When FI removed their backing to IS & left it down to traders to provide the depth & liquidity the market needed to function via OB’s it left lots of traders holding mid/lower end players with a couple of unpalatable options; sell where possible, often at a huge spread/loss or hold for a better exit opportunity. Now many months down the line some of us are still in that same holding pattern, so I propose at least a partial solution; A non-market IPD refresh option, basically an option to IPD refresh players by paying the relevant commission directly to FI without the need to go via market.

Why will this help such players?

It would provide a reason to buy & hold the 85% of the players on the index that have very little chance of threatening PB/MB/TOTM wins, IPD's are the ONLY thing that gives them their value (without IPD chances they are essentially worthless). Currently the whole market is suffering from lack of liquidity & depth which means that IPD trading is slowly dying due to lack of opportunity to economically refresh eligibility (huge spreads & lack of liquidity). This is an unhelpful by product of the removal of FI backed IS but given it won't be reinstated we now need an alternative. Traders can & will provide it, as demonstrated by the 5X promo, just not under current normal market conditions.

Obviously the ideal scenario would be plenty of liquidity & everyone trading in/out of the market but there's currently insufficient money in the market to facilitate this across every player, the mid/lower end IPD types are amongst the worst hit by this lack of market depth. If you wait long enough & try hard enough you can probably trade a few hundred or less but to refresh hundreds or thousands is simply impossible at prices that make it economically viable. Given this why would anyone buy these players?, as after the initial 30 days you are effectively trapped in an unsaleable player except at huge loss. All players have theoretical IPD value but if the cost of accessing it is so high as to be a disincentive to buy them in the first place then they are in reality worthless, does FI or anyone else want the platform to simply be a game of swapping between the Top 300/400 most valuable players?

Providing a non market refresh button means buyers can hold players in the knowledge of being able to renew IPD eligibilty at anytime (without the risk being stuck in a worthless hold) & have the incentive to buy & hold such players without the need to find an exit after only 30 days (that often doesn't exist) THIS INCREASED DEMAND WILL ALLOW CURRENT HOLDERS A FAIRER EXIT PRICE. FI would benefit from both the increased demand & refreshing; more commission from increased refreshing & from the market purchases (which are also someone's sales, so paying commission). FI could also probably charge a premium for the ease & certainty of using the button (as opposed to the cheaper market option) which would be set at a level to help balance the increased payout liability. Buyers, sellers & FI will all benefit from this proposed solution.

In time as the market grows more money, liquidity & demand will filter down to all players & market recycling will become the norm but we are several years away from that IMHO, so either FI facilitate easier refreshing or risk seeing IPD trading die forever. Currently traders are improvising a solution; "agreed swaps" without which IPD trading would be almost non existent but this is both an unacceptable & unsustainable solution, as well as possibly infringing the platform T&C, so FI need to be proactive & provide traders a bespoke solution like my proposal IMHO.

THIS WILL NOT JUST HAPPEN ON IT’S OWN – YOU NEED TO ACT; lobby FI via CS, twitter, Podcast, Trader panels & any other legitimate communication channel is the only way to get some action. I appreciate FI have a lot of ongoing projects atm, most only making painfully slow progress, but rejuvenating the market needs to be their top priority IMHO which is why I think this proposal carries such merits. If like me you want to see FI grow & succeed for everyone’s benefit please help & if you simply want an exit from your nightmare trades this helps you too, so please help yourself & support this proposal. It might not be the silver bullet or the entire solution but it will certainly help IMHO.

Many thanks

Liquidity, why does everyone talk about it as the solution to the current market malaise? It’s what lubricates a function market, what allows traders to trade & what attracts investor types to buy into the attractive dividend yields on offer. Yields are demonstrably the highest & best value (given the relative low player prices) they have ever been but only an idiot would buy into them if there was no prospect of a future exit strategy for that money. Why do only idiots send money to that Nigerian Prince who’s offering unbelievably returns on the money he wants you to send him to trigger the payment? Great yields are nothing without liquidity or the prospective of it being sustainable. The FI market has slowly been bleeding liquidity since the start of the year & it will only get worse unless some action is taken. This is why most players have no IS price right now.

Why was FI so popular & successful previously? largely due to FI backed IS, which in effect provided a guaranteed exit, at a reasonable price in almost unlimited supply, in other words certain liquidity both now & in the future. This is understandably a model many traders hanker to return to, either permanently or even temporarily, but the bad news is FI has withdrawn it & it won’t be returning EVER, it’s the past. There were good business reasons to remove their IS liability & transition to an order books model but they have managed the change woefully & ineptly, to the point of bringing a successful, booming product to its knees but it can still be saved. How? Liquidity; FI could provide it along the lines of the old model, even a scale down version but they can’t/won’t/aren’t it doesn’t really matter as the problem is too serious & has gone beyond the level of help FI/MM/LP1 could resolve anyway. Any level of IS they provided would just be taken by the queue of frustrated & disillusioned sellers who have finally lost patience with the way they have been treated & who could blame them.

The ONLY SUSTAINABLE solution is for liquidity to come from traders & it’s in our own best interests to provide it, as we not only benefit most from it, we also take control of the market from FI (who used to control it by setting market & IPO prices through determining IS levels). Who would you rather trust setting prices traders or FI, given their woeful recent track record? The size of the market was £125m not long ago & whilst I suspect it has dropped to maybe £80/90m now that all represents traders money invested in current players, so is a substantial amount (vastly more than FI or any market maker could muster), that if only a fraction of it was freed up it would create the liquidity which is the lifeblood of a properly functioning market.

How can we access that cash, most of which is currently stuck in illiquid holds, many of which have no IS or exit price at all? This where FI’s help is required as they need to make the market function better by bringing buyers & sellers closer together by simultaneously making buying & holding players more attractive & incentivising sellers to lower their asking price. It can be shown by the new “average offer price” display that many players have a disconnect between what sellers want to sell for & the price buyers are willing to pay, as an example Sancho has a market buy price around £7 but average offer price around £10, this gap needs to close to generate liquidity.

Sellers can be persuaded to lower their expectations by offering them a realistic exit option into cash, buyers can be persuaded to pay more by making the player more attractive to hold, which is where FI need to act. Most players can only derive any value from IPD’s (as they’re unlikely to be challenge for PB/MB/TOTM) so these need to enhanced. The 5x promo demonstrated how a player price rose, often rapidly when getting G/A/CS, this increased demand was buyers chasing the more attractive IPD eligible dividend yield, so FI need to return to this as the temporary answer. It can be achieved with increased payouts, extended period of eligibility, non market refresh option, buying/selling to yourself to regain eligibility or a combination of any/all these but an extra, boosted reason to buy these players will mean increased demand, which in turn will allow sellers a more realistic exit price & start to free up liquidity. Other traders have suggested a temporary “credit IS price” that allows sellers to exit a player for an FI backed IS but into a reinvestable credit (that could then buy another player but NOT be withdrawn) rather than cash, I see some merit in the principle but it does add further complexity to an already increasing complex product, however, I’m willing to consider anything that can help.

We could also generate the required liquidity from new or existing users depositing further cash into the market, now this has always traditionally been FI’s answer (deposit or net spend bonus’s) but I would suggest that this route is rather unlikely given the current state of negative sentiment towards how the platform has been mismanaged. There are however many creative ways to add liquidity & start to regenerate the essential confidence & positive market sentiment that will revive the current turgid, illiquid market, obviously the return of proper football matches is an ideal time to capitalise on this new dawn but it does require some leadership & strategic direction from those at the top of FI, which has been clearly lacking recently but if you want or even need FI to survive & flourish again, even if only to achieve an acceptable exit strategy, you can help by sending any or all of these suggestions out on social media, slack, discord or directly to CS, many voices are more likely to see the correct action taken.

So be like water & attack this common liquidity problem from as many angles as possible, add your own solutions & we can all help turn around the current s***show.

@Fletch

The problem for me is the long term damage being done to the platform; lack of liquidity is forcing sellers to undercut each other & relentlessly drop prices whilst willing buyers simply haven't got the firepower to oblige & take them out, largely as a result of 80 -90% of their existing holds being illiquid. That could be solved fairly quickly but would need FI to facilitate it (several solutions have been proposed on other threads).

Whilst the actual volume of active sellers is relatively thin & consequently the amount of required demand to absorb them would be equally small, the fact that FI are basically willing to deliberately crash the platform & traders portfolios, for what would be quite a small sum of ££ support, without any attempt to halt the damage is very instructive. It means that they are either unwilling or unable to understand either their own market or traders needs.

It's very obvious to me LP1/MM/FI aren't going to be the answer either now or in the future to the required liquidity to turn around the market. It will necessarily have to come from traders themselves, not just the existing £100m that is already on the platform but more ££ from new & existing traders over time. However even the fantastic yields available might not even be enough to persuade such a £££ injection if FI effectively burn any confidence & trust that they had built up with traders. Who would commit proper money in the levels necessary, to a platform that had the track record that FI have demonstrated over the last 10 months?

The longer FI allow the pain to endure the harder the recovery will be to achieve & the more traders that they burn & cut loose the more negative sentiment it creates on Social Media, trustpilot & word of mouth & eventually no amount of taxi wraps or flashy TV ads will be able to overcome the actual toxic trader experience. If it seems that FI either stood by, failed to act or worse still deliberately inflicted a large part of the misery then permanent long term platform damage will be inevitable IMO & recovery might never happen as a result. Unless the liquidity issue is addressed & PDQ then we all face very serious problems for the forseeable future IMHO.

Failure to address the market liquidity is essentially corporate/management negligence.

@Sol said in Bring back media to top 200 ? Yes or No ?:

Yes. It’s killing the index.

Rubbish it's exactly what will allow the index the grow. MB was too predictable; simply buy 6-10 of the media darlings & sit back & watch the dividends roll in, using any spare time to pump Pogba et al to any new users, coincidentally also leading to massive capital appreciation on your own, often substantial holdings of those same players. Buy players for their footballing ability & win dividends for their on field performances - simple.

Those with MB heavy portfolios need to wake up to the fact the index is changing to a performance related dividend structure, which yes might be a bit of a lottery as to individual winners but they generally win on the merits of both their on field efforts & how their game fits the scoring matrix.

Those wanting to return to the old "cosy 200 club" are promoting it purely from self interest, not for the good of the platform & it's future growth. What the change has done perhaps is kill a few dinosaurs who think because Pogba has a new haircut or falls out with his club/manager they deserve a financial reward as a result. How can you explain the logic of that to new users?

@ScouseSte said in The Changing of the Guard?:

If you left William Hill or Coral to come here and it isn't for you anymore, nobody will begrudge you leaving. FI is finding its identity again and going back to its roots.

Agree with much of that but it just begs the question why did FI spend so much in marketing to attract those users in the first place (without making any appreciable effort to explain, demonstrate & educate ALL users what they were signing up for)?

I totally sympathise with the following argument; you sold me a Football betting platform only to remove cashout, drop OB's on me & expect me to calculate dividend yields, all culminating in an almighty market crash that wiped 20% off my winnings almost overnight & then wonder why I'm leaving.

Plenty on the forum have tried tirelessly to explain & justify the current FI roadmap & why it makes sense & how patience will eventually pay off - What the F*** have FI done to aid this education effort? Where are the Academy "How to/What if" guides & no money risk demonstration "try before you buy" aids?

Acquiring new users is hard enough, especially with the current economic backdrop, but to effectively drive them off the platform having lost money & had a totally miserable experience within a few months of joining is simply unforgivable. Good reputation is hard earned but easily lost.

FI have unwittingly fashioned a vicious circle of fear & uncertainty; Uncertainty regarding platform direction, MB/PB reviews, withdrawal of IS has both removed an acceptable market exit price for most players & decimated the market depth (so even those willing to accept the price have only limited volume), & the anticipation of future promotion to address these issues. All this has lead to a stand off where those willing to commit more funds are either stuck in bets they can't exit (at least not at an acceptable price) or unwilling to enter bets where they are either likely to be stuck or seriously disadvantaged (like a large MS price drop when sell orders arrive).

FI clearly acted in their own interested by dumping their promised responsibility to provide IS, saddling buyers with that liability, but that destroyed most market liquidity outside the very top players. They clearly assumed that the return of football would be such a positive influence & confidence boost that the market would self stimulate back into action but that looks unlikely to be widespread, without some further artificial stimulus like a promotion. Sentiment hasn't been helped by paying out incorrect dividends then either reclaiming them or allowing the correct winners to remain unrewarded & whilst not entirely FI's fault the incompetent, unprofessional & unjust approach has further damaged buyer confidence & their reputation.

The situation will most likely continue until FI act to encourage more buyer demand (continuing with the planned 2% buyer tax on ME bids from July will just make things worse - really should be dropped altogether) to free up the lockjam, net spend bonus, buying incentive or dividend increase promotions will be needed & without some FI action buyers will just continue to sit on their hands or walk away altogether & who could blame them.

@ocs123 said in Matching Engine:

The buy now price wasn’t unrealistic for 5 years, so why is it suddenly now?
Answer... because FI fundamentally changed the market and how it operates.

Which introduced fear & uncertainty & in the process destroyed much market confidence & buyer demand which has resulted in the current stagnation & lower buyer demand funded IS prices. We seem to agree on the problem but just have different solutions to address it & whilst I believe both would work I'm also certain that FI won't be reintroducing yours. They have clearly set a path towards full OB's & I believe in time that will provide a successful solution but I do have sympathy with those who are sitting on holds bought under the previous system (which at least in part relied on a FI backed IS exit) & now justifiably feel betrayed.

For what it's worth I think FI have handled the transition towards OB's appallingly, even though I believe it was done in the best long term interests of the platform, & that they should still act appropriately to offer those stranded sellers a fair exit. Whether they will or not seems rather unlikely IMHO but I think trying to second guess FI decision making often proves impossible. I firmly believe in the strength of the product & that future growth will be strong but I also don't feel it's appropriate behaviour to leave customers feeling cheated & betrayed along the way, responsible gambling applies equally to platform operators as it does users IMO.

@Ericali said in Soooooooooooooooooooo.......:

I don't think we have moved from square one.

A bit of hand holding & reassurance that they aren't actually as incompetent & unprofessional as they often demonstrate isn't such a bad thing. Reestablishing trust, confidence & positive market sentiment will be a long, slow process but every journey starts with the first tentative step & that's what this communication provides.

It also shows that FI are prepared to finally accept some responsibility for much of the self inflicted damage & start really listening to their customers & addressing the main issues. Yes we need it to be backed up by delivery but as one of their harshest critics I see this as a good start.

@Kanzz

Your fear is real, basically it's market saturation (generally or player specific) which was always going to be the ultimate problem. However we are still at the very early stages of growth (which incidentally is the silver bullet solution) & just undergoing "growth pains" as the current market is capitalised at just c£130m so we are still 8x smaller than the short/medium term ambition of £1bn. If & when that money arrives over time, most players will rise in price, so even below average traders/portfolios will be lifted, presenting a profitable opportunity to either reduce exposure or cash out altogether.

Markets are driven by both fear & greed at the present time fear is in the ascendancy but give it a couple of months & greed/optimism will be back with avengence. I confidently predict that even poor traders will show 25-50% profit over the next 12 months due to the massive marketing push & exciting new platform developments. Whilst FI are often unprofessional, incompetent & inept they do have a fantastic, potentially world beating product on their hands whose strength will shine through almost despite how badly managed it is - have faith & you will reap the rewards IMHO.

I personally like the cruise ship analogy that is getting ready to set sail & we are just the crew, still awaiting a full compliment of paying passengers to embark.

@Harford-is-God said in Reality and Hard Truth:

We all have our own strategies and insight but I cannot see why Lolley is even 79p.

He's actually a great example which illustrates the perceived betrayal of FI withdrawing IS; FI consistently offered IS as a safety net on "worthless players" to create a false market price, which then enabled them to IPO players like Lolley at higher prices (generating higher commission revenue in the process).

Lolley was IPO'd at 70p, his MS price wasn't going to drop below this level, FI offered IS of say 60p, so buyers were effectively only buying him at a 10p risk premium, as in the worst case scenario they could dump him via IS at 60p even if they couldn't market sell at 70p+. FI have now removed IS, having already pocketed the 70p/each future sold, so he can't even generate the current minimum 40p buyer generated IS price & holders are left stranded.

It must be fairly clear that buying ANY player whilst risking a 10p loss against risking a 30p or possibly 70p loss have significantly different risk profiles. Which is why holders are complaining their bet has been significantly changed to their detriment & FI's advantage, which I believe is a fairly accurate portrayal. Lolley would never have had any buyers (who are now stranded holders) at 70p+ unless FI had been offering IS IMHO, which is why I believe they have a responsibility to provide those holders a fair exit price. Going forward players should only trade at the price they are worth, established via OB's, but those bought under the "false market" conditions created by FI should still be honoured with an exit option, FI have already a 70p credit on their balance sheet/bank account for each Lolley they sold.

@Karl

Of course platform growth would be the silver bullet but unfortunately you are disregarding the evidence & track record we can see, FI have SHRUNK the market over the last 12 months & driven away many loyal & trusting customers in the process. Just read Trustpilot for a sample of the free PR that they have generated, so to grow the platform with that backdrop is going to be very "challenging" to say the least.

FI now have a track record of lies & broken promises; "we will keep IS for as long as the market needs it", "IPD's are a permanent feature & will be available for the entire 20/21 season", "we will provide liquidity across the entire market, introduce NASDAQ, MM" but you get the picture. Who could honestly trust them not to change the bet again? or recommend anyone join, previously their strongest recruiting asset was loyal customers?

@MarkAntony

Surprisingly relevant given the FI announcement!! Basically just confirming & incorporating into T&C's what I suspect has already been happening. The 1 million cap is a good idea in principle but in reality the biggest "bubble" player still hasn't hit that, so it basically means unlimited supply can be issued at any time or price of FI's choice, or in reality when the algorithm identifies a set level of demand. The 1000/day is also misleading as it can accumulate over the month, so again in reality could be upto 30k/day (with a rolling monthly limit of 30k) so again unlimited, as almost no occasions would buyer demand warrant 30k fresh futures.

This is TERRIBLE for traders as basic economic theory shows an asset with unlimited supply will be able to absorb any level of demand without rising in price. So traders sat on huge losses (due to FI decisions crashing the market) will be both denied an exit, as FI algorithm absorbs the buyer demand on good performance & denied any price rise as what ever demand appears can't overwhelm the issuance supply.

Couple that with the withdrawal of IPD's effectively making 80%+ of players almost valueless & so destroying any reason for buyers to want to buy/hold them it means liquidity will disappear in all but the top 300/500 players & holders will have to wait for another of FI's broken promise (we will introduce liquidity across all areas of the market) to maybe get out of anyone else.

Overall a terrible result for anyone holding players outside the top 300/500 IMHO.

@MarkAntony

This is one hot potato, FI promised to publish & be transparent with the full details of the issuance curve but despite numerous traders chasing it up it still remains a mystery - so make of that what you will.

FI issue new future at 870/715 per penny depending on the price of the player & it USED to be when they hit ATH price, which was fair enough, it's FI's most lucrative revenue stream & they deserve to reap the benefit in a rising market (even just player specific rises). The problems arise from now having crashed the market, largely through their own incompetence & mismanagement, when a player rises in response to on field performance when does/should this new issuance kick in?

There are numerous examples of FI flooding the market with 870/penny fresh issuance on players that are way below existing holders net buy price, which not only denies those holders any significant price rise (to help recoup their current loss) but means ANY plausible exit needs to undercut the FI issuance price & guarantees that holder an often significant loss. Some argue that FI have bought back lots of previously issued futures either by IS (before they abolished it) or via LP001 being active in the market & that has dropped the NET ATH price.

Whilst this is undoubtedly true to an extent, I doubt it fully accounts for the new low issuance price trigger, I suspect it's simply a badly programmed algorithm, that kicks in whenever it sees unusual, excessive demand spikes, like after a great on field performance but until FI come clean, as they had promised, it's just speculation atm. John Stones is currently issuing at 90p which is well below his ATH price.

Why does this really matter??? In OB's traders now carry 100% downside risk, FI have done NOTHING to support prices since removing their support for IS at the start of the year & traders now carry MASSIVE losses as a result but now when any price does rise FI jump on with fresh issuance denying traders much of the upside benefit of those price rises & essential "bake in" those trader losses. That's not a fair or sustainable position for the market & if it continues many will just sell up & leave & it would be hard to blame them- it could be resolved by transparency (which FI have refused so far to provide) or allowing trader offers to take priority over FI issuance neither of which seem to be happening.

Traders could accept 100% downside & sharing upside risk with FI if they knew what/how/when the issuance happened as they could plan a strategy to accommodate it. Currently it just seems another random, opaque & mistrusted method being used to inadvertently screw traders over, which whilst trader trust & confidence is already so low, does nothing to rebuild it or help the market recover.

@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

@ocs123

Unfortunately it's often the stupidest that shout the loudest but that's not unusual, just look at Twitter for further evidence. However, for FI to not only listen to them but also do what they wanted, wrecking the trust, liquidity, demand & confidence in the platform in the process, is simply farcically beyond belief & has inflicted permanent & irreparable long term damage.

I fully expect the next Podcast to include an apology & explanation of why constantly pumping ANY single player, irrespective of his price, is very unwise & simply creates an unsustainable bubble, even if they are a decent player at £5 they can still be overpriced at £15+ yet to still be pumping them is irresponsible.

@MUFC

I can help explain the market mechanics & the economic consequences & you are free to make up your own mind as to what you believe is happening.

@MUFC

Sorry but you're wrong it was being spread across the market, the trouble was it couldn't outweigh the amount of £££ wanting to leave so was having only marginal effect on prices but it was at least stemming the tide of those wanting the exit. Without it that outflow will just be trapped & increase the downwards pressure on prices as increasing desperate traders will search for an exit liquidity at almost any price.

@MUFC

No it was generating extra revenue that was being reinvest across the market, helping drive that cap app you're looking for, that will now totally dry up & further stagnate/reduce prices & the lack of liquidity will only worsen. Then rather like @o_O more traders will just give up & leave, often with toxic tales of losses, betrayal & mistrust which will only make generating future growth even harder than it already will be.

@MUFC

The answer is liquidity it can be provided in a variety of ways but removing IPD's isn't one of them (it badly reduces that essential liquidity)

When FI removed IS (in house liquidity provision) & proposed OB's they promised liquidity in the form of MM/LP001 which has never fully materialised & in large part can be seen as responsible for the current mess the market is in. Traders can & will provided it , given the opportunity (as was demonstrated with the 5X IPD promo) but are unable to do so when stuck in illiquid holds & unwilling to do so, by adding any fresh £££, as they simply don't trust FI mgmt any more & given their recent track record who can blame them.

Trust & confidence needs to be rebuilt & the product needs to be allowed to settle (the IPD/PB/MB/TOTM framework was just about correct) & as a result we had seen the first signs of stability & even some green shoots of price recovery starting to appear. Then FI dropped the latest bombshell & simply destroyed all the previous weeks good work - really unforgivable IMHO. Ultimately FI will have to learn that constantly, repeatedly shafting your loyal & dedicated customers will have consequences that will tend not to be great for the platform.

@MUFC

How will you get capital appreciation in a shrinking & largely illiquid market, just think about it???

I understand cap app is an attractive goal & it clearly benefits traders but also FI (by fresh issuance/minting which is where the real golden ticket is for them, not commission) but just saying it won't make it happen. You need demand>supply to start raising prices, you also need net fresh £££ entering the market to keep any price rises sustainable. In fact the opposite of what we have seen for the past 12 months or so & removing IPD's damages this virtuous circle rather than encourages it.