Controversial view on MB

  • I think FI messed up at the start by making MB such a key factor in FI. It should have been worth a lot less than PB in my opinion but it’s too late to change now as all the big money people would leave if MB was reduced. The slogan of ‘What’s your football knowledge worth’ should mean that PB is the most important. You don’t need much knowledge to know who will be in the newspapers every day. I have done well with MB from Werner and Martial the other day and a few others over the years but much prefer PB. It’s a great feeling when you are watching a match and one of your players scores a winning goal and you know that’s going to put him ahead of Messi for that day as star man. Or when a lower value player I had researched comes up with a cracking score. Still love FI of course but just wish ‘your football knowledge’ was worth more than knowing Pogba was due a hair cut.

  • @HUFCPaul

    Not controversial at all IMO, MB has it's place for when there's no football being played (as demonstrated by how it supported the market during the CV suspension) but I completely agree "Football Index" should prioritise & be largely based on football knowledge & on field performance which are rewarded by winning dividends.

    Unfortunately MB was the ONLY way to win in the early days, so the platform was built around it & it's legacy is strong as it is far more predictable than performance based wins so has resulted in MASSIVE, entrenched vested interests. With some fantastic real world players, who's game isn't suited to the PB matrix, who's high index price is almost wholly dependent on MB wins, so any change will be resisted & blocked by their holders, even if that's to the detriment of the platform as a whole.

    Just try explaining to a prospective investor that Paul Pogba's haircut, Dele Alli's racist tweet or a Grealish drunken car crash will earn them more than a game winning performance & you have your MB problem right there. At least if the system can be reformed to represent an intuitive winner then that would at least be an improvement but it will always form a significant part of the platform IMO.

  • Probably disagree with last point.

    If you tried to discuss FI with an investor, suspect they would have far more confidence in investing in a brand such as pogba being in the media. It's not about the haircut it's about the brand which from an investing point of view is far more solid and trustworthy.

    On the flip side, the PB element is basically fantasy football and more like gambling.

    Nothing disagreeing with overall sentiment and certainly for a football fan, pb is more appealing. But from a wider point of view, you would imagine that a serious investor would be more attracted to investing in the brand.

    Of course there are scenarios like Ali but for an investor, investing that someone like pogba will remain a high profile media personality seems a more solid investor than investing in the actual football.

  • What is of great importance is that FI has the conditions to keep increasing dividend payouts year on years. If everything is too predictable, then everyone buys exactly the same players. No on is trading, FI makes no commission and the div payouts are such that there is no scope to raise them further.

    By keeping PB and MB relatively challenging, it allows the market conditions to generate commission, and that in-turn will lead to div increases. The MB review may lead to it becoming less predictable, but with it there may be payouts on more places, larger payouts etc, so overall everyone will benefit

  • @mike778
    To expand on this, compare pogba to say kostic who is a good pb player.

    But what about if the matrix changes, what if he takes more or less set pieces, what about if the system changes to something less pb friendly. What if he is played in a. Slightly withdrawn position.

    These are things that football fans are happy to ponder. But your serious investors in a suit aren't going to want to. Again, this is where investing in the media guys seems a more sensible investment.

  • @mike778 said in Controversial view on MB:

    for an investor, investing that someone like pogba will remain a high profile media personality seems a more solid investor than investing in the actual football.

    That's an argument for IPOing Victoria Beckham or buying shares LVMH or Mercedes Benz, brands can be valuable but probably don't deserve to be on FI.

  • @HUFCPaul so many other platforms offer PB style games FI is built on MB and PB was added in later. MB is also the only reason FI survived at all during this pandemic. I cant stress enough the importance of MB. Its definitely not perfect but what they should aiming to do is making as good as it can possibly be and in my opinion should be the primary dividend available.

    MB is the reason we have premium players. Sancho or Bruno didnt get to their current prices based on PB. If PB was the main driver on FI then cap app wouldnt be the same its more likely players would rise and fall each week much like what happens to PB players towards the end of the season. A lot of people would lose interest in FI if there wasnt an MB dividend to be earned every day i personally feel MB dividends are the area in the most need of an increase

  • @Black-Wolf

    Absolutely right. MB should be worth more than it is. I don't really play for it except during transfer season, as it does not feel fit for purpose right now. Constantly people are picking holes in it, it is open to corruption etc... If they can sort these problems out then I think that the payouts should be close to what pb are, and multiple payouts even on matchdays...

    I think for this to be realistic possibility, then they absolutely have to give us a transparent point scoring system like PB is. If traders are still going to be calling into question media points each day etc then the dividends should remain quite limited. I hope they can give us something that allows MB to feel like it is as legit as PB

  • Mb drew me to the product in the first place I really liked the idea of media, transfers, opinions on players ect ect.
    I like the researching of possible transfers and why certain players would move more than researching PB players.

  • Investors will want to receive a good return to risk ratio. MB is clearly unpopular with many and I totally get why, but there's also a reason why FI were consulting on it and are happy to change it too; I suspect it costs them far more than PB because it is currently much easier to predict. Making it harder to predict is better for FI and worse for us.

    I totally get the haircut point and football knowledge should be worth more and of course idealisticly I don't see how you can disagree with that. However, if you want to make money, MB would probably be best left as it is. In my experience of big investors, they will put in far more if they see the potential returns and I don't believe they will turn their nose up at it because people win them money for ridiculous reasons.

    I've always gone for CA over dividends in the past so I suspect my yield is much lower than most, hence I don't think any change will particularly harm me, but I really do think this is very much a be careful what you wish for situation as there are bound to be many grumbles when the new system is announced and FI cannot be blamed for that, as it's what we have asked for. We've also known about it for ages now, so communication has been good too.

  • @Mintyfresh

    Big investors are very happy with returns of 20% per annum . 10% is the standard target rate of return. I was making 15% off the £100k I had in a rental property, a safe option. I made 100% on FI when I sold the house and put it in here.

    The only thing that I ever really worry about it the viability of the business model. I don't see it being viable if they are paying out £2m+ a month in divs and no one is trading. If that's the case I would not put my money back in.

    If I can see clear conditions for a lot of trading then my money feels very safe. Commission equals dividend increases across the board, and that is what creates higher yields in perpetuity.

    If I can see everyone buying the same players and no one trading then the risk for me is much bigger, as I cannot see how FI is making money. So as a big investor I am comfortable with FI doing what they need to do to encourage people to trade. Less comfortable if everything sits still and everyone buys the same players. To me that is a recipe for disaster

  • Seems to be a good mix of people who prefer MB and those who prefer PB which is good for FI as it means people will be investing for both. I can see why people like MB as it’s easy money so it’s good to have the obvious players for it but as a football based app I just think PB divs should be higher than MB. Fair point on MB being why the likes of Sancho are so high but maybe a higher PB div would bring the prices of players closer together.

  • @Baydog don't disagree, it's a risk v reward decision that any big investor will make. I suppose I was making two points and my one about investors was that they won't care where the "reward" part of the equation comes from, whether it's haircuts or performances on the pitch. As football purists we may not like it, but I think it's the reality for most (but not all clearly).

    Your point about sustainability is also true, but I am just keen to point out to those thinking that an MB review is going to make them rich is that it probably won't. I appreciate you're not coming at it from that angle though. It is likely to help the sustainability of FI which will be good for us all, but then you could argue the same with the withdrawal (current or otherwise) of FI backed IS and we know how that has gone down!

  • @Mintyfresh

    That is very true - investors won't care about where the rewards come from.. I don't really mind what they do with the MB review, what it includes etc.. Doesn't matter one bit to me if it includes nonsense articles, as soon as I know what scores what I'll be able to act upon it.

    I just want it to be a transparent scoring system that is not as susceptible to corruption as it currently is. If they cannot achieve this then everyone will keep picking holes in it and it may do more harm than good via negative threads etc...

    I think FI will be aware of the problems and criticisms, there are enough of them. This is a big opportunity to restore people's faith in MB - although it is probably a lot more complex to score than PB granted.. If they pull it off then MB will become a a legit payout that I will chase like PB

    Ironically the withdrawal of FI backed IS, whilst it has brought with it unprecedented negativity, does also make the company feel a lot more sustainable to me. My money feels safer without them having the liability of buying back bets. It certainly hasn't been executed with aplomb, but I do see how this will appeal to big money punters (as long as the market is functioning healthily).

Log in to reply