PLEASE READ. boards.ie League Buying from un-managed Poll DECEMBER 2014

The Governor

LEFT OFF

All those votes are valid I think from looking at their posts.

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

There's one on left off that has no posts in the forum as far as I can see, on my phone and can't see the name though

I was wrong, 7-7 looks good I think

king size mars bar

LEFT OFF

Can't make up my mind on this subject, on one side I would to see cash transfers happen more as at the moment most transfers are part exchange or nothing but on the other hand if we wanted to attract new managers the unmanaged teams must have some sort of decent team to make it worth while.

Colemania

LEFT OFF

I voted to turn buying from unmanaged on in the optimistic hope that it'll kick-start more cash deals and that if any manager comes in to take over a depleted squad, people will do cash deals with them. If I bought an unmanageds best player, I would tend to do a cash deal with whatever manager came in

ctrl-alt-delete

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I don't think it will build up a cash reserve for the next manager who takes over the club.

There is evidence to suggest that SM make money go missing, whether the club sign players while unmanaged or not.

I think it needs to be voted on in terms of how you feel about the GW.

Either you want to try and stop people leaving and try and make it more competitive for people playing now.

Or you want to try keep the unmanaged clubs attractive for those who may want to play it in the future.

I don't think it can be sold as giving the little guy a chance, although there will be a few exceptions to the rule, for the majority of the deals it will make the big clubs bigger.

It can't be sold as a trial either, as the damage will be done. It really won't take long for it to be a very similar situation to now, the difference being you can buy some 88's from unmanaged clubs.

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

I would love to see a list of what teams voted what because from what I can make out its the top teams promoting turning it on and the small clubs defending keeping it on..
you see most top clubs are using this auld chestnut "it will benefit lower clubs" when in fact all they care about is improving their own squad which was already stated by a few top clubs..
Alot of people seen buying from unmanaged clubs in celtics reasonings and came in their pants screaming "polls,polls,turn it on" purely thinking about improving their own team and not about the fact it was a small club that cudnt improve his squad..
So if people are looking to keep players in the game they need to sort out a better plan that will benefit small clubs because even stevie wonder can see that turning this on will only benefit top clubs

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I don't think it will build up a cash reserve for the next manager who takes over the club.

There is evidence to suggest that SM make money go missing, whether the club sign players while unmanaged or not.

I think it needs to be voted on in terms of how you feel about the GW.

Either you want to try and stop people leaving and try and make it more competitive for people playing now.

Or you want to try keep the unmanaged clubs attractive for those who may want to play it in the future.

I don't think it can be sold as giving the little guy a chance, although there will be a few exceptions to the rule, for the majority of the deals it will make the big clubs bigger.

It can't be sold as a trial either, as the damage will be done. It really won't take long for it to be a very similar situation to now, the difference being you can buy some 88's from unmanaged clubs.

If after all the talk and points back and forth it all boils down to the above, which in all fairness it looks as though that really is the bottom line of it all....


For me it has to be looking after the lads that are here, we've seen that managers have taken the lower down clubs for a few days/weeks and left, if someone seriously wants to do what the regulars have done (i.e. stay about long term) they can take a club and use it as a stepping stone to something bigger, so that option is still open, for me we simply have to look after the lads that made the gameworld what it is

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

I would love to see a list of what teams voted what because from what I can make out its the top teams promoting turning it on and the small clubs defending keeping it on..
you see most top clubs are using this auld chestnut "it will benefit lower clubs" when in fact all they care about is improving their own squad which was already stated by a few top clubs..
Alot of people seen buying from unmanaged clubs in celtics reasonings and came in their pants screaming "polls,polls,turn it on" purely thinking about improving their own team and not about the fact it was a small club that cudnt improve his squad..
So if people are looking to keep players in the game they need to sort out a better plan that will benefit small clubs because even stevie wonder can see that turning this on will only benefit top clubs

Stevie would want new glasses as I was the one that called for the debate to be re-opened (I DO NOT class my team as a top team) and I was also the one that said I would abstain from buying IF others would follow.....


And the reason people did call for 'polls' polls' over the 'Celtic reasoning' as you put it is because he clearly sited it as a reason as to why he left the gameworld, what more do you want!

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

I would love to see a list of what teams voted what because from what I can make out its the top teams promoting turning it on and the small clubs defending keeping it on..
you see most top clubs are using this auld chestnut "it will benefit lower clubs" when in fact all they care about is improving their own squad which was already stated by a few top clubs..
Alot of people seen buying from unmanaged clubs in celtics reasonings and came in their pants screaming "polls,polls,turn it on" purely thinking about improving their own team and not about the fact it was a small club that cudnt improve his squad..
So if people are looking to keep players in the game they need to sort out a better plan that will benefit small clubs because even stevie wonder can see that turning this on will only benefit top clubs

click on the blue number beside the coloured bars (not on the mobile version) it will show you the voters

I think you'll find it isnt Big vs Small clubs in the voting ....

Nordicgael

LEFT OFF

PSV div 3 manager here and i voted to turn it on .have only being playing boards league for a few months - psv got relegated last season, almost impossible to strengen squad and kept getting offers for my best players- why would i sell my best players when getting offered lesser players in return and some cash? cant do much with cash at the moment except buy young players that might develop over time - not much use for current season- anyways i did think about leaving but so far stuck with it - i will follow this poll with interest to see what the general feeling is .

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

Stevie would want new glasses as I was the one that called for the debate to be re-opened (I DO NOT class my team as a top team) and I was also the one that said I would abstain from buying IF others would follow.....


And the reason people did call for 'polls' polls' over the 'Celtic reasoning' as you put it is because he clearly sited it as a reason as to why he left the gameworld, what more do you want!

You do not class your team ad a top team yet you say you will not bid if other top teams follow suit, so how does that work? Your not gonna bid even though your a small club?
You see your trying to insinuate im opposed to the poll by picking and choosing words from my comments like a cheap tabloid newspaper wen im stating that some top teams are delighted that these polls are coming about as they see it as a way of further strengthening their team, wen surely the key debate should be how to help struggling teams

also stevie wonder wudnt need new glasses as this will only benefit top teams and thats a fact.. the gap between top and bottom teams will get wider

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

You do not class your team ad a top team yet you say you will not bid if other top teams follow suit, so how does that work? Your not gonna bid even though your a small club?
You see your trying to insinuate im opposed to the poll by picking and choosing words from my comments like a cheap tabloid newspaper wen im stating that some top teams are delighted that these polls are coming about as they see it as a way of further strengthening their team, wen surely the key debate should be how to help struggling teams

also stevie wonder wudnt need new glasses as this will only benefit top teams and thats a fact.. the gap between top and bottom teams will get wider

There is your fault, I never said the 'other' teams, i.e. placing myself among that bracket of top clubs buy using that ter, you used it....

not me

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

There is your fault, I never said the 'other' teams, i.e. placing myself among that bracket of top clubs buy using that ter, you used it....

not me

Tupac lets call a spade a spade you know and I know your a top team

anyway back to the real issue

ctrl-alt-delete

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

tupac_healy wrote: »

If after all the talk and points back and forth it all boils down to the above, which in all fairness it looks as though that really is the bottom line of it all....


For me it has to be looking after the lads that are here, we've seen that managers have taken the lower down clubs for a few days/weeks and left, if someone seriously wants to do what the regulars have done (i.e. stay about long term) they can take a club and use it as a stepping stone to something bigger, so that option is still open, for me we simply have to look after the lads that made the gameworld what it is

You need to then split the looking after the lads that are here argument.

The reason it has come up again is because of the Celtic manager leaving and citing it as part of the reason he has left.

If we want to help these type of managers I don't believe allowing the buying of unmanaged players to be a massive help.

It will give them a chance, but the odds are stacked against them. Of course we won't know for sure here and now, but I feel the gap in quality between 'big' & 'small' will widen.


What I will say to any managers of lower teams who might be struggling and reading this, is try become more active on here and in chat.

There are some genuine nice lads who have before and will again help out those who need it most. We've seen it with the auctions and there have been other occasions too.

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

Tupac lets call a spade a spade you know and I know your a top team

anyway back to the real issue

You may look at it that way mate, but I 100% certainly do not, and that is the truth, I've a good first 11, in fact I just played Fiorentina with my first 11 (bar Dodo) and I had him beat ratings wise in 2-3 places, man for man he has a better team in the division and look at say Bayern, look at the bench!


That for me is the mark of a top team, I'm lucky to have 3-4 87's on the bench and after that it is youngsters.....


I've a good 11, by no means a top team, but I agree, back to the issue at hand

bazarakus

LEFT OFF

1. I can tell yous definitively that the clubs with the poorest rating squads will be able to bid the most for any player available by making buying from Unmanageds possible. I did this in THE GOOD LEAGUE a few seasons back – turned it back on after a season or two and the clubs which benefitted were the ones with weak squads. They could bid the most. They have to have the cash to bid of course. It coincided with a lot of cross pollination from boards so any managers around THE GOOD LEAGUE at the time will be able to tell you. The average strength of your squad dictates the max amount you can bid because your chairman will NOT allow you to overbid for a player he doesn’t tink you need. Upshot – it will not help Big Bad Bayern!

2. The reason cash is disappearing from clubs without managers is this: you get about five days grace when you quit a club during which time they don’t buy any players and the cash balance is left alone. If however you leave them Unmanaged for much longer than that the balance will reset to a few million. You can of course avoid this by spending all your cash on players before you leave. The downside of this is that if you take a club over too quickly you get stuck with their debt. Just took over a club in English 2 and inherited a 3m debt. Lovely.

3. In my opinion “Gentleman’s Agreements” (such as the idea that only clubs in Divvy 3 or 4 can buy from Unmanaged clubs are a nonsense. You can’t police it and you can’t stop folk either abusing it or (more common) breaking the rule by mistake. Less rules not more people! The vote isn’t to allow buying from Unmanageds for Divvy 3 and 4 it’s across the board(s). You don’t need to police it, the system is set up (see point 1) to benefit the weakest.

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

Who does 8-10 manage????

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

tupac_healy wrote: »

Who does 8-10 manage????

And Techniques07.

I think DH2k9 is Anzhi but I could be wrong

KERSPLAT!

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

Just check their soccer manager posts, if they've none then chances are they don't play, vote is void. If they do have posts here, check them and see who they manage

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Just check their soccer manager posts, if they've none then chances are they don't play, vote is void. If they do have posts here, check them and see who they manage

Cool, prob best waiting till the poll closes so and go though the lot in one swoop?

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

bazarakus wrote: »

1. I can tell yous definitively that the clubs with the poorest rating squads will be able to bid the most for any player available by making buying from Unmanageds possible. I did this in THE GOOD LEAGUE a few seasons back – turned it back on after a season or two and the clubs which benefitted were the ones with weak squads. They could bid the most. They have to have the cash to bid of course. It coincided with a lot of cross pollination from boards so any managers around THE GOOD LEAGUE at the time will be able to tell you. The average strength of your squad dictates the max amount you can bid because your chairman will NOT allow you to overbid for a player he doesn’t tink you need. Upshot – it will not help Big Bad Bayern!

2. The reason cash is disappearing from clubs without managers is this: you get about five days grace when you quit a club during which time they don’t buy any players and the cash balance is left alone. If however you leave them Unmanaged for much longer than that the balance will reset to a few million. You can of course avoid this by spending all your cash on players before you leave. The downside of this is that if you take a club over too quickly you get stuck with their debt. Just took over a club in English 2 and inherited a 3m debt. Lovely.

3. In my opinion “Gentleman’s Agreements” (such as the idea that only clubs in Divvy 3 or 4 can buy from Unmanaged clubs are a nonsense. You can’t police it and you can’t stop folk either abusing it or (more common) breaking the rule by mistake. Less rules not more people! The vote isn’t to allow buying from Unmanageds for Divvy 3 and 4 it’s across the board(s). You don’t need to police it, the system is set up (see point 1) to benefit the weakest.

Your 1st point is true but also misleading, yes smaller teams can bid more but they wud have to sell the majority of their team to max bid out a top team in a bidding war as most small teams have no money..

so take me for example, with a budget of -300k and I wanted to bid on chadli. Yes I can outbid bayern munich but for me to generate that 20 million id have to sell 2/3 of my best players at cost price to get that money.. there is also another side to this, a top team senses a small team needs to generate money for the bidding wars and will pick up good players at a good price

tupac_healy

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

Your 1st point is true but also misleading, yes smaller teams can bid more but they wud have to sell the majority of their team to max bid out a top team in a bidding war as most small teams have no money..

so take me for example, with a budget of -300k and I wanted to bid on chadli. Yes I can outbid bayern munich but for me to generate that 20 million id have to sell 2/3 of my best players at cost price to get that money.. there is also another side to this, a top team senses a small team needs to generate money for the bidding wars and will pick up good players at a good price

Lets take Chadli as an example.....

If say Bayern (for the sake of the example above) does get him in a bidding war, 2 things....


1. There are other players of value at Celtic and clubs can only bid on 1 player at a time, so chances are your getting a great deal of some sorts (obviously this does not stand for the clubs with the 1-2 very good players, Celtic would be more the exception than the rule, but still its a valid point)

2. Assume Bayern did get Chadli and Celtic came up (unlikely but for the sake of the example, assume so) you would not have to face that player in D3, hence making D3 more competitive, in theory.... game engine probably dictates otherwise but if we are going on highly rated players being the soul of the game engine then you see my point....


Point 2 of course also leads on to my previous points about players being unhappy at bigger teams, the wage bills tend to be higher etc....... The main point I would make to the lower division clubs is at least you have a chance to bag these players, whats the alternative? I honestly cannot see a downside to this for the lower ranked teams????

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

The only way these players can be dished out fairly imo is if everyone was put in a draw and the first team out got first pick on a player he wanted, this way everyone gets a piece and no one is at an advantage at the end of it.

GT_TDI_150

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

Your 1st point is true but also misleading, yes smaller teams can bid more but they wud have to sell the majority of their team to max bid out a top team in a bidding war as most small teams have no money..

so take me for example, with a budget of -300k and I wanted to bid on chadli. Yes I can outbid bayern munich but for me to generate that 20 million id have to sell 2/3 of my best players at cost price to get that money.. there is also another side to this, a top team senses a small team needs to generate money for the bidding wars and will pick up good players at a good price

To be fair .... I sold off 20 lesser players over the last season in an attempt to build a kitty to purchase players and reduce my spend on wages. If i dont buy a player till end of season i'll make +20m profit on top of what i have saved.

Ive made a consious desicion to be picky about the newly adds i bid on in order to keep a cash reserve ... I can bid big on every youth that gets added to the gw and run a neg balance sheet too but decided to keep cash available incase the right deal/player comrs along ... Thats not even with an eye on buying from unmanaged, thats just from the pt of view of some one mighr be needing 10m to complete a deal and being willing to sell a player im intetested in.


Edit: im not having a dig btw, I'm just pointing out that if I decided to sell Thiago for cash( Down Napoli, I'm not ) then you currently dont have the cash either ... so people might need to change the way they do transfers if unmanaged players were to become available and they want to be in with a chance of getting said players ... this was my point earlier in the thread ...knowing now whether or not we can buy these players will allow teams to (try) build up a cash reserve - which in it self might stimulate the transfer market

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

To be fair .... I sold off 20 lesser players over the last season in an attempt to build a kitty to purchase players and reduce my spend on wages. If i dont buy a player till end of season i'll make +20m profit on top of what i have saved.

Ive made a consious desicion to be picky about the newly adds i bid on in order to keep a cash reserve ... I can bid big on every youth that gets added to the gw and run a neg balance sheet too but decided to keep cash available incase the right deal/player comrs along ... Thats not even with an eye on buying from unmanaged, thats just from the pt of view of some one mighr be needing 10m to complete a deal and being willing to sell a player im intetested in.

In fairness if a smaller club said this to me id say fair enough but this is a case of a big club explain how he does business

bazarakus

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

Your 1st point is true but also misleading, yes smaller teams can bid more but they wud have to sell the majority of their team to max bid out a top team in a bidding war as most small teams have no money..

so take me for example, with a budget of -300k and I wanted to bid on chadli. Yes I can outbid bayern munich but for me to generate that 20 million id have to sell 2/3 of my best players at cost price to get that money.. there is also another side to this, a top team senses a small team needs to generate money for the bidding wars and will pick up good players at a good price

It's not misleading. I'm not telling folk how much they have in the kitty. I don't know how much anyone has in the kitty. But anyone who has been in the league for a season or more has no excuses or reasons to complain about not having cash. They do what everyone in such a situation does: they buy young risers (who are added to the game pretty much every day) then sell them when their value goes up. You can turn 1m into 50m in a year doing this. No excuses.

A top team senses a small team? What, with their Spidey Sense?? Come on, man!

COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

modo85

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

bazarakus wrote: »

It's not misleading. I'm not telling folk how much they have in the kitty. I don't know how much anyone has in the kitty. But anyone who has been in the league for a season or more has no excuses or reasons to complain about not having cash. They do what everyone in such a situation does: they buy young risers (who are added to the game pretty much every day) then sell them when their value goes up. You can turn 1m into 50m in a year doing this. No excuses.

A top team senses a small team? What, with their Spidey Sense?? Come on, man!

COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right this statement here just proves my argument that big clubs are out of touch with smaller clubs

So which is it lads buy the young risers which builds up your squad numbers and in turn ur debt and wait till they rise to make 50 million a season or is it gt's idea of selling your young prospects which in turn will decrease your wage bill and give you 20 million at the end of the season?

If only it was that easy lads

as regards your spidey senses statement, seriously are you for real? You dont need spidey senses to know wen a team is looking to offload a player for cash just like all the vultures were out in forces wen they used their 'spidey senses' to sense a newbie who only recently joined was offloading big players for little a few weeks back

TheGunns

I HONESTLY COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS

You're essentially writing off the unmanaged teams by allowing players to be bought off them. I'd like to think that one day this gameworld will be full again but if the squads are scalped then there is no chance at all.

Transfers aren't hard to do if you're willing to give up something. You can't expect hand me downs from top clubs which I would guess most smaller clubs do. Not willing to sell a good prospect and then wondering why they can't make transfers for higher rated players. The only other reason the smaller clubs don't progress is because they're not active enough or don't try enough.

When buying from unmanaged is turned on, bigger clubs will always benefit more as most smaller clubs probably won't bother (such as Lyon-who will always be my example as it such a ridiculous situation) or will have a lack of cash (they can offer more but they certainly don't have more)

The Governor

LEFT OFF

tupac_healy wrote: »

Who does 8-10 manage????

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

And Techniques07.

I think DH2k9 is Anzhi but I could be wrong

DH2k9 is Anzhi & tech is Sevilla.

8-10 is the only one I don't know as he has no posts, if you happen to actually manage a club can you let us know mate.

11-9 votes in favor of turning it on by my checking there, left out the vote by 8-10

bazarakus

LEFT OFF

modo85 wrote: »

Right this statement here just proves my argument that big clubs are out of touch with smaller clubs

So which is it lads buy the young risers which builds up your squad numbers and in turn ur debt and wait till they rise to make 50 million a season or is it gt's idea of selling your young prospects which in turn will decrease your wage bill and give you 20 million at the end of the season?

If only it was that easy lads

as regards your spidey senses statement, seriously are you for real? You dont need spidey senses to know wen a team is looking to offload a player for cash just like all the vultures were out in forces wen they used their 'spidey senses' to sense a newbie who only recently joined was offloading big players for little a few weeks back

Well OK what do I know about taking a team over with very little budget and building it up so you have loads of cash.

Hmmm ... was I serious when I was talking about the Spidey Sense? I'm afraid I can't answer that ... suffice to say if I had a Spidey Sense it would be saying "What a cock. Don't bother with him. He's a moany cvnt with delusions of persecution who, if you agree with him, will change his mind and say you got him wrong in the first place" So I'll just leave it at that. Knob. Big club mentality is just running riot around here. Ruining it for us plucky underdog clubs. There, I says it!