@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?

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.

@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.

@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.

@Sol said in Sell Orders/Order Books - Poll (but read first):

To sum up, order books stink.

Whilst I do symathise with your predicament, please give it time & you will hopefully see much improvement. We are suffering a buyers market currently but OB's aren't to blame; CV, uncertainty about platform direction, lack of management communication or decisiveness, perceived IS betrayal have all destroyed market confidence. Whilst using the lull in football to rush out OB's might have seemed a great idea at the time restricting it to only the buy side (totally understandable to not want to entirely launch full OB's) has lead to a lobsided swing of market power, leaving sellers feeling understandably frustrated & helpless.

A healthy, growing market needs both buyers & sellers to wield similar power but also relies on confidence & certainty about the future which are currently all in short supply, once full OB's are here & confidence returns the platform will look an entirely different place but it might be several more months before we see it IMO.

@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.

Full order books so the interaction of market demand & supply could determine a players TRUE price, eradicating sales queues FOREVER.

Introduce NASDAQ IT so the servers NEVER get overwhelmed & crash again, allowing IPO's, announcements, bonus's to run smoothly despite high traffic.

MB finally fixed, after the never ending review, then consistently & fairly adjudicated so I NEVER have to read "will XYZ current MB be removed?"

After the above necessary changes a LONG PERIOD of STABILITY in platform framework & win mechanics, allowing payouts to increase but not altering bets.

Professional, competent & efficient operation of every aspect of platform administration, with any errors or mistakes quickly rectified.

Adam Cole promoted to Chairman & his twitter account deleted PERMANENTLY.

Checking FI in 2-3 years time to see market capitalisation hit £1bn+.

Finally a happy, polite & courteous forum (& twitter) community where disagreements & alternative POV are a source of positive discussion.

I really don't think that's too much to ask for.

Well so far so good my entire portfolio has been converted correctly. Now just waiting for trading to operate correctly & that will be a major IT challenge that FI have achieved with very little fuss & they deserve immense credit for that. Looking forward to watching the post noon trading meltdown unfold but pretty happy so far.

@Westy said in Mr LP1:

If fi are bending any rules

We all need to remember that FI are trail blazing a new type of product, a hybrid financial market/gambling based/Fantasy Football platform & whilst they make a lot of avoidable mistakes, their decision making could often be better & communications could hardly be worse, they are successfully developing what could be a world beating, alternative asset product from scratch.

I am often scathing in my criticism of some of their actions but only out of frustration that they sometimes squander open goals by shooting themselves in the foot instead. I have no doubts that the product will grow, potentially exponentially, over the coming years & a £1bn market capitalisation could actually prove to be a conservative valuation, against today's c£130m. The platform is transitioning from early start up to tier one operator which involves both strict GC oversight & massive compliance implications, which they are currently wrestling to get to grips with, so it's understandable that senior management have been slightly distracted by the sheer workload involved.

Be in no doubt that FI will not be deliberately bending any rules (even if they may have transgressed in the past) as it would have very serious operating implications & any oversights or errors will be totally accidental & involuntary. They are growing at a very fast pace, both internally as well as in terms of the market & that invariably comes with a learning process & "growing pains" but I'm certain that we are all now finally heading in the right direction (OB's, NASDAQ, etc) & anyone leaving will regret it in years to come, as the majority of growth is yet to happen IMHO.

How does AC justify doubling their commission from 2% to 4% whilst also removing IS? Platform growth is driven by buyers (who are already sellers in waiting), taxing them 2% on purchases reduces their demand impact, restricts market growth & damages everyone, it would only be proposed by an economic illiterate, can AC consider reversing this madness?

@Pez said in BIRTHDAY BONUS BABY:

Does this include matched bids?

Yes; "Yes, both Matched Bids and Buy Now purchases count towards your total Net Buys calculation for both Part 1 and Part 2."

@Advinculas-Index said in BIRTHDAY BONUS BABY:

Ill bet the FI management are dumbstruck at the fact that their site has crashed again

It happens everytime & almost anyone on the forum could have told them it would, especially when you launch it at 5pm on a Friday night!!!

I genuinely have given up on ever expecting any decent level of competence or professionalism from the current set of jokers running the platform.

@DW said in BIRTHDAY BONUS BABY:

Question, it says net buys from 25/9 from 00:01, so does that mean buys today count?

Yes everything from midnight last night counts

@howsthebacon said in 5 YEAR ANNIVERSARY:

I'm guessing it's mainly the expensive players?

No applies to every player on the index, it's a major event, which is why we'll need to see sustained market growth IMHO rather than just top end stretching.

@howsthebacon said in 5 YEAR ANNIVERSARY:

how do share splits work,

The last one was split by 3; so if you held 1000 in player X at £3 after the split you held 3000 at £1 but as dividends were reduced by less, just halved iirc, all players now look better value in comparison, so their price tends to rise. Doubt we'll get another one until all the recent changes have been finalised & allowed to bed in & the platform demonstrates sustained market growth, so maybe Summer/Autumn next year at the earliest.

@NewUser621426 said in 5 YEAR ANNIVERSARY:

find it strange that the day should come and pass without acknowledging it at all

21st Sept 2018, 24th Sept 2019 so if we follow the established pattern; 27th Sept 2020 would be B day announcement.

@Dr-Jan-Itor said in Need a new dividend player:

Needs to be cheap. No more than 70p.

Pick virtually any GK & they meet your criteria + as a bonus age only starts to become a factor after 40.

@howsthebacon said in Jesus injured:

Looks like Jesus is injured,

No need to crucify the lad, he's trying to make a serious post.

@Sav2000 said in Bid & Offer Zones:

The closures ensures those looking to manipulate the market can’t do so when F.I. staff aren’t around.

NASDAQ tech could solve that, AI works 24/7/365 & doesn't need staff to supervise it, any suspicious trading activity could lead to immediate temporary suspension in that player until a human was available to address any potential malpractise & the perpetrator punished.

@Wiillaah said in Bid & Offer Zones:

As things stand there simply isn't enough active traders to provide competitive pricing across all listed players.

The solution is market growth; the only way to provide both sufficient liquidity & market depth is by generating far greater demand from both new & existing users.

Why is this not happening now? Many contributing factors amongst which are many current users are avoiding adding further funds to avoid triggering yet another round of intrusive EDD (the current system is overly intrusive & time consuming), new users are being driven away by an overly volatile market that has insufficient explanation & training resources, this generates bad trustpilot/social media/word of mouth reviews further dissuading new entrants, MM either not understanding or executing their purpose in a meaningful way, FI management repeatedly stumbling from one self inflicted disaster to the next & never allowing the platforms to settle around a coherent direction, all this on top of the significant external economic CV shocks that mean people are understandably hoarding their available cash to face an uncertain future.

I believe that longer term the new dividend structure & full OB'S based on NASDAQ tech will provide the launch pad for this market growth but it may need further short term stimulus in the form of promotions, similar to the current 5X IPD & more effective MM liquidity support. It's in no ones interest to have holders stranded in illiquid players, often for months on end, however the 5X IPD promo proved that significant liquidity returned immediately, across all sectors of the market, when these players were eligible for a 10/20p bonus.

It's also clearly undesirable to impose an artificial valuation, as the current bidding zones does, as liquidity simply evaporates. Full OB's allow players to trade at their correct market price (as determined by supply/demand & market sentiment) albeit with some short term volatility until market depth is achieved. Promotions & MM can be used in the short term to support the OB principle but to keep neutering it's main benefit is simply counter productive & causes more harm than good IMO.

Whilst it may prove a rocky road, at least in the short term, I am firmly convinced that the platform is heading in the right direction & just needs to avoid any more self inflicted disasters in order to succeed.