BuzzerBeater Forums

I understand what you're saying. In the midst of a bidding war the bids just fly in and sometimes you don't take a moment to think about it and end up splashing more money than intended in the first place. But like I said, the owner acts as another bidder, so you're right, it drives the price up and manipulates the market.

But you have to agree that under current rules this isn't cheating, and I still believe there are bigger issues to be sorted out. Even with this "price fixing" players tend to get sold withing a given range of what they're really worth, so as long as bidders have a clear idea of how far they're willing to go, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

It may not be classed as cheating under the rules of this game, but I am not using them as my guidance, as I am critising the rule tat states that it isnt cheating. I think this is flawed and it should be classed as cheating

I agree with your points but I cannot say it is not cheating for me, I cant answer the question of why should they be allowed to increase their income in such a way!!

I do hope that one of the GM's looks at this properly and thinks about banning it!

Desired by who? The debate seems to be split within this chat about such conduct.

Surely a simple buy back feature, not linked direct to the transfer bid would create this option of getting your players back from the market if you want them and eliminate the ability for a seller to enduce higher bids on thier players.

We are not debating the option of buy players back, we are talking about the bi product of the mechanism meaning increased bidding wars. Falsy created!!

We are not debating the option of buy players back, we are talking about the bi product of the mechanism meaning increased bidding wars. Falsy created!!

but this strategx is often also a killer of bidding wars, because i would only bid in very rare cases against the owner of a player - but maybe these rare cases are the reason for me that it is better with bidding then a buy back button. Because if you plan to get a specific player, and you need him in time and then he disappeared from transferlist and there is no replacement n the list?

Fair point, but that, whilst a different method, leads to the same situation you may be in with the bidding war, losing out with no other replacement available, but it does avoid the owner price hicking the player.

It cant be both ways, if a method of getting your player back is to exist, then the buyer will have to lose, out, if the buy back doesnt exist, the owner may lose out from a simple mistake.

For me, I dont think you should have the option to get someone back, you have two chances when placing someone on a transfer list to check the details, if it is stilled messed up, thats simply the managers fault.

Either way, the same position can exist as it is now, but without the ability for owners to interfere in the bidding process for the purpose of explioting more money

Fair point, but that, whilst a different method, leads to the same situation you may be in with the bidding war, losing out with no other replacement available, but it does avoid the owner price hicking the player.

if he tries to price hike the player, and gets him he looses a lot of money if he gets him and can not resell him effective the next week so this is a very dangerous strategy especially because many teams left when the owner participate in the bdding war.
And if he really needs him like i do it is a normal transfer situation(because the player isn't cheaper then other player on the transferlist for the owner), and the players goes to the team who is wanting him more.

For me, I dont think you should have the option to get someone back, you have two chances when placing someone on a transfer list to check the details, if it is stilled messed up, thats simply the managers fault.

Sometimes the sitution is changing, injured players or you get outbid on your favorite player where you though you had more then enough money so that you don't want to change your rooster anymore etc.

if he tries to price hike the player, and gets him he looses a lot of money if he gets him and can not resell him effective the next week so this is a very dangerous strategy especially because many teams left when the owner participate in the bdding war.
And if he really needs him like i do it is a normal transfer situation(because the player isn't cheaper then other player on the transferlist for the owner), and the players goes to the team who is wanting him more

I agree its dangerous, but it still allows managers to gain an unfair advantage if the opposite happens to your scenario, as in he does hike the price and still sell him to another team for an inflated and false price. There are many what if's, but simply it has the ability to allow a manager to exploit the system, so must be considered flawed.

Sometimes the sitution is changing, injured players or you get outbid on your favorite player where you though you had more then enough money so that you don't want to change your rooster anymore etc

This is nothing more than the risk of the game, luck, choices, timing and all the other variables that make this game so interesting, I am not against people buying the player back, as someone said in a previous post, its almost the same as a opt out contract in the last year, I am against the managers that are doing it for the corrupt reason, and pointing out the ability to abuse the current system as the GMs allow people to bid on there own player.

As I said before, there are other ways of making the system work just the same, but not allowing managers to price hike, buy back option is just one, but others lwould also work, and none of them would allow abuse of the transfer market to price hike

I agree its dangerous, but it still allows managers to gain an unfair advantage if the opposite happens to your scenario, as in he does hike the price and still sell him to another team for an inflated and false price. There are many what if's, but simply it has the ability to allow a manager to exploit the system, so must be considered flawed.

why is it an unfair advantage, for me the player hasn't a real owner anymore since he get the first bid. And if his former chief decides to buy him, because it is a good buy for him why he shouldn't be allowed to do it. When there are cheaper players out there, he could easily take the money he get for him, and invest it in the player with the better price/effort.

This is nothing more than the risk of the game, luck, choices, timing and all the other variables that make this game so interesting

but the choiche to buy a player, who fit perfect for the new situation isn't allowed when he was your former player?

It is incorrect to say nobody owns a players when they are placed on the market, the money goes to the guy that put him up, which is the issue here.

It is clearly unfair to encourage, or be allowed to enduce the price of your own player to try and lure a manager into bidding more than they should have.

As I have said all along, my issue isnt about managers wanting to buy back their own players if they choose too,my issue is with the system that you have to use to do it as it allows price hicking.

To answer you last point, managers that are genunly trying to get their player back, no problem at all, although as i said, there is a better system to do it than the current one. But alot of managers are not bidding on the player for this reason, they are bidding on it to just achieve a higher price in a bidding war.

If a manager wants his player back, then yes he should be allowed to get them, but wth a system that doesnt allow the latter, a manager that is bidding on his own man to encourage or force another team to bid even higher for no reason that achieving more money, the fact that this practice is allowed it wrong,and thats my only point in this debate, nothing to do with players buying back their own players for genuine reasons, or attempting to buy them back.

As it is impossible to tell the difference, but we know both goes on, with one being acceptable, and one being unacceptable, I thought it may be a better idea to employ a different system for buy back to stop managers abusing it.