Kayky
Gaming The SM RedCafe League
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
DRAFT (LEICESTER CITY)
# of players available: 25 (due to minimum squad size of 21, loans not included)
Rules
Barnsley's turn (@spontaneus1)
Note: due to me playing Leicester City today, they will be unmanaged until tomorrow so don't put bid in until they're managed again.
# of players available: 25 (due to minimum squad size of 21, loans not included)
Rules
- Refer to "Draft Order"
- 12 hours per pick, starts now. Miss out means you relinquish your pick
- Declare your pick, then bid (doesn't have to wait until draft is finished)
- Inform the next person in draft order
- Cash only. No P/E
- Squad value <100m: 1.1x FV
- Squad value 100m-200m: 1.3x FV
- Squad value 200m-400m: 1.5x FV
- Squad value >400m: 2x FV
- You can skip if you want to, and/or if you are unable to bid (skipping in advance is encouraged)
- Must comply with FFP
- NEW: Bid must be made within two weeks of your pick otherwise you forfeit the player
- After draft is completed, Damien will check if rules are followed before accepting those bids
- After all bids have gone through, Damien will withdraw from Leicester City
- Preston North End - Jean-Philippe Mateta (£10.4M)
- Gillingham - Kelechi Iheanacho (£7.02M)
- Derby County - Missed Out
- Charlton Athletic - Missed Out
- Leeds United - Mahmoud Dahoud (£9.1M)
- Kidderminster Harriers - Skip
- Bury - Missed Out
- Ipswich Town - Skip
- Leyton Orient - Skip
- Bristol City - Ben Nelson (£270k)
- Tottenham Hotspur - Missed Out
- Southampton - Missed Out
- Blackburn Rovers - Missed Out
- Barnsley - £278.4M
- Norwich City - £286M
- Bournemouth - £286.6M
- Milton Keynes Dons - £295M
- West Ham United - Skip
- Manchester City - £309.8M
- Darlington - £334.8M TRANSFER BANNED
- Fulham - £346.1M TRANSFER BANNED
- Hereford - £349.8M
- Newcastle United - Skip
- Middlesbrough - £358.8M
- Chelsea - £376.6M
- Cardiff City - £381.4M
- Liverpool - £395.5M
- Sunderland - £405.6M
- Aston Villa - £413.8M
- Wolverhampton Wanderers - Skip
- Arsenal - £443M
- Nottingham Forest - £530.7M
- Everton - £569M
- Southend United - £571.8M
- Manchester United - £656.1M
Barnsley's turn (@spontaneus1)
Note: due to me playing Leicester City today, they will be unmanaged until tomorrow so don't put bid in until they're managed again.
@LungiDevil please reapply. We'll put a rule in that bids must be disclosed and not to change it/increase above the initial max value for fairness. I was reluctant to do so as it is had to enforce but we need to do something.
New rule
Fairest thing for all.
Fairest thing for all.
It's something that needed to be done - though if you hadn't resigned and just voiced your feelings we would have changed anyway. I've complained about it in the soccerwiki discord and hopefully it is something that'll be fixed when the "big update" happens.OK will do. Sheesh feel like a drama queen now
Welcome back
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,316
- Supports
️
I disagree that it’s fair.
Why not say you can only bid the day after a player is added. That way the price changes don’t impact anyone.
What you’re putting in place would make it unfair on those who haven’t seen the player until the next morning by then it may be too late to put in a higher bid.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,316
- Supports
- ️
For example let’s say a wonder kid gets added so someone decides to sell a player for cash to make space for them and plans on bidding on that player the next morning. They could miss out because of this new rule.
This needs to be thought through and so I don’t see why we don’t just say new players cannot be bid on until the next day. That way the price rises will happen with plenty of time for most people to react?
This needs to be thought through and so I don’t see why we don’t just say new players cannot be bid on until the next day. That way the price rises will happen with plenty of time for most people to react?
No it wouldn't. We'd still end up with issues like @LungiDevil had. Feel free to make a discussion chat about it in the SM gameworld but delaying the bidding by 24 hours is just going to cause the same problems. All it means is that it gives people more time to sell x or y player, in which case they should have sold the player before bidding started anyway. I always leave a place free.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,316
- Supports
- ️
I say this as someone who generally is able to bid on players first thing in the morning and have been affected by price rises too I am more thinking of people who don’t access the game on the same GMT time scale
Lungi is one of them. Delaying bidding by 24 hours is just going to cause same issues as price will still change at an uncomfortable time, which would result in people still missing out as they miss withdrawing and increasing bid.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,316
- Supports
- ️
It doesn’t personally affect me much at all as I’m usually on each morning checking the new player list but I do think later bidders are going to be affected a lot by this rule.
SM price changes usually occur around 9:00-10:00am GMT the next day so let’s say some poor sod doesn’t log in one day and the next day sees the next Lionel Messi with bids on but now can’t bid on them because they’d have to offer a higher price to do so.
I’m not sure that it’s fair whereas if you said to people you can bid the next day from 10:00am GMT or something you then allow for the price changes and give people time to bid on new players.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,316
- Supports
- ️
If you delay the bidding until the price change time though then no issue exists. People essentially get 24hours to check for the new player and place a bid on top of anytime after the first bid.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,316
- Supports
- ️
Also a lot easier to enforce that too as everyone will likely bid max which will be the higher fee too. So no sneaky “I forgot the rule”
"Price change time" varies on the player. With your suggestion there is still a significant chance that the player will increase in value, people will remove and resubmit bids and some people still miss out on the change.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,316
- Supports
- ️
It doesn’t vary as much as you think though. It’s generally between 9:00am and 10:00am and if we stick with 10:00am GMT the next day it gives everyone plenty of time to be ready for a bid.
There is very little chance that most people will end up resubmitting bids after the price change it solves the issue. Otherwise you have people who might only see the player the next morning who could have bid on the player unable to do so because they are being forced to bid higher than the rest by the game but not allowed to do so because of an external rule.
Think we should vote on this.
Obviously i don't want managers leaving so something has to be done. Your suggestion would be good if i could still bid the same amount as everyone else even after a price change, but game doesn't allow that. So as Benito said, if i only see the a player after his price has changed - i'm not allowed to bid at all? Seems unfair
Obviously i don't want managers leaving so something has to be done. Your suggestion would be good if i could still bid the same amount as everyone else even after a price change, but game doesn't allow that. So as Benito said, if i only see the a player after his price has changed - i'm not allowed to bid at all? Seems unfair
There'll be a vote, don't worry, but there is going to be a change. There's about 20+ hours on average before a player's price has changed which I think gives plenty of time for people to see a player. Ideally there'd be no increases at all and I'm campaigning soccermanager to change that but until then something has to be done.
Options for tomorrow's vote are presently:
a) The max bid on the first available value for external/unmanaged players is the only bid that can be matched by all clubs and bids must be public. No exceptions.
b) Don't allow bids on players for the first 24 hours after they're added. After that, everything is fair game.
Or option c) keep rules the way they are right?
Obviously i'm all for levelling the playing field, but both suggestions have flaws and don't really accomplish that.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,316
- Supports
- ️
Option D)
Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.
Trust me that will solve 99% of the issue here which is people missing the price change. The first option still has a price change issue whereby someone logging in later can’t bid if it goes up.
Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.
Trust me that will solve 99% of the issue here which is people missing the price change. The first option still has a price change issue whereby someone logging in later can’t bid if it goes up.
Option D (which is option B, as that is supposed to be your option) would still have people missing the price change. I think @spontaneus1 was the first to bid on Blanco, and his bid was after 10am GMT. Leeds, Hereford, Barnsley, Chelsea and Southampton all missed out on the increase.
Sure but more people would quit under option c than if any of the other options came into effect and I'm sorry but I don't want to see the league die like that.
I'm with damos one, waiting 30 hours before bidding will just feck things up.
DRAFT (LEICESTER CITY)
# of players available: 25 (due to minimum squad size of 21, loans not included)
Rules
Norwich City (@Maradona10) turn
Note: due to me playing Leicester City today, they will be unmanaged until tomorrow so don't put bid in until they're managed again.
# of players available: 25 (due to minimum squad size of 21, loans not included)
Rules
- Refer to "Draft Order"
- 12 hours per pick, starts now. Miss out means you relinquish your pick
- Declare your pick, then bid (doesn't have to wait until draft is finished)
- Inform the next person in draft order
- Cash only. No P/E
- Squad value <100m: 1.1x FV
- Squad value 100m-200m: 1.3x FV
- Squad value 200m-400m: 1.5x FV
- Squad value >400m: 2x FV
- You can skip if you want to, and/or if you are unable to bid (skipping in advance is encouraged)
- Must comply with FFP
- NEW: Bid must be made within two weeks of your pick otherwise you forfeit the player
- After draft is completed, Damien will check if rules are followed before accepting those bids
- After all bids have gone through, Damien will withdraw from Leicester City
- Preston North End - Jean-Philippe Mateta (£10.4M)
- Gillingham - Kelechi Iheanacho (£7.02M)
- Derby County - Missed Out
- Charlton Athletic - Missed Out
- Leeds United - Mahmoud Dahoud (£9.1M)
- Kidderminster Harriers - Skip
- Bury - Missed Out
- Ipswich Town - Skip
- Leyton Orient - Skip
- Bristol City - Ben Nelson (£270k)
- Tottenham Hotspur - Missed Out
- Southampton - Missed Out
- Blackburn Rovers - Missed Out
- Barnsley - Skip
- Norwich City - £286M
- Bournemouth - £286.6M
- Milton Keynes Dons - £295M
- West Ham United - Skip
- Manchester City - £309.8M
- Darlington - £334.8M TRANSFER BANNED
- Fulham - £346.1M TRANSFER BANNED
- Hereford - £349.8M
- Newcastle United - Skip
- Middlesbrough - £358.8M
- Chelsea - £376.6M
- Cardiff City - £381.4M
- Liverpool - £395.5M
- Sunderland - £405.6M
- Aston Villa - £413.8M
- Wolverhampton Wanderers - Skip
- Arsenal - £443M
- Nottingham Forest - £530.7M
- Everton - Skip
- Southend United - £571.8M
- Manchester United - £656.1M
Norwich City (@Maradona10) turn
Note: due to me playing Leicester City today, they will be unmanaged until tomorrow so don't put bid in until they're managed again.
Last edited:
I am always one for complicating things and making it harder.
I suggest we take the decision making out of the AI, when needed.
So everyone bids in public until there is price increase. If you need to bid after that, send your bid to @Damien (of course you get the responsibility). Once the system accepts the bids, if there are additional bids on time in Damo's inbox, he runs a random number generator (possibly a shared google spreadsheet) to determine which bid wins the player. All others have to retract their bids.
Pros: Totally fair. My prediction is that very rarely will we need to use the non-AI method, as usually the bids get in early enough.
Cons: If we have do to use the non-AI method, we need to trust someone (nominating @Damien), it is additional work/complexity (nominating @Damien), people need to withdraw bids on time and the worst case if the bid goes through to another player, the AI winner needs to sell to the league determined winner when the transferred player's ban is up.
I suggest we take the decision making out of the AI, when needed.
So everyone bids in public until there is price increase. If you need to bid after that, send your bid to @Damien (of course you get the responsibility). Once the system accepts the bids, if there are additional bids on time in Damo's inbox, he runs a random number generator (possibly a shared google spreadsheet) to determine which bid wins the player. All others have to retract their bids.
Pros: Totally fair. My prediction is that very rarely will we need to use the non-AI method, as usually the bids get in early enough.
Cons: If we have do to use the non-AI method, we need to trust someone (nominating @Damien), it is additional work/complexity (nominating @Damien), people need to withdraw bids on time and the worst case if the bid goes through to another player, the AI winner needs to sell to the league determined winner when the transferred player's ban is up.
My only counter point to that is that - We are effectively shortening the bid window from roughly 24 hrs to 20 hrs or so. We are in effect moving an already existing deadline from one milestone (system accepting bids) to another (system rising prices) and that change is not that drastic.
The reduction of that 4 hrs should have less of an impact on everyone, than the price changes happening systematically in that four hour window, which disproportionately affects some players. My $.02.
Of course, we can also try the overcomplicated stuff I wrote above.
Edit: I quoted the wrong post. I am trying to mitigate the concern that people who don't see bids until later will find this unfair.
Sounds good to me. The price changes during the middle of the night and early mornings is one of the most rediculous things in the game.
I know why you suggested it but not completely comfortable doing that, especially given I'm likely going to be involved in a few of the bidding wars. If it were to happen it would need to be someone not involved in SM.
Do agree with you though that it is a rarity that bids would be made after the first 20ish hours.
Options for tomorrow's vote are now presently:
a) The max bid on the first available value for external/unmanaged players is the only bid that can be matched by all clubs and bids must be public. This bid cannot be changed and increased after the player value goes up. No exceptions.
b) Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.
c) Keep things as they were before yesterday and kill off the league.
Do have to say with regards to (a) that it isn't the worst thing in the world if one of the original bids is undisclosed as long as it isn't withdrawn and remade after the prices increase. All/as many as possible should ideally be disclosed tough to drum the new rule into people if it is approved in the vote.
My view: I have noticed price changes usually happen between 8.15-8.45 GMT the day after players are added. This applies if a bid was made or not. Maybe there is further info in the forums. So for good measure, a cut off of 10.00 GMT which is 26hrs after player is added could work.
Option A would be okay too. Perhaps prone to some player flouting the rules. Let's be honest it won't stay well with any of us. FFP like self compliance needed.
Perhaps Option B would avoid self compliance to an extent. And if someone did bid, there would be sometime to let the manager know privately or through intermediary.
Option A would be okay too. Perhaps prone to some player flouting the rules. Let's be honest it won't stay well with any of us. FFP like self compliance needed.
Perhaps Option B would avoid self compliance to an extent. And if someone did bid, there would be sometime to let the manager know privately or through intermediary.
Drew 1:1 to Aston Villa
Oblak (95)
Stones (90)↓ Ramos (95) Boateng (92)↓ Alaba (94)
Rice (90)↓ Goretzka (93)
Sancho (92)
-- Eriksen (92) -- Sterling (94)
Mbappe (95)
Subs: Trent (93), Kounde (90)↑, Gaya (91)↑, Van Dijk (96), Zakaria (91)↑, Pulisic (91), Mina (89)
Did not travel: Dest (87), Pedri (87), Reyna (86), Bellingham (86)
Key:
= Goal
= Assist
= MOTM
↓ = Subbed off
↑ = Subbed on
Next three games:
LSR4: Leicester City (A)
MD20: Tottenham Hotspur (A)
MD21: Bournemouth (H)
Manchester United v Aston Villa fixtures this season
Oblak (95)
Stones (90)↓ Ramos (95) Boateng (92)↓ Alaba (94)
Rice (90)↓ Goretzka (93)
Sancho (92)
-- Eriksen (92) -- Sterling (94)Mbappe (95)
Subs: Trent (93), Kounde (90)↑, Gaya (91)↑, Van Dijk (96), Zakaria (91)↑, Pulisic (91), Mina (89)
Did not travel: Dest (87), Pedri (87), Reyna (86), Bellingham (86)
Key:
= Goal = Assist = MOTM↓ = Subbed off
↑ = Subbed on
Next three games:
LSR4: Leicester City (A)
MD20: Tottenham Hotspur (A)
MD21: Bournemouth (H)
Manchester United v Aston Villa fixtures this season
| Game | Utd Poss | Aston Villa Poss | Utd Shots (SoT) | Aston Villa Shots (SoT) | Utd Goals | Aston Villa Goals | Utd SoT Conv. | Aston Villa SoT Conv. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
11th April: Utd v Aston Villa | 54% | 46% | 13 (5) | 8 (3) | 1 | 1 | 20% | 33.3% |
Combined | 54% | 46% | 13 (5) | 8 (3) | 1 | 1 | 20% | 33.3% |
Because sometimes the value does not change until people make their bids.
The proposed change is the best one. If you remember to check newly added players you are rewarded for it. If you forget, then c'est la vie maddafakka.
@The Taurean this was me against Aston Villa less than a year ago. I do think we'll avoid each other in the SMFA though.
Feck. I guess we are going to play 6 times this season. I would be happy with progressing in the cup.
You should progress in both. My depth isn't what it used to be.
2:0 victory against Leicester City, setting me up against Forest in both the Cup and Shield QFs.
Oblak (95)
Dest (87) Kounde (90)↓ Boateng (92)↓ Gaya (91)
Rice (90)↓ Zakaria (91)
Reyna (86) -- Pulisic (91) -- Pedri (87)
Mina (89)
Subs: Trent (93), Van Dijk (96) Stones (90)↑, Ramos (95), Leite (84)↑, Bellingham (86)↑, Mbappe (95)
Did not travel: Alaba (94), Sterling (94), Goretzka (93), Eriksen (92), Sancho (92)
Key:
= Goal
= Assist
= MOTM
↓ = Subbed off
↑ = Subbed on
Next three games:
MD20: Tottenham Hotspur (A)
MD21: Bournemouth (H)
LCQF: Nottingham Forest (A)
Manchester United v Leicester City fixtures this season
Oblak (95)
Dest (87) Kounde (90)↓ Boateng (92)↓ Gaya (91)
Rice (90)↓ Zakaria (91)
Reyna (86)
-- Pulisic (91) -- Pedri (87)Mina (89)
Subs: Trent (93), Van Dijk (96) Stones (90)↑, Ramos (95), Leite (84)↑, Bellingham (86)↑, Mbappe (95)
Did not travel: Alaba (94), Sterling (94), Goretzka (93), Eriksen (92), Sancho (92)
Key:
= Goal = Assist = MOTM↓ = Subbed off
↑ = Subbed on
Next three games:
MD20: Tottenham Hotspur (A)
MD21: Bournemouth (H)
LCQF: Nottingham Forest (A)
Manchester United v Leicester City fixtures this season
| Game | Utd Poss | Leicester City Poss | Utd Shots (SoT) | Leicester City Shots (SoT) | Utd Goals | Leicester City Goals | Utd SoT Conv. | Leicester City SoT Conv. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13th April: Leicester City v Utd | 63% | 37% | 16 (10) | 5 (1) | 2 | 0 | 20% | 0% |
Combined | 63% | 37% | 16 (10) | 5 (1) | 2 | 0 | 20% | 0% |
Nice impartiality there. If you are sure that waiting to make changes until we have actual good suggestions would lead to people leaving then the vote will surely reflect it, don’t worry
Last edited:
For enforcing this how about a draft ban for rule breakers, everyone likes a good old draft so a 5 draft ban would be a decent incentive not to re bid or bid straight away (and leave it)
POLL (Vote now)
a) The max bid on the first available value for external/unmanaged players is the only bid that can be matched by all clubs and bids must be public. This bid cannot be changed and increased after the player value goes up. No exceptions.
b) Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.
c) Keep things as they were before yesterday where you can change bid whenever you want.
a) The max bid on the first available value for external/unmanaged players is the only bid that can be matched by all clubs and bids must be public. This bid cannot be changed and increased after the player value goes up. No exceptions.
b) Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.
c) Keep things as they were before yesterday where you can change bid whenever you want.
A - Reduces amount of people that can participate in bidding wars as timeframe to bid is reduced from 24 to 18 hours. It also takes away the reward from people who are willing to dedicate themselves in order to improve their squad. Result: Fewer clubs get an opportunity to even bid. Those who manage to do so have any possibility of an edge taken away, so players will be evenly distributed over time. Good for clubs already at the top, even harder for smaller ones to gain any sort of advantage.
B - Essentially same thing as we have now.
C - Not perfect as people miss out on price increases. Still it preserves the competitive nature of the game where players putting in more time will get rewarded for it. This at least creates the opportunity for smaller clubs to catch up to the big ones. Even distribution is a nice idea if all parties were equally strong. In our case we should be making rules that at least have an opportunity to favour the smaller sides.
I vote C)
B - Essentially same thing as we have now.
C - Not perfect as people miss out on price increases. Still it preserves the competitive nature of the game where players putting in more time will get rewarded for it. This at least creates the opportunity for smaller clubs to catch up to the big ones. Even distribution is a nice idea if all parties were equally strong. In our case we should be making rules that at least have an opportunity to favour the smaller sides.
I vote C)