Bottom line is, someone removes a rider from a deal, it's up to the other manager to chose what happens next:
- the deal goes through with all the other terms except for the removed rider. New 24h deadline starts
- the deal is voided. Further negotiations can be made in this scenario, but this would result in a new deal independent from the initial one, which means the initial deal is still voided.
I don't like either of those options, personally, and feel they still contribute to breaking/grey area of Rule 6, 7, 8.
Like, this would actually encourage me to add a trojan horse to every rider deal, to allow me greater flexibility to keep negotiating with other managers.
Examples. Deal goes through with other terms/only cash - by adding a trojan rider during negotiation i can shave 50k+ off what would have been a pure cash price, then pull out the trojan and voila i have saved money, potentially quite a lot of money. Deal is voided - because i've found something else I got to withdraw from a previous deal and face no penalty at all, whilst Team A got shafted.
As a point of how i believe the system should be working look at Zariff. I had negotiated a deal with Redordead to buy Zariff, but at the same time I was negotiating other deals with other managers. Red put up the thread for Zariff, but I didn't not confirm the deal, instead delaying slightly to pursue the other deals.
This is how i believe it should work, once you post "Deal confirmed by" that's it. Done. The only way a deal can change is if Team C overbids, or Team A withdraws due to another change.
I want to protect Team A from (hopefully accidently) nefarious Team B actions. So my wording changes to the rules do that, placing an emphasis on Team B to be really certain before posting "Deal confirmed by".
Automatically putting through the cash only elements, or voiding the deal, doesn't protect Team A from those actions, and really only benefits Team B to add trojans to give them increased flexibility for the 24hour period.
But no one is forcing the other team to accept your trojans. If they want money they should push for that kind of deal. If they are accepting other riders in the deal they must be aware that that rider can be withdraw from the deal. It's still better than what we currently have where the whole deal gets voided.
I'm not a fan of making a team more important that the other in the deal, in this case the team that creates the deal. We can have deals that involve swapping of riders of similar value and in that case allowing only one team to back out of the deal in case of better offer for one of the riders would be unfair.
Let's say I'm trading Gerts and Roosen for Per and Resell. Gerts has the higher overall so I'd be opening the thread. This means that bbl would not be allowed to back out of the deal if he gets a super offer for Per that he finds better than getting Gerts which I don't think would be fair.
Indeed, you can just not accept deals with rider swaps. And you can just accept the fact that rider swap deals can fall apart. In which case, current rules are fine and it's on you as a manager to take the risk.
I just see grey areas in the current rules (Rule 6 is clear on no withdraws, but Rule 8 allows you to withdraw from a rider swap deal) and an exploitable area in your suggestion (might as well try to add a rider to a deal for the increased flexibility to continue other negotiations).
There's just something not quite meshing for me in the current wording, and it has a clear benefit to one team, and clear penalty to the other (pretty clear to demonstrate in this case DW lost 500k, whilst Ivan made gains/saved 1.2mil) which is obviously not the intention of the rules.
For the Per/Gerts scenario, 1) Per couldn't have been traded this year as he was an FA signing. 2) Let's say it's next season, Per carrying a wage of 850k and Gerts at 750k (i think those are reasonable allowances), my rule change would allow BBL to open the thread based on having the higher wage rider and thus hold Team A control on the deal. You two as managers could make an agreement on who opens as Team A, heck you could even use that to make more money/save money based on who takes the Team A position.
But what if you got a better offer for Gerts in those 24hours? Or if you opened the deal and BBL got a higher offer? Kind of tough luck. But again my view is once "Deal confirmed by" is posted that's basically it and you take whatever that deal is. Otherwise, don't open the deal thread, don't post "Deal confirmed by", keep negotiating until you are happy.
But at least we'd have closed off the inconsistency between rules and not allowed for exploitation of grey areas. Knockouts tongue-in-cheek suggestion to remove the 24hour overbid period would also achieve this
Also just to say, this is definitely a kind of marginal and unique problem, but fun to try and work through the steps and variations and really take time to consider how different rules can be interpreted in different ways. Guess i'm coming down towards, leave things as they are, and if a manager feels particularly aggrieved they can invoke the MGUCI under some combination General Rule 8, 11 & 12 (those which allow changing, updating, adding of rules and cover general suspicious and/or foul play)
Edited by TheManxMissile on 07-09-2023 12:43
Not sure why you needed to mention Per wasn't tradable since I was just trying to make a point of similar riders trade. It could have easily been other two similar riders. But, anyway.
The idea is to improve the rules so that we don't see a repeat of that Ahlstrand/La Luna deal. While your idea might prevent that if introduces the big flaw that I mentioned, making on team more important that the other.
In the example that I gave, both bbl should have the right to withdraw from the deal, regardless of who opens the thread. Deciding whoever starts the thread having more power is not a good solution for me. Or at least make a rule that it must be confirmed by both managers that only one can withdraw, but even that feels icky. Making it a default that only one of them can withdraw from the deal is not fair.
This is why I think we should give the decision of the manager that no longer receives the rider to decide what to do next. If he feels you put the trojan in there on purpose I guess he won't be willing to strike another deal with you. And keep making that and others might be reluctant to make deals with you too.
alexkr00 wrote:
In the example that I gave, both bbl should have the right to withdraw from the deal, regardless of who opens the thread. Deciding whoever starts the thread having more power is not a good solution for me. Or at least make a rule that it must be confirmed by both managers that only one can withdraw, but even that feels icky. Making it a default that only one of them can withdraw from the deal is not fair.
This is where we're far apart - I don't think there should be a way to withdraw from a deal - as per Trades Between Teams Rule 6 "It is not possible to withdraw from a deal, once it has been made."
In the same way you cannot withdraw from a Free Agent Bid, or a Sacking, or a Stagiere. Once you've got to "Deal confirmed by", that's it, locked in. If you are afraid you can sell La Luna for more, don't put him in that deal or accept you might not make all the possible money.
To maintain the allowance that any rider in the swap can be overbid on, then i think the current rules are fine, and it's on you as a manager to take on the risk associated with a Rider Swap/Rider + Cash deal vs a Cash Only deal.
The current rules as they are still allowed DW & Ivan to agree on the 2mil cash deal in a new Deal thread. They would still allow you & BBL to agree a new deal for either Per or Gerts, in a new thread.
I don't like the current contradicting rules and grey area, but General Rules 8, 11 & 12 allow for a hurt manager to request the MGUCI look at the situation and make a case by case ruling if foul play or deliberate exploitation is suspected.
Which was long way to get around to "the rules work and do cover this situation" - but as my previous post, going through the steps of current and proposed rules is worthwhile and interesting.
I obviously meant withdrawing from the deal if a better deals appears for one of the riders. Not withdrawing because you no longer what to sell the rider. That was never in question.
To rephrase it, both bbl and I should be allowed to accept better offers for our riders. Your suggestion would allow this only for the one opening the thread.
TheManxMissile wrote:
But at least we'd have closed off the inconsistency between rules and not allowed for exploitation of grey areas. Knockouts tongue-in-cheek suggestion to remove the 24hour overbid period would also achieve this
Just for the record: I'd absolutely love to see that option. It's not really "tongue-in-cheek" - i just don't want to write a longer post on it (again and again) because i heavily suspect certain managers to block it.
@Knockout - I'll support you on it, but yes I can't see too many managers being in favour.
@Alex - In the current rules, both managers can take overbids, and still negotiate a new cash only deal, or other cash & rider deal for the existing rider. So there isn't a need to change the current rules (which was not where i expected to end up, but here we are)
I think it's a difference in whether you view it as an Overbid or a Withdraw. If I was Team A, i'd be arguing it's a Withdraw and i would want my 500k & rider of value 700k, if I was Team B i'd be arguing it's an Overbid and I should get the 700k and freedom to void the other deal. The two sides, in the current rules, are both correct, and that's what I don't like (but I can't quite figure out how to word Rule's 6,7,8, that allows both aspects without a contradiction that penalises/or powers one team over the other. Your proposal does put Team A in a position of relative power as they can "force" the cash only deal which we would probably agree is a very different kind of deal for both teams, and therefore should be subject to a balanced re-negotiation between the two teams).
As such, i'd leave the rules as they are. At least in case of a future dispute we can point back to this conversation for reference to aid in a resolution on a case by case basis, where if a manager feels particularly strongly they can request a full investigation.
Edited by TheManxMissile on 07-09-2023 14:15
Wouldn`t it be a solution, to just not allow dropping out of any deal including a rider swap?
Right now having such deals gives you 2 advantages:
- usually you kind of guarantee such deal once posted as it`s a lot harder to overbid than a pure cash only deal
- you avoid the transfer tax, which if you would make it 2 deals for same cash, would lead to taxes for both teams
So while having a few advantages, the disadvantage is rather rare but as the actual season has shown, can have huge impact.
Suggestion: allow multi team trades. In the past transfer period, we had a situation where 3 teams wanted to make a deal, but it was too complicated to get it done with transfer tax and everything.
I would also like to see "a deal is a deal", no outbidding anymore.
I would also like to see "a deal is a deal", no outbidding anymore.
I agree that no outbidding would simplify things bit I had always assumed it was there to prevent managers who are friendly giving each other very favorable deals and that seems like a necessary protection. Am I missing something?
roturn wrote:
Wouldn`t it be a solution, to just not allow dropping out of any deal including a rider swap?
Not sure how this works because as TMM notes there is no difference between "dropping out" and "accepting an overbid". You can't drop out unless you accept an overbid.
But if f you can't drop out/accept an overbid then including a rider swap would create the problem of sweetheart deals I noted above.
This is already somewhat true but right now f I bought Herklotz for 100k plus a crappy rider someone would offer Cio more money plus a similar crappy rider and he would have to justify not taking that. Which prevents him from gifting Herkoltz to me.
I am inclined to agree with TMM that the current rules are better than any of the changes suggested so far. The message from the Ahlstrand deal is don't accept a throw in ride if the money you are getting is good.
I would also like to see "a deal is a deal", no outbidding anymore.
I agree that no outbidding would simplify things bit I had always assumed it was there to prevent managers who are friendly giving each other very favorable deals and that seems like a necessary protection. Am I missing something?
One problem with no outbidding at all is, that managers use to make deals in the first 1-2 days and then it`s posted quickly.
Some managers didn`t even have time to start transfers then and would not be able to negotiate at all then. So still being able to outbid (in especially for cash trades) during the time limit is still good to have.
roturn wrote:
Wouldn`t it be a solution, to just not allow dropping out of any deal including a rider swap?
Not sure how this works because as TMM notes there is no difference between "dropping out" and "accepting an overbid". You can't drop out unless you accept an overbid.
But if f you can't drop out/accept an overbid then including a rider swap would create the problem of sweetheart deals I noted above.
This is already somewhat true but right now f I bought Herklotz for 100k plus a crappy rider someone would offer Cio more money plus a similar crappy rider and he would have to justify not taking that. Which prevents him from gifting Herkoltz to me.
I am inclined to agree with TMM that the current rules are better than any of the changes suggested so far. The message from the Ahlstrand deal is don't accept a throw in ride if the money you are getting is good.
Indeed. The rules as they are right now, usually work in 99 % of cases. The Ahlstrand one basically just showed what wasn`t expected before, that it`s not necessarily the better rider dropping out but the weaker rider, which on paper is the same and if one is allowed, both directions should be allowed. Still I assume, those kind of drop outs, when you lose on the much better rider, are very rare and probably won`t happen a lot in the future, even without any rule change.
I think if it’s “Rider A + cash” for “Rider B” then only the team of Rider B can accept an overbid. That’s a pretty easy one.
The challenge comes, as some have said, when it’s Rider A + Rider B for Rider C + Rider D in which case the “value” of any of the riders is completely objective. These transfers are more good will tbh.
MacC wrote:
I see the issue as being caused by the completely subjective definition of an overbid when a swap is involved.
Adding a rider might be seen as worthless to some teams but valuable to others...
The only way around I see is to give each rider a nominal value for this purpose.
Example:
I bought Eastman for €1.6 + Craddock (don't remember exactly)
Could €1.7m be considered an overbid? €2.8m ? It's all subjective...unless we say Craddick's nominal value is, say twice his salary.
Now he have an objective measure if what an overbid is and isn't
True. but still you could argue that less money and more Craddock is worth more to you than twice his wage. F.e. you need the 1,6mio for training, and then adding Craddock makes your TTT setup similar to before. 2,4mio might not be worth anything to you as you can't use the remaining money for training, and you didn't land Craddock. (I am aware that it is the other way around for you, but you probably get the point)
To the actual situation:
Personally I think the Ahlstrand situation is subject to the rules already, regarding "foul play".
IMO it was a case of multiple bad calls/semiviolations that ended with a situation that could have been voided within the current set of rules.
1) Buying a rider you don't want is somewhat covered in the FA, with "don't bid on riders you don't want" rule.
2) Suggesting riders to others that you don't own is also somewhat covered in the rules.
3) If you decide against the best possible deal, you need to be able to have a very good argument - and in this instance there wouldn't be any good arguments except for 1-2 which are violating the rules.
4) Admins are allowed to add or interpret rules within the current rule set.
So it would have been absolutely inside the rules if the admins had decided to void the new deal from Ivan and forced the first one to go through.
If we add to the rule that "it is not allowed to discuss riders that currently have an open thread" would basically cover the entire situation as Ivan is very unlikely to have jumped from the deal if he hadn't gotten a very bad review of his plans.
Adding nominal values will be an objective criteria which I think is easily exploitable, as the Man-Game is very subjective.
We already have "nominal values" for rider trades - it's their wage, as that mandates the minimum fee of a cash only transfer.
Which in this example case, would mean La Luna was easily subject to a valid overbid, as 700k would be beyond such a nominal value. The question is just, should La Luna be available to overbid on? And as i've said, Trades Between Teams Rule 7 allows an over bid on any rider involved, so under the rules Ivan is allowed to accept that and open a new thread.
However this combination of Rule 7 & 8 when applied to a Rider Swap, contradicts Rule 6. There's a messy grey area around what constitutes a Withdraw, which is banned, and accepting an overbid, which is allowed.
This is why i suggested a wording update to Rule 7 & 8 which would close this loop by only allowing Overbids on the primary rider of the deal, as defined by my change to Rule 2. I sort of see the point Alex made that this puts Team A in a position of power, but no more so than if it was a Cash Only deal. So my changes try to put Rider Swap deals into the same position as Cash Only deals.
Is that fair? I would say so. Allows overbids, for all the good reasons we should keep the ability, but prevents withdraws. If you think you could make more money on the rider involved as the swap, then don't put them in the deal! It's a really simple self policing solution that I can't see a grey area to, or an exploitable element of.
But i'd also say the original rules are fine as well. Team A manager can still say to Team B manager "Hey, i'll take £2.2mil instead so you can sell Rider X in that other deal". If Team B manager said no, Team A manager has the ability to call up the MGUCI and make the argument Team B has withdrawn from a deal. It just all lives in this area of contradiction between Rules 6, 7 & 8 we need to really close one way or the other.
Priorizing the riders in a swap is difficult in other cases though.
e.g. In Ahlstrand / La Luna it is rather obvious, which rider is stronger.
But then there are other swaps, let`s say in my team I swapped Groenewegen vs. Van Hooydonck or Olivier. All are leaders for me. Terrain wise every team might favour one or the other.
It`s a lot harder then to say, which team/rider has priority in that case and even with a wording change, those are almost impossible to judge for any combination.
Even if many of you now say, obviously Groenewegen is superior in those deals, just an example with my own riders. Could surely find better examples, which lead to a 50:50 manager opinion.
Plus then a lot of role playing. e.g. Someone might find regional riders more interesting and rates them higher, even if stat wise it`s more a 60:40 balance. e.g. African rider to African team.
So once we consider to make considerations about priorizing riders involved in a swap, we would start to find many new problems.
roturn wrote:
Priorizing the riders in a swap is difficult in other cases though.
Why i offered up a change to Rule 2 that makes it very easy, Team A is the team whose rider in the deal has the higher OVL/wage.
No arguing about who's more important or valuable, it's easy and based on pre-existing in-game numbers (just as we mandate a minimum transfer fee based on wage, or base renewals on OVL, there is precedent for using in-game values instead of personal value/importance). If the Wage is the same then OVL will dictate, if the OVL is the same then wage will dictate. If both the OVLs and Wages are the same, or if one OVL higher but the other wage is higher, then i'd say it's up to the two managers to figure it out.
Don't like that because you really value your rider, don't put them in a swap deal, go cash only.
And if you can't agree who should be Team A, tough and don't do the deal. But as we should be operating a pretty straight forward once posted deal is done system, as is the intention of the game, being Team A or B shouldn't actually matter.
Again, I really don't understand why you think think that this is a better option (prioritizing a rider over another) than just allowing the other manager to decide if they still want to go ahead with the deal after a rider is withdrew from it do to be a better offer.
If one team withdraws a rider from a deal (due to a better offer for that rider) then it's up to the other team to decide if they still want to go ahead with the deal with the rest of the terms, void the deal or renegotiate. Void/Renegotiating would happen anyway under current rules, renegotiating not meaning that a new deal must always be found. But this won't allow a team to use a better offer for a rider to back out of a deal they confirmed and then want to get out of, unless the other manager is also unhappy with the new terms.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
