Spaudos konferencija
1.1
Mainai/Žaidėjų skolinimas:
Komanda pateikė mainų pasiūlymą
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Dėl įvykusių mainų pradėjo žaisti naujoje komandoje
--
67 sez.
27 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Dėl įvykusių mainų pradėjo žaisti naujoje komandoje
--
67 sez.
27 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Dėl įvykusių mainų pradėjo žaisti naujoje komandoje
--
67 sez.
27 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Mainų pasiūlymas priimtas
--
67 sez.
27 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
"Sąžiningo žaidimo" komiteto sprendimu mainai buvo anuliuoti
--
67 sez.
30 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Is this a joke? - 0 sense. Team had to dump its salaries due to financial problems, the same team offered me a reasonable trade that made sense for both sides, yet it has been reverted? if this was not "fair trade", I really don't know what is. I understand that some members or this "committee" are absolutely triggered even hearing my name, but You know what - this is straight up dumb. I am baffled, unbelievable.
--
67 sez.
30 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
best cheater in game history definetely
--
67 sez.
30 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
go go go treideris keep tryin
--
67 sez.
30 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
7.57
Ah yes, mister "I have just no comments about the lack of integrity..." trying to cheat. Ironic.
--
67 sez.
30 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Ah, yes, let the strom of bs start, love it.
Boyz, are any of You member of that comittee? Or You just making noise?:) -- 67 sez. 30 d.
Boyz, are any of You member of that comittee? Or You just making noise?:) -- 67 sez. 30 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
1.1
I don't see what's going on here....
I see no foul play.
Most certainly, I'm off the trading market until the rules are certain for everyone. There is just too much uncertainty right now.
Enjoy! -- 67 sez. 30 d.
I see no foul play.
Most certainly, I'm off the trading market until the rules are certain for everyone. There is just too much uncertainty right now.
Enjoy! -- 67 sez. 30 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
Normalus mainai
--
67 sez.
30 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
2.2
The trade is not normal:
1.- 2 players vs 1 player
2.- age / Potentials: 27/8 + 25/5 vs 29/3
3.- wages: 14798 (3s) +11685 (4S) vs 20500 (3seasions) is only cheap 6.5k
4.- RT: 286 + 253 vs 297
it is not normal trade
it is right that this trade be eliminated because it is not fair
regards HF and GL -- 67 sez. 30 d.
1.- 2 players vs 1 player
2.- age / Potentials: 27/8 + 25/5 vs 29/3
3.- wages: 14798 (3s) +11685 (4S) vs 20500 (3seasions) is only cheap 6.5k
4.- RT: 286 + 253 vs 297
it is not normal trade
it is right that this trade be eliminated because it is not fair
regards HF and GL -- 67 sez. 30 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
juan, with all respect, in Your place I would sit quiet in the corner. Your last trade seems much more dodgy than the one we have here:
https://www.basketpulse.com/lv/Trade/information/930507
None of Your 4 points make aNY SENSE, but even if they would - Your own trade would not fit points 2/3/4. as far it seems, You switched Your old player to identical one just 8 (!) years younger, just bs, yet nobody cared.
I love that everyone have their opinions, yet nobody from this wannabe "comittee" has spoken here -> I agree to my Italian colleague, 0 certainity here, just no clue what the hell is happening.
For those that scream that I have cheated or anything -> well, piss off. the real loser in this trade is the other team - it has already lost its key players due to money shortage, most probably, it will lose another one (probably, PG of this trade). Did the star comittee take this aspect into the consideration before calling this trade unfair? - well, the answer is pretty clear here. -- 67 sez. 31 d.
https://www.basketpulse.com/lv/Trade/information/930507None of Your 4 points make aNY SENSE, but even if they would - Your own trade would not fit points 2/3/4. as far it seems, You switched Your old player to identical one just 8 (!) years younger, just bs, yet nobody cared.
I love that everyone have their opinions, yet nobody from this wannabe "comittee" has spoken here -> I agree to my Italian colleague, 0 certainity here, just no clue what the hell is happening.
For those that scream that I have cheated or anything -> well, piss off. the real loser in this trade is the other team - it has already lost its key players due to money shortage, most probably, it will lose another one (probably, PG of this trade). Did the star comittee take this aspect into the consideration before calling this trade unfair? - well, the answer is pretty clear here. -- 67 sez. 31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Process: This trade was reported to the FTC (9 members) by multiple members of the basketpulse community. Once it is reported the trade is posted for the FTC to look into the trade. The discussion concluded that this trade was suspect in that one team in WL4 with only 6 WL4 level players traded two players for one. Yes this trade reduced cost of the WL4 team, but decreased players to 5 and caused the team to take on a player with a very high salary for a WL4 team on the brink of bankruptcy. This would not likely in the end decrease their payroll as he would have to add players to make up the fact that he had few players on the team. The expensive player also was 29 years old, only 90% health, and 3 long seasons of declined performance for 2 players younger, long contracts, and cheaper. In a case such as this, a member will contact one or both teams (in this case only Zemgale was contacted) and asked to explain the rationale in deciding to make this trade. The suspicion was that maybe this team was closing soon after. Zemgale was contacted by Thrustmaster but Zemgale failed to give a response. The FTC then moved forward with the vote where overwhelmingly it was voted to revert.
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Coach, ok, atleast we have some sort of explanation here.
The only question is why only one of the 2 involved sides was approached? - manager of Zemgale has proven to be very passive when it comes to comunication, but that is nothing criminal, as far as I am concerned. I had the same problems with him. despite this, after approaching him personally again and again, we did speak and negotiated this deal -> I could have provided screenshots of this convo with all the arguments from both sides.
Whatevs, it is what it is, but I stick to my last take - the only team that is getting screwed here (by this revert) is Zemgale, his financials are all messed up and there doesn't seem to be a way out as all out-going trades can be treated as "not fair", yet he has resources to fire those players. -- 67 sez. 31 d.
The only question is why only one of the 2 involved sides was approached? - manager of Zemgale has proven to be very passive when it comes to comunication, but that is nothing criminal, as far as I am concerned. I had the same problems with him. despite this, after approaching him personally again and again, we did speak and negotiated this deal -> I could have provided screenshots of this convo with all the arguments from both sides.
Whatevs, it is what it is, but I stick to my last take - the only team that is getting screwed here (by this revert) is Zemgale, his financials are all messed up and there doesn't seem to be a way out as all out-going trades can be treated as "not fair", yet he has resources to fire those players. -- 67 sez. 31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
* no resources to fire unnecasary players
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
It was explained, Thrustmaster contacted him as it appeared that this was a trade that would be made by a team with the intent of closing. In now way shape or form would it fix his situation. Cutting players or trading them in one for 2 deals for cheaper players would make more sense than brining in a very expensive 20k salaried player on a WL4 team that still had 3 seasons contract, old, soon to be declining. For a WL4 team the in this situation the trade made no sense and looked extremely suspect in that he was giving up cheaper younger players - 2 at that - reducing his roster to 5. The players he would have to get to replace the players he traded would have increased his salary. We sought answers from him because his situation and why he made the trade. We knew why you did. He failed after to reply to Thrustmaster, given about 2 days to do so. We are not going to hold up the reported trades for managers that we give all the chance in the world to explain but don't. Trade looked terrible given teams situation so a revert was end result of the vote.
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
In response to you r *no resources - Again he had ample time to reply but chose not to. He could also have traded them for cheaper independently and not lose the amount of players he had.
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
His trade did not obtain a cheaper player in the sense that he would have to add one from the market to bet back to 6 players WL4 level players.
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Thanks to your actions I will not go out of bankrot. And next week i lost J. Cekuls however and after 1 more week i lost one more good player. May bankrupt go deeper. But after thet deal and after i lost A. Chantland next week i probable can go out of bankrot. Thanks.
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Then share the information to me in a different way to get out of bankruptcy
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Trade to cheaper players
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
yes you could have traded for players cheaper than the Chantland
Something you are missing in your logic is that with the trade you lose two good players and Chantland’s salary gets paid when he leaves the team for bankruptcy, his salary by itself will almost be equally to that of the two players which will drive you further into bankruptcy this week, resulting in definite bankruptcy the following week because you wouldn’t have relief of his salary off the books until the following Sunday, so Saturday you would still be bankrupt. So now users will see it as a gift of good players in order to eliminate a 29 year old 90% health 3 year contract that isn’t as good as his rate would suggest and declining soon.
If your goal is to get out of bankruptcy trade for players with as close to 30% less salary, if you search enough you will find takers. This trade took on 2k more than 30% less would have. -- 67 sez. 31 d.
Something you are missing in your logic is that with the trade you lose two good players and Chantland’s salary gets paid when he leaves the team for bankruptcy, his salary by itself will almost be equally to that of the two players which will drive you further into bankruptcy this week, resulting in definite bankruptcy the following week because you wouldn’t have relief of his salary off the books until the following Sunday, so Saturday you would still be bankrupt. So now users will see it as a gift of good players in order to eliminate a 29 year old 90% health 3 year contract that isn’t as good as his rate would suggest and declining soon.
If your goal is to get out of bankruptcy trade for players with as close to 30% less salary, if you search enough you will find takers. This trade took on 2k more than 30% less would have. -- 67 sez. 31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Coach, You have only 1 reasonable point here - the maximum decrease in salaries Zemgale could have was 8k, through this trade these were "only" 6k, so it's 2k inefficiency. Everything else is just shots in the dark and nothing more.
You called his 2 players "good", but based on what? are You aware of their skills or just random guessing here? based on their stats, these players are mediocre at best -> after my convo with the other team, I had the feeling that probably these players could have been wrongly used, that's why I went for this trade.
With regards to Chant, I completely disagree. 300 RT player with minimum salary of 18k locked in 3-season deal for salary 20k, this is horrible contract? You must be trolling, really. Than comes the argument about his health - somehow, 90% is suddenly another bad indicator. The average health of 29yr old player is between 75-80%, get back to reality, for crying out loud. and then comes the magical phrase of "not as good as rating would suggest" -> how can You come up with these shallow comments now knowing his skills? based on stats and compared with the 2 players I was recieving here, this guy was head and shoulders above both.
The end conclusion here is simple, atleast for me - the trade MaDE some sense for both sides, after long debates You had to come up with assumption-over-assumption-OVER-assumption to draw picture which would highlight potentially "unfair trade". as far as I am concerned, that is bullshit - on daily basis there are many more doubtful and dodgy trades being made that DO NOT DRaW any attention. If Zemgale had made the same trade WITH aNY OTHER TEam, it wouldn't be revesed. Through this, someone might think that they are restricting me, but the only team that is being negatively affected by this revert is Zemgale -> I feel sorry for him and encourage him to look for other trade partners whose name would not involve "treideris".
That's it from my side, I don't have anything left to say here.
T. -- 67 sez. 31 d.
You called his 2 players "good", but based on what? are You aware of their skills or just random guessing here? based on their stats, these players are mediocre at best -> after my convo with the other team, I had the feeling that probably these players could have been wrongly used, that's why I went for this trade.
With regards to Chant, I completely disagree. 300 RT player with minimum salary of 18k locked in 3-season deal for salary 20k, this is horrible contract? You must be trolling, really. Than comes the argument about his health - somehow, 90% is suddenly another bad indicator. The average health of 29yr old player is between 75-80%, get back to reality, for crying out loud. and then comes the magical phrase of "not as good as rating would suggest" -> how can You come up with these shallow comments now knowing his skills? based on stats and compared with the 2 players I was recieving here, this guy was head and shoulders above both.
The end conclusion here is simple, atleast for me - the trade MaDE some sense for both sides, after long debates You had to come up with assumption-over-assumption-OVER-assumption to draw picture which would highlight potentially "unfair trade". as far as I am concerned, that is bullshit - on daily basis there are many more doubtful and dodgy trades being made that DO NOT DRaW any attention. If Zemgale had made the same trade WITH aNY OTHER TEam, it wouldn't be revesed. Through this, someone might think that they are restricting me, but the only team that is being negatively affected by this revert is Zemgale -> I feel sorry for him and encourage him to look for other trade partners whose name would not involve "treideris".
That's it from my side, I don't have anything left to say here.
T. -- 67 sez. 31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Looks like we saved you. You still have brilliant Chatland instead of 2 crappy players.
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
and it looks like You have problems reading (or understanding) English - I advise You to carefully re-read my last answer.:)
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
As far as good, I was using your definitions of good (your other game) and him saying he would lose another good player,to me none are good but I am sure they are to some WL4 teams. The best point I make in this is that either way he loses 2 players that were deemed good by the two of you for a player that will get cut due to bankruptcy anyways. So now really appears to be a gift of 2 players.
--
67 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Rules:
5) You are not allowed to just give away the “unnecessary” players to other clubs (you are not allowed to make any gifts, etc.). If you want to get rid of a player, you have to fire him.
6) All exchanges with a club, that is bogus (a club that is about to be closed, a club that is made for “trash” storage, a club which exchanges are illogical, etc.) is considered to be cheati
ng. -- 67 sez. 31 d.
5) You are not allowed to just give away the “unnecessary” players to other clubs (you are not allowed to make any gifts, etc.). If you want to get rid of a player, you have to fire him.
6) All exchanges with a club, that is bogus (a club that is about to be closed, a club that is made for “trash” storage, a club which exchanges are illogical, etc.) is considered to be cheati
ng. -- 67 sez. 31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
As I'm reading this, I have to say everyone makes his case compelling :)
Still, it turns out, trading is a risky business: how in the world should I reckon if my trade partner is going to end bankrupt, or leave the game point blank like so many others did?
I'd rather say a preemptive NO, THANKS -- 67 sez. 31 d.
Still, it turns out, trading is a risky business: how in the world should I reckon if my trade partner is going to end bankrupt, or leave the game point blank like so many others did?
I'd rather say a preemptive NO, THANKS -- 67 sez. 31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2