| Forum » General » FINE idea | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
what do u think?
|
||
|
Username
2968 msgs.
Best scorer
|
mister cap said: brezzette said: Little offtopic...i got two suggestions about market pricing 1. I think there should be fiscals for avg: ex. 30-50 avg 2 fiscals 50-70 2 fiscals 70-80 e.t.c P.S Need that achievement for posts i havent post 1 year so dont go hard on me  Sweetly  i say -1 to this idea More contributions = less chance to commit mistakes Not true. Ask 85+avg teams about 50-70avg players price,they go to market and look only 85+avg. Not saying fiscals dont know prices,but if few of them monitor low avg. prices and others focus on higher avg. it will be easier for them. Why should one fiscal know prices for every position from 20-99 avg ? That was example up. |
03/11/2013 18:14 |
| Wu wei - Div1/Gr1 | ||
|
Fiscal
1835 msgs.
International
|
mister cap said: 1) simply ask always to managers the reason of that deal Edited by mister cap 03-11-2013 17:04 I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think it would be great if, when fiscals were looking into a case, they sent a heads up to the concerned parties (maybe even a generic, automated message). Lets give them an opportunity to provide their input on the matter and/or the ability to prepare for imminent fines in advance. |
03/11/2013 19:16 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4257 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Heidstra said: mister cap said: 1) simply ask always to managers the reason of that deal Edited by mister cap 03-11-2013 17:04 I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think it would be great if, when fiscals were looking into a case, they sent a heads up to the concerned parties (maybe even a generic, automated message). Lets give them an opportunity to provide their input on the matter and/or the ability to prepare for imminent fines in advance. and their internal rule should be more clearer , like not every fine has a new rule implemented .... @priced a player 100 mill , u sold for 110 , u get punished for 10+10*50% which is common sense . or @priced a player 100 , market price says he is worth 50, u get punished not the extra 10 mill , but the extra 60+60*50%.... i think rules should be more clearer .... Edited by akleb 03-11-2013 19:20 |
03/11/2013 19:20 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
3880 msgs.
Best scorer
|
If you go above the maximum price given it gets fined back to market, I will say it to you one last time, why would you ask for a price if you are not going to abide by it? Do not talk about common sense when none was used in the sale. |
03/11/2013 19:27 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
1835 msgs.
International
|
I agree with where brezzette is going. Right now, the entire process is very sloppy and in need of serious formalization. The current system is incredibly demanding on fiscals and I think it creates a lot more work for them. Because there is no real standardization, the method of pricing is impossible to repeat. You can get half a dozen different prices on the same player if you want to ask enough people and being so casual can lead to problems like the one akleb is referring to. This can be very polarizing and often individualizes @s from the rest of the fiscal team. Any given day, a fiscal in General Chat is bombarded with pricing requests. Regularly, they receive several in a minute or two and scramble to comply as best they can. I believe these occurrences are downright uncouth of the general public -we abuse the fiscals willingness. Let me illustrate an example of how deals occur: I'm trying to sell a player to akleb. Instead of negotiating a deal, we ask a fiscal for his price. The fiscal says 20B. I go back to akleb with the price and he has the choice to pay it or not pay it. This is, quite literally, how deals are made nowadays (and how much my players are actually worth). To me, this is bogus! Not only does it take all of the actual negotiating out of the game, but were making the fiscals do much more work then they have to. Typically, they give an initial price. We complain that the player has a certain progression and forecast and should be priced differently. They make a second judgement. We complain about how it was incorrect because the player has good or bad stats. The fiscal gives a third price. We don't like that price, so we repeat it in private with a second, unknowing fiscal. Rinse wash and repeat until we get what we want. It sounds terrible, but it's a reality...one that the system invites onto itself. My suggested method will follow in the new message, in an attempt to trick everyone into actually reading all of this typing because they think it is two different things. |
03/11/2013 19:47 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4257 msgs.
Best scorer
|
yap heid , 1- they should give a price range for a player ...like between 1 b and 1,6 b.. now how much u can make out of it , is with ur ability to convince 2- this range should be accepted between more then 3 @ss , 3- telling the manager , if he sells for 1.62 b , he will be punished for 0.62+0.65*50% as the punishment will take the lowest amount which is 1 b 4- they are free managers ,if they got pressured for a fast price , they can simply say : we need 3 @ to give a price range .. if ur in a hurry , you can sell but we still have the ability to fine u if its overpriced ... |
03/11/2013 19:56 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
1835 msgs.
International
|
I propose that we create a form. It would look something like this. Player Link: Postion: Progression: Forecast: Suggested Price: Comments: Users must already have a deal agreed in principle. They must then fill out this form to get a fiscal stamp of approval. You can not get a price without the completion of the form; it serves as your opportunity to express any information about the player or deal that you desire (i.e. I'm in the red and need to sell cheap). It also serves as a hard copy record of the exchange with fiscals. One of the fiscals is elected as a secretary (probably @StarWars because he is the most likely to wear a pencil skirt). All of these request forms are directed to this secretary. The fiscals, then, are organized into groups based on some factor. I would suggest it is done per position with three fiscals for each player type (I use three to avoid ties), stratifying to have different PL afflictions and biases equally allocated. The secretary identifies the postions of the player and forwards the request to all of these fiscals. Each one now has all the information they need and approves or denies the suggested price (perhaps if it was high or low if denied). They send their verdict back to the secretary who tallies the votes; in cases of unanimity they can return the decision to the inquiring party. With voting splits they can choose to clear things up and discuss the difference of opinion. To me, this would solve a number of problems. 1) It ensures that fiscals are provided with all of the information they need up front, reducing work. 2) It affords managers the opportunity to express their thoughts. 3) It unites the fiscals as a group and eliminates "single fiscal" pricing. 4) It minimizes bias and/or favouritism by involving multiple @s. 5) It removes the "you said this range" issue, because answers are yes or no. 6) Users are forced to make our own deals, not the fiscals. In the end, I think it puts the emphasis back on the users and softens the workload on the fiscals. It also makes things more clear and more concrete. The process is always the same and there are far fewer loopholes to be exploited. Thoughts? |
03/11/2013 20:07 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
1835 msgs.
International
|
@bowsey1986 said: If you go above the maximum price given it gets fined back to market, I will say it to you one last time, why would you ask for a price if you are not going to abide by it? Do not talk about common sense when none was used in the sale. Jerry, Jerry, Jerry! Let me play mediator. I could be wrong, but I think the two of you might be talking about different things here. From what I gather, it sounds like akleb is referring to a single fiscal price. The fiscal has given an exact number value of the player, say 400M; we have asked how much a player is worth and the value has been assessed and given by the fiscal. Here, the fiscal price is essentially the same as the market value as far as the manager is concerned. In terms of fining, I agree that the value should be respective of the exact value given. On the other hand, it appears that bowsey might be talking about a price range. Here, a fiscal gives a range of low-medium-high acceptable prices for the player, like 200M to 600M. If the actual value of the player is 400M, this range would account for the extenuating circumstances that cause market fluctuations. If a gaffer sells beyond this range, again I agree that it should be relative to the 400M value and not the 600M price hood. Hopefully I'm correct, and we can all see eye to eye now. If not, ignore me and fight to the death! Edited by Heidstra 03-11-2013 20:21 |
03/11/2013 20:20 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1984 msgs.
International
|
brezzette said: mister cap said: brezzette said: Little offtopic...i got two suggestions about market pricing 1. I think there should be fiscals for avg: ex. 30-50 avg 2 fiscals 50-70 2 fiscals 70-80 e.t.c P.S Need that achievement for posts i havent post 1 year so dont go hard on me Sweetly i say -1 to this idea More contributions = less chance to commit mistakes Not true. Ask 85+avg teams about 50-70avg players price,they go to market and look only 85+avg. Not saying fiscals dont know prices,but if few of them monitor low avg. prices and others focus on higher avg. it will be easier for them. Why should one fiscal know prices for every position from 20-99 avg ? That was example up. Ok I will be more clear.......more fiscals who can judge = less chance for anyone to think that 1(or 2) @fiscals "control" the entire market of 86-96 avg players. @Fiscals are Managers like us, and in a situation like your suggest, they could spend more time to justify their actions. Too many pressure in my opinion for who is here first to enjoy. So In an uthopic way, "PRICES" have to be accepted by the biggest population of managers possible.....not by the shortest one. Maybe could be nice if for any not clear case of Fined, 12-14 managers are chosen random to give their opinion (popular jury) like in American Law System  |
03/11/2013 21:22 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2968 msgs.
Best scorer
|
mister cap said: brezzette said: mister cap said: brezzette said: Little offtopic...i got two suggestions about market pricing 1. I think there should be fiscals for avg: ex. 30-50 avg 2 fiscals 50-70 2 fiscals 70-80 e.t.c P.S Need that achievement for posts i havent post 1 year so dont go hard on me Sweetly i say -1 to this idea More contributions = less chance to commit mistakes Not true. Ask 85+avg teams about 50-70avg players price,they go to market and look only 85+avg. Not saying fiscals dont know prices,but if few of them monitor low avg. prices and others focus on higher avg. it will be easier for them. Why should one fiscal know prices for every position from 20-99 avg ? That was example up. Ok I will be more clear.......more fiscals who can judge = less chance for anyone to think that 1(or 2) @fiscals "control" the entire market of 86-96 avg players. @Fiscals are Managers like us, and in a situation like your suggest, they could spend more time to justify their actions. Too many pressure in my opinion for who is here first to enjoy. So In an uthopic way, "PRICES" have to be accepted by the biggest population of managers possible.....not by the shortest one. Maybe could be nice if for any not clear case of Fined, 12-14 managers are chosen random to give their opinion (popular jury) like in American Law System Didnt know that fiscals are managers like us. Like i said it is example, i didint said '1(or2) fiscals. 2-3 fiscals who buy/sell ~70avg daily will know their prices better than 1000 fiscals who buy/sell ~90avg players. So instead of getting price range like 800-1200M from all fiscals,you will get more accurate range like 950-1050M. ''More contributions = less chance to commit mistakes'' its completely opposite. If we have 1000 fiscals we will have price range like 1000-1500M and some managers can get good profit with this price range. P.S That ''1000 fiscals'' is example ''if'' so dont get one word and turn it around like you want. You get my point i guess. |
03/11/2013 21:52 |
| Wu wei - Div1/Gr1 | ||
3
