Instant Sell Feedback **MUST READ**

  • 0_1591543999473_Screenshot_20200607-163116.png

  • @Dronny-Gaz Fair point from FI, couldn’t have put it better myself.

    “BuT Fi Have ChAnGeD tHe TeRmS oF mY bEt” in 3...2...1

  • @MikeWagner
    Interesting opinion.

  • Chewing if you hold Ravel Morrison at £1.25.

  • So in other words, they're saying if you buy crap players, you shouldn't complain, that's the risk. But it doesn't change the fact that FI did have IS to enable such a trade, and said when discussing OB, that IS will still be available. They've gone back on their word, and removed this riskier trading strategy and dumped it onto the traders via ME.

    • I don't trade this way but feel for those who did.

  • You see a player in league 2 who you think will potentially make it to a PB league.
    You've risk assessed it and thought"worse thing happens I could always IS".
    This was a fundamental part of the FI process.

    I understand why it was temporarily withdrawn and it was the correct decision at the time.

    This letter does not present FI in a particularly good way.

  • @Dronny-Gaz can't argue with the logic or basis of their reply. Still not going to be a popular answer though. I wasn't overly concerned by this change when they brought it in, as to my mind, there is still IS, it's just coming from other users, not FI. On this basis, I didn't feel they had broken any promises and as far as I'm concerned, if I want to use IS, I don't care whether it's FI or somebody else that buys it, so I couldn't see the issue.

    I am, however, seeing that it's an issue for others, partly by the numerous comments on it here and partly by the fall in value of some of my players at the lower end of the market. I also see today that my cheapest player (19p) no longer has an IS, so that has either been matched or the bid withdrawn. This makes it an issue for me and others at that end of the market, even if you don't use IS yourself.

    That said, I am still hopeful that the issue is more the lack of football, rather than this change. However, if those cheap players remain static, with no IS, even once football is back fully, I will become more concerned. For now, I'm therefore beating the positive and "be patient" motto, but I do reserse the right to join the disenchanted if there is no improvement in a few months time!

  • Does anyone have an email address for anyone slightly further up the chain.
    I can't imagine these clowns in support have referred it to anyone with any power.
    I certainly can't believe they'd send such a condescending letter out!

  • @Mintyfresh
    They've said previously that they imagine the issue will be resolved when sell orders are brought in!
    When will that be again?

    Q and A on Tues - nothing mentioned at all!

  • 0_1591545618099_Screenshot_20200607-091046.png

  • @Dronny-Gaz I fear sell orders too to be honest; I don't like change! The only saving grace with the current system for me is that prices aren't crashing at the lower end, even if they have dropped a bit, so I would like to think there will be an exit point over the duration of the bet, even if it takes longer than usual. I am concerned that sell orders will speed up the drop on these less in demand players, with people prepared to take anything just to get rid of the hold. I don't have any great need for the cash, so my problem is that I don't want to just get out of the hold; I want to get out with a profit! That was looking likely on most of my portfolio until the virus struck, but there are now several that I am a bit more worried about.

    I don't want to sell in a knee jerk panic now, to find that things are looking rosier again in a few months time. From a selfish viewpoint, I therefore don't really want to see sell orders until next season, but I can see why others do want them, to complete the OB system.

    As for IS, maybe FI could be persuaded to bring back a price at the bottom end, say at 50%, to give everyone the comfort they were after (or maybe they could do a phased withdrawal over 3 years, appeasing anyone who has open bets - i.e. 60% market value for the next year, then 40%, then 20% - before getting rid of it forever if that's what they want to do). I will raise this as one of my comments in the survey coming up, but your OP suggests this may be falling on deaf ears at FI.

  • That's fine. Some of us have had enough now though.

  • This post is deleted!

  • @Londoner
    I don't as a rule, but some of my current decent holds have no sell price on.
    Some others have perhaps 50% less.

    These aren't Oozy DeBoozy from Zimbabwe.
    We're talking PB holds.

  • @Mintyfresh said in Instant Sell Feedback **MUST READ**:

    but your OP suggests this may be falling on deaf ears at FI.

    There won't be deaf ears if traders vote with their feet!!!

  • @Dronny-Gaz

    17 out of 81 players involved in todays gameday have no IS at all, several others the very minimum IS price, make of that what you will.

  • @Dronny-Gaz said in Instant Sell Feedback **MUST READ**:

    I don't as a rule, but some of my current decent holds have no sell price on.
    Some others have perhaps 50% less.

    These aren't Oozy DeBoozy from Zimbabwe.
    We're talking PB holds.

    All of my under a pound holds are PB leagues as well. But they all have an IS price button, so I'm more fortunate.

  • @MikeWagner well they have changed the bet. If they now said we are now changing the sell commission to 15% then they have changed the rules again and everyone's hold would be worth much less. They are able to do what they like and that's the worry not the fact I can't shift 7 of my players.

  • I think there is a reasonable solution to this. I agree that there is an issue with the rug being pulled out from certain traders. So for all futures purchased before ME was introduced, still offer an IS price at 60% of the value of the player if there are no bids. FI should be keeping track of when futures were purchased due to 3 year expiry....should is the key word there. ...

    That way they can push forward with their new model , whilst at the same time not pissing people by changing terms of their bet.

  • @Dr-Jan-Itor if the tech can do it, that seems a fair compromise. Can't see anybody having an issue with that to be fair.

Log in to reply