Suggested change to IPD eligibility



  • One of the issues with the market at the moment is the upcoming international break. Players are only IPD eligible for a month, so why buy when they are going to miss a good chunk of that month.

    Instead would it be better if they were IPD eligible for a set number of their teams games, say 5? That way it removes the issues around international breaks or the close season. Appreciate it also removes the ability to pick a player who has a particularly busy schedule coming up but overall it probably provides a bit more stability over the course of the year.

    What are people's thoughts?



  • I may be a good idea... or it may not be, I’m knocking the effort or idea... it’s just more change if it were to be implemented, isn’t everyone sick of change & just want some clarity of what they have their money in and how the platform works?

    I’m not digging you out.



  • @OneBigHoliday

    Cheers, no I wouldn't take it as you digging me out, I put the post up to encourage debate. I agree the fact that everyone is sick of constant changes is a perfectly valid argument.

    If it is something that is worth doing then it's probably not worth doing in isolation, it could easily be left until next years dividends review.



  • @GeoffS think that makes perfect sense. There is the fact so many players pick up injuries and are rotated as well. I like it



  • @GeoffS

    Why not 31.days excluding international breaks : ) so additional weekend of matches whenever tjeres an international break. Or simply change it to 45 days ipd : )



  • @GeoffS Would help me to be even more lazy, and for that reason alone I like it!



  • @GeoffS you could look at it a different way. Look at the fixtures and pick out your ipd player now and try and get them as low as possible and ideally at their bottom bid. Then in two weeks time when footy comes back around and people are looking to purchase those ipd players you could sell at a higher is price and you don't even have to wait for them to score. Or you could hold on for a further two weeks to try and get some ipds and then take the is or hold



  • @GeoffS Only problem I see is FI implementing it smoothly, especially as Divs get paid for some Internationals (Euro and WC Qualifiers?), so would anyone would could say play for Norway but not be selected get a pass on the IPD count down or does their eligibility still continue? Certainly appreciate fresh ideas mind



  • @GeoffS it makes a lot of sense, for us, but the problem is it wouldn't be great business for FI.

    They're probably hoping we buy a load of players and they break a leg, get sent off, fall out of favour, they know we would want to sell them on.

    Also the 30 day expiry means people sell and rebuy, so that 4% they're making every time.

    It's a wonderful idea for us lot of money grabbing bastards haha, I'd love it. I just think FI wouldn't consider it.



  • @UncleBeard

    Well the IPD period would still expire, so people would still need to refresh and sometimes it would expire more quickly as say they set it for 5 games, there would be occasions where a player would have 5 eligible games in 3 weeks.

    I think it would be easy enough to set it for a period where the net sum loss to FI was zero in terms of IPD payouts. It would just help prevent some of the troughs we see before international breaks.



  • @JT4PAFC

    Yep the peaks and troughs create opportunity so completely appreciate that some people would prefer a system that doesn't smooth these out. That's why I threw it up for discussion.



  • @Falcon

    I mean that would be great as it would result in more IPD payouts, but ultimately there's only so much FI can pay out, so you have to assume that increased IPD payouts would result in smaller payouts somewhere else. I tried to come up with an idea that resulted in a similar total amount of payouts (because if the IPD period is for a set number of games that would sometimes be less than a month) as I felt that was something that was more likely to result in FI being willing to consider it.

    This is more a quality of life suggestion than a way of increasing the total amount paid out.


Log in to reply