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.

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

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.

Again lads democracy rules , so after speaking with Wilberto were going too change the rules too allow examples, wait till wilberto edits the thread too tell ye the new rules.

I was just in from work this evening when I seen seanehs thread and was worried the place would go into meltdown so sprang into action perhaps too harshly

Al Capwned

Moderation done properly.
Well done.

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

Al Capwned wrote: »

Moderation done properly.
Well done.

Wait till Wilberto discuss the guidelines before ye say that ha ha

Maldjd23

JamboMac wrote: »

MOD SNIP

Who is this lad? Can't find him in the database!!

Honestly, i would like to hear a few more examples before making a decision. I just wish the league admin had more control when it came to sacking managers who were acting the fool. Massive fault in the game IMO that he can't.

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

Maldjd23 wrote: »

Who is this lad? Can't find him in the database!!

Honestly, i would like to hear a few more examples before making a decision. I just wish the league admin had more control when it came to sacking managers who were acting the fool. Massive fault in the game IMO that he can't.

Yup agreed 100%. If we all report it too soccermanager threw a ticket perhaps they'd look into changing it

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

Maldjd23 wrote: »

Who is this lad? Can't find him in the database!!

Honestly, i would like to hear a few more examples before making a decision. I just wish the league admin had more control when it came to sacking managers who were acting the fool. Massive fault in the game IMO that he can't.

Not being able to appoint "admins" is a pain too. Poor mac has to do everything, ha.

If he could give someone else the power to accept applications his life would be a lot easier!

Al Capwned

Especially considering he's off to the sun for a couple of weeks, the tramp. :pac:

/OT

Wilberto

After GT's well written post, along with concerns over the inability to have a thorough debate without the use of examples, we have decided to lift the rules on not being able to use these examples. However, before we allow people to go gung-ho into throwing out examples, what I'm going to do first is to only allow managers to use their own transfers as examples, as per GT's post.

In other words, the only people who are allowed to introduce a transfer into this debate are one of the two managers involved in that transfer.

Furthermore, the aforementioned strong warnings regarding potential bans being handed out are in force now more than ever.

Let's keep it to a strong civilised debate.

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

Are people happy with the two rules I proposed also as too the vote?

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

MrMac84 wrote: »

Are people happy with the two rules I proposed also as too the vote?

I'm not. You want to disqualify anyones vote who leaves before the end of the season but won't count some ones vote who joins in the next few weeks

Thread is being strangled. Everything bar duel accounts should be up for debate*.


*my reasoning for this staying off limits is accusing someone of multi accounting is against the boards charter as it is already so this would need to be adhered to

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

It's still hard to present a good argument as to why it's better on because nobody who's made an obviously weird deal is going to comment on it and open it up for debate, but I know you need to keep the things kosher.

I will say that there ARE very obvious examples I'd love to cite but I'm 100% supportive of yourself and Wilberto in any decision you make because I know you're just doing what you think is best.

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I'm not. You want to disqualify anyones vote who leaves before the end of the season but won't count some ones vote who joins in the next few weeks

Thread is being strangled. Everything bar duel accounts should be up for debate*.


*my reasoning for this staying off limits is accusing someone of multi accounting is against the boards charter as it is already so this would need to be adhered to

My reasoning been if they leave then there vote shouldn't count and by saying if new managers join they won't have expierence in transfers and won't know what they are voting on or for? Again lads these are "proposals" nothing set in stone.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

And I'm not saying the above just to be awkward. There should be a proper debate not stifled debate

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

MrMac84 wrote: »

My reasoning been if they leave then there vote shouldn't count and by saying if new managers join they won't have expierence in transfers and won't know what they are voting on or for? Again lads these are "proposals" nothing set in stone.

I know they're proposals, I'm just saying I disagree with them

When the vote closes the results should be just that. A result and as such the outcome should be implemented. As long as each manager voting currently manages a team then they should all count whether for or against

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

And I'm not saying the above just to be awkward. There should be a proper debate not stifled debate

I belive thats what everybody wants but we don't need people too start accusing others of wrong doing so baby steps, weve got the poll for 28 days

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

MrMac84 wrote: »

I belive thats what everybody wants but we don't need people too start accusing others of wrong doing so baby steps, weve got the poll for 28 days

With 10 votes already cast... No point allowing proper discussion with a few days to go and no one left to vote

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

With 10 votes already cast... No point allowing proper discussion with a few days to go and no one left to vote

I agree, close the tread, vote carried, monitoring goes back on!

Al Capwned

Just to be a pain in the arse Mac, aren't there other changes due to be implemented, that weren't....

Reducing the login requirement to 21 days was one.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

I think, given the importance of this decision, it should take precedence.

Al Capwned

Important according to who? (Not saying it's not btw)

The login requirement was done last season. It should have been implemented before this season started, but wasn't. It needs to be put in place now at the earliest possible opportunity.
We've had a few polls, and they should be implemented/actioned chronologically. Any other way of deciding what's important and what's not undermines the democracy of the decisions made.