Got to love this

[GoldenEagle]

Fc Chitpagnia raises for Franz Schindler

Fc Chitpagnia raises for Franz Schindler

Fc Chitpagnia raises for Franz Schindler

Bid was raised to like $18,000 for a passable scoring player who didn't play it all last season. I know you all probably dont care, but it made me smile.

[FrogMan]

same happened to me when I put Mel Russell on the market about two weeks ago. I bought Mel about a month after I had received my team, for a tiny 1k. He helped just fine, playing forward with his inadequate scoring and inadequate passing. 1000 I paid... Put him on the market for 2k, then I start seeing bids come in about 30 minutes before his deadline... All the way to 23000 :D

But I look at what you have above, is it only one team bidding on him all by himself? If so, it deserves a big big smile :D

FM

[MacroGuru]

Actually, I have a transfer story that pissed me off immensely today.

I find this 17 year old Solid scorer in Israel for 30K. So I bid.

Well, it gets close to end time, and I get into a bidding war, I bid up to 70K, I then notice, I have been bidding against the players owner. He then HT-Mails me and says 80K? Then follows it up with, how much are you willing to pay.

Well, I wasn't the nicest in my response to him. I am expecting a fine to be levied for my tirade against him.

[Airhog]

isnt that really a cheap tactic?

[MacroGuru]

Yup, hence my tirade in e-mail

[Airhog]

whats sweet is through an oversight I bid 150k on a player I didnt want, well the deadline came and I though hey ill bid another 3k and maybe someone will outbid me, lo and behold someone does and I dont lose cash on a player I wont use.

[Poli]

Actually, you could/should report him for bidding on his own player to up the price. If you kept the ht mail he sent I'd use it as proof.

I'm fairly certain the practice is illegal. No fine for you. Fine or worse for him/her. Her added in case it's TK. :)

[Eilim]

While this a tactic I wouldn't use, I really don't see anything wrong with it, other than him HT-mailing you though, that was sort of low class.

Whenever I am in a "bidding war" the first thing I do is check on whos bidding in another window tab. This lets me get a rough idea of the financial situation of who I'm up against. If I ever see the current owner bidding I just drop out. Not out of any disdain for the owner, simply a self-emposed rule due to the fact the owner might have made a mistake in putting the player up for bid. Probably not always right, but it keeps me out of situations like this.

I sure hope there is not a rule against this, and if there is (off to check now) I'll be sending a HT-mail off to the devs on my opinions on there not being one. A couple times I've put the wrong player up for auction, or had circumstances change on the team that dictated I keep the player. In most cases I ended up getting the player back cheap enough, once after emailing a bidder telling him I had changed my mind about auctioning the player and he was at an extreme disadvantage in the bidding.. In one case the bidding got to the point I was just better off letting the player go and picking up a similar skilled player much cheaper.

Unless they implement an option to allow you to take a player off the transfer wire with somesort of penalties, perhaps based on player value... I just don't see a rule like this doing any good and only hurting things.

Should I have gotten a nasty HT-mail in response to keeping my player? If you don't think the player is worth that much, don't bid. Then the owner has to eat the loss of transfer cost, agent fees, and if he's not the original club, the mother club fees.

While I understand being irked about not getting a "steal" on a player, I really don't see any need for a rule or punishment onthis one.

-Eilim

[McSweeny]

same thing happened to me, i put the wrong guy up for sale early in my hattrick career so i went out and paid a bit above market value to keep him

[-Panther]

I'm probably in the 'hated' class on this issue.

personally, I think if someone puts a player on the market and later realizes he wants to keep him, he should have to make 1 bid and 1 bid only, about %10 or 500k, whichever is lower, over market value to keep this player.

someone creating a 'bid war' on a player they have listed %99 of the time is doing nothing more than intentionally raising the final sale price of his player.

if you place a player on the market and want him, let's say he's an excellent middie that typically sells for 500k, you should instantly place a bid for 600k or more to tell other users you don't have intentions of selling this player and want him back.

constantly bidding the minimum is bullshit and I think any and every team that does it should get a fine double what the final price was regardless if they won or someone else did.

one of the things I truly can't stand on hattrick. if you change you mind and want him back, overbid on him and it's settled.

or better yet

you should be allowed only 1 bid, anymore than 1 should be classified as intentionally raising the sale price.

you place 1 bid for the maximum ammount you're willing to accept to let the player go. ie:

you place an excellent striker on the market but get an injury and realize you need him back.

you initially wanted/expected/hoped for 500k for him.

you place a bid of 500-550k and if someone outbids you, you buy a different player as you got what you initially wanted for him and
you should have no problem finding a suitable player.

[-Panther]

I doubt it would be hard to implement a flag to determine if the owning team has placed a bid on the player or not. if they've bid, then the server will reject any future bids by the owner.

using the 'I realized I needed him, or I mistakenly placed him on the list' sham is used %99 of the time as a loophole for inflating his price intentionally.

impose a 1 bid limit and the loophole is closed.

[Eilim]

Actually, I think your on the favored side, Panther, I'm on the "hated". :) Even if it isn't a mistake, I still don't see this as an issue. If an owner pulls this sorta thing, just stop bidding.

While I don't personally approve of this tactic, I see people getting upset over it as people just having "sour grapes" of sorts at not finding steals/super deals on players. Its just not something I see should be enforced by rules. No one is twisting your arm to bid on these players, go find another.


I understand your views on this, mine quite simply is why does it matter who the hell is bidding against you? If your working the market intelligently, you have a set range going in on what a player is worth/you'll spend. Once you reach that point you pull out. Sure an owner can bid higher than a non-owner.. But he's effectively throwing cash away, paying whatever sum of money in fees for absolutely zero gain.

Like I said, the only reason I can see getting upset over this is "sour grapes" over not getting a player extremely underpriced. If you overpay for a player because of this happening.. Much like people would say to me for putting a player up by mistake that I screwed up.. I would say the same to anyone who overpayed because of a bidding war with the existing owner for hitting that bid button when the player was no longer a good value.

The way the market is set up is there is already a way to players to discourage this sorta of behavior.. Stop bidding and let the owner eat the fees.

-Eilim

[-Panther]

it's not about not getting the bargain. i always have a price range and I have no problem going to the limit. it's the principal of it that pisses me off. if you want him fine I got no problem with that, bid the minimum you'll take. or if you HT-mail me before the war starts, no prob, I'll leave.

but I will bid close the my max to ensure you don't get the player back cheap and the owner eats as much fees as possible if they don't inform me of their intentions.

I've gotten in 4 of these and one really ticked me off.

I avoid at all cost as I use 3 screens when i bid:

1: hattrick site with transfer list
2: player screen for auto updating usually 10 seconds
3: player screen for bidding

I always pay attention to who bids. but if the owner bids and I don't get a HT-Mail informing me of his intentions to keep the player, I bid close the my max (if I'm willing to spend 100k, I might go to 80-90k) and make him eat as much as I can.

last time I checked, it was illegal, yep against HT rules, to bid on your player to increase the price. my bidding on a player you want to keep continually instead of one max bid, you're basically doing the same as intentionally inflating the final sale price.

I have no problem with teams wanting to keep a player. injuries, suspensions, etc... sometimes makes that a need.

but damn just inform other users of your intentions and none of this would be a problem.

indoorsoccersim's conflict was a sham to raise the price. if he wanted to keep the player, he'd have said so instead of saying "80k?" and "how much you willing to bid" bleh bleh bleh.

selling a player for a bargain is a risk you take listing low to draw a bid war. most of the time it works, sometimes it don't.

I'm for an option to remove a player from the market with penalties but I think they should be stiff.

to remove a player from the market, you should have to pay %20 (1/5) of what you listed him for.

list for - penalty

100k - 20k
500k - 100k
1mil - 200k
etc...

[Eilim]

hehe.. I think this is just a case of views forming from being burned by the "otherside". My blunders/dealings on the transfer market in the early game are one of the main reasons I avoid it like the plague now and haven't really done any transfers in a while.

The case where the bidding got to the point I was better off letting the player go, I had emailed the player after his first bid telling him I had decided I needed to keep the player. His response, racheting up the bidding in bigger increments. Thats when I set my opinions on the market and figured it was just my price for not being careful.

Ok, so now we know its in the rules you can't bid on your player to inflate the price, the guy who did it broke the rules and will probably get fined. Doesn't change my opinion and I will, like I said, send off an email to the devs outlining my views on the subject. :)

This is a case of me just not seeing the need for a rule on something that easy easily "controllable" from the players end, owner bids on his own player, stop bidding and go find another. People pimping their players eat the fees, and people who make honest mistakes, have situations come up, don't properly know the market don't get too soaked for their mistakes.

-Eilim