Hi, I'd like to explain, is it possible to put a clause on a player, such as non-transferable player, to avoid what happened to me today, I received a negotiation on a player that I was not selling and by clumsiness I accepted, I would have put this clause non-transferable player, the person who sends the negotiation would have seen that the player is non-transferable and therefore could not send a negotiation.

Good day and good end of season

I feel for you, it hasn't happened to me yet but every time it does, I'm afraid I'll slip and not press the right little square with my big fingers...
Try to reach an amicable agreement with the buyer and an administrator...

Already done, but a categorical refusal ^^

Was he your keeper?

Magpie: C'était ton gardien ?

Yes... I had booked it, screen discord to back it up. Unfortunately, it's the game!

Clearly it was a mistake and the buyer decided not to return it?

That's very, very bad. Especially when you can legitimately say that the price is very underpaid.

We'd like to remind you of the values of the agreement of this nice member who refuses to give the player back:

60M very underpaid for a keeper? 😂

The best goalkeeper in the game, and even the best 17/24 player... the double goes.

sora02: On rappellera les valeurs de l’entente de ce chouette membre qui refuse de restituer le joueur :

Is there a real point to my intervention in relation to the proposed improvement?
But if I take you back from stealing, it's because I'm a LR myself and therefore not legitimate...
So I'll leave it to you to come to an agreement in a dispute between 2 players and make a post go to shit again.

There are enough admins available to channel the anger.
Have fun gentlemen

sora02: On rappellera les valeurs de l’entente de ce chouette membre qui refuse de restituer le joueur :

And here we go again with a gratuitous polemic!
It's getting tiresome

#forum?topic=165027

It's daring to give lessons when you have a variable geometry value system.

OK, but who's going to denounce your member's ugly attitude on this subject?

That's condemning variable-geometry comments/attitudes, I think, as our AbregeFrere would say.

I'd rather make it clear that Skyz (given that we're talking about him) didn't have all the facts to decide whether or not to give the player back. We're waiting for him to come back, and I have very few doubts about his fair play.

Perfect then, a good ethic if it happens.

Especially towards grey a good teddy bear who doesn't deserve this!

Good day to all

the little story at the end of the season!
There was no shortage of it!

Adrimax: Je préfère que préciser que Skyz (vu qu'on parle de lui) n'avait pas tous les éléments pour statuer sur la restitution ou non du joueur. On attend son retour, et j'ai très peu de doute sur son fair play.

That's a pretty vicious message, implying that you're automatically being unfair if you don't give it back even though you haven't broken any rules.
What a method!

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope the situation can be resolved if an agreement was reached between you and Adrimax.

As far as the 'wild' offers are concerned, I can confirm and support the proposal for an 'intransferable player clause'. I'd go even further, with 5 statutes:

• Transferable (transfer list)
• For auction (auction list)
• On loan (loan list)
  To this I would add your proposal:
• Untransferable player (automatic refusal of offers, there are still PMs to discuss a price or transaction...)
  The aim is simply not to receive notifications about a player deemed intransferable.

But also another proposal:

• Automatic refusal clause (automatic minimum value where the offer is refused)
  The aim would be to avoid €0 bids on 99NGs (yes, I receive them, and I'm probably not the only one) or derisory offers on certain players, who are not for sale unless they are for huge sums. (I've had another case of a 10M offer on my latest youngster, with low offers sent in hoping that by mistake, or by chance, the person accepts). Each time, you have to sweat like hell to click on the buttons, because the system is very poorly designed, and doesn't emphasise the selected choice enough (use of different colours, more striking or distinguishable text or icons/graphics, validation messages, etc.).

PS: This is basically the same proposal (by Tigers214) as the other topic linked by Socrate, which dates back more than a year.

Marcus Aurelius: Ça c’est un message bien vicieux ; sous entendre qu’il serait automatiquement non fair play s’il ne le rend pas alors qu’il n’a enfreint aucune règle.
Belle méthode !

Interpret it however you like.

You're in the process of making a circus out of it for an offer that's nothing wild (60M for a keeper that matches his value). You've settled this in mp with a categorical refusal from the buyer, so why make a scene of it here?

Pour ma part ,Il faut dire que sur téléphone erreur est vite arrivé on m'a fait une offre pour un joueur du cdf promis ailleurs j'ai tremblé pour cliquer mon refus 🤣
Ou ceux qui insiste sur 1 joueur et une fois que le prix et correcte tu n'avez pas gaffe que la dernière offre est un joueur que tu ne voulais pas vendre et en plus même a moitié prix c'est de ta faute

The aim of the post is not to make a scene but to remind us of the need for improvement in this area.

Adrimax: T'es pénible. Grissais joue le match du titre aujourd'hui.. quel est son intérêt de vendre son meilleur joueur ?
Si Skyz veux pas le rendre, libre à lui, on en fera pas tout un cirque.

You're already making a big deal of it 😉

Perso quand je voie les attaques gratuit ,juste pour faire la continuité de ces gens ,je rend pas le joueurs....Abón entendeur....

junior: Perso quand je voie les attaques gratuit ,juste pour faire la continuité de ces gens ,je rend pas le joueurs....Abón entendeur....

Thanks for your opinion!

A very good idea for improvement. Even a priority, I'd say.
If it can avoid all the requests we receive for players, and where we have the drop of sweat on our forehead every time we click on refuse, caused by the fact that the buyer is within his rights and cannot be punished if the seller makes a mistake, I say YES.

Marcus Aurelius: Vous en faites déjà tout un cirque.😉

especially since you've been involved.

I don't know Sky so this is just my opinion.
But I think he would have given it back to quite a few people, the big worry and we will not deny it nexus attacks often enough LR.
Donc derrière faut pas s'étonnée des retomber , malheureusement certain paye pour les autres .... What must be the case of gray undoubtedly.

minadinho: Je connais pas Sky donc ça reste mon avis .
mais je pense qu’il l’aurais rendu à pas mal de monde , le gros soucis et ont va pas le nier la nexus attaque assez souvent les LR .
Donc derrière faut pas s’étonnée des retomber , malheureusement certain paye pour les autre …. Ce qui doit être le cas de gris sans doute .

We're not talking about an agreement... we're talking about a member, Grissai's, who may be the most hard-hearted guy in the whole game, who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who has the best generation of up-and-coming youngsters, and who therefore receives offers by the bucketful (including quite a few from LR, proof that he does his job well) every day. It's a human mistake. In any case, no one will come out of this story any better, but don't worry, in Belgium we have an expression that goes "el bac se retorne todi sur el pourcha", which basically means that ill-gotten gains never pay off...

minadinho: Je connais pas Sky donc ça reste mon avis .
mais je pense qu’il l’aurais rendu à pas mal de monde , le gros soucis et ont va pas le nier la nexus attaque assez souvent les LR .
Donc derrière faut pas s’étonnée des retomber , malheureusement certain paye pour les autre …. Ce qui doit être le cas de gris sans doute .

Yes, the war is raging! We're managing to compete with them on the ground at the moment, but I doubt it'll last!

villa: surtout depuis que tu interviens .

I'd say since Sora's message. Which isn't surprising given the content of the message.
When you provoke and insinuate like that you shouldn't be surprised when it comes back.

Tchubdebelgimex: On ne parle pas d'entente... on parle d'un membre, Grissai's qui est peut être le mec qui a le plus le coeur sur la main de tout le jeu, qui ne ferait pas de mal à une mouche, mais qui a la meilleure génération de jeunes qui montent, et qui reçoit donc des offres à la pelle (dont pas mal de LR, preuve qu'il fait bien son travail) tous les jours. L'erreur est humaine. Personne ne sortira grandi de cette histoire en tout cas mais ne vous en faites pas en Belgique on a une expression qui dit "el...

But I did see talk of agreement and ethics, didn't I?
I agree with you that Griss is a great guy (which is why the good guys pay for the bad ones).
Mais quand tout l'année tu envoie des scud forcément tu paye a un moment donné .... c'est rarement le bon qui paye malheureusement

I think you need to relax a bit, the problem has already been solved by Aymeric, let me explain:
Before the small icon, validation or refusal was only present, a modification was made so that there was a confirmation.
Attached is a screen of the confirmation.
image](https://i.imgur.com/fKqg0mL.png)

Apart from making a double error because everything is clearly marked on the confirmation, there is no debate.

Marcus Aurelius: Je dirais plutôt depuis le message de Sora. Ce qui n'est pas étonnant vu la teneur du message.
Quand on provoque et qu'on insinue comme ça il ne faut pas s'étonner du retour.

What you're having trouble understanding is that my message wasn't intended to slam LR or its members, but to point out an ethic that is supposed to apply to all its members and which obviously escapes some of them.

I have no doubts about your ethics, but you can be sure that if someone had refused to back out of a deal after an absolutely obvious mistake, presidents of other agreements would have put pressure on the member because of the catastrophic image it would send out, and rightly so, which I'm sure you did.

Skyz, like you, like others you know very well that this gac is the best in the game as it stands by far. 60m is a mistake.

Despite the recent affairs, I'm convinced that you won't jeopardise your image just for one player, especially when the manager opposite, grey, is a really nice guy who has never taken sides.

Bon vos règlement de comote compte c'est en mp , la s'agit d'une erreur de manipulation /interprétation ou compréhension entre 2 managers

So future provocations on agreements will be punished without further reminders.

So thank you for staying on topic

We missed the return of FC Image

Two clicks of confirmation, then he put the other first-choice keeper straight in and it was several hours before he realised.

Add to that your kind, courteous and unprovocative attitude, and you don't seem to be lecturing anyone.

It goes without saying that we'll be looking internally to see what action we take (probably exclusion from the agreement) in response to this despicable behaviour (not yours, of course, which is exemplary, but that of our comrade), because, as you should know, dear Sora, what matters most to us is the image that you and your valiant comrades have of us.

Best regards.

Marcus Aurelius: Deux clics de confirmation, ensuite il a mis direct l'autre gardien titulaire et il s'est passé plusieurs heures avant qu'il ne s'en rende compte ; c'est effectivement une erreur manifeste.

Rajoutons à ça, votre attitude bienveillante, courtoise, nullement provocatrice et tout ça sans avoir l'air de donner des leçons.

Il est évident que nous allons voir en interne quelles suites (probablement une exclusion de l'entente) nous allons donner à cet odieux comportement (pas le votre bien sûr il ...

When you talk about a benevolent, courteous, unprovocative attitude, and all this without seeming to give lessons, I imagine you're talking about yourself?

Jeffus tuchuss: Je pense qu’il faut se détendre un peu , le soucis A déjà été réglé par Aymeric, je m’explique :
Avant le petit icône, validation ou refus était seulement présent, une modification était faite pour qu’il y ait une confirmation
Ci-joint un screen de la confirmation.

Hormis réaliser une double erreur car tout est bien marqué sur la confirmation, il n’y a pas de débat.

This screen supports my earlier point about improvement:

• The difference between this tab (validating a purchase) and the similar tab for rejecting a purchase is clearly too close visually.

We're not playing a game of 7 differences, but rather validating a transaction. This is a placebo improvement; it solves virtually nothing as it stands, apart from blaming the club that validated the double check (if it can really be considered as such as it stands). The only difference is the symbol, where the 'simili v' and the 'x' are very similar. There are lots of other very different options that would be much more informative again, as suggested:
=> Use of colours (red = refusal, green = validation) in the response
=> Don't give generic names to the "Continue" and "Return" buttons, but make them more informative like "Validate sale" / "Cancel transaction" / "Return".

minadinho: Pourtant j’ai bien vu parler d’entente et d’éthique non ?
Je te rejoins sur griss qui et un super gars ( d’où les bon paye pour les mauvais )
Mais quand tout l’année tu envoie des scud forcément tu le paye a un moment donné ….c’est rarement le bon qui paye malheureusement

You will note that Sora is not part of our agreement and that no Nexus has been disrespectful towards LRs on this topic.
You'll also note that your systematic attempts to add fuel to the fire where it doesn't belong aren't necessary either.
Just because we can't manage you doesn't mean we have problems with everyone else.
Thank you very much :)

This topic is just a project for improvement, not a settling of scores ^^, if we can find together an improvement to avoid someone else being fooled.

Hello
So if I try to summarize the situation:
Last night Grissais sold his goalkeeper, at the time the deal went through he didn't think about it and didn't contact skyz or admin.
This morning Adrimax sees the transaction and probably reminds him a bit angrily that he had promised him the player.
So Adrimax try to negotiate with Skyz, given the recent differences between agreement it is not very open but it was perhaps catchable with a Grissais very annoyed would have tried to discuss by mp.
As a result, Grissais, who seems to be very honest, suggested an improvement so that next time he would have time to think carefully about what he was doing and it could (should?) have ended there, but it didn't because a number of guys who were on the ball wanted to reveal the transaction, a transaction that coincided exactly with the agreement that is currently in vogue on the IR. And there...as is often the case....coup de pression, post provocateur
So I don't know what the objective was, but if it was to prove that skyz was a big rat who would never give the player back, it's totally successful because now, bravo, that's what's going to happen. If it was to succeed in making him change his mind in popular pressure mode the failure is total 👍.
What's sad is the image it reflects of the game, so I'll have a thought for the 90% of those who never post, take no pleasure in getting confused, and are sorry about these exchanges, can we have healthy competition and friendly exchanges it's a virtual game damn (it was for the rhyme).
A bon entendeur.
Ps: excellente fin de saison à tous et Grissais ça arrive de faire des boulettes, t'inquiète tu n' en mourras utilise bien tes 60m et amuse toi bien sur le jeu

As double validation exists, I am voting against.

Zejl, I'm replying to you in mp, the first part where you quote me is completely wrong.

So here's what really happened, there's no point in telling things that aren't true.
I'm working a 2x8 this week, I'm a morning shift, as usual I'm doing group training and I saw that there was a negotiation that I refused, or so I thought. Just before going to work I started training and I realised that my bank account had gone up and that's when I realised that I'd made a mistake.
Then nothing happened, until my break when I sent a message to Socrate who told me to speak to Skyz directly, which is what I did.
Yes, I started a topic to see if we could improve the system.
Ps: under no circumstances did I send a message to adrimax