交易資訊
退回
| 資訊 | |
|---|---|
| 協商開始 | 2024-08-23- 21:13 |
| 協商結束 | 2024-08-23- 21:23 |
| 限制等級 | |
|
Stasys Dovidaitis
|
|||
| 薪資: | 9938 Eu | |||
| 合約: | 4 賽季 | 年齡: | 21 歲 | |
| RT: | 190 | 身高: | 197 公分 | |
| 潛力: | 8 | |||
|
Ivo Eterovic | |||
| 薪資: | 7086 Eu | |||
| 合約: | 2 賽季 | 年齡: | 30 歲 | |
| RT: | 220 | 身高: | 191 公分 | |
| 潛力: | 4 | |||
交易/租借球員:
+0
1.1
顯示隱藏回應: 6
Dear FPC,
The reason given was a "Suspicion that the trade’s goal is to help one of the teams," with a vote of 10 out of 11 volunteers deeming the trade unfair. While I respect the decision-making process of the volunteers, I believe that the decision to reverse the trade was made without sufficient justification and transparency.
On the surface, this trade appears to be a standard transaction where each team could benefit based on its specific needs and strategies. However, the reversal implies that one of the teams was being unfairly helped, which I find puzzling.
To better understand the decision, I respectfully request a detailed explanation addressing the following points:
1. Please clarify which team was considered to be unfairly benefiting from this trade.
2. What specific facts or analysis led to the conclusion that this trade was intended to unfairly benefit one of the teams? Please provide concrete examples that support this suspicion.
3. Could you clarify the criteria used by the volunteers to assess fairness? What specific aspects of the trade were considered unfair?
4. Was the broader context of each team's needs and strategy considered when making this decision? If so, how was this context factored into the final judgment?
As a committed player, I believe in fair play and transparency. A detailed explanation would help me better understand the reasoning behind the decision and ensure that any future trades I make align with the community's standards and expectations. -- 100 賽季 35 天
The reason given was a "Suspicion that the trade’s goal is to help one of the teams," with a vote of 10 out of 11 volunteers deeming the trade unfair. While I respect the decision-making process of the volunteers, I believe that the decision to reverse the trade was made without sufficient justification and transparency.
On the surface, this trade appears to be a standard transaction where each team could benefit based on its specific needs and strategies. However, the reversal implies that one of the teams was being unfairly helped, which I find puzzling.
To better understand the decision, I respectfully request a detailed explanation addressing the following points:
1. Please clarify which team was considered to be unfairly benefiting from this trade.
2. What specific facts or analysis led to the conclusion that this trade was intended to unfairly benefit one of the teams? Please provide concrete examples that support this suspicion.
3. Could you clarify the criteria used by the volunteers to assess fairness? What specific aspects of the trade were considered unfair?
4. Was the broader context of each team's needs and strategy considered when making this decision? If so, how was this context factored into the final judgment?
As a committed player, I believe in fair play and transparency. A detailed explanation would help me better understand the reasoning behind the decision and ensure that any future trades I make align with the community's standards and expectations. -- 100 賽季 35 天
--
(翻譯)
(翻譯 EN)
+0
As each FPC member votes on their own behalf, there is usually no public explanation from FPC members. There is no "single voice" here.
One of the reasons we want to have FPC members from different countries is so you can ask them directly.
So, if you have any questions or doubts, my advice would be to contact one or a few FPC members and ask the questions you have. -- 100 賽季 45 天
One of the reasons we want to have FPC members from different countries is so you can ask them directly.
So, if you have any questions or doubts, my advice would be to contact one or a few FPC members and ask the questions you have. -- 100 賽季 45 天
--
(翻譯)
(翻譯 EN)
+0
