Gaming The SM RedCafe League

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
DRAFT (LEICESTER CITY)

# of players available: 25 (due to minimum squad size of 21, loans not included)

Rules
  1. Refer to "Draft Order"
  2. 12 hours per pick, starts now. Miss out means you relinquish your pick
  3. Declare your pick, then bid (doesn't have to wait until draft is finished)
  4. Inform the next person in draft order
  5. Cash only. No P/E
    • Squad value <100m: 1.1x FV
    • Squad value 100m-200m: 1.3x FV
    • Squad value 200m-400m: 1.5x FV
    • Squad value >400m: 2x FV
  6. You can skip if you want to, and/or if you are unable to bid (skipping in advance is encouraged)
  7. Must comply with FFP
  8. NEW: Bid must be made within two weeks of your pick otherwise you forfeit the player
  9. After draft is completed, Damien will check if rules are followed before accepting those bids
  10. After all bids have gone through, Damien will withdraw from Leicester City
Draft Order
  1. Preston North End - Jean-Philippe Mateta (£10.4M)
  2. Gillingham - Kelechi Iheanacho (£7.02M)
  3. Derby County - Missed Out
  4. Charlton Athletic - Missed Out
  5. Leeds United - Mahmoud Dahoud (£9.1M)
  6. Kidderminster Harriers - Skip
  7. Bury - Missed Out
  8. Ipswich Town - Skip
  9. Leyton Orient - Skip
  10. Bristol City - Ben Nelson (£270k)
  11. Tottenham Hotspur - Missed Out
  12. Southampton - Missed Out
  13. Blackburn Rovers - Missed Out
  14. Barnsley - £278.4M
  15. Norwich City - £286M
  16. Bournemouth - £286.6M
  17. Milton Keynes Dons - £295M
  18. West Ham United - Skip
  19. Manchester City - £309.8M
  20. Darlington - £334.8M TRANSFER BANNED
  21. Fulham - £346.1M TRANSFER BANNED
  22. Hereford - £349.8M
  23. Newcastle United - Skip
  24. Middlesbrough - £358.8M
  25. Chelsea - £376.6M
  26. Cardiff City - £381.4M
  27. Liverpool - £395.5M
  28. Sunderland - £405.6M
  29. Aston Villa - £413.8M
  30. Wolverhampton Wanderers - Skip
  31. Arsenal - £443M
  32. Nottingham Forest - £530.7M
  33. Everton - £569M
  34. Southend United - £571.8M
  35. Manchester United - £656.1M

Barnsley's turn (@spontaneus1)

Note: due to me playing Leicester City today, they will be unmanaged until tomorrow so don't put bid in until they're managed again.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
@LungiDevil please reapply. We'll put a rule in that bids must be disclosed and not to change it/increase above the initial max value for fairness. I was reluctant to do so as it is had to enforce but we need to do something.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
New rule

The max bid on the first available value for external/unmanaged players is the only bid that can be matched by all clubs and bids must be public. No exceptions.

Example:
Fabio Blanco added to the database with an initial value of £120k - max bid that can be made is £239k and must be disclosed.
His value changes later to £240k. No more bids can be made after the value changes.

Punishment for disobeying this to be decided.
Fairest thing for all.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
OK will do. Sheesh feel like a drama queen now :D
It's something that needed to be done - though if you hadn't resigned and just voiced your feelings we would have changed anyway. I've complained about it in the soccerwiki discord and hopefully it is something that'll be fixed when the "big update" happens.

Welcome back
 

BenitoSTARR

Gaspar
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
4,024
New rule



Fairest thing for all.
I disagree that it’s fair.

Why not say you can only bid the day after a player is added. That way the price changes don’t impact anyone.

What you’re putting in place would make it unfair on those who haven’t seen the player until the next morning by then it may be too late to put in a higher bid.
 

BenitoSTARR

Gaspar
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
4,024
For example let’s say a wonder kid gets added so someone decides to sell a player for cash to make space for them and plans on bidding on that player the next morning. They could miss out because of this new rule.

This needs to be thought through and so I don’t see why we don’t just say new players cannot be bid on until the next day. That way the price rises will happen with plenty of time for most people to react?
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
For example let’s say a wonder kid gets added so someone decides to sell a player for cash to make space for them and plans on bidding on that player the next morning. They could miss out because of this new rule.

This needs to be thought through and so I don’t see why we don’t just say new players cannot be bid on until the next day. That way the price rises will happen with plenty of time for most people to react?
No it wouldn't. We'd still end up with issues like @LungiDevil had. Feel free to make a discussion chat about it in the SM gameworld but delaying the bidding by 24 hours is just going to cause the same problems. All it means is that it gives people more time to sell x or y player, in which case they should have sold the player before bidding started anyway. I always leave a place free.
 

BenitoSTARR

Gaspar
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
4,024
I say this as someone who generally is able to bid on players first thing in the morning and have been affected by price rises too I am more thinking of people who don’t access the game on the same GMT time scale
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
I say this as someone who generally is able to bid on players first thing in the morning and have been affected by price rises too I am more thinking of people who don’t access the game on the same GMT time scale
Lungi is one of them. Delaying bidding by 24 hours is just going to cause same issues as price will still change at an uncomfortable time, which would result in people still missing out as they miss withdrawing and increasing bid.
 

BenitoSTARR

Gaspar
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
4,024
No it wouldn't. We'd still end up with issues like @LungiDevil had. Feel free to make a discussion chat about it in the SM gameworld but delaying the bidding by 24 hours is just going to cause the same problems. All it means is that it gives people more time to sell x or y player, in which case they should have sold the player before bidding started anyway. I always leave a place free.
It doesn’t personally affect me much at all as I’m usually on each morning checking the new player list but I do think later bidders are going to be affected a lot by this rule.

SM price changes usually occur around 9:00-10:00am GMT the next day so let’s say some poor sod doesn’t log in one day and the next day sees the next Lionel Messi with bids on but now can’t bid on them because they’d have to offer a higher price to do so.

I’m not sure that it’s fair whereas if you said to people you can bid the next day from 10:00am GMT or something you then allow for the price changes and give people time to bid on new players.
 

BenitoSTARR

Gaspar
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
4,024
Lungi is one of them. Delaying bidding by 24 hours is just going to cause same issues as price will still change at an uncomfortable time, which would result in people still missing out as they miss withdrawing and increasing bid.
If you delay the bidding until the price change time though then no issue exists. People essentially get 24hours to check for the new player and place a bid on top of anytime after the first bid.
 

BenitoSTARR

Gaspar
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
4,024
Also a lot easier to enforce that too as everyone will likely bid max which will be the higher fee too. So no sneaky “I forgot the rule”
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
If you delay the bidding until the price change time though then no issue exists. People essentially get 24hours to check for the new player and place a bid on top of anytime after the first bid.
Also a lot easier to enforce that too as everyone will likely bid max which will be the higher fee too. So no sneaky “I forgot the rule”
"Price change time" varies on the player. With your suggestion there is still a significant chance that the player will increase in value, people will remove and resubmit bids and some people still miss out on the change.
 

BenitoSTARR

Gaspar
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
4,024
"Price change time" varies on the player. With your suggestion there is still a significant chance that the player will increase in value, people will remove and resubmit bids and some people still miss out on the change.
It doesn’t vary as much as you think though. It’s generally between 9:00am and 10:00am and if we stick with 10:00am GMT the next day it gives everyone plenty of time to be ready for a bid.

There is very little chance that most people will end up resubmitting bids after the price change it solves the issue. Otherwise you have people who might only see the player the next morning who could have bid on the player unable to do so because they are being forced to bid higher than the rest by the game but not allowed to do so because of an external rule.
 

Gythio

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
509
Think we should vote on this.

Obviously i don't want managers leaving so something has to be done. Your suggestion would be good if i could still bid the same amount as everyone else even after a price change, but game doesn't allow that. So as Benito said, if i only see the a player after his price has changed - i'm not allowed to bid at all? Seems unfair
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
Think we should vote on this.

Obviously i don't want managers leaving so something has to be done. Your suggestion would be good if i could still bid the same amount as everyone else even after a price change, but game doesn't allow that. So as Benito said, if i only see the a player after his price has changed - i'm not allowed to bid at all? Seems unfair
There'll be a vote, don't worry, but there is going to be a change. There's about 20+ hours on average before a player's price has changed which I think gives plenty of time for people to see a player. Ideally there'd be no increases at all and I'm campaigning soccermanager to change that but until then something has to be done.

Options for tomorrow's vote are presently:
a) The max bid on the first available value for external/unmanaged players is the only bid that can be matched by all clubs and bids must be public. No exceptions.
b) Don't allow bids on players for the first 24 hours after they're added. After that, everything is fair game.
 

Gythio

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
509
There'll be a vote, don't worry
Or option c) keep rules the way they are right?

Obviously i'm all for levelling the playing field, but both suggestions have flaws and don't really accomplish that.
 

BenitoSTARR

Gaspar
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
4,024
Option D)
Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.

Trust me that will solve 99% of the issue here which is people missing the price change. The first option still has a price change issue whereby someone logging in later can’t bid if it goes up.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
Option D)
Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.

Trust me that will solve 99% of the issue here which is people missing the price change. The first option still has a price change issue whereby someone logging in later can’t bid if it goes up.
Option D (which is option B, as that is supposed to be your option) would still have people missing the price change. I think @spontaneus1 was the first to bid on Blanco, and his bid was after 10am GMT. Leeds, Hereford, Barnsley, Chelsea and Southampton all missed out on the increase.

 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
Or option c) keep rules the way they are right?

Obviously i'm all for levelling the playing field, but both suggestions have flaws and don't really accomplish that.
Sure but more people would quit under option c than if any of the other options came into effect and I'm sorry but I don't want to see the league die like that.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
DRAFT (LEICESTER CITY)

# of players available: 25 (due to minimum squad size of 21, loans not included)

Rules
  1. Refer to "Draft Order"
  2. 12 hours per pick, starts now. Miss out means you relinquish your pick
  3. Declare your pick, then bid (doesn't have to wait until draft is finished)
  4. Inform the next person in draft order
  5. Cash only. No P/E
    • Squad value <100m: 1.1x FV
    • Squad value 100m-200m: 1.3x FV
    • Squad value 200m-400m: 1.5x FV
    • Squad value >400m: 2x FV
  6. You can skip if you want to, and/or if you are unable to bid (skipping in advance is encouraged)
  7. Must comply with FFP
  8. NEW: Bid must be made within two weeks of your pick otherwise you forfeit the player
  9. After draft is completed, Damien will check if rules are followed before accepting those bids
  10. After all bids have gone through, Damien will withdraw from Leicester City
Draft Order
  1. Preston North End - Jean-Philippe Mateta (£10.4M)
  2. Gillingham - Kelechi Iheanacho (£7.02M)
  3. Derby County - Missed Out
  4. Charlton Athletic - Missed Out
  5. Leeds United - Mahmoud Dahoud (£9.1M)
  6. Kidderminster Harriers - Skip
  7. Bury - Missed Out
  8. Ipswich Town - Skip
  9. Leyton Orient - Skip
  10. Bristol City - Ben Nelson (£270k)
  11. Tottenham Hotspur - Missed Out
  12. Southampton - Missed Out
  13. Blackburn Rovers - Missed Out
  14. Barnsley - Skip
  15. Norwich City - £286M
  16. Bournemouth - £286.6M
  17. Milton Keynes Dons - £295M
  18. West Ham United - Skip
  19. Manchester City - £309.8M
  20. Darlington - £334.8M TRANSFER BANNED
  21. Fulham - £346.1M TRANSFER BANNED
  22. Hereford - £349.8M
  23. Newcastle United - Skip
  24. Middlesbrough - £358.8M
  25. Chelsea - £376.6M
  26. Cardiff City - £381.4M
  27. Liverpool - £395.5M
  28. Sunderland - £405.6M
  29. Aston Villa - £413.8M
  30. Wolverhampton Wanderers - Skip
  31. Arsenal - £443M
  32. Nottingham Forest - £530.7M
  33. Everton - Skip
  34. Southend United - £571.8M
  35. Manchester United - £656.1M

Norwich City (@Maradona10) turn

Note: due to me playing Leicester City today, they will be unmanaged until tomorrow so don't put bid in until they're managed again.
 
Last edited:

LungiDevil

Full Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
342
Location
Lungi Land
I am always one for complicating things and making it harder.

I suggest we take the decision making out of the AI, when needed.

So everyone bids in public until there is price increase. If you need to bid after that, send your bid to @Damien (of course you get the responsibility). Once the system accepts the bids, if there are additional bids on time in Damo's inbox, he runs a random number generator (possibly a shared google spreadsheet) to determine which bid wins the player. All others have to retract their bids.

Pros: Totally fair. My prediction is that very rarely will we need to use the non-AI method, as usually the bids get in early enough.

Cons: If we have do to use the non-AI method, we need to trust someone (nominating @Damien), it is additional work/complexity (nominating @Damien), people need to withdraw bids on time and the worst case if the bid goes through to another player, the AI winner needs to sell to the league determined winner when the transferred player's ban is up.
 

LungiDevil

Full Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
342
Location
Lungi Land
I disagree that it’s fair.

Why not say you can only bid the day after a player is added. That way the price changes don’t impact anyone.

What you’re putting in place would make it unfair on those who haven’t seen the player until the next morning by then it may be too late to put in a higher bid.
My only counter point to that is that - We are effectively shortening the bid window from roughly 24 hrs to 20 hrs or so. We are in effect moving an already existing deadline from one milestone (system accepting bids) to another (system rising prices) and that change is not that drastic.

The reduction of that 4 hrs should have less of an impact on everyone, than the price changes happening systematically in that four hour window, which disproportionately affects some players. My $.02.

Of course, we can also try the overcomplicated stuff I wrote above.

Edit: I quoted the wrong post. I am trying to mitigate the concern that people who don't see bids until later will find this unfair.
 

2mufc0

Everything is fair game in capitalism!
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
14,819
Supports
Dragon of Dojima
Sounds good to me. The price changes during the middle of the night and early mornings is one of the most rediculous things in the game.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
I am always one for complicating things and making it harder.

I suggest we take the decision making out of the AI, when needed.

So everyone bids in public until there is price increase. If you need to bid after that, send your bid to @Damien (of course you get the responsibility). Once the system accepts the bids, if there are additional bids on time in Damo's inbox, he runs a random number generator (possibly a shared google spreadsheet) to determine which bid wins the player. All others have to retract their bids.

Pros: Totally fair. My prediction is that very rarely will we need to use the non-AI method, as usually the bids get in early enough.

Cons: If we have do to use the non-AI method, we need to trust someone (nominating @Damien), it is additional work/complexity (nominating @Damien), people need to withdraw bids on time and the worst case if the bid goes through to another player, the AI winner needs to sell to the league determined winner when the transferred player's ban is up.
I know why you suggested it but not completely comfortable doing that, especially given I'm likely going to be involved in a few of the bidding wars. If it were to happen it would need to be someone not involved in SM.

Do agree with you though that it is a rarity that bids would be made after the first 20ish hours.

Options for tomorrow's vote are now presently:
a) The max bid on the first available value for external/unmanaged players is the only bid that can be matched by all clubs and bids must be public. This bid cannot be changed and increased after the player value goes up. No exceptions.
b) Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.
c) Keep things as they were before yesterday and kill off the league.

Do have to say with regards to (a) that it isn't the worst thing in the world if one of the original bids is undisclosed as long as it isn't withdrawn and remade after the prices increase. All/as many as possible should ideally be disclosed tough to drum the new rule into people if it is approved in the vote.
 

The Taurean

looks like a chipmunk
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
11,706
Location
Nothing is so common as the wish to be remarkable.
My view: I have noticed price changes usually happen between 8.15-8.45 GMT the day after players are added. This applies if a bid was made or not. Maybe there is further info in the forums. So for good measure, a cut off of 10.00 GMT which is 26hrs after player is added could work.
Option A would be okay too. Perhaps prone to some player flouting the rules. Let's be honest it won't stay well with any of us. FFP like self compliance needed.
Perhaps Option B would avoid self compliance to an extent. And if someone did bid, there would be sometime to let the manager know privately or through intermediary.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
Drew 1:1 to Aston Villa

Oblak (95)

Stones (90) Ramos (95) Boateng (92) Alaba (94)
Rice (90) Goretzka (93)
Sancho (92)➕ -- Eriksen (92) -- Sterling (94)
Mbappe (95)⚽⭐

Subs: Trent (93), Kounde (90), Gaya (91), Van Dijk (96), Zakaria (91), Pulisic (91), Mina (89)
Did not travel: Dest (87), Pedri (87), Reyna (86), Bellingham (86)

Key:
⚽ = Goal
➕ = Assist
⭐ = MOTM
= Subbed off
= Subbed on


Next three games:
LSR4: Leicester City (A)
MD20: Tottenham Hotspur (A)
MD21: Bournemouth (H)

Manchester United v Aston Villa fixtures this season

GameUtd PossAston Villa PossUtd Shots (SoT)Aston Villa Shots (SoT)Utd GoalsAston Villa GoalsUtd SoT Conv.Aston Villa SoT Conv.
11th April: Utd v Aston Villa​
54%
46%​
13 (5)
8 (3)​
1
1
20%​
33.3%
Combined
54%
46%​
13 (5)
8 (3)​
1
1
20%​
33.3%
 

The Stain

Soccer Manager's Highwayman
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
12,138
Why not say you can only bid the day after a player is added.
Because sometimes the value does not change until people make their bids.

The proposed change is the best one. If you remember to check newly added players you are rewarded for it. If you forget, then c'est la vie maddafakka.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
Manchester United v Aston Villa fixtures this season

GameUtd PossAston Villa PossUtd Shots (SoT)Aston Villa Shots (SoT)Utd GoalsAston Villa GoalsUtd SoT Conv.Aston Villa SoT Conv.
7th May: Aston Villa v Utd​
61%
39%​
21 (13)
6 (1)​
5
1​
38.5%​
100%
23rd June: Aston Villa v Utd (Shield)​
50%
50%
12 (5)
9 (1)​
1
0​
20%
0%​
30th June: Utd v Aston Villa (Cup)​
61%
39%​
19 (7)
9 (4)​
1​
2
14.3%​
50%
12th July: Utd v Aston Villa​
64%
36%​
24 (14)
4 (1)​
4
1​
28.6%​
100%
3rd August: Utd v Aston Villa (SMFA Cup)​
64%
36%​
24 (12)
4 (1)​
4
0​
33.3%
0%​
10th August: Aston Villa v Utd (SMFA Cup)​
64%
36%​
18 (10)
8 (1)​
3
1​
30%​
100%
Combined
60.7%
39.3%​
118 (61)
40 (9)​
18
5​
29.5%​
55.6%
@The Taurean this was me against Aston Villa less than a year ago. I do think we'll avoid each other in the SMFA though.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
2:0 victory against Leicester City, setting me up against Forest in both the Cup and Shield QFs.

Oblak (95)

Dest (87) Kounde (90) Boateng (92) Gaya (91)
Rice (90) Zakaria (91)
Reyna (86)➕ -- Pulisic (91)⚽⚽ -- Pedri (87)➕
Mina (89)

Subs: Trent (93), Van Dijk (96) Stones (90), Ramos (95), Leite (84), Bellingham (86), Mbappe (95)
Did not travel: Alaba (94), Sterling (94), Goretzka (93), Eriksen (92), Sancho (92)

Key:
⚽ = Goal
➕ = Assist
⭐ = MOTM
= Subbed off
= Subbed on


Next three games:
MD20: Tottenham Hotspur (A)
MD21: Bournemouth (H)
LCQF: Nottingham Forest (A)

Manchester United v Leicester City fixtures this season

GameUtd PossLeicester City PossUtd Shots (SoT)Leicester City Shots (SoT)Utd GoalsLeicester City GoalsUtd SoT Conv.Leicester City SoT Conv.
13th April: Leicester City v Utd​
63%
37%​
16 (10)
5 (1)​
2
0​
20%
0%​
Combined
63%
37%​
16 (10)
5 (1)​
2
0​
20%
0%​
 

Gythio

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
509
Options for tomorrow's vote are now presently:
a) The max bid on the first available value for external/unmanaged players is the only bid that can be matched by all clubs and bids must be public. This bid cannot be changed and increased after the player value goes up. No exceptions.
b) Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.
c) Keep things as they were before yesterday and kill off the league.
Nice impartiality there. If you are sure that waiting to make changes until we have actual good suggestions would lead to people leaving then the vote will surely reflect it, don’t worry
 
Last edited:

christy87

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
5,717
Location
Chelsea manager soccermanager
Supports
Dipping tea in toast
For enforcing this how about a draft ban for rule breakers, everyone likes a good old draft so a 5 draft ban would be a decent incentive not to re bid or bid straight away (and leave it)
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
89,832
POLL (Vote now)
a) The max bid on the first available value for external/unmanaged players is the only bid that can be matched by all clubs and bids must be public. This bid cannot be changed and increased after the player value goes up. No exceptions.
b) Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.
c) Keep things as they were before yesterday where you can change bid whenever you want.
 

Gythio

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
509
A - Reduces amount of people that can participate in bidding wars as timeframe to bid is reduced from 24 to 18 hours. It also takes away the reward from people who are willing to dedicate themselves in order to improve their squad. Result: Fewer clubs get an opportunity to even bid. Those who manage to do so have any possibility of an edge taken away, so players will be evenly distributed over time. Good for clubs already at the top, even harder for smaller ones to gain any sort of advantage.

B - Essentially same thing as we have now.

C - Not perfect as people miss out on price increases. Still it preserves the competitive nature of the game where players putting in more time will get rewarded for it. This at least creates the opportunity for smaller clubs to catch up to the big ones. Even distribution is a nice idea if all parties were equally strong. In our case we should be making rules that at least have an opportunity to favour the smaller sides.

I vote C)
 

Big-Red

Not actually very big
Staff
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
25,190
Location
Dublin
Supports
this year is my year on SM
POLL (Vote now)
a) The max bid on the first available value for external/unmanaged players is the only bid that can be matched by all clubs and bids must be public. This bid cannot be changed and increased after the player value goes up. No exceptions.
b) Newly added database players may only be bid on the day after they are added from 10:00am GMT.
c) Keep things as they were before yesterday where you can change bid whenever you want.
A