Press conference
1.1
Trade/Lending players:
Team made a trade offer
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Started to play in a new team after a trade
--
105 S
8 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Started to play in a new team after a trade
--
105 S
8 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
This trade was reported as unfair. However, the Fair play committee decided that this trade is fair.
--
105 S
9 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
How the Fair Play Committee members voted:
- volunteers voted "Revert and punish": 0
- volunteers voted "Revert": 2
- volunteers voted "Fair": 4
These reasons were chosen by the volunteers during voting:
2 - Suspicion that trade’s goal is to help one of the teams
-- 105 S 9 d.
- volunteers voted "Revert and punish": 0
- volunteers voted "Revert": 2
- volunteers voted "Fair": 4
These reasons were chosen by the volunteers during voting:
2 - Suspicion that trade’s goal is to help one of the teams
-- 105 S 9 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
1.1
I would like to know how it's possible a trade involving a very good wl1 level player (multiple awards are displayed) with a long contract traded fro a common wl3 (max) player has been marked as fair. If this is correct everything is fair
--
105 S
9 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
Hey! After a report is submitted due to suspected unfair trading, each team has the opportunity to provide comments to one or all FPC members. If additional information is shared with us, we assess the situation on a case-by-case basis, as it was done in this scenario.
Please note, however, that not all explanations will necessarily change the assessment of fairness or unfairness. -- 105 S 10 d.
Please note, however, that not all explanations will necessarily change the assessment of fairness or unfairness. -- 105 S 10 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Of course that everybody can explain his point of view, but I still cannot understand why this trade has been considered fair. Not for salaries (28k vs 0), not for actual or future player values. I just want to clarify my point of view for future trades: a similar trade can allow every user to justify their own because it's clearly and totally unbalanced and, for members of FPC, I think you should better explain to every user the reasons of this decision because it seems to me (and other users) that rules are weak for someone and hard for others
--
105 S
10 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+1
If you review the history of reported trades, you'll notice that sometimes a 10 POT player with a 360 RT potential is traded for someone with a 260 RT potential, and the FPC still deems the trade fair. This is because various factors influence a player's actual value - some players are poorly trained and don't reflect their full 10 POT potential, while others, despite being well-trained, may become less effective due to changes in the game engine.
Scouting timing also matters: for example, a 7 POT player drafted at age 14 will almost always outperform a 10 POT player drafted at 20+ years old by the time they reach their peak. These kinds of nuances are crucial to understanding trade fairness.
That’s why collaboration with the FPC is both necessary and beneficial. Without additional context or information, we can only evaluate the facts available to us at the time.
During this week new FPC report for season 104 should appear. Some clarities might come here as well. -- 105 S 10 d.
Scouting timing also matters: for example, a 7 POT player drafted at age 14 will almost always outperform a 10 POT player drafted at 20+ years old by the time they reach their peak. These kinds of nuances are crucial to understanding trade fairness.
That’s why collaboration with the FPC is both necessary and beneficial. Without additional context or information, we can only evaluate the facts available to us at the time.
During this week new FPC report for season 104 should appear. Some clarities might come here as well. -- 105 S 10 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0