tonic wine

Seaneh wrote: »

Basically "I don't care if the league goes to crap once I can sign players".

It's short sighted and misses the entire point of protecting teams to protect the league.

Once all teams can be competitive. If I didn't care about the league, I wouldn't be on here putting my points across, thanks all the same for your kind words, you do have a polite way of having a discussion on a topic.

It's has been like that for two seasons, and the league has not gone to crap, its getting better and better IMO. It's the best SM league on boards.

But anyone is an idiot that doesn't agree with yourself.

The Governor

This is the experience of someone taking over a club that had been raided.

I took over FC Basel a few months ago, the highest rated player remaining was an 86. Due to the sold players I was left with a decent kitty which I then used to snap up some 87's to improve the team. I knuckled down and got to work.

I found it next to impossible to buy the likes of 88's from managed clubs and any players they had listed as the prices were astronomical compared to a players value, there were a few times I almost quit cause I found the gulf between a players value and actual sale price absolutely crazy.

The only reason I've even managed to build my club up someways is the fact I was given two 88's for their value price. The only reason I have two 89's + a bunch of other 88's is the fact I bought them for around their value from clubs which had become unmanaged, compared to probably paying two to three times the value if it was from a managed club. I have looked at externals and their aren't that many 89 players there, there are some 88's but you have to take into account their ratings and how they are playing in RL. A lot of those 88's are close to droppping to 87's meaning a newbie manager is taking a serious risk purchasing especially if their kitty is small.

Going by the current player price economy if a small team wants to upgrade to a decent 88 or 89 they will most likely have sell a bunch of 86 and 87's, usually only externals will buy those and won't go too much over their value price, leaving them with a small squad and little return. Say I sold Charlie Adam rated 87 now for his value of 6m, would that get me a decent 88 at a managed club? Would it fcuk, unless he was playing crap and due a drop ratings wise. Even now there's a player listed valued 4.5m with a minimum fee of 15m, that's not a go at the manager as it's the same with nearly every deal.

The majority of talented youngsters and players deemed worthy for p/x deals are already at big clubs so it's essentlially a moot point doing p/x deals if your not a big team here.

I get the fact about someone taking over a raided club but there's always money there to bring in a few players and then they in turn can pick up one or two decent lads from a manger less team.

I'm sorry but a big contributer here is the fact so many teams have MASSIVE squads, with tons of talent left to a handful of clubs generally. A squad cap is a bigger issue here imo as at least then there would be a lot of talented players spread around. Then you may even see a drop in player prices as it would be easier replace a sold player as more talent would be floating about.

I'm not attacking you guys or anything as I like playing in it and love the banter and craic in the the threads but it's how I see it. I have an awful feeling there will be cribbing about small and medium clubs not managing to have improved (due to not being able to grab some talent from an unmanaged team and not many decent high rated available at externals) next season.

mackeire

The Governor wrote: »

This is the experience of someone taking over a club that had been raided.

I took over FC Basel a few months ago, the highest rated player remaining was an 86. Due to the sold players I was left with a decent kitty which I then used to snap up some 87's to improve the team. I knuckled down and got to work.

I found it next to impossible to buy the likes of 88's from managed clubs and any players they had listed as the prices were astronomical compared to a players value, there were a few times I almost quit cause I found the gulf between a players value and actual sale price absolutely crazy.

The only reason I've even managed to build my club up someways is the fact I was given two 88's for their value price. The only reason I have two 89's + a bunch of other 88's is the fact I bought them for around their value from clubs which had become unmanaged, compared to probably paying two to three times the value if it was from a managed club. I have looked at externals and their aren't that many 89 players there, there are some 88's but you have to take into account their ratings and how they are playing in RL. A lot of those 88's are close to droppping to 87's meaning a newbie manager is taking a serious risk purchasing especially if their kitty is small.

Going by the current player price economy if a small team wants to upgrade to a decent 88 or 89 they will most likely have sell a bunch of 86 and 87's, usually only externals will buy those and won't go too much over their value price, leaving them with a small squad and little return. Say I sold Charlie Adam rated 87 now for his value of 6m, would that get me a decent 88 at a managed club? Would it fcuk, unless he was playing crap and due a drop ratings wise. Even now there's a player listed valued 4.5m with a minimum fee of 15m, that's not a go at the manager as it's the same with nearly every deal.

The majority of talented youngsters and players deemed worthy for p/x deals are already at big clubs so it's essentlially a moot point doing p/x deals if your not a big team here.

I get the fact about someone taking over a raided club but there's always money there to bring in a few players and then they in turn can pick up one or two decent lads from a manger less team.

I'm sorry but a big contributer here is the fact so many teams have MASSIVE squads, with tons of talent left to a handful of clubs generally. A squad cap is a bigger issue here imo as at least then there would be a lot of talented players spread around. Then you may even see a drop in player prices as it would be easier replace a sold player as more talent would be floating about.

I'm not attacking you guys or anything as I like playing in it and love the banter and craic in the the threads but it's how I see it. I have an awful feeling there will be cribbing about small and medium clubs not managing to have improved (due to not being able to grab some talent from an unmanaged team and not many decent high rated available at externals) next season.

But if buying from unmanaged teams was already on then basel would have still had the players rated over 86 when you took over and you wouldn't have had to go to all that bother and nearly quitting a few times!

The Governor

mackeire wrote: »

But if buying from unmanaged teams was already on then basel would have still had the players rated over 86 when you took over and you wouldn't have had to go to all that bother and nearly quitting a few times!

Yes but what good is saying that now as we're a season in and there's a handful of clubs raided to nothing? If it was on from the beginning I would be happy as it was a great rule in Copa Del Boards. But turning it off now leaves the wrecked clubs where they are and kept stagnant.

Your looking to close the door when the horse has bolted and is already ten miles down the road.

The Governor

mackeire wrote: »

But if buying from unmanaged teams was already on then basel would have still had the players rated over 86 when you took over and you wouldn't have had to go to all that bother and nearly quitting a few times!

And by the way it's the astronomical prices compared to value that nearly made me quit not the rebuilding process, I've quiet enjoyed it. But feel it will lose its fun with not being able to snap up a good player from a unmanaged club with only a few decent lads available externally.

bazarakus

I voted no.

I brought this in this season in THE GOOD LEAGUE and it's helped keep squads intact no end. I'm sure not everyone likes it tho. I may change it back in the "summer"

hufpc8w3adnk65

It's a season long trial only lads. It's not been brought up as a way too kill teams or the transfer market. No body knows for certain if it will or will not kill the market.It's been brought up so when a team loses their manager and one isn't found within the week long gap that the team doesn't get stripped of all players above 86 and all prospects from its youth team!

hufpc8w3adnk65

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

Needs to be public...

Can PBJ see whos voted?
If not this poll is invalid

Peanut Butter Jelly

I can't see.

tupac_healy

I voted Yes we should, I did so because I believe that it will only help the transfer market...


I voted one way and stick to my views, unlike some who parade around the No signs and signed unmanaged players when it suits them though.....


How some people can put their views forward so strongly yet be so hypocritical about it in actual GW terms is laughable!

At least practice your opinion to maintain some credibility.....

hufpc8w3adnk65

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

I can't see.

This poll isn't much good if we can't see voters

Can a mod alter it?

Seaneh

tupac_healy wrote: »

I voted Yes we should, I did so because I believe that it will only help the transfer market...


I voted one way and stick to my views, unlike some who parade around the No signs and signed unmanaged players when it suits them though.....


How some people can put their views forward so strongly yet be so hypocritical about it in actual GW terms is laughable!

At least practice your opinion to maintain some credibility.....

Oh shut up.

Peanut Butter Jelly

MrMac84 wrote: »

This poll isn't much good if we can't see voters

Can a mod alter it?

I've asked a mod to make it public. We'll wait and see.

ctrl-alt-delete

The only literature I can find on the soccermanager website relating to it is as follows:

soccermanager wrote:

Club AI

Unmanaged and external clubs are active in the transfer market, making transfers between themselves as well as interacting with human managers in the Game World.

Transfers between unmanaged or external clubs happen instantly as there is no human manager involved and the transfer ban is set to just two weeks.

Unmanaged and external clubs will only make transfer offers for players that are available. This means that if a player has their Transfer Status set as Unavailable to Transfer or Unavailable then no transfer offer will be made.

Also if a player has a Set Minimum Fee then clubs will not bid below this or they may not bid at all.

Unmanaged and external clubs will also put bids in for players placed on the transfer list. However, the time it takes to receive this offer can vary from a few days to a few weeks.

Unmanaged and external clubs will also try and sign players that play for them in real-life in an attempt to reconstruct their squad (which in turn could make an unmanaged club become more desirable to manage).

Can anyone let me know for sure, that if we turn off buying from unmanaged clubs, which in the admin section says that "players can not be bought if the team is unmanaged" that they won't buy players themselves?

I am thinking this is the case, as the option for turning off buying from external clubs says that "external clubs can still bid on your players"

Just want to be sure that they won't squander the money at the club.

Seaneh

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

The only literature I can find on the soccermanager website relating to it is as follows:




Can anyone let me know for sure, that if we turn off buying from unmanaged clubs, which in the admin section says that "players can not be bought if the team is unmanaged" that they won't buy players themselves?

I am thinking this is the case, as the option for turning off buying from external clubs says that "external clubs can still bid on your players"

Just want to be sure that they won't squander the money at the club.

This does not effect external clubs at all.

Wilberto

Seaneh wrote: »

This does not effect external clubs at all.

Yes but unmanaged clubs effectively operate in the same manner as external clubs. They still try to sign their real life players if they are unmanaged. Just look at Gremio.

The question is, will they still sign these players and squander their transfer kitty even if "Buying from Unmanaged Clubs" is disabled?


Personally, even if they do, they'll only be purchased at effectively minimum price anyway so the new manager can either sell them on again, or include them in transfer deals that they make themselves so I don't really see a huge issue. Apart from the fact that they may have to wait until the transfer ban is up of course.

Seaneh

Wilberto wrote: »

Yes but unmanaged clubs effectively operate in the same manner as external clubs. They still try to sign their real life players if they are unmanaged. Just look at Gremio.

The question is, will they still sign these players and squander their transfer kitty even if "Buying from Unmanaged Clubs" is disabled?


Personally, even if they do, they'll only be purchased at effectively minimum price anyway so the new manager can either sell them on again, or include them in transfer deals that they make themselves so I don't really see a huge issue. Apart from the fact that they may have to wait until the transfer ban is up of course.

No, not if buying from in managed clubs is turned off.

I asked on the SM forums and an admin replied saying that when buying from unmanaged clubs is turned off, unmanaged clubs can't buy or sell to anyone, managed or external. The stay exactly as they were the second the manager quit.

I've explained this about 5 times in this thread.


You can still buy and sell to/from external clubs like always.

ctrl-alt-delete

Seaneh wrote: »

This does not effect external clubs at all.

No, what I am asking is,

It would be a pity if unmanaged clubs still buy players themselves, squandering the money at the club.

I was saying that when you look at admin options, it specifically states for Externals that they will still buy players even if you switch off buying from them, but it does not say that for unmanaged.

So what I am asking is, from that, can we assume that they won't buy players themselves along with not being able to be bought from,

Does anyone know for sure?

Seaneh

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

No, what I am asking is,

It would be a pity if unmanaged clubs still buy players themselves, squandering the money at the club.

I was saying that when you look at admin options, it specifically states for Externals that they will still buy players even if you switch off buying from them, but it does not say that for unmanaged.

So what I am asking is, from that, can we assume that they won't buy players themselves along with not being able to be bought from,

Does anyone know for sure?

See my previous post.

ctrl-alt-delete

Seaneh wrote: »

See my previous post.

You never once before that mentioned asking on the Forum and getting a reply from an Admin, not that I have gone back and checked, but I don't remember you saying which is why i was asking for official clarification.

I am definitely for protecting them so since that is the case.

Seaneh

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

You never once before that mentioned asking on the Forum and getting a reply from an Admin, not that I have gone back and checked, but I don't remember you saying which is why i was asking for official clarification.

I am definitely for protecting them so since that is the case.

I definitely mentioned it... about 4 months ago :P

GT_TDI_150

still undecided on how to vote ....


(anyone want to offer me a Belgian talent to vote in a certain way )

Wilberto

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

still undecided on how to vote ....


(anyone want to offer me a Belgian talent to vote in a certain way )

Trust me, it really doesn't matter which way you vote at this stage. There's quite a big gap!! :D

KERSPLAT!

tupac_healy wrote: »

I voted Yes we should, I did so because I believe that it will only help the transfer market...


I voted one way and stick to my views, unlike some who parade around the No signs and signed unmanaged players when it suits them though.....


How some people can put their views forward so strongly yet be so hypocritical about it in actual GW terms is laughable!

At least practice your opinion to maintain some credibility.....

:rolleyes:

hufpc8w3adnk65

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Heh PPPP your a mod. Can you make this poll public or see whos voted so far?

Seaneh

MrMac84 wrote: »

Heh PPPP your a mod. Can you make this poll public or see whos voted so far?

He's not a mod in this forum so he can't edit anything in this forum.

bazarakus

My name is Baz and I voted yes in the vote. Or no. I definitely voted anyway. At least I tink I did. I don't have any principles and I change my mind a lot. Actually could one of the mods check if I did vote or not? Cos I could still do it. Dunno if I'm too late. Been home for a week now and the Mighty Munch are GREAT. Goin back tomorrow tho