A System To Replace IPD's

  • Rather than dwell on the removal of IPD's, I mocked this concept up earlier as a thought experiment for the type of system that I think could replace IPD's. It's a little sloppily done but I thought it'd be good to show an example of how the removal of IPD's might turn in to a good thing. (or bad if you don't like the concept I guess)

    Ladies and Gentlemen of FI... I present to you.... the all new singing and dancing IPD replacement....


    The concept is super simple , players earn dividends when footballers hit specific targets. For example, if a midfielder scores 5 goals, holders are paid 10p.

    In many ways, it's just an evolution of IPD's, where traders win dividends for specific actions... albeit, in a more prolonged manor, so as to incentivise long term trading but the system would offer a great degree of flexibility to FI and the targets could be just goal/assist related OR as granular as FI choose to make them. (10,000 passes = 10p, 50 tackles = 5p. 20 GWG = £1), etc. Some might never come off, others might be low earners but frequent winners.

    The targets would change from position-to-position, with a Striker needing to score more goals than a Defender to win the dividend. Goalkeepers could be rewarded 10p for 5 clean sheets, where as a Defender could be rewarded 5p for 10 clean sheets. FI, could even tailor this system to specific players, for example, DM's like Kante, could have lower goal targets than other midfielders like Ilicic or perhaps receive a dividend for 15 clean sheets to reward the defensive side of their game.

    One of the issues with the existing IPD's, is the need to regularly refresh to stay in the game. With a system like Targets, it could take a DM such as Kante, multiple seasons to score 5 goals but if you picked him up at a time when he's in red hot form, he might score 4 in a week, then keep you hanging on in there for an entire season (or 2) before scoring the 5th.


    Obviously, there's a few challenges for a system like this. For starters, FI would need to give users a full breakdown of our holds incase we have bought the same player on multiple occasions... but that functionality is meant to be coming anyway.

    At this point any new system at all has the potential to cause an absolute earthquake on FI or a gold rush, so, I just hope, whatever they go with, they find a way to phase it in properly and give us something fun.

    They could even take this system to the next level. Imagine you did buy Kante in a hot streak and he scored 4 out 5... they could let you sell that Kante with the 4/5 Targets attached, so you would be able to list him for a higher price than someone with a Kante who has no Targets met. At this point, it's more a redesign of the entire Index though...

    Anyhow... If you've made it this far... you're obviously as bored as I am... feel free to pick this to pieces or post your own alternatives.

  • @Dan-The-Man

    Great effort & if it happened I could see it having some benefits, I very much doubt FI could deliver it's complexity in terms of hold breakdowns etc (they've been promising timestamping for as long as I can remember) or explain it in any comprehensible way & when it came to implementation???

    Bottom line is the best solution for simplicity, liquidity & fairness would be a system that rewarded game actions like G/A/CS - if only anyone could think of it???

  • @Dan-The-Man It's a very good concept - if only FI had the knowledge and ideas of some of the traders on this forum. The benefit to them, too, will be a delay in paying out dividends. That is where IPDs have really cost them.

  • It would be good to know which avenue FI are thinking of going down....Hopefully they have an idea and the sooner they give us a clue the better.

  • This sounds a bit complicated. I think the only thing FI can do now is to bring a revised version of instant sell back.

    Its clear that independent market makers, liquidity providers, or whatever we call them, are not going to happen, and for good reason. FI control the market, the rules, the payouts, but they don't want to provide the liquidity - this makes little sense to me.

    FI could make the terms of this as unfavourable as they wish, with a large spread. The aim should be to ensuring every player always has a sell offer while keeping the number of shares consistent relative to price. Neither of which happens now.

  • Good idea, but at the end of the day FI want to get rid of IPD because it costs them too much. Whatever they replace it with will cost FI less and therefore return less to traders.

    IPD was unsustainable, but perhaps reducing from 2p to 1p and then 0p, would have smoothed the transition.

    Removing assists would also reduce liability, but possibly pay FWD 1p/goal, MID 2p, DEF 4p etc. Currently they are paying 2p-4p/goal and 2p-4p/assist = 4p-8p/goal in most cases.

    Lots of low cost players (10p) were scoring goals and winning regular IPD and then being refreshed for 2% + 2% commission. 4% of 10p isn't a lot, but FI could have controlled the number of shares in circulation. If 10p players cost more in IPD than the commission that they earn, FI could buy some back. It would have been cheaper for them in the long run and fairer to us.

    At £5, Messi isn't worth recycling because the 4% (20p) needs 10 x IPD per month to break even, so he becomes a PB/MB hold. A 50p player only needs 1 x IPD to make it worth refreshing. Lower priced players could easily return 20% profit per week and were often better value than premium players. What I don't understand is why the market didn't realise this and cause prices on these lower players to rise accordingly.

    Removal of FI backed IS is also a factor. If a player currently costing 10p is scoring regularly, the IPD return would make them worth 50p+ if you can sell for a similar price, but with no guaranteed sale price the market is only valuing them at 10p.

    Removal of IPD kills the super sub, who might score a lot of goals but won't get enough game time to make PB. Similar with players who get taken off or rested once the game is won. If Bruno scores a brace and is taken off after 70 minutes he might miss out on PB and now he won't get IPD either.

  • Nice idea. Biggest problem is we're dealing with a company that can't even be arsed to update transfers every 6 months. how will they keep track of when people hit those targets?

    If they ever did take something like that, and if they want people to hold for a while, they could incentivise that by increasing the payments on these targets (i.e. 5 goals = 4p, 10 goals = 12p, 20 goals = 40p, etc.

  • @Bamford-s-Armpit Agree, if they could track length of time per share more accurately, they would already be expiring 3 year old bets.

  • @Honeylight
    This reminds me of my other thought to increase FIs income slightly and encourage trading - which would be a fee on shares held for a year.
    Basically shares would automatically be "renewed" for a small percent. In return the 3 year rule would be scrapped.

  • @Dan-The-Man

    I do like a lot of these ideas. I think FI will need to find a way to compensate for loss of earnings on certain players.

    What I believe they will be looking for is something that continues to keep people trading speculatively and regularly, but also somehow rewards people for holding longer term.

    My guess would be some kind of cumulative points mechanism across the month. ToTM will have given them the software and data since it has been running, so they could pay out for scores over 400, 450 etc (for keepers it would be lower as they score lower in general). This would have same rules as ToTM, so have to hold them by 21st and keep until 1st.. It would be ongoing pay outs for holders but people could also trade it speculatively if the pay out was worth it)

    In addition to this they would either need to change the PB matrix or create some kind of new incentive to give forwards a boost in lieu of IPDs. I think they could again do it on a monthly basis (ongoing for holders), but with targets of say 5 goals in a calendar month to win Xp (with payouts limited in the same way as ToTM so have to buy them by 21st and hold until 1st). Maybe a some kind of flat pay out for a hatrick of 2p.

    I would much prefer the latter option to a pb matrix change. If they have any sense they will be looking at how they can improve shattered market confidence, and announcing the PB matrix is locked in for the next 18 months would certainly help in that sense. If it is all PB based incentives and they do not announce the matrix will remain the same, then I would be pretty nervous buying players for their current PB potential when I do not know if that will change again in a few months time...

  • Too expensive would be my guess and would eliminate a lot of the market still. I could be wrong but I think FI will come up with something pretty crap.

  • In principle Dan that would be great and I really like it, however it rewards long term holding which does not generate funds/profits for FI which was why IPD's were brought to counter those of us who bought players to sit on for 3 years, farm the dividends and then sell for Capital Appreciation at the end of 3 years.

    What they are looking for is some incentive that promotes regular trading but without downward pressure on prices (holy grail).

    An example would be to restrict platform to 1000 players and have a top 250 and then the other 750. All players would compete for PB & MB as they do now But they would have there own TOTM with significantly higher prizes. 20p/15/10p/5p (need to know finances of FI to accurately set)

    New shares could be bought in any player until they start there 2nd fixture in any month so to make it a little harder. This would encourage trading in players having had 1 good performance in the month (no certainty they win) and help all those players that are lower priced.

    Top 250/750 could then be rebalanced at the start of each month so you finish the month in the category you started in.

    Twice a year have transfer windows where players leave/get added by way of auction.

    If you hold players leaving the index you get say 50% of purchase price in credits to spend on new players

    This keeps product simple and adds some form of shorter term fix without getting away from longer term holds.

  • @Geronimo159387 yes,the ipd is perfectly fine as it is, but one thing i always felt fi got wrong was allowing you to sit and watch the games, and just buy whoever scores assists or gets clean sheets, guaranteeing fi having to pay out . They should have implemented an 11am cut off point for thats days games to stop that happening, if i had a wantlist of longterm players, id just buy when they guarantee a payout, i think thats possibly something fi realised they were getting pounded by. In theory, you could have just sat and waited for any decent defender to score and then buy them up

  • @Finlay77 said in A System To Replace IPD's:

    In theory, you could have just sat and waited for any decent defender to score and then buy them up

    Your example would benefit FI. If a defender scores a goal, FI have a liability for the dividend regardless who owns him. If Trader A sells to Trader B on the spike, FI get the commission. I've never understood why anyone buys on the spike for IPD because once the player has scored the price usually rises by more than the dividend. I could understand someone buying if the player is heading for a high PB score, but PB eligibility is time stamped.

    There is money to be made selling on the spike, but buying on a spike is just over paying.

  • yes getting rid of IPD's in 30days has kicked the market in the dick. They should reduced to 1p/2p and half a p for assists imo then rid of them at the end of season.

  • Cracking idea and I hope they are thinking along similar lines to at least keep value among all players but rewarding long term holds

  • Really well thaught out great effort mate FI take note

  • @Dan-The-Man fancy a job at FI towers

  • @Dan-The-Man This one got posted on the discord, I like this idea a lot. Team of the week for each of the separate leagues, what do you reckon?


  • This would be great but I don't see it happening. It would encourage long term holds, which doesn't benefit FI at all. They want to encourage trading to get the commission, put without creating the refreshing scenario where users were incentivised to try and do it at as low a price as possible.

    FI said that the new system would be trading incentives and opportunities. To me a trading incentive sounds like it is going to be a cashback on purchases or similar. It wouldn't shock me if this included removing the 2% purchase tax. The cynic in me thinks maybe they even just added it so they could remove it at a later date and pretend they are doing us a favour.

Log in to reply