BuzzerBeater Forums

"Why are managers allowed to bid on their own players with the only intention being to gain more money for themselves and thus attempt or achieve in creating a false economy.?

Why shouldn't they? People are allowed to buy players that are selling cheap and sell 3 days later for way more money. So why shouldn't people be allowed to bid on their own player for the sole purpose of raising the bid. They are taking a risk to get some reward. If they raise the bid too high then they will not sell the player and they will be taxed as well. However, if an owner raises the bid, and then someone else still bids on it then that person obviously is happy to spend that amount of money for the player so there is no issue. It is no different to the owner setting the starting price high and waiting for a bid.

I have had it twice out of 25 purchases, meaning an average of 8% of the time for me. I think that is something of a concern.

Was the price lower than what you would expect to pay for the player in your opinion? Did you keep bidding after you noticed it?
I doubt that it would happen in 8% of all players on the market. I think it would be closer to 1% of players on the market.

The game has rules stopping people owning 2 teams and farming money from one to another, although this is a much nore diluted form of it, the action is still falsly farming money into your team.

Next you want to stop day trading as well?

I dont buy into the guy that said next we will be asking for warning buttons for X other things, there is no mention of that, as those choices are honest mistakes that people make

A person will bid what they want on a player. They will not bid more than they are willing on a player. If the owner set the starting price to 1 million someone could come along and buy him. If he sets it to 1k starting price then he might get bid up to 850k, the owner might bid on him and then someone else comes along and bids 1 million on him. It doesn't matter. If you think the price is too much for the player then don't bid, it doesn't matter who the other bidder is. The point I was making about the warning signs is that you can't warn someone about everything that you think shouldn't happen. Do you want a warning that say "This player was bought a few days ago for half the amount that he is now listed for so you should not buy him or you will help facilitate day trading".

It is not the responsibility of the manager to keep eye on this

I disagree, it is the managers responsibility to keep an eye on this.

new suggestion, worth looking into:

we do want to distinguish between a managerwho really wants to cancel the sale of his player
to a manager who is just bumping up the bids.
now, the manager who wants his player back, and does win the bid eventually, is punished accordingly with
the tax system - he pays the tax and will earn less % on his players next sales.
however, the player who is bumping up the bids will not get punished at all - he can only earn from his
devious ways. yes, he is taking some risk, but its hardly enough to prevent him from doing it.
so, i suggest (if possible techniqually) - if the player does eventually sell, the bidder will pay a fine of - let's say- 5% of the sale price FOR EVERY BID HE MADE. i repeat, this is only if the player was actually sold. if the seller wins the bid - his "punishment" with the tax system is more than sufficient.

however, the player who is bumping up the bids will not get punished at all - he can only earn from his
devious ways.

no, he could loose a lot of money and ending in buying a player he don't want. And yes it is like buying a new player, because he could use the money to every player he wants.

And if you bid more then a player is worth, you most likely get him. So when you try to sell expensiv, make an high starting price which has onlyadvantages against this strategie because it runs without a risk, and when no guy is outside who thinks he is worth that much you could make it again the next day.

now, the manager who wants his player back, and does win the bid eventually, is punished accordingly with
the tax system - he pays the tax and will earn less % on his players next sales.

so, i suggest (if possible techniqually) - if the player does eventually sell, the bidder will pay a fine of - let's say- 5% of the sale price FOR EVERY BID HE MADe

would be a great punishment who tries to keep his guy, ending against someone who wants him a lot more ;)

Why shouldn't they? People are allowed to buy players that are selling cheap and sell 3 days later for way more money. So why shouldn't people be allowed to bid on their own player for the sole purpose of raising the bid. They are taking a risk to get some reward. If they raise the bid too high then they will not sell the player and they will be taxed as well. However, if an owner raises the bid, and then someone else still bids on it then that person obviously is happy to spend that amount of money for the player so there is no issue. It is no different to the owner setting the starting price high and waiting for a bid.

Because it creates a false economy and unfair advantage or disadvantage on other teams. It is not about what they are happy to spend, it is about what the true market value asked him to spend for the player, without interference from the manager, it is simply corrupt to be allowed to do this.

Was the price lower than what you would expect to pay for the player in your opinion? Did you keep bidding after you noticed it?
I doubt that it would happen in 8% of all players on the market. I think it would be closer to 1% of players on the market.

Again, it has nothing to do with what I would expect to pay, but what the market asked for in each particular transfer, without the interference I have already mentioned. The 1 % seems just a number and guess so I cannot comment on that

Next you want to stop day trading as well?

Day trading does not actively con people out of money they should not have had to spend, day trading is a market risk on the value you put you player up for so is not related at all.

A person will bid what they want on a player. They will not bid more than they are willing on a player. If the owner set the starting price to 1 million someone could come along and buy him. If he sets it to 1k starting price then he might get bid up to 850k, the owner might bid on him and then someone else comes along and bids 1 million on him. It doesn't matter. If you think the price is too much for the player then don't bid, it doesn't matter who the other bidder is. The point I was making about the warning signs is that you can't warn someone about everything that you think shouldn't happen. Do you want a warning that say "This player was bought a few days ago for half the amount that he is now listed for so you should not buy him or you will help facilitate day trading".

Yet again, missing the point, it does matter , because evertime I bid above the owner, that is money I should not have had to spend, as it is sleazy and corrupt actions to con money out of teams, if they notice it happening that is!!

I disagree, it is the managers responsibility to keep an eye on this.

You disagree, based on what, going by that logic, it is totally our responsbility to look out for players cheating with two teams, I think we have a secondary responsibility with this, but primarliy it is the games responsibility to rovide a fair and transparent game platform, withour support.

This debate could go on for ever, I agree with that comment, and I have heard nothing to justify this action being allowed, jyst comments blaming the buyer, which I find outragous.

Anyway, good debate, but for me, I think I have heard enough to know what SHOULD be done, althought I doubt anything will be!!

Great debate guys!!!!

Because it creates a false economy and unfair advantage or disadvantage on other teams. It is not about what they are happy to spend, it is about what the true market value asked him to spend for the player, without interference from the manager, it is simply corrupt to be allowed to do this.

So you're saying the seller is not part of the market?

Next you want to stop day trading as well?

I thought you'd never ask. YES PLEASE! :D If you sell your player before he has played 11 competitive games for you, you pay 99% tax on a sale! :P

LOL - NO

The seller is not part of the final sale price of that player, the input of the seller should finish at the point he places the guy on the market.

And if Buy Back is to be allowed, this be seperate from the bidding on a player!!

hahaha if that was the case I would be screwed :D

Should sellers not be allowed to advertise then if putting a player up for sale is the end of their contribution? Plus, an advertisement adds exposure to the player which I'm guessing would also increase the price.

Also, you said that the market has to come up with the value for the player (not exact quote). If sellers can't bid, then they can't contribute to the value of a player. If they can't contribute to the value of the player, then are they still part of the market?

Sorry I only have a Bachelor's (no PhD) in the medical field so I need more explanation.

Last edited by kLepTo at 8/1/2010 4:03:08 PM

Should sellers not be allowed to advertise then if putting a player up for sale is the end of their contribution? Plus, an advertisement adds exposure to the player which I'm guessing would also increase the price.

No, this action is fine , becuase it is upfront , honest and causes no harm to a buying team, its simple advertisement, there is no link to underhand bidding to falsly gain more money by hicking the bid.

Also, you said that the market has to come up with the value for the player (not exact quote). If sellers can't bid, then they can't contribute to the value of a player. If they can't contribute to the value of the player, then are they still part of the market?

NO, I said this is just an idea, the rest of your sentence, I am unsure of the point of it. The issue is the action of underhand bidding to gain more money in a dishonest fashion, not these symantics and quips that are off the main point.

This is going around in circles, I am happy to leave this debate now, its dragging on abit!!!! You seemto be wanting to focus on areas that have no relevance to the actual issue. No system is perfect, but some are less perfect than others1!