FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread



  • @Geronimo159387
    Good idea and a worthwhile discussion for trader meet.

    FI to provide a reasoned justification of why the proposed 2% "buyer tax" on ME bids (currently delayed until Oct) will not simply damage future market growth, which is based on demand which this tax will reduce to 98% of it's potential.
    However on point above I might be interpreting you incorrectly but to me the delay in implementing the buyer tax is the issue not it’s introduction.
    I think the actual tax is needed to alleviate for volume of transactions going through the matching engine.
    It’s intro will lead to increased levels of full priced trading on newly minted shares which from my viewpoint is good for all traders and FI.
    This tax will serve as an impediment to discount purchasing and allow more liquidity for buying and selling and growth.
    I would have brought the 2 percent tax in much earlier for me bids if I had the choice as I see it as a positive necessary to correct the current flayed mechanics in operation.



  • @Geronimo159387 all great points you make, 1&4 in particular would be very beneficial, as would the point made by @Advinculas-Index.

    On a similar theme to that point in particular, we want time stamped shares. Since most of us top up on players over time, there should be the ability to click on a player in your portfolio and see the dates and quantities bought.

    Breakdown of PB scores. Only needs to be something along the lines of what sofascore produce, see below

    0_1595421943929_Screenshot_20200722-134533_SofaScore.jpg

    Clarity on delta's. I believe theyve openly said in the past that they would be tweaked, and now they have, so just show us what they are and where they start and end



  • @BMCG said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    I think the actual tax is needed to alleviate for volume of transactions going through the matching engine.
    It’s intro will lead to increased levels of full priced trading on newly minted shares which from my viewpoint is good for all traders and FI.

    Surely that problem is solved with the introduction of full OB's hopefully around Sept/start of next season?; buyers offer a price, sellers counter & the bargain is struck somewhere in between, FI get their commission from the sale. Taxing buyers will just result in fewer bids which is bad for demand, bad for sellers, bad for market liquidity & bad for platform growth (which is ultimately bad for FI). Discounts & the current buyer dominated ME will disappear with OB's, as the market price will be entirely determined by supply & demand, as it should be, tax is simply a disincentive to trade.

    I can see no valid argument for not scrapping it before it even arrives as it's a terrible idea all round.



  • @Geronimo159387
    Fundamentally disagree . My understanding is the tax applies only through the discounted me bidding platform . It by default encourages purchases at assets listed value . Anything that does that serves liquidity and Cap app far more then bidding through me.
    I would have brought it in far earlier and believe it solves and assists with liquidity issues when it’s introduced .
    Deferring our not bringing it in has the opposite unintended consequence.



  • I have no idea how to word it, players over 30, with no IS or any safety net (even say a 50% IS when a player retires would help) this will surely just be a dead zone for both buying and selling as very few people will want to risk it?

    This isnt good for FI or us, imagine how much Messi would be worth if we had a 50% buy back when he retires?

    Of course, this is gambling...:)



  • @BMCG said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    It by default encourages purchases at assets listed value .

    However that "listed value" representing the current market buy price & sales queue that forms behind it will disappear when the seller offer side of order books arrives. Buyers currently have (virtually) all the market power with ME bids, so any offer by definition is at a discount. To rebalance that market power sellers will get the option to offer their futures at a price of their choice, so full OB's are born. THE MARKET PRICE will now be entirely determined by the interaction of these relatively equal competing market forces of supply & demand, resulting in a new market price. In reality probably a very small spread around a mid price but it will bear no resemblance to what is currently available as the "market buy price". Another benefit is it will eliminate queuing FOREVER, subject to market liquidity.

    Taxing demand, buyers & growth will ONLY result in less growth, commission & lower prices which is a bad result for everyone involved, just a terrible idea.



  • Tiered match day PB, or the compromise, Team of the Week.



  • @Londoner or could you have PB for each league, that would make it easier to open FI up to more leagues without further diluting the potential PB available?



  • @Marksandygill said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Londoner or could you have PB for each league, that would make it easier to open FI up to more leagues without further diluting the potential PB available?

    I can't see FI going beyond the 5 PB leagues, especially the ones where it's easy to rack up massive PB scores.



  • For the love of god sort your customer service out. The people working in CS know less anout FI than anyone involved in the product they are absolutely useless which cause a disconnect between FI and trader. Stop using twitter as your main form of communication, you may see it as free advertising but it also advertises all that is bad too. Preferably interact with traders via your forum or a discord channel. Your forum does more than any other social platform in educating new users and without it i suspect many wouldnt stick about.

    Maybe think about having a dedicated person on Twitter and Facebook but have the rest of your organisation use your dedicated forum for direct communication. This would prevent a lot of the backlash you receive being made as public as it currently is.

    Btw i signed up to be part of the panel but have just realised 1pm on a Wednesday afternoon is impossible for me so if i get selected ill need to turn it down 😞



  • @Londoner said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Marksandygill said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Londoner or could you have PB for each league, that would make it easier to open FI up to more leagues without further diluting the potential PB available?

    I can't see FI going beyond the 5 PB leagues, especially the ones where it's easy to rack up massive PB scores.

    Not long ago i would have been inclined to agree, however, after the sudden introduction of GK's anything is possible if they thinks its going to cause volatility (which it would on a greater scale i suspect)



  • @Advinculas-Index said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Londoner said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Marksandygill said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Londoner or could you have PB for each league, that would make it easier to open FI up to more leagues without further diluting the potential PB available?

    I can't see FI going beyond the 5 PB leagues, especially the ones where it's easy to rack up massive PB scores.

    Not long ago i would have been inclined to agree, however, after the sudden introduction of GK's anything is possible if they thinks its going to cause volatility (which it would on a greater scale i suspect)

    I still cant see it. It would be a step too far. Imagine the change in dynamic. You hold somebody like Donny who's probably one of the best PB players on the index in this scenario, and the prospect of a Utd move crashes his price πŸ˜‚. Fuck me, even the forgotten man would be a decent hold. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all, offering a life line to all those poor fools duped into boarding that train to nowhere



  • @Black-Wolf said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    Btw i signed up to be part of the panel but have just realised 1pm on a Wednesday afternoon is impossible for me so if i get selected ill need to turn it down 😞

    Shame as I was hoping for a "sponsor" for this thread, however, with a week to go we may just find another worthy champion! Great CS point btw.



  • @MickTurbo said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Advinculas-Index said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Londoner said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Marksandygill said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Londoner or could you have PB for each league, that would make it easier to open FI up to more leagues without further diluting the potential PB available?

    I can't see FI going beyond the 5 PB leagues, especially the ones where it's easy to rack up massive PB scores.

    Not long ago i would have been inclined to agree, however, after the sudden introduction of GK's anything is possible if they thinks its going to cause volatility (which it would on a greater scale i suspect)

    I still cant see it. It would be a step too far. Imagine the change in dynamic. You hold somebody like Donny who's probably one of the best PB players on the index in this scenario, and the prospect of a Utd move crashes his price πŸ˜‚. Fuck me, even the forgotten man would be a decent hold. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all, offering a life line to all those poor fools duped into boarding that train to nowhere

    To use the oft used phrased by pumpers who have been called out and have no comeback of substance "Time will tell" πŸ˜‚



  • I think instead of suggesting new features for the index our attention should be focused on FI fixing all the little issues we currently have.l and giving FI an insight into how traders feel and what they really need as we understand the in the index better than they do so this is our chance to educate them



  • Perhaps they should task someone on their payroll to carry out some form of forensic analysis on forum content using it as a guide to trader sentiment/ideas/suggestions/concerns etc, whether that be by exporting a copy of all the threads from the last 6 months and somehow using the content within to form some sort of meaningful data.
    Its all there in one place.



  • The forum has the most sensible traders on it per pound.
    Twitter is a mix of stats geeks/older traders and idiots.
    Facebook - well the least said about that the better.
    FI should Engage the forum more The only person that does is @FI_Mark

    I generally don't know where this is product is heading but have faith it will get there my only concern is the fun/buzz factor is zero at the moment and that maybe needs addressing with comms like potential transfer div and media madness, I really don't think announcing sell orders or Nasdaq gets the juices flowing for most of the FI community, they need to know how they can win more money and trade for it...............



  • @Advinculas-Index said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Londoner said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Marksandygill said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    @Londoner or could you have PB for each league, that would make it easier to open FI up to more leagues without further diluting the potential PB available?

    I can't see FI going beyond the 5 PB leagues, especially the ones where it's easy to rack up massive PB scores.

    Not long ago i would have been inclined to agree, however, after the sudden introduction of GK's anything is possible if they thinks its going to cause volatility (which it would on a greater scale i suspect)

    Shooshhhh! Don't give them ideas!



  • Just some thoughts I've bundled together.

    1. Tiered PB. I'd like to see the next dividend rise incorporate this. Even if top payouts don't move much, adding another layer (or 2) of PB creates more winning bets. More regular (albeit smaller) payouts means more punters getting that winning feeling, more tradeable players (therefore a more credible platform) and more money moving round, which means better liquidity and more commission for FI.

    2. Better communication. This trader feedback thing sounds like a great start, but it needs to be across everything FI do. Stop telling us what you think we want to hear, I don't want a load of rocket emojis if a party balloon is more appropriate. I think it was good that Adam Cole tweeted about the 'sensible' dividend rise as it shows FI realised trader sentiment was predicting/hoping for much more, but FI should have tempered expectations from the start.

    3. FI should stop pumping players. Reminds me a bit of analysis that was done on 'in-play with Ray' that found such a small % were actually winning bets. It also totally goes against FI's unique selling point. Don't tell me it's a 3 year bet, then once I'm in the door, repeatedly try and flog me your 'tip of the day/week'.

    4. Get the small things right. The tweet from a few weeks ago about an afternoon announcement is a good example of this. Fair enough it was a cock up, but don't leave people sat on Twitter all night speculating about it. If you don't get it right straight away, then fix it.

    5. Give us more information on plans and update us along the way. I was pleased to hear there will be an update about the media monitor and further information on NASDAQ. I'm expecting more on that this month (FI's promise) but I don't trust them to deliver these updates on time.



  • @Yellow said in FI Trader Feedback Panel - Suggestion thread:

    I don't want a load of rocket emojis if a party balloon is more appropriate.

    Just highlighted this quote 'cos I felt it was worth more than just a single upvote! Agree with all your points but Tiered PB seems highly unlikely IMO.


Log in to reply