Tiered PB proposal, liquidity and trading volume would increase



  • Liquidity and trading volume are bad at the moment, just over £400000 was traded on yesterday's gold day, we all want market makers/Liquidity providers but if FI can't get them onboard soon then I think tiered PB could improve the situation.

    Currently a gold day pays out 56p in dividends for outfield players (14p per posistion and 14p star man). I would propose the removal of star man and introducing a tiered pb format which pays out 10p for first place, 6p for second and 3p for third per posistion, 19p for forwards, 19p for midfielders and 19p for defenders adds up to a total pay out of 57p.

    57p is a 1p increase on the 56p they currently pay but liquidity and trading volume (commission) would increase significantly, FI's liabilities would decrease too as the likes of Messi, Bruno, Kimmich etc often win star man and they're some of FI's biggest player liabilities. With FI's liabilities decreasing/commission increasing and traders having more opportunities to trade in and out of players in contention I see it as a win win.

    I would also propose a similar format for silver days, 7p for first place and 4p for second place, this again would be a 1p increase (33p vs 32p) but again liquidity and trading volume would increase, there's probabaly not enough games for tiered PB on bronze days though.

    When LP/MM are onboard maybe we could go back to the current format, hopefully there will be plenty of organic liquidity too when they're onboard and sentiment changes but until then I think something like this probably has to be done. Thoughts?



  • @VicMackey

    My first thoughts are, that it wouldn't fix liquidity across the market, it would just improve it for a handful of players at the expense of a large quantity of players, probably creating a good few bubbles along the way.

    Sure the likes of Kimmich might see a fairly giant spike but that money would come from somewhere else on the market.

    I do like the idea of having multiple payouts per position. I'd have won yesterday with Thiago Silva if that had been the case, so it's not like it would only benefit the very top. I just think we need a period of long stability and that a change like this would be the opposite of that.



  • I'm not saying it would increase liquidity across the market, but it would at least increase liquidity for those in contention of placing 1-3, that could be up to maybe 7/8 players on a gold day, that's better than what we have currently.

    Let's say hypothetically under the current 1 place format Bruno puts up a 300 in the early Kick off, top midfielder is almost certainly decided for the day and star man very likely is too, trading midfielders for the rest of the day is almost pointless and even more so soon when IPD'S are removed. With tiered PB the day still has interest and plenty of trading opportunities for players in contention.

    'it would just improve it for a handful of players at the expense of a large quantity of players', can you give an example of what you mean by this, I don't follow.



  • @VicMackey said in Tiered PB proposal, liquidity and trading volume would increase:

    it would just improve it for a handful of players at the expense of a large quantity of players', can you give an example of what you mean by this, I don't follow.

    Yeah sure.

    Imagine for a second, FI agreed to pay out £1 per goal. All of the money would flow out of GoalKeepers, the majority of money in defenders and DM's would exit and every spare penny people had, would be going into the likes of Lewendowski, Lukaku, Messi, etc. You'd struggle to find a buyer for anyone who wasn't a prolific scorer, at least until the bubble on those players were too big, then there'd be value on the low end scorers but you'd never find another buyer for a keeper.

    My sense is, that with Tiered PB, you'd have a similar impact because the Kimmich's, Bruno's, etc, who are already contenders most weeks, would be contenders even more frequently than they are now.

    If you look at the market, most players don't have a buyer, or any kind of depth but you can almost always find a buyer for the most frequent winners. The thing is, the likes of Bruno haven't won as often as we perceive them to but with tiered PB, Messi would go from winning 12 times last season, to something like 30 times.

    And to make matters worse, you'd be increasing the number of wins a player like Henderson needs to achieve the prizes he can win now, making him a less attractive option.

    Can you see what I'm getting at?



  • I see what you're getting but respectfully I disagree, if you held only PB gods like Bruno, Messi, Neymar etc you'd ideally want just a massive star man dividend pay out and no posistional/Tiered PB because when they play well nobody comes close, tiered PB levels the playing field somewhat IMO.
    Let's say your boy Henderson has his best game of the season with a GWG and Bruno also has his best on the same day, Henderson wouldn't get close as Bruno's best day has 3/4 goal involvements. However with tiered PB he'd probably get 2nd or 3rd place, just 4p less than Bruno instead of nothing with Bruno winning 28p.



  • @VicMackey

    Unfortunately you're just reorganising the deckchairs for those already in contention for winning PB, whilst I understand that those with "near miss" type players get frustrated at finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc, those players can & do already have a good chance at PB as it stands. They are also rewarded for consistency with TOTM but now you want yet another way for that relatively small group of players to win whilst neglecting the other 85% of the index. IPD's rewarded those players who could achieve G/A/CS but didn't threaten PB/MB/TOTM which is why it was such a shortsighted & stupid decision to remove it (reduced/restricted/limited until the end of the season was the ONLY acceptable way to have handled it).

    The lack of liquidity & poor trading volumes are a direct result of FI incompetence, platform mismanagement & destruction of trader trust & confidence & until they recognise that fact & start taking positive steps to rebuild it then traders will continue to either sit on their hands or actively sell up & leave. FI have plenty of £££ in the coffers & should have supported the market during the transition to OB's, they failed to do this through choice & the market crashed as a result, traders bore the full cost of this stupidity & unless they now support the market (buying up cheap offers, providing limited bid floors etc) then recovery will be very limited & patchy.

    FI could & should fix the glaring problems of liquidity or provide the mechanisms for traders to access their illiquid funds so we can do it for them but until they are honest, transparent & competent in the choices that they make, the prerequisite trust & confidence required for any recovery will remain very thin on the ground



  • Like the idea but i still dont think it solves the issue of making every player on the index relevant (or atleast a high percentage) - i think if they were able to do this it would drag everyone up with it from the bottom - i can only see that a separate PB competition for players outside the top 200 would work - not at the same values as the top 200 (maybe half) - that way the top 200 would keep its value and the rest of the players on the index should all get an increase in value



  • @G27 if we're being realistic the days of every player on the index being somewhat relevant are likely finished, quite like the idea for a separate PB for players outside the top 200, maybe whatever they're replacing IPD's with could be more attainable for players outside the top 200 too.



  • @VicMackey They were only finished with the removal of IPD's which they need a bloody good replacement for.

    I have circa 550 Jhon Cordoba's which were made redundant overnight. He was always good for a few goals and assists during a 30 day period.

    There needs to be a way of bringing a bit of value back to these type of players as many a trader used to buy and sell these and are now wondering if they will ever make a return, however small.



  • Surely my idea has to be the best, index buy back every player outside pb league and potentially add a league. The index buy back your shares at our cost price upon purchase and refund us with credit to use on the index l, suddenly you will see a big spike and every player becomes relevant buy the money saved on ipd payments getting replaced with tiered pb payments and a top 200 media buzz and a mb payment for the players outside top 200, using the 3 big media outlets from each country, suddenly every player has a potential to win mb, say a German player scores a hat trick with his bellend and gets lots of mb in Germany that will take precedence over jack grealish getting a hair cut if the German report gets more points



  • @MUFC the credit idea is a good one as it gives people the opportunity to restructure their portfolios without selling at next to nothing. It also could be pitched as a 'we fucked up, and we want to make amends' which goes some way to building bridges with us all. They've got so much wrong lately though they will no doubt somehow destroy confidence further with a totally insignificant incentive.



  • @Selwyn at least that way they could remove alot of deadwood that isn't involved in pb leagues, if they move to a pb league then add them, yes you miss the opportunity of being first on or finding a hidden gem, but at the moment that ain't happening anyway so this could be the best option, give us credit for players not in pb and shrink the market back to around 1200-1400 players which would drive prices up and hopefully get trading going again as people won't be stuck in trades they can't get out of



  • This post is deleted!


  • Do we know when they will announced what the replacement for IPDs will be?



  • @MUFC said in Tiered PB proposal, liquidity and trading volume would increase:

    @Selwyn at least that way they could remove alot of deadwood that isn't involved in pb leagues, if they move to a pb league then add them, yes you miss the opportunity of being first on or finding a hidden gem, but at the moment that ain't happening anyway so this could be the best option, give us credit for players not in pb and shrink the market back to around 1200-1400 players which would drive prices up and hopefully get trading going again as people won't be stuck in trades they can't get out of

    It's a good idea.



  • @o_O
    Are you feeling ok? I’m worried 😂👍



  • @G27 said in Tiered PB proposal, liquidity and trading volume would increase:

    @o_O
    Are you feeling ok? I’m worried 😂👍

    He doesn't have many, it's possibly his first, and maybe his last ever, i'm not going to begrudge him that :D



  • @MUFC

    Did u ever submit this idea out of interest?



  • It's all down to share circulation, and the fact that they seem to have no handle on the numbers of shares, and everything is just so cloak and dagger.

    Here's an example of how they should be working, this is from the footstock blog:

    https://www.blog.footstock.com/card-circulation-and-footstock-expansion/

    They tell you about how many of the players cards are in circulation, and are actively controlling it and offering ways to reduce cards in the market...

    every day there's a selection of players that you can trade in for credit, a 'Deal of the day' Removing them from the market, also, there's a limit on how many cards a player is allowed to own.
    Things like this keep a handle on supply and stop it all getting to thin.. and also try to prevent manipulation



  • @o_O

    Index Credit would be a great solution - it keeps the money in the index and gives everyone an 'out'


Log in to reply