@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?

@Chickenman said in Sell orders question.:

They Just need to remove the part that says you can put an offer in lower than that. Or even better, let people put in offers lower than that.

Yes that's called Order books, wish someone had thought of them as they'd be a great idea!! it's just so frustrating when every crisis is self inflicted & so easily avoidable!! The current FI management seemed determined to destroy what is a wonderful product.

@Chickenman said in Sell orders question.:

What kind of dog shit order books is that?

The kind you get after a market crash, for which proper OB's were blamed, yet in truth were the result of 6-9 months pent up selling pressure generated by FI removing IS (after explicitly promising not to) then introducing OB's in a piecemeal & incoherent way. Finally when sellers were allowed the freedom to get out the market lacked depth & the remaining buyers were so fed up with the way FI had handled the whole process they just sat on the sidelines & watched prices crash (a lack of market depth visibility, promised yet not delivered, just meant panic then swept the market & made everything far worse).

Poorly managed transition, lack of understanding/explanation of how the whole process would work & terrible market sentiment, all partly or wholly of FI's own making destroyed market confidence & resulted in a flash crash. They then panicked & imposed these strict restrictions, effectively destroying (at least temporarily) the whole point of introducing OB's, liquidity & clean market pricing, to reimpose the artificial pricing & lack of liquidity that you are asking about - funny old world!

@Chickenman

You can only put a sell offer in at 1p below the current buy it now price, temporary measure to stabilise the market & reduce volatility, which is far too restrictive IMO should have been say 5-10% to achieve the same effect but still leave sellers with some limited flexibility. You can of course still accept someone's Buy offer at the IS price level but can't suggest a more realistic comprise price somewhere in between (which was the whole point & a massive benefit of OB's) but this will be made possible again at some yet to be defined point in the future, apparently!

@howsthebacon said in Midfielder recommendations:

Thauvin and Di Maria

I like/hold Thauvin as he's finally back after a long injury layoff, high hopes for him this season. Like ADM but be careful he easily gets driven too high (currently no IS price) as he's great for PB/IPD but his sell offs are brutal, given his age & iirc his contract is up this coming Summer (so might go to a non PB league from January). Have bought him <£1 several times but always get out at >£1.50 as he's high risk, just look at Banega or Cazorla for similar type players & what happened to their prices!

@howsthebacon said in Midfielder recommendations:

Heard Kroos getting a lot of love in the forum,

Racks up so many points passing only needs a G/A to be almost certainly in the top few PB performers on any given day, should also be a TOTM prospect. Coutinho if he could just get settled at a club is another with decent PB output. I'd be wary of players like De Jong who move from being big fish at smaller clubs in poor leagues to bit part players at big clubs (with far more competition from within their own team) in more challenging leagues. To win PB, especially mid, usually requires at least one G/A as it's by far the most competitive PB category, so avoid the holding/defensive types who rack up high scores but rarely score or assist.

@Bezz82

Might Dybala be on his way out?? Surely not CR7 off to the MLS?

@Baydog

Just look at the twitter feed (as a poor proxy for market sentiment) it's gone from doom & gloom, talks of price crashes & being locked it to ridiculous spreads to just dropped record dividend haul, how can I spend all these IPD's what a wonderful platform.

Now I get the need for perspective but market sentiment is a fickle thing & constant defeatism, becomes a self fulfilling prophesy but so a can a positive narrative which is badly needed at present - 5x IPD's have been a positive influence so I would be very happy if something similar was launched to celebrate the 5th B'day, even if only as a stop gap until NASDAQ & full OB's are fully implemented. Liquidity & reinvesting dividends can only be a good thing for platform growth.

There was me anticipating a poll - what a disappointment, boo!!

@Frank-Mole-Pepys

No they do appear to be using this as a targeted promotion instead of the traditional blanket offer to every user, they did the same for the Irish to compensate for being ineligible for a certain offer (can't recall the exact details). I suspect the cost to do it across everyone is starting to become a serious consideration.

The 5x IPD has been a real eye opener; traditionally IPD players were always <£1 as the potential return against cost of renewal became uneconomic much above that, as a result I always treated IPD's as an added bonus on players I was buying for the long term above £1.

The massive returns that the current 5x promotion has throw up have significantly impacted that strategy, yesterday I flipped Kane (long term hold) at a cost of 17p but he returned 50p IPD's for nearly 10% ROI, I also did the same with Neymar (just before the ban so not worked out as well!).

Works across all price points flipped Bonucci for a cost of 3p & he returned 20p on a 40p cost price so 50% ROI in a day & similar on most CS GK's. The added bonus is that such players have liquidity returned at least temporarily despite the current market stagnation & huge spreads created by the lack of ability to fully access OB flexibility, which whilst I understand why FI have done it, but just stores up selling pressure & queues for the future.

An extended period of 5x IPD's could actually prove to be a better 5th Birthday Bonus than a deposit bonus as it generates significant trading opportunities & the associated commission as well as selective market liquidity which is desperately needed until full OB's are finally allowed to be unleashed.