BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Is Transfer Bidding in Groups Unethical?

Is Transfer Bidding in Groups Unethical?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
41073.13 in reply to 41073.8
Date: 8/4/2008 4:19:36 PM
New York Jests
IV.30
Overall Posts Rated:
219219
the group made a valid point of it's not written in the rules and until it is, it's not illegal.


True it is not illegal, but the BBs can punish you for prior actions that occured within the old rules (see: "Day Trading Transfer Fee")

From: Pallu

This Post:
00
41073.14 in reply to 41073.3
Date: 8/4/2008 6:07:15 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2525
I'm confused.

Let's say that 3BE3DA had $2M in cash, and then the bidding went to $3M. So he had to put a couple of players on the market, and his accomplice bids $1.2M on them (and we'll assume fair market value). So now 3BE3DA can bid $3.2M, and you can't raise.

So 3BE3DA has the player, $1.2 in debt, but $1.2 in receivables, for a net of $0.

So where does he get the money to bid on his own player? In HT, he wouldn't be able to bid, because it treats a self-bid as two separate transactions, where he is treated first as a bidder, and then as a seller.


I think you shouldn't be confused. You are right.

"Early bids" on players can help to have enough available cash/credit for a bid war. But once you have spent the money for a new player you cannot use the money again and buy your own player(s) back.

Therefore I think that the threadopener has misinterpreted the situation.

Let me add that I do find it surprising that it is ok to name teams in such a case. Wouldn't it be be adequate to discuss such an issue anonimously? Especially because it obviously is an open issue whether early bids are unethical or not. GM?

Disclaimer: no, I have not used this technique, I do not know any of the teams involved, etc...

Edit: the naming issue was not directed to jimrtex.

Last edited by Pallu at 8/4/2008 6:08:29 PM

This Post:
00
41073.15 in reply to 41073.13
Date: 8/5/2008 11:55:04 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
11
Why would you be punished for something that isn't illegal?

Further, I can't say I am surprised or disappointed. When you make a boat load of money like teams were and day trading is watered down. It would make sense the next possible thing people would want to do is group together to pool money to buy players that only Div I teams can afford.

I am not saying it's right, it's the spoils of success.

Last edited by Digging for Change at 8/5/2008 11:59:41 AM

This Post:
00
41073.16 in reply to 41073.15
Date: 8/5/2008 12:02:11 PM
New York Jests
IV.30
Overall Posts Rated:
219219
That was exactly my question when they charged your transfer fee on sales based on what you did over the previous 14 months. In the early parts of this season you were punished for having a high amount of transfers in the previous season. This week (or next?) will be the first week where the new Transfer Fee structure will only be based on the time after which the changes were made.

I'm not saying it was fair (it wasn't) but I am saying it sets a precedent where doing "unethical things" (by the "community" standards) can be punished with rules that account for previous actions.

This Post:
00
41073.17 in reply to 41073.16
Date: 8/5/2008 12:09:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
11
Agree, but define what is "unethical", would you consider day trading and mutual ties unethical?

This Post:
00
41073.18 in reply to 41073.17
Date: 8/5/2008 1:23:37 PM
New York Jests
IV.30
Overall Posts Rated:
219219
Day trading - No
Mutual TIE - Yes probably

Again, it is not what I think, it is not even what the BBs think. They seem to take the pulse of the community as a whole and act on it. When threads started popping up saying Day Trading was ruining the "market," they acted on it.

But the point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter what is thought to be ethical now or against the rules now as they may punish it in a month.

This Post:
00
41073.19 in reply to 41073.1
Date: 8/5/2008 7:47:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
I'm still trying to figure out what the issue is. Please clarify because maybe I missed something.

As far as I can tell, 3BE3DA sold 4 players so he could buy a player for 6 million+. He did not rebuy the players as you suggest.

The players were all sold around the same time but I don't see why that would be an issue.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
41073.20 in reply to 41073.19
Date: 8/5/2008 8:13:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
458458
I believe the issue, whether it happened in jbmcrock's example or not, is whether it is wrong or not that more than one manager act together to pool money so one of them can purchase a player who would otherwise be out of their price reange.


Once I scored a basket that still makes me laugh.
This Post:
00
41073.21 in reply to 41073.20
Date: 8/5/2008 8:17:33 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
I believe the issue, whether it happened in jbmcrock's example or not, is whether it is wrong or not that more than one manager act together to pool money so one of them can purchase a player who would otherwise be out of their price reange.



As far as I can tell, the situation that jbmcrock mentions can't happen. If you're selling a player you can't use the proceeds to bid on a player and then re-bid on the player that you're selling. The cash is counted so it can't happen.

Unless this thread is:
1) To report a bug that the cash is not being counted correctly

or

2) About people who are bidding too high for their friend's players

I just don't see the ethical issue here.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
41073.22 in reply to 41073.19
Date: 8/5/2008 8:24:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
It ends up that there really is no issue in this instance (I still think there was with the 9.5 million transfer bid-up). I thought for sure that something had to be worked out between the 2 teams as there was no way that the 2 sold players would have been purchased in the free market for those prices unless there was collusion - and the prices for those players kept increasing during the bid war (yes I know the TL compare was within the range, but watching it relatively closely, no way another team would have bid even 2.5 for the player that went for 3.5). As it appears the second team is content to hang on to those players, that's fine if that's how they want to play the game.

I suppose the issue that I would think to be a problem is if the players were indeed repurchased (either after a succesful or unsuccesful bid). It didn't happen in this instance, but it has happened in previous happenings.

It appears I jumped to conclusions too quickly - and apologize for doing so.

This Post:
00
41073.23 in reply to 41073.22
Date: 8/5/2008 9:12:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
I dont think you need to apologize - this thread is similar to the thread a while back on Mutual TIEs...(where incredibly some people still think its a serious thread)

I think people are either choosing to agree/sympathy with your point or are just stubbornly using the lack of clarification in the rules (combined maybe with a hint of envy) to say tough cheese.

Most of the reactions you have sparked are simply personal opinions or a somewhat deliberate misunderstanding of the point you are trying to raise.

Its another subject open for debate with no likely winner... one corner will always defend 'its not forbidden in the rules so we can do it' but if you are not allowed to sign-on on behalf of someone else then how can borrowing a fellow managers bank account (or are you telling me the that these managers really wanted to place an opening bid on a player with 71hrs & 55mins to go?!) be a loophole that SHOULD now be outlined in the rules as cheating....

Advertisement