SoccerManager.com (#3) The Boards.ie World

GT_TDI_150 · 01-03-2014 09:12AM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Agreed. But it's not that SMFA hide their valuation of the players. It's not a crap shoot as to weather your deal looks fair and balanced in the eyes of the monitoring. The valuations of the players are there to see quite clearly, and it's pretty obvious at this stage what sort of deals will and won't go through. And the reality is that we've had 1000s of deals go through without a hitch, 1000s of transfers complete with monitoring on and with both sides involved happy, and only a small, small percentage reversed. And I still say that a large chunk of the time said deals are reversed, it's pretty obvious why they were. You know you're playing their game, you know that its their rules while monitoring is on (and I thought the Salah deal made it pretty evident that it was still on) so you know it has to be a fair deal according to monitoring.

Out of interest, what was the exact deal reversed this time (as if what were the individiual transfers, not just one big deal)?

why is there a range of values set out when you go to buy a player between whihc an offer gets accepted ...

I offered GUAITA(89 GK) MPALA(87 AM, FRLC) and 6.9m ... it was between the high and low value on the player and got accepted ...

why do these values even exist if they mean jack sh!t?

hufpc8w3adnk65 · 01-03-2014 09:13AM

Heh lads sorry wasn't around last night. I was on the beer (*shock horror right*) I've turned off the smfa monitoring so deals shouldn't be able too be reported as we all know there must be some glitch, I don't know how too contact soccer manager directly I did try the email but got no reply. Does any one know any other ways too contact them or do they deal with issues like this on the forum do ye know?

KERSPLAT! · 01-03-2014 09:14AM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

why is there a range of values set out when you go to buy a player between whihc an offer gets accepted ...

I offered GUAITA(89 GK) MPALA(87 AM, FRLC) and 6.9m ... it was between the high and low value on the player and got accepted ...

why do these values even exist if they mean jack sh!t?

Maybe it's more to do with the account than the actual transfer as "the mighty cup winner" alluded to last night?

Was Cian the manager when you bought Rod?

tupac_healy · 01-03-2014 09:17AM

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Maybe it's more to do with the account than the actual transfer as "the mighty cup winner" alluded to last night?

Was Cian the manager when you bought Rod?

Well if it has then that makes it even more wrong doesn't it??? Considering an investigation was done on boards and SM and we are both still here..... Eh

Not that you can see my comment as you have me on blocked..... Conduct unbecoming of a mod IMO but to each his own

Lord TSC · 01-03-2014 09:43AM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

why is there a range of values set out when you go to buy a player between whihc an offer gets accepted ...

I offered GUAITA(89 GK) MPALA(87 AM, FRLC) and 6.9m ... it was between the high and low value on the player and got accepted ...

My guess (and listen, all I can do here is try and explain things, but I don't know) is that the min/max values work as a basic outline but don't update to reflect the "valuations" within the game world. It also then works out that if the problem wasn't the valuation on both sides, there has to be another reason or factor in play too. (Yes, that slightly contradicts my previous point but read on...)

I do think, for instance, that people who've had multiple deals reversed in the past seem to get them reversed again more easily. With the greatest of respect, it's the same 3 or 4 people who seem to constantly find their dealings under scrutiny. For what reason, I don't know, but it could be likely that the system now has your name down for so many reversed transfers, that if it gets a sniff of a "bad" transfer, it freaks out a bit. The fact you've also managed to have so many similiar deals work through and this one didn't would also imply it could be because of who you are dealing with too. (Strikes me, for example, the Jovetic deal is identical and went off without a hitch).

Have you had dealings with the person before that went "wrong"?

tupac_healy wrote: »

Not that you can see my comment as you have me on blocked..... Conduct unbecoming of a mod IMO but to each his own

Leave it out. He's not a mod of this board so is under no obligation to read anything you post if he doesn't want to, and this sort of snide personal attack only weakens your stance drastically, especially when someone is only trying to help figure out what happened.

tupac_healy · 01-03-2014 09:50AM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

My guess (and listen, all I can do here is try and explain things, but I don't know) is that the min/max values work as a basic outline but don't update to reflect the "valuations" within the game world. It also then works out that if the problem wasn't the valuation on both sides, there has to be another reason or factor in play too. (Yes, that slightly contradicts my previous point but read on...)

I do think, for instance, that people who've had multiple deals reversed in the past seem to get them reversed again more easily. With the greatest of respect, it's the same 3 or 4 people who seem to constantly find their dealings under scrutiny. For what reason, I don't know, but it could be likely that the system now has your name down for so many reversed transfers, that if it gets a sniff of a "bad" transfer, it freaks out a bit. The fact you've also managed to have so many similiar deals work through and this one didn't would also imply it could be because of who you are dealing with too. (Strikes me, for example, the Jovetic deal is identical and went off without a hitch).

Have you had dealings with the person before that went "wrong"?

Leave it out. He's not a mod of this board so is under no obligation to read anything you post if he doesn't want to, and this sort of snide personal attack only weakens your stance drastically, especially when someone is only trying to help figure out what happened.

I never said he was a mod of this board and am I not allowed to express an opinion??? It is boards after all!

You expressed an OPINION in bold, you don't know that for sure, you are allowed express your opinion. As much as I

KERSPLAT! · 01-03-2014 09:57AM

Everyone is sick of listening to us going around in circles, and never agreeing, on various matters. So, for the good of the forum, which I'm just a standard user of, it's better we don't engage. That's the last I'll say on it

eireannBEAR · 01-03-2014 10:16AM

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Everyone is sick of listening to us going around in circles, and never agreeing, on various matters. So, for the good of the forum, which I'm just a standard user of, it's better we don't engage. That's the last I'll say on it

Agree'd i just thought is it was a strange reversal and then the rod deal intrigued me more....thats a new one for me,A deal being overturned from previously managed club.

tupac_healy · 01-03-2014 10:16AM

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Everyone is sick of listening to us going around in circles, and never agreeing, on various matters. So, for the good of the forum, which I'm just a standard user of, it's better we don't engage. That's the last I'll say on it

Yes because (to quote your fine self) heaven forbid there be discussion on boards....

Hypocritical to preach discussion and when someone disagrees with you you put them on ignore???

But as I said, childish IMO but to each his own.

eireannBEAR · 01-03-2014 10:18AM

Now back to SM i predict a Sunderland win against juve sunday night,Swoods sold a lot of his good players hes not the threat he once was...Also hes not a champion like me and never will be,so i have the edge. :P

KERSPLAT! · 01-03-2014 10:19AM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

Agree'd i just thought is it was a strange reversal and then the rod deal intrigued me more....thats a new one for me,A deal being overturned from previously managed club.

So Cian was the Wolfsburg manager when Rod was sold, is now the manager of Sporting and both deals with GT have been reversed, is that right or have I gotten mixed up along the way?

eireannBEAR · 01-03-2014 10:21AM

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

So Cian was the Wolfsburg manager when Rod was sold, is now the manager of Sporting and both deals with GT have been reversed, is that right or have I gotten mixed up along the way?

That is correct sir.

KERSPLAT! · 01-03-2014 10:23AM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

Now back to SM i predict a Sunderland win against juve sunday night,Swoods sold a lot of his good players hes not the threat he once was...Also hes not a champion like me and never will be,so i have the edge. :P

He's 3rd with 5 wins 1 draw from his last 6. Good luck, you'll need it..

KERSPLAT! · 01-03-2014 10:24AM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

That is correct sir.

That's a strange one alright

hufpc8w3adnk65 · 01-03-2014 10:54AM

Anyone wana predict the 4 divisions winners and runners up? I know the leagues are taking shape but still slot of football too be played!

tupac_healy · 01-03-2014 10:55AM

MrMac84 wrote: »

Anyone wana predict the 4 divisions winners and runners up? I know the leagues are taking shape but still slot of football too be played!

Coming in half ways through again Mac? Ha!!!

Should have done it in the thread I did at the start of the season!

GT_TDI_150 · 01-03-2014 11:02AM

Friendly tonight anyone ?

FCP

tupac_healy · 01-03-2014 11:08AM

I posted on the SM forum and was told that it is indeed a game-bug…

I have passed on the details on how to follow up to Mac and we shall just have to wait for a response....

Considering deals were concluded in the security of the monitoring being off I understand much of the frustration,and would call for the monitoring to be given a PROPER chance next season, as this one was vastly misrepresented in regards that safety net (the monitoring off)when it came to transfers....

Hercule Poirot · 01-03-2014 11:26AM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Friendly tonight anyone ?

FCP

Request sent

GT_TDI_150 · 01-03-2014 11:30AM

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Request sent

Accepted thanks

KERSPLAT! · 01-03-2014 11:41AM

Division1: Dortmund or myself
Division2: Can see it being like Chelsea last season and everyone chasing Barca. I'll predict 2nd too, to make it interesting, PSV
Division3: Anzhi or Lazio
Division4: LA Galaxy

That's my prediction from before the start

Dortmund haven't had a great start but it's only a few games in. Chelsea and Juve giving me a good run so far and over the last six are both doing great!

PSV had a rough start but are putting a few wins together now and are still contenders IMO

Anzhi going very well, Lazio not so much but it's early days as I said before

I picked LA because of the manager and some transfers he had made but I think he has moved on

JamboMac · 01-03-2014 11:49AM

Division 1 bayern with Madrid runner up
Division 2 hamburg with Barcelona runner up
Division 3 anzhi with Stuttgart runner up
Division 4 cska with Bordeaux runner up

Peanut Butter Jelly · 01-03-2014 11:51AM

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I picked LA because of the manager and some transfers he had made but I think he has moved on

Yeah, I've moved to Besiktas JK and unfortunately LA are beginning to lose a lot of games.

KERSPLAT! · 01-03-2014 11:54AM

Ah sure you're flyin with them!

hufpc8w3adnk65 · 01-03-2014 12:32PM

tupac_healy wrote: »

I posted on the SM forum and was told that it is indeed a game-bug…

I have passed on the details on how to follow up to Mac and we shall just have to wait for a response....

Considering deals were concluded in the security of the monitoring being off I understand much of the frustration,and would call for the monitoring to be given a PROPER chance next season, as this one was vastly misrepresented in regards that safety net (the monitoring off)when it came to transfers....

I have reported the bug in the correct place so HOPEFULLY this gets sorted asap.

Al Capwned · 01-03-2014 12:37PM

I'm struggling with a hangover, and i think i've read things right...

I think it's fairly obvious that someone did report the reversed deal(s) and I have to wonder if it's someone that doesn't read/post in here that may not have seen the side deal that was in place.

Someone made the point (tupac??) that monitoring off should be given another season, bug free, so we can make a proper judgement on it. I would strongly agree.

hufpc8w3adnk65 · 01-03-2014 12:45PM

Al Capwned wrote: »

I'm struggling with a hangover, and i think i've read things right...
I think it's fairly obvious that someone did report the reversed deal(s) and I have to wonder if it's someone that doesn't read/post in here that may not have seen the side deal that was in place.

Someone made the point (tupac??) that monitoring off should be given another season, bug free, so we can make a proper judgement on it. I would strongly agree.

No debate needed on this lads

We said a ONE season trial. even if it gets turned off (correctly) tomorrow then ONE season will be the middle of next season and we cannot make changes then so it will be the following season we vote

KERSPLAT! · 01-03-2014 01:02PM

Sounds fair enough to me

ctrl-alt-delete · 01-03-2014 01:04PM

We still have things we voted on that were never implemented yet because it seems you can only change two things at a time,

So what are we going to do about that, queue things up or forget about them or what?

hufpc8w3adnk65 · 01-03-2014 01:19PM

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

We still have things we voted on that were never implemented yet because it seems you can only change two things at a time,

So what are we going to do about that, queue things up or forget about them or what?

No I've no issues with changing the manager log in times if thats what your referring too? There's been lots of points brought up here over the last 3 threads that trying too keep ontop of everything is a little difficult. Wilberto in fairness helps out lots in the manager waiting thread as things can be hard too keep up with 24/7.

SoccerManager.com (#3) The Boards.ie World

Comments