Hello everyone,

I'd like to draw your attention to a practice which, although technically compliant with the rules, seems to me to go against the spirit of the rules and undermine the fairness of the game.

At present, transfers are governed by a price range (minimum/maximum) to prevent abusive sales or purchases between friendly clubs. However, there is a way around this system.

A club buys players on a massive scale from its friends at the maximum authorised price.
These same players are then quickly resold at the minimum price to other clubs chosen at random.

The result is that this mechanism allows disguised money transfers to be concealed, under the guise of respecting the rules.

To illustrate, here are a few anonymised transfers. I would like to make it clear that I have chosen not to name the manager behind this abuse of rights, or the partner clubs who benefited from it, because the aim is not to denounce anyone but rather to denounce this clearly abusive practice.

Player 1: bought for 40M, sold for 12.9M (-27.1M)
Player 2: bought for 20M, sold for 5.5M (-4.5M)
Player 3: bought 60M, sold 28.5M (-31.5M)
Player 4: bought 16M, resold 0.35M (-15.65M)
Player 5: bought 24M, sold 8.6M (-15.4M)
Player 6: bought 10M, resold 3.2M (-6.8M)
Player 7: bought 24M, resold 4.8M (-19.2M)
Player 8: bought 40M, sold 11.7M (-28.3M)
Player 9: bought 40M, sold 19.1M (-20.9M)
Player 10: bought 7M, sold 3.4M (-3.6M)
Player 11: bought 40M, resold 0.1M (-39.9M)
Player 12: bought 20M, sold 8M (-12M)
Player 13: bought 20M, sold 9.7M (-10.3M)
Player 14: bought 10.1M, sold 3.9M (-6.2M)
Player 15: bought 45.1M, not yet resold
Player 16: bought 50M, not yet resold
Player 17: bought 24M, not yet resold

Sometimes there are only a few hours between purchases and sales.

There is a colossal voluntary loss on each transfer, which makes no sense either from a sporting or an economic point of view.

On paper, there's nothing illegal about it, because each purchase respects the maximum value according to the rules: maximum double the price indicated. But in reality, it's an exploitation of a loophole, or an abusive circumvention of the price range if the terms suit you better, which completely distorts the initial aim of the rules: to prevent disguised donations and protect the fairness of the game.

The rules also state that you can donate up to €100 million per season to your cartel, which has already been done. The idea is therefore to get rid of your finances more quickly, by not respecting this point in the rules, but by taking advantage of their limitations and imperfections.

I think it would be useful to discuss this collectively, hence the creation of this topic on the forum. I should point out that I had already contacted an anti-cheating administrator before deciding to expose these facts.

Should this practice be considered an abuse, or in your opinion should it be authorised as long as each purchase does not exceed the maximum limit?
Should the rules be changed to limit it, and if so, how?
Do you have any ideas for protecting the fairness of transfers while retaining flexibility?

I would ask you all to try to keep this subject clean, with mutual respect for each other...
Thank you in advance for your feedback and suggestions.

Have a good day!

Very problematic, yes.

I've read the whole thing, so it's a nice pamphlet as I like them, well done for your post, I completely agree with you.
Nothing to add

There's something strange about your examples: the number 11 bought for 40m and sold for 100,000 euros, how can you have such a range?

I guess they're talking about me here :)!

Given that it's no longer allowed to give your agreement its entire budget, I found this way before asking for my club to be cancelled.

Incidentally, you'll notice that I didn't just give the CPs the benefit of these transfers, which, I'd remind you, follow the VF table.

I then put the players back up for auction, and it's not my fault that the bids didn't go higher, so the whole game could benefit from my approach.

It's funny.

hello
there was 1 time when your youngster that you sold
#joueur?jid=592570&progression
this transfer should have been cancelled in the past, the opinion of the admins can no longer be taken into account following 1regulator (see morten who talked about it here), so 1 table has been set up
now when you buy for 1somme and that you resell to the auctions behind, if it is of the direct purchase and that this one returns in the basic table and that behind it has clearly 1 loss with the auctions, its transfers are not fraudulent since everyone has access to it.
Technically, since the regulation, this can no longer change is what I was told.
good games

Strangely enough, when others did it at one time, there wasn't as much wind...

You talk about rules, but the rules themselves don't agree with what's mentioned on the game...

The rules state that even in the event of a stoppage, you can give 100M to a cartel...

image](https://i.imgur.com/iMznm1E.png)

And yet on the game...

A bit easy.

"Tricher au jeu sans gagner est d'un sot" by Voltaire

I should point out that, having discovered this after the fact, I was one of those who asked an admin to check all this out and to rectify it as quickly as possible if necessary. Because I don't like the process, even if it's obviously legal, from what came out of my request.
I also asked Aguado to put a stop to it until I know more.
Apparently everything is OK, but this highlights two things:

• The prices of paintings are not up to date (even if auctions can explain a loss, there are still some good losses)
• It would be a good idea to think about regulating this. With the current rules it's obviously legal. But I'm like some people here, I don't like the process. Thinking about it would be a good thing, I agree (but it's personal).

It's clear that player price tables can quickly become out of date. Especially with the new generations where prices are soaring.

I'm not blaming anyone... But if it's written that transfers of funds are forbidden (or 100M max per season to an agreement), there's no point in circumventing the rule, but that's just my opinion.

Perhaps there needs to be a clearer rule on this, or else authorise it in the event of account deletion.

galy
meme si tu stop ou fait 1grosse pause, le reglement t'autorises a verse 100m dans la caisse quand meme, c'est d'ailleurs pour ca que ces100m max ont ete place.
Even if this may seem like a transfer of funds, and I repeat myself because this has been pointed out by myself in the past and the response I was given was that of morten.
The table was set up following 1 regulation and 1 obligation to do so.
So if the 1st direct purchase falls into this table, the subsequent auction and the loss cannot be considered as 1 fraud but as 1 mismanagement by a manager.
You can turn the situation upside down in all directions, but it will never be able to move again because of this regulation in the past, which has an effect on everything that follows.
just take the case of the player i mentioned from nicularo who was bought for more than 50m
1tel joueur tu le fous aux enchères il va être vendu 15m 20m ca fait 30m de pertes pure , si ce transfert est annule je le cite en exemple cela ouvre la porte a bcppour d'annulations sur le futur quand les managers ne rentreront plus dans leurs frais sur les enchères , je dis attention a ceci car s'il devait y avoir 1decision d'annulation il faudra aussi le faire par la suite et ca flinguerait totalement les enchères .

Simple solution: Authorise the bank to be given to the agreement in the event of account deletion?

Nice topic, but I'm surprised not to see any congratulations for Aguado's superb top 3 finish in the highly prized and competitive reseller ranking.

image](https://i.imgur.com/DeTFexi.jpeg)

The first place will be difficult but on a misunderstanding !!!

The problem is that I can no longer transfer my account to the agreement.
This was possible in the past.
Unfortunately, this is no longer possible and we have to adapt to the new rules.
Every agreement has gone through this last year and we've had to adapt.
We're not going to kid ourselves, you've done the right thing to lipid your money.
You say that you didn't only buy in your agreement but of course we all know why ^^( you have to drown the fish in the water ^^)
Unfortunately the rules are the same for everyone regardless of the agreement.
Patience is enough ;)

My main point is that for €100,000 at auction you can snaffle a 40m player. For all newcomers, the best deals are at auction if you want to put together a competitive team quickly.

Returned to the old formula (to be able to pay back the money to the agreement) while keeping the 20m per season donation and per club.
This would be the best formula for me.
Knowing that even in the past the club could give 1 player per club which is no longer possible now.

🍿🍿

What surprises me the most is that in the space of a few weeks we've realised that there have been contentious arrangements involving 2 of the game's biggest cartels: LR and CP.

I've been playing this game for 18 years now and I'm still amazed at the way some players think (and, in turn, sometimes at the big agreements...).

Everyone plays VF in their own way, but I totally agree that these arrangements/circumventions of the rules (and even ethics) should be kept to a minimum...

At the end of the day, when you want to play quietly within the rules, you realise that you'll never have a top club or a top agreement...
But at least your conscience will be clear and you'll be playing for pleasure without getting your head in knots...

A bon entendeur 👍

The problem lies in the obsolescence of these tables. At the time, Morten had done a long and precise job of producing them, but unfortunately market conditions have changed radically, with a plethora of old players at high NGs that many clubs are selling off.
It's clear that buying a player from a 'friendly' club at the maximum allowed on the obsolete board and selling him at auction in the process, knowing that the game will be stopped and daring to say that it's not my fault if the bids don't go up, is pure intellectual dishonesty.

I'm making my comments clear because I've been bombarded with PMs and I can see your reactions:

I'm surprised to see these stories with members of your 2 big cartels...

Of course, I'm not accusing anyone in particular, I'm just making an observation.
I'm not accusing anyone in particular, of course, but I'm just making an observation, perhaps a clumsy one, because I'm not accusing any member in particular!

I'm sorry if some of you feel attacked, but my aim was simply to raise this issue in the light of recent events...

Enjoy the game

Oh yes, I was mistaken.
After all, the aim of a donation during a stop is to help a group, not just a minority.
But it's hard to check everything.
After that, why not cap aid per club per season, but that would restrict the game even more once again.

What this case highlights is the very limit of this desire to set up a table, thinking that it will solve all the problems.

Initially, the regulations left more room for human interpretation, which was criticised at the time and led to the introduction of this table.

Finally, as Galy points out, the current rules already allow the practice to be stopped in this case, since the transfer of funds is assumed. All that needs to be done is to apply the section on fund transfers highlighted by Galy.

If he was the first to do it...
Bonne route aguado ;)

Whether you call it a contentious arrangement or not, I fail to see when circumventing a rule to transfer money is legal.

I recommend a 30-point handicap for CP next season and the dissolution of the agreement in 2 seasons' time.

Direct dissolution 🤣🤣🤣🤣

We're going to be champions 🏆!
Oh no, not even

We're going to be 2nd!!!
Oh no, not even

We'll be on the podium
Ah non même pas

What are we talking about?

The tables were in response to a legal request for decisions on sanctions to be taken on an established basis and not by interpretation, which was Aymeric's fault.
Morten and the others could have done without them...

What really doesn't fit is the idea of sticking tables with pseudo prices that have nothing to do with market prices.... Then we're going to start talking about pseudo-fraud, crazy and malicious sanctions, suspicions, denunciations, etc....
All we need to do is let the market do its thing. Of course, as there are only a few clubs left active in the game, some having been banned and others having stopped, auctions can allow this kind of sleight of hand... There was a time when an agreement could simply help a member, without tax or the intervention of lowly prison guards.
It's a shame, because too many rules make the rules less effective. And this case is further proof of that....
I can put myself in the shoes of a 14-year-old kid who wants to try out the game these days: between the difficulties of moving up (CDF prices), the pay-to-win players, the headache of player prices, the endless sanctions, it can't be very easy...
Bravo pour ton post, bien rédigé et clair! 👍

The new players should be happy, the players didn't leave for much, it's a shame Aguado didn't warn us so that we could buy them at a lower price. He could have sold us his young team at a lower price so that we could profit, what a bad mate he is...

On the other hand, it would be a good idea for clubs, when you take individual risks, to think about the repercussions this could have for the agreement and your members who don't bend any rules.
I've noticed that there are quite a few individual or concerted initiatives that don't take into account the interests and investments of their comrades as a whole.

I thought the use of loopholes was forbidden, I must have been hallucinating.

We sell our young people cheaply to our friends, so it's almost the same thing the other way round.

Good luck irl Agua ^^

IRL Agua....

Same as what?

The only problem with auctions is the length of the auction.

The problem is that the auctions must have lasted 2 hours, and depending on the time of day, few people can see the players bidding.

Apres par rapport tout cela je pense que ce sujet n'aurait pas vue le jour s'il avait mis mis 12h au minimum car ça aurait été plus visible donc y aurait eu plus de proposition et ils auraient parti a des prix correct ( cela est bien sur et surtout mon avis personnel )

Finally, I'm not criticising the creation of this topic because it allows us to see and discuss shortcomings so that we can correct them to improve the pleasure of playing and fairness between everyone.

In any case, as the tables are included in the regulations and there is almost general consensus that they are no longer representative of the market, there is an urgent need, if they are to remain in the regulations, to update them. Otherwise, referring to an obsolete rule in a regulation is bound to open the door to 'profiteers'.

But bringing these tables up to date is no small task, especially as the method is not purely scientific and there will always be an element of subjectivity in the assessment, particularly when assessing players who are hypertrophied in a characteristic with a view to playing with instructions, not to mention the fact that, in my opinion, it is essential to also include the criterion of endurance.
For example, if I take this player in my squad who has a score of 82 at the age of 26
A. Vabao
I value him much more than this 26-year-old player in the same position who has a score of 95
D. Arce
However, when I read the table, mine is only worth 12m and the other 40m.
Everyone will agree that this is not right: it would be madness for me to sell mine for just 12 million and it would be madness for me to buy the other for 40 million.

That's why I think it would be much more representative of a player's value if, instead of using the NG criterion, we took into account the number of useful characteristic points (i.e. including style characteristics), to which we added the number of stamina points.

What I don't understand is why a player who has decided to stop the game can't simply do what he wants with the money he's accumulated in his game account!
If they've also put money into the game, I think it's logical that they should be able to do what they want with their money, their players etc!
I've noticed that on this game, there are only people who scrutinise everything for the slightest hint of something fishy...
I'm just saying, but friends, if we ever get into a war of any kind... Be afraid of everyone, for a little dellation might be in order!

For my part, Aguado, I think what you were doing was quite simply commendable and not reprehensible!
But I'm not an admin of the game, nor its creator...

Well, I won't say any more about it, but enjoy the game J-G Miaou!