BuzzerBeater Forums

LA-The Phil already acknolwedged in the beginning of his post that the transfer fees will be introduced. But what he is proposing is something else. I think it's an interesting suggestion.

Edited by GM-Raonne (22/11/2007 20:59:08 CET)

Last edited by raonne at 11/22/2007 8:59:08 PM

But what level of transfer fee is correct?

If I make $45,000 from the trading of a player before the fee, and lose eg.10% for the fee, I still make a decent profit. Having to pay a player wages for 4 weeks cuts into my margin.

Remember, daytraders don't really make a market more liquid. They add no more players to the market. They just inflate prices for personal gain, not to reflect any added value.

I didn't mean to infer that daytrading adding liquidity, just that instituting transfer fees would reduce it.

Or maybe limit the number of sales transfers.

A team usually only makes money from one home game per week, and is limited in the number of players it can train, but there is currently no limit on how many transfers can be made.

A transfer fee,may reduce profits, but it doesn't necessarily stop DT. If I only make $10,000 on 20 transfers/week instead of $20,000, my profits are simply less.

A holding period might require an owner to spread his activities out, plus take on market risk and salary costs, but it would still be possible to possible to sell about 1 player per day (98 per season).

A limt of, perhaps, 3 sales per 7 days, and 10 per 5 weeks would basically allow a team to go through 2 complete roster cycles per season. It would let someone who bid on 3 players and went to sleep to get rid of the extra one or two, And it would let someone engage in modest trading, such as 9 players over 3 weeks.

I think that making a player stay with a team for a specified period of time (like 4 weeks) after being transferred is an excellent idea. Combined with transfer fees, I think that would cut down quite a bit on trading.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree. Someone ought to.

The only thing that makes daytrading profitable is that people are willing to pay the price that the daytrader sets. If you don't want trading to be profitable, don't pay his prices.

Setting up restrictions on a players time in a club could make skilltrading next to impossible; or at minimum remove the profit for training a player because the game demands you pay him a month's salary to get him to pop a level.

The agents fee relative to time spent on team (a la HT) is a superior idea. (I also wouldn't mind seeing the introduction of Mother Club money, but that's a seperate issue)

That's easy to say. But with new players signing up, the first thing they look for is adding a player to help their squad. They haven't seen the impact of forking over such amounts on one player.

I agree with the holding period suggestion. I myself am very active in the TL. Mainly because I want to buy good players statswise for cheap. If I get them and find out they're not a match for my team (when I checked them via Assist!), I put them back out with no initial starting price. I'm not out to make a profit on them (if I do, that's great), they're just not what I'm looking for.

mmm tough one...

even as someone who likes to dabble in the market day traders can still get burnt..

why does everyone think all day traders make money?

think back to tech stocks being traded in 2000.

if as one poster wrote no-one pays the prices and sooner or later the first wave of clubs wanting to make a decent chunk of money outside their 3 TV games then prices will have to come down...

for a new side to start raising more funds ticket prices have to go up and in turn capacity but this for most is a very slow process. if wages are to be reviewed twice a year then the weekly profit is miniscule and so you may be forced to put up for sale a trainee or 2 early on re-invest and then the av/resp players we see on the market now will just be worth zero and we will all be trading strongs

its like musical chairs - sooner (and even sooner with agents fees) the music will stop and certain clubs with big rosters will have to accept lower fees or keep the players they gobbled up.

Day trading in my opinion is a valid strategy for a new team to try and climb the ladder as fast if not faster than traditional training and winning games...

Why exclude this option?

Sorry if someone already wrote this but i didn't have the time to read all posts.

Maybe we could do it like this, you buy a player and if you want to sell him the same day you have to pay him compensation (say 3xtimes salary) if you hold him for a week you have to compensate less. And after a month or so he doesn't need any compensations then it's just the transfer fee. Compensation is for him to travel to a new club (different country maybe, tell his family or even move etc :P)

This was just idea out of the blue and i ahven't thought about it no longer than 3 minutes :P

I had made a similar suggestion for HT - that you would pay a new player his 1st 4 week's salary in advance, and then wouldn't pay him the next 4 weeks. If you traded him immediately, you'd be out 4 weeks salary. If you kept him 4 weeks there would be no difference.