Should In-Play dividends be kept? Check out the latest edition of the football index blog!





  • "What I want to see is performance as a whole being pushed forward because it is this, not media, that has really captured imaginations and pushed FI to where it is today."

    Agreed

    "We are also hitting a point where yields really are pitiful. If FI is going to survive and mature the focus does need to come more back towards dividends rather than pure hype. If it doesn’t, FI will eat itself."

    Well put - Agreed

    "But that will take more than a 6–12% increase."

    Equally pitiful I say.
    It needs 250% to cover the price rises of the last 12 months alone.
    That is without consideration of the addition of 1000+ players.
    Assuming FI wants to maintain a 19.3% yield.

    @ The FIG - It should be noted that IPD's are retarding capital appreciation - I'm convinced by the way the market is behaving that too large a number, are selling anything over 30 days old, as soon as they are able to do so without loss.
    It has a very detrimental affect on any investors with a preference for holding beyond 30 days.

    My own preference is :

    IPD's - Bin them.

    MB - Split 5 ways. Round every player off to the nearest 5p - Make MB a 1p a day dividend post split on match days.

    PB - This is where I want to see substantial increases. The winners are more difficult to predict, it is in large part based on form, there's built in volatility that promotes trade.

    I want a tiered system post split.

    GK - 1p
    Def - 1st - 3p, 2nd,3rd,4th - 1p each
    Mid - 1st - 3p, 2nd, 3rd - 1p each
    Fwd - 1st - 3p, 2nd, 3rd - 1p each

    In order to retain that 19.3% yield there simply has to be an increase that is proportional to rises in player prices.
    Essentially a share split, but with no reduction in dividends.

    I would be happy with no less than this. I'm guessing it's been a good year for FI, they haven't gone bust, they're not accumulating debt to my knowledge.
    The point is 19.3% was an affordable payout 12 months ago.
    Why should it not be so for the coming 12 months.
    Without a rise to match player prices the projection falls below 5% this year. I quote - "pitiful".
    However whilst the resulting stagnation, when players rise to meet the value of their likely individual dividend yield, is worrying.
    IPD's are also retarding any growth as people flip and bring down price gains in favor of new IPD's.
    MB should be FI's greates concern. The longer the media sticks with Pogba, the more people who hold him, the closer FI gets to going bust.
    It is quickly becoming the Paul Pogba Index and they really should have a lot more to discuss on talksport, as with other future platforms. PB and player performance/form gives us that critical point of sustainable interest.

    I don't think my dividend restructure proposal is complicated, I do think it brings merit based value to futures and gives FI a volatile market with sustainable trade.



  • @C-Arroyo

    I'd certainly agree with you on PB

    thats about form and allows buyers to use some judgement along with luck to buy and earn dividends on a number of players. The MB does seem to have the same names cropping up

    adding that bit of football manager / fantasy football into it with a better PB dividend just may lure more people in....more users, more investment.



  • Initially posted in another thread, but it seems relevant.
    Your blog gets the cogs in my head whirring !


    Currently there are two types of trader on FI, two potential means of deriving revenue.

    1 - MB - These are investors who hold a small number of players (top 20) in large quantities, these are typically long term holds (months) with little movement and trade. Eventually all players reach a correct value based purely on projected annual dividend returns - after that things stagnate.

    2 - IPD's - These are investors who typically own a small number of shares in a large number of players (everyone outside the top 20), typically held for a maximum of 30 days, often no more than 24 hours and sold at the first opportunity. These purchases are often made after the fact with dividends secured prior to purchase, the sole intent after the period of eligibility is to flip. Eventually all players correct at a price that reflect only their projected 30 day dividend yield vs the commission cost to sell and rebuy. Players eventually stagnate at these prices.

    Beyond this there is no reason for any one of us to buy a single future, above a value at which we'll eventually reach a relative consensus - Stagnation, little trade/commission, but FI still has to pay all their costs inc dividends - so collapse.

    Neither of these two models is sustainable for FI.
    Which is why we all need to concede that PB is the way forward for FI, with built in volatility and routine trade based on fluctuations in form and fitness.



  • @C-Arroyo I couldn't agree more with this - great points. I was just saying to a friend that I believe FI could surely afford to double PB dividends based on where prices were at this time last year. This would stabilise the market, which MUST be driven by dividends to be sustainable in the long term.

    I don't even think a significant increase in dividends would negatively impact those currently playing for "capital appreciation", as that should in theory be related to the probability of a player winning divs in the future, so those players values should rise as well. The only thing that would be negatively affected are trades that are based on capital appreciation and nothing else (Declan Rice/Sean Longstaff anyone?) If a player has little chance to return dividends in the future then they are a bad idea now, or in the future under a dividend increase.

    So I think a big dividend increase should be possible, and in fact is necessary. I have my doubts whether FI will be bothered about doing too much while the cash is flowing into their coffers, but if they have long-term vision, they should be looking at it. They have surprised with big decisions in the past, so I'm hoping they do again with this!



  • @C-Arroyo Some excellent points here mate!

    Really, really good stuff.



  • @The-FIG I don't think so....

    MB players are dear - there's a reason for this, that's why you pay £22 for Paul Pogba.

    Also, FI can't get rid of MB as 3 months of the year no football is played & the MB platform keeps the business ticking over, otherwise we would just all remove our money in the summer months 🙄



  • @C-Arroyo Your not working out the 19.3% the same way Adam did. It will be close to 20% next year as well without a incease.



  • @Misto

    I'm quite sure Adam was basing his figure on the premise of owning one share in every player listed.
    "A general yield"

    Further when he cited those who've invested a little more productively - I believe he was talking about MB, the ease at which it's been predicted, the lack of volatility and the increasing cost to FI.

    Which has prompted not only the share split, to make those top players more affordable, but no doubt some reflection on the part of FI, regarding their own future costs.

    Assuming my assumption (which is shared by others) that Adam was talking about a general one share in each player or equal shares in each player - at prices 12 months ago, dividend yield of 19.3% - I'm working things out in exactly the same way.

    Prices 12 months ago !

    As they rise in price to purchase, the 19.3% yield is reduced.

    That isn't rocket science, and a rough guess of 5% yield at prices for the 12 months following his statement is going to be pretty close.
    Far closer to 5% than 19.3%.

    You'd be correct that the yield would be 20% in the following year, only if shares were purchased 2 years before at those prices.
    What we're talking about is expected yield for new investors as well as any futures purchased now.
    As prices of futures rise, dividends must rise proportionally, if they do not that annual dividend yield is reduced in line with price rises.



  • @C-Arroyo bang on there pal. Some excellent points 👍👍



  • @C-Arroyo He worked it out using a weighted average yeild across the whole index.

    A decent dividend incease is what i'm hoping for on the 18th, after all dividends are what backs this whole thing up. I don't think we will get anywhere near x4. Theoretically FI should be able to afford it, because they have more trades going on (higher market liquidity), they are making higher returns on the 2% commission because of the higher prices and they are issuing new shares at much higher prices than 12 months ago.

    The only thing stopping them doing a really decent incease that I can think of is all the older shares issued in the past would also be eligible for the inceased payouts as well and FI would be liable for the pay out, while making very little or nothing of them.



  • @Ericali I don't think I've ever insinuated that FI should get rid of it....

    I think PB should be the cornerstone of the product, as it represents on pitch actions more so



  • @The-FIG but PB is also a lottery, with sub £1 players winning it quite regularly.

    If F.I went that way, you couldn't justify Pogba being above £2-3

    In fact, dividend payouts would be sporadic you would be better off having a bet or leaving the platform altogether



  • I would be very interested to hear (if anyone knows) what Pogba's & Messi's all time PB yield is?

    I can only find their MB & PB combined.



  • @C-Arroyo said in Should In-Play dividends be kept? Check out the latest edition of the football index blog!:

    Initially posted in another thread, but it seems relevant.
    Your blog gets the cogs in my head whirring !


    Currently there are two types of trader on FI, two potential means of deriving revenue.

    1 - MB - These are investors who hold a small number of players (top 20) in large quantities, these are typically long term holds (months) with little movement and trade. Eventually all players reach a correct value based purely on projected annual dividend returns - after that things stagnate.

    2 - IPD's - These are investors who typically own a small number of shares in a large number of players (everyone outside the top 20), typically held for a maximum of 30 days, often no more than 24 hours and sold at the first opportunity. These purchases are often made after the fact with dividends secured prior to purchase, the sole intent after the period of eligibility is to flip. Eventually all players correct at a price that reflect only their projected 30 day dividend yield vs the commission cost to sell and rebuy. Players eventually stagnate at these prices.

    Beyond this there is no reason for any one of us to buy a single future, above a value at which we'll eventually reach a relative consensus - Stagnation, little trade/commission, but FI still has to pay all their costs inc dividends - so collapse.

    Neither of these two models is sustainable for FI.
    Which is why we all need to concede that PB is the way forward for FI, with built in volatility and routine trade based on fluctuations in form and fitness.

    I am not a fan of MB as well as IPD, but from FI point of view, these two schemes are necessary.

    1. Investors holding large numbers of shares of top 20 players do not trade frequently, but they maintain a large capital in the index (Just think how much money in the index in Pogba shares and that capital may be equivalent to the total money in 1000 of players at the other end). Those investors bring stability to the index and FI cannot ignore their biggest group of customers.

    2. Flipping and trading in the period of 30 days are also something FI wants as that is the main source of commissions to them. It is also a kind of more interesting bet compared to those from traditional bookies and an excellent idea to attract customers from those bookies. It is more on FI to calculate and balance the commission-IPD payouts.

    In the end, I agree with you on the PB increase, but MB and IPD have to be maintained.



  • @Ericali said in Should In-Play dividends be kept? Check out the latest edition of the football index blog!:

    I would be very interested to hear (if anyone knows) what Pogba's & Messi's all time PB yield is?

    I can only find their MB & PB combined.

    Pogba: Media = £7.83, Performance =£0.58
    Messi: Media=£2.98 ; Performance=1.90

    Pogba is the king of media. Without media, he would not be in the top 20.



  • @Victory said in Should In-Play dividends be kept? Check out the latest edition of the football index blog!:

    @Ericali said in Should In-Play dividends be kept? Check out the latest edition of the football index blog!:

    I would be very interested to hear (if anyone knows) what Pogba's & Messi's all time PB yield is?

    I can only find their MB & PB combined.

    Pogba: Media = £7.83, Performance =£0.58
    Messi: Media=£2.98 ; Performance=1.90

    Pogba is the king of media. Without media, he would not be in the top 20.

    Thanks for the info 👍so without MB, over the past 2-3 seasons Pogba has 58p - I'll be generous to him & call it 30p a season.

    So his share value would be worth about 90p over the course of a 3 year hold, so........

    He's worth about £1.50? 🤣🤣🤣

    Yep - everyone withdraw their cash if it goes PB orientated, as FI is about to crash & burn👍

    Shrewd move!



  • @Ericali
    I'm not complaining when players costing £1.50 return 58p
    You're not complaining when a player costing £22 returns £7

    They are both returning around 35%
    We each make our own conscious choice.

    You sound a little panicked.
    In another thread, you were suggesting I might be in financial trouble, that you fear for any dependents I may have and that you hoped I'd paid my mortgage.

    Let's say Paul Pogba does drop to £1.50.
    We're not all crying about that. We're not all crashing and burning.
    Only those who've put too many eggs in too few baskets.
    Another conscious choice.

    There are likely just as many investors here with diverse PB chasing portfolios, as there are people with smaller portfolios based around MB winners.
    However I suspect FI is paying out more to the latter as those dividends are easier to predict, particularly when the cut off is mid way through.

    So what would you do if you were FI ?

    I'm not trying to change FI to suit myself.
    I have changed myself to suit what is going to be an increasingly clear conclusion on the part of FI.

    It's madness to have faith that FI is going to keep shelling out on easy to predict winners.
    It's logical to consider that there are ways in which FI can increase it's appeal whilst reducing it's costs.

    Eric.
    We shouldn't even be praising MB.
    You've been here since capital appreciation paid us more.
    The point we're trying to press home is about our marketing appeal to a global audience of potential investors.
    Higher PB dividends as an incentive, with the hope that gives us more exponential growth and capital appreciation that far outweighs any mentioned dividends.

    We all lose if we accept an easy to predict win mechanic, eventually prices balance and correct in ways you suggested in your last post, around their true dividend yield based values.
    No growth once they hit ISA like figures. That's where we could crash and burn.

    In market with difficult to predict win mechanic - like PB, there will always be losers and winners.
    You don't strike me as a loser in that regard. I'm sure you would do well without media profits, or with relatively smaller media profits, following any restructure.
    Your footballing knowledge is vast as with most forum users and you've been here long enough to understand opts, the PB scoring system and individual players. You should be well ahead of the curve always.

    I suppose the really big question is this :
    Can you accept relatively less in MB returns, if an increase in PB dividends proves to have more appeal and our capital appreciation returns to 100%+ for the next few years ?



  • @C-Arroyo well.... That's a lot to respond to.

    Firstly, I can assure you I'm not panicked - I fully expect an MB increase announcement on the 18th March, or for the start of next season at latest.

    This is vital for the growth of the product to survive as the top MB players are reaching the max growth potential. I don't consider myself a big fish, but I do have a 20k+ portfolio invested in high end players, there are others with £100k+ portfolios who adopt a similar strategy to myself. These guys are the true whales who probably earn FI 10s of thousands a week by keeping their money in the platform & allowing FI to earn money off their capital in high-interest accounts.

    Without their involvement the product would probably go bust - so FI doesn't want to pee these people off. 👌

    They pay £22 for these top guys, because obviously, they have a high probability of winning MB.

    If the platform did just solely go PB oriented, then why pay £7+ for Havertz say? 🤔

    He will return no more than 30p a season in PB so no more than 90p over the term of my hold - I may as well close my eyes & throw a dart at a name because in all honesty, £.0.50-£1 players win it nearly as much as the £7+ players. It's a lottery!

    That's not skill - I'm merely just covering more bases with the £0.50-£1 players if I choose to play the game.

    That's a product that wouldn't thrive, as people simply wouldn't see a valid reason to invest thousands.

    But just to be clear - I do not expect FI to increase MB any more than the platform needs to survive - people aren't after sucking the blood out the company so it dies a slow death.

    We all want it to prosper, just under the current circumstances, or as close to the current circumstances as possible & not the current sea-change scenario you are suggesting. 👍

    Oh, one final thing - the reason the capital appreciation even occurs in the first place is linked to potential MB wins in the future, just look at Sancho, Mbappe, Hudson-Odoi, VJ, Felix, Greenwood etc. It's about getting those future MB magnets when they are "cheap"



  • @C-Arroyo Pogba is not set in stone to win media all the time, you have to remember he was a MB producing melting pot with the Jose saga, that has pretty much died now, then add one mega PB game and his price has gone through the roof.
    There are always new players that come and go as media king, it wasn’t that long ago that Zlatan was media king.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.