Informacje handlowe

Zaakceptowano

Informacje
Rozpoczęcie negocjacji	2020-08-03- 20:59
Koniec negocjacji	2020-08-03- 21:01
Poziom ograniczeń	9

Iso Reapers

	Jake Peralta
	Wynagrodzenie:	6436 Eu
	Umowa:	4 S	Wiek:	19 l.
	RT:	126	Wzrost:	203 cm
	Potencjał:	8
	Nate Noke
	Wynagrodzenie:	2520 Eu
	Umowa:	1 S	Wiek:	18 l.
	RT:	99	Wzrost:	210 cm
	Potencjał:	7
	Dale Andrews
	Wynagrodzenie:	-
	Umowa:	Szkolny talent	Wiek:	15 l.
	RT:	44	Wzrost:	187 cm
	Potencjał:	8

NW Shockwave

	Pinchas Alfandari
	Wynagrodzenie:	13778 Eu
	Umowa:	5 S	Wiek:	20 l.
	RT:	183	Wzrost:	202 cm
	Potencjał:	6

Wymiana/Zawodnicy do wypożyczenia: Reapers & Shockwave

-- 77 S 1 d.

Drużyna złożyła ofertę wymiany

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+0

Zawodnik: Jake Peralta

Rozpoczął grę w nowej drużynie po wymianie. -- 77 S 1 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+0

Zawodnik:

Rozpoczął grę w nowej drużynie po wymianie. -- 77 S 1 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+0

Zawodnik:

Rozpoczął grę w nowej drużynie po wymianie. -- 77 S 1 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+0

Zawodnik:

Rozpoczął grę w nowej drużynie po wymianie. -- 77 S 1 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+0

Oferta wymiany przyjęta -- 77 S 1 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+0

Komitet Fair Play

Ta wymiana została zgłoszona jako nieuczciwa. Jednak komisja Fair play uznała, że ta wymiana jest zgodna z zasadami -- 77 S 3 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+0

Komitet Fair Play

How the Fair Play Committee members voted:<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert and punish": 0<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert": 5<br />
- volunteers voted "Fair": 6<br />
<br />
These reasons were chosen by the volunteers during voting:<br />
1 - Significantly unfair to other users (for example, when strong and cheap player is moved to lower division).<br />
2 - Overuse of disbalanced trades. Players' trade somehow has to benefit both teams (financially, in respect of team composition, etc). Good but expensive player can be traded to a bit worse but cheaper player. This type of trade can not be overused.<br />
<br />
2 - Other reasons. Volunteers wrote explanations: <br />
--- <br />
--- not a fair trade in terms of player quality, too much one-sided trade.<br />
-- 77 S 3 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+0

2.2 4.4 Frankebasta

Excuse me, I see that there are 11 votes.
And on the page of FPC I see there are 11 members of FPC - TOTAL.
Balotelli is among them.
Does it mean Ballotelli was _ALLOWED_ (???!!!@@@***???) to vote ON HIS OWN TRADE?
and he was the decisive vote?
ARE YOU KIDDING? -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+3

Ballotelli did not vote. FPC member can't vote on own trades. -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+2

1.1 5.9 bananajohn

frankebasta one of members left fpc -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+1

2.2 4.4 Frankebasta

bananajohn do you mean he left AFTER this vote? -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+1

I think we should reconsider going back to a trade system without any restrictions since that's how trade system works for most of the clubs. :) Let's make it fair for everyone as long it's not the same owner or friends behind 2 trading teams -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+1

funny to me to see sudden uproar over a trade of two 8s and a trash 7 that gets cut for a 9 where neither of the 8s will have a chance to get to the level that the 9 will be :). but whatever. -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+1

I think it's more about all the trades that been happening. I seen some ridiculous trades that got reverted, the ones banana did, the lion(not sure if him) did and got reverted like 3 times in a row, even if it was completely logical. Only problem clubs have is different treatment which is absolutely disgraceful -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+2

I agree
I made some recommendations quite some time ago that would have fixed a lot of the situations that you mention and would make the FPC more consistent. My suggestions were not embraced by the community then nor the administration..
By the way, I don't recall any time that there were no restrcitons on trades. It must have been long before I started playing. that would not be the way to go, but making the restrictions the same for all, I completely agree with it. I say this and I have a 10 level. My situation is a little different than some of the other 10 level managers, my 10 wasn't due to investment in the game,.but for my commitment to developing a solid USA community and members of other communities. -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+1

my suggestion was to revert to what was mostly the pre-fpc restrictions for all with just a couple of tweaks on restrictions.
This would still allow a lot of trading as there was a lot of trading before the FPC
it would make it easier for the FPC to analyze trades and make it more consistent (which we all want).
no restrictions would open the door to some crazy trades that would not be good for the game as you suggested. There are way too many issues with that idea, I don't want to list them,.just use your imagination some and I am sure you can come up.with some. -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+1

anyways I don't see it changing,.even to a more consistent sensible direction. if it did, members that invested in the trade system would still need to have some considerations somewhere - they "improved" the game. -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+1

well.their investment was intended to. -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+1

That suggestion was ironical seeing same trades reverted or approved judging just who is the owner of the team. -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+1

Pokaż ukryte odpowiedzi: 19

the way it is now, it is difficult for the FPC to analyze what is "fair enough" trades.

I also would agree with God
when he mentioned that level 10 trades still need to be fair.
no restrcitons on a trade to me, doesn't mean anything goes. the restrcitons are just guidelines. the trade overall still needs to be "fair enough" with justification from both sides. -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+2

also would add that in my experience with the FPC and in comments and reports that I have seen over the seasons, is many times complaints made have been made without looking into the trade as much as the members of the FPC regularly does. Do they at times make errors? of course.
I have also promoted an idea of creating a "trade machine" to analyze trade fairness, I was with four kings on this idea/concept. It too was shot down.
End point being, it doesn't look like it will change, so it is what it is. -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+2

TheCoach - it's sad to say but all existing trade system is a big misunderstand. I do not see anything well working in it. But as you said, that some people invested into this update (but if you see investment data, the update was previous one, not the final version with limited trades per season) and they still needs to have benefits - there is only one possible solution to make game fair for everyone in my eyes. There should be availability to buy level 10 trade restrictions with same conditions it was bought in the past (as we have new users coming into game which had no chance to invest into that update when it was done). And present time situation is simply discriminating new users.
The other option which could make this enormous gap of trade to be reduced is to increase standard trade level to level 9. But we all know this won't happen.

Anyway it's just one of two parts which needs improvement. The other part is FPC - which is becoming only a joke in this game. No rules, no restrictions, just freedom for personal opinions and relationships. -- 77 S 4 d.

-- (Przetłumacz) (Przetłumacz EN)

+6