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
41073.19 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....

This Post:
00
41073.24 in reply to 41073.23
Date: 8/6/2008 1:59:45 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
458458
Well said.


Except for using sympathy instead of sympathize, of course.

Last edited by somdetsfinest at 8/6/2008 2:00:19 AM

Once I scored a basket that still makes me laugh.
This Post:
00
41073.25 in reply to 41073.23
Date: 8/6/2008 9:02:39 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
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.
quote]

To clarify - I wasn't being sympathetic with anyone. I just wanted more elaboration on what exactly the team had done wrong.

I still don't see how a team can do what is suggested in this message. Can you double bid on players by using the cash from a pending sale? If so, I agree that the loophole should be closed. However, that wasn't the case in the situation described. He clearly did not buy back his sold players.

Now, are you saying that the players were sold above market value? If so, this is clearly illegal and is definitely collusion between the two teams. I would report it to a GM immediately. Again, I don't know if that was the case here.

I don't know if an apology was required. I was just talking facts.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager