Should in play dividends be higher?



  • Be nice if it was 3p per clean shit, assist and goal.

    Should increase trading.



  • @NewUser411609 I'd still not be earning any with my shits!

    In all seriousness though, if they raised any dividends I would say pb and insert a deadline of 2pm on ipds and I would be happy.

    Increasing Ipds would make for an erratic market and would completely change the dynamic of the index



  • Absolutely not, IMO. I've never liked IPDs, and although I see their necessity as another angle on the market, making them too prominent takes us too close to normal gambling.

    However, I do agree with @Moukoko 's suggestion above to put a 2pm deadline on them.



  • Absolutely not! Can you imagine the carnage at 3p per assist/goal whilst still being able to buy up until midnight! I understand the balance needs to be there for short-term traders/gamblers to get their fix but PB is what makes this platform great. Devalue it and I fear the path you go down.



  • The platform was initially designed for longevity. IPDs were brought in to heighten short term trading and increase the amount of commission paid. If Football Index were to go down the route of short term trading further, I think I would lower my contributions and find another hobby!



  • Putting a 2pm deadline would halt the rush of trading and that is not what FI Towers want.

    It's also an opportunity to move on dead rubber in your portfolio. For long term traders there is a use to it.



  • I think the balance is just about right with the pricing sat as it currently is.

    As already stated the platform is/was supposed to be unique in regards a 3 year 'bet' (or up to).



  • @NewUser411609 said in Should in play dividends be higher?:

    Be nice if it was 3p per clean shit, assist and goal.

    Should increase trading.

    I’ll pay £3 per clean shit...... they just don’t happen.
    In all seriousness, any dividend increases now have to be in proportion.



  • In play dividends not need changing, it's the PB payouts need changing again as not high enough based on top players prices or change the QF/15 game dividends to 9 or 10 and QF.



  • I'd be very happy if IPDs went to 3p each, provided PB and MB also increased in equal proportion.

    FI only make their money when players are sold, so IPDs are great for this and I think the majority of people appreciate that. At the last share split, IPDs were increased considerably compared to other dividends so FI have already made a play on this. In my opinion, FI should direct their earnings from IPDs to PB and MB dividends to keep the long term incentives there, though my main concern for PB is that there are continuously more and more players added and so winning PB is going to become harder and harder to do. A GK only category and a tiered PB system seem like obvious next steps to me.



  • @Yellow said in Should in play dividends be higher?:

    I'd be very happy if IPDs went to 3p each, provided PB and MB also increased in equal proportion.

    FI only make their money when players are sold, so IPDs are great for this and I think the majority of people appreciate that. At the last share split, IPDs were increased considerably compared to other dividends so FI have already made a play on this. In my opinion, FI should direct their earnings from IPDs to PB and MB dividends to keep the long term incentives there, though my main concern for PB is that there are continuously more and more players added and so winning PB is going to become harder and harder to do. A GK only category and a tiered PB system seem like obvious next steps to me.

    @Yellow said in Should in play dividends be higher?:

    I'd be very happy if IPDs went to 3p each, provided PB and MB also increased in equal proportion.

    FI only make their money when players are sold, so IPDs are great for this and I think the majority of people appreciate that. At the last share split, IPDs were increased considerably compared to other dividends so FI have already made a play on this. In my opinion, FI should direct their earnings from IPDs to PB and MB dividends to keep the long term incentives there, though my main concern for PB is that there are continuously more and more players added and so winning PB is going to become harder and harder to do. A GK only category and a tiered PB system seem like obvious next steps to me.

    There will definitely be a demand for tiered PB.
    The next move will be an increase in PB anyway, if they want people to invest in the best in the world it makes sense, just when they do it.



  • @Yellow said in Should in play dividends be higher?:
    though my main concern for PB is that there are continuously more and more players added and so winning PB is going to become harder and harder to do. A GK only category and a tiered PB system seem like obvious next steps to me.

    One solution could be to have two sets of PB winners - one "premium", which only top 500 players on the index qualify for, then a secondary group of the 501-3000+ players who win half dividends. The star player will still get their full dividend win, no matter the value. On single match days the split doesn't happen,however.



  • @kristiang85 More players able to win dividends on the same match day is definitely needed at some point as the pool of player becomes more and more diluted. Maybe 3 per position on trebles 2 on doubles and one on singles. With reducing value for first second and third.



  • @Burial said in Should in play dividends be higher?:

    @kristiang85 More players able to win dividends on the same match day is definitely needed at some point as the pool of player becomes more and more diluted. Maybe 3 per position on trebles 2 on doubles and one on singles. With reducing value for first second and third.

    This sounds great to me. Obviously FI have to make it financially viable for them and I'd accept a reduction for first place if it meant 2nd and 3rd were paid out for each position. It would certainly give FI's unique 'long term' appeal a massive boost (which, in my opinion, has been eroded by IPDs and 'tip of the day') and would see a tonne of money fly into PB players, as people currently hold off buying them due to the unpredictable nature of PB.



  • NO. In the last dividend increase, IPD was the category with the most increase. They've added the Euro qualification matches for IPD, it is already another increase. Should increase PB and MB instead.



  • I don't know why anyone wouldn't want more rewards ha. People on here are weird at times.

    That said... I'd like to see them increase the 30 day cap to 90 days. Right now, it feels too short to be worth messing around with. Seems you're just as likely to get burned than make money.



  • @Tom77 @Yellow What do you mean by tiered PB?



  • @Andy said in Should in play dividends be higher?:

    @Tom77 @Yellow What do you mean by tiered PB?

    Top 3 in each position.



  • One scenario I would like to see would be the introduction of an additional penny (let's call it the rocket bonus to please the pumpers)

    It's a bonus given on top of the the normal pb bonuses in the event that a certain score threshold is hit (say 300pts)

    It wouldn't cost FI as much as increasing dividends across the board, and would provide a bit of a boost to value for the players suited to the pb matrix.



  • @Andy said in Should in play dividends be higher?:

    @Tom77 @Yellow What do you mean by tiered PB?

    At the moment, only the players that get the highest PB score for their position on a match day get paid out, i.e. top defender, top midfielder, top forward. On a treble match day, it's paid at 5p per future.

    Tiered PB would mean that 1st defender, 2nd defender, 3rd defender etc all get paid. Example below.

    Current PB payout for treble match day:
    1st place defender - 5p

    What tiered PB could be on treble match day:
    1st place defender - 4p
    2nd place defender - 3p
    3rd place defender - 2p

    And then replicate across all positions and adjust payout values for double and single game days.

    Although the above would be a reduction in PB for first place, it would be considerably more PB payouts overall. Not suggesting the above is what FI do, just an example to illustrate what tiered PB could be. Personally I'd be massively in favour of it as it makes PB players way more appealing and helps restore the 'long term' USP of FI.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Football Index Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.