BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

fif he goes to the normal value of the player he risk to get him himself, which will cost him the same money like buying a new player. So if he is the best priced player on the market, it is a good decision to buy him himself, but thats count also for all cheap players.
To bid on him to raise just the market value, will maybe give sometimes you extra money, but sometimes you will loose it also because you buy him himself orscare other bidders and reduce your income - for me i wouldn't recommend this strategy to anyone.

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.

because in the current system you could prevent him for doing it, and bidding over market value is as bad for the guy who buys him back like for the guy who buys him "new". because both players got the money to make a better deal. And bidding more then he is worth, also would end in getting himself in most cases ;)

Thats why i don't like it when everybody just could erase their players from the transferlist, because it makes the trnasfer market even more unpredictable, when your drem player get often removed from the list(and how you want to punish people who take back transfers?)

But to be able to gain extra money by such means is simply wrong, falsly inflating the price, this action means you have paid more for him than you was meant to under fair and uncorrupt circumstances. As for recommending the strategy to anyone, it happens, alot, so people are doing it, recommended or not and gain financial benefit for doing so, otherwise it wouldnt be happening.

However you look at this, if a player would have been sold for say 500k, without owner interference, but ends up getting sold for 750k because of that interference, means you have paid more than the true market asked for him due to insider bidding.

I would punish players who remove their players in the same way they are punished now, they have to pay, either, the estimated player value, or the current price he is up for on the market, that way they would lose money for changing their mind. Another way would be to take the tex off of them, which is less harsh than full price, both systems would offer a consequence for the action.

I agree with you that you shouldnt be allowed to buy back players at all, I think once they are up, they are up, but I also think you should not be allowed to bid on your own player under any circumstances, but if the game is to allow that, atleast create a system that only allows it for the right reasons, and not to gain more money in a false economy, bidding situation.

However you look at this, if a player would have been sold for say 500k, without owner interference, but ends up getting sold for 750k because of that interference, means you have paid more than the true market asked for him due to insider bidding.

and if you put him for sale for 750k and some idiot bids on him +50% market price it is ok?

Or if someone puts a player on market and have the luck, that several managers are willing to pay more then he is worth this is ok too.

But if a idiot pays it, while the owner bids on him with a very high chanche of loosing much money through a very bad deal - it is not ok.

Is that right so far?

Again, you are missing the point, as I mentioned 3 systems that could be considered, your comments only address one of them, and even then from a blinkered view.

Back to basics, the thing I am trying to prevent is managers raising the bids on there own players when they are doing so for nothing more than financial gain. Nothing else.

If a manager gets more money than a player is worth through natural bidding, then yes, obviously, that is fine, the problem is when it is enduced by the actual owner raising the bid himself. If the market naturally does it, fair enough!!

Are you saying it is an acceptable practice that managers raise the bids on there players and on many occasions gain financial benefit from it by receiving more money than if they didnt do that?

Are you saying it is an acceptable practice that managers raise the bids on there players and on many occasions gain financial benefit from it by receiving more money than if they didnt do that?

personally i don't see the extra gain, to replace a system because of a strategy which leads in over 80% to a overpriced buy of a player he didn't want from the manager who use it, and brings another disadvantage into the game. people who make it for finncial gain, get punished enough while doing it^^

Last edited by CrazyEye at 7/25/2010 2:30:24 AM

People dont lose 80% of the time, people do it all the time because it works, thye end up getting more money off the other team. They get little punishment while doing it, thats why so many teams do it.

when i bid above market value i get the player must time, so why this should be different when you bid on your own players?

And personally i also make different experience with it ;)

And getting a player you don't want, isn't a good decision for a manager right? So why risking buying your own player, and get punished through taxes, keeping the player, fan survey etc. is a good deal?

But most of the time they dont get there own player, they actually sell them for a much higher price. This part isnt up for debate as it is why the whole thread started. It goes on all the time.

If it didnt work, then it wouldnt be happening so regularly in the game, they do it to maximise the money they get for a player, more then they would have got without doing it.