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?

zejl: Y a un truc bizarre dans tes exemples : le numéro 11 acheté 40m et revendu 100000 euros comment on peut avoir une telle fourchette ?

Yes, but according to them it's the auction so they can't cancel.

zejl: Y a un truc bizarre dans tes exemples : le numéro 11 acheté 40m et revendu 100000 euros comment on peut avoir une telle fourchette ?

Probably a special player (uni-characteristic?) who is often bought at ultra-low cost at auction.

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

Aguado: J'imagine que l'on parle de moi ici :)!

Vu qu'il n'est plus autorisé de donner à son entente l'entièreté de son budget, j'ai trouvé ce moyen avant de demander la suppression de mon club.

D'ailleurs, vous remarquerez que je n'ai pas fait uniquement profiter les CP de ces transferts qui, je le rappelle, suivent le tableau de VF.

J'ai ensuite remis les joueurs aux enchères, ce n'est pas ma faute si ces enchères ne montent pas plus haut, l'entièreté du jeu pourrait profiter de ma démarche donc.

Hmmm well, once again, if the transfer of funds is proven, as you've also admitted here, there's nothing to stop any penalties or withdrawal of winnings.

There's more to the rules than just the table. You have to read the whole thing.

Aguado: J'imagine que l'on parle de moi ici :)!

Vu qu'il n'est plus autorisé de donner à son entente l'entièreté de son budget, j'ai trouvé ce moyen avant de demander la suppression de mon club.

D'ailleurs, vous remarquerez que je n'ai pas fait uniquement profiter les CP de ces transferts qui, je le rappelle, suivent le tableau de VF.

J'ai ensuite remis les joueurs aux enchères, ce n'est pas ma faute si ces enchères ne montent pas plus haut, l'entièreté du jeu pourrait profiter de ma démarche donc.

Why do you buy players if you stop the game and want your account to be deleted?🤔🤔🤔
And auction them off in the process.

That's transferring funds.

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...

David59: Pourquoi achètes tu des joueurs si tu arrêtes le jeu et tu souhaites la suppression de ton compte?🤔🤔🤔
Pour les mettre aux enchères dans la foulée en plus.

C'est en effet du transfert de fond.

If necessary, my account will remain active until the transfers have been completed.

A bit easy.

Aguado: S'il le faut, mon compte restera actif le temps que ces transferts soient conformes.

After that, if you want to give away your fortune, why not, but that's another debate.
I don't think it's legal but irl it seems to me that it is.
If you delete the account afterwards, I say why not after all.

"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).

Aguado: Bizarrement, quand d'autres l'ont fait à une époque, il n'y a pas eu autant de vent...

Tu parles de règlement mais lui-même n'est pas en accord avec ce qui est mentionné sur le jeu...

Dans le règlement il est indiqué que même en cas d'arrêt, on peut donner 100M à une entente...

Et pourtant sur le jeu...

The rules may be badly written on certain points or elements may have changed since I was admin.

On the other hand, the "transfer of funds" section is fairly clear.

Magpie: Précisons tout de même que, ayant découvert cela aussi à postériori, je fais parti de ceux ayant demandé à un admin de vérifier tout cela et de redresser au plus vite si nécessaire. Car je n'aime pas le procédé, même si visiblement, il est légal, de ce qui est ressorti de ma requête.
J'ai aussi demandé à Aguado d'arrêter cela en attendant d'en savoir plus.
Visiblement tout est OK, mais cela met en évidence deux choses :

• Les prix de tableaux ne sont donc pas à jour (même si les enchères peuv...

Once again, you're fixated on the tables (you in general), but that's not the only part of the rules.

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 .

Ced90: Il est clair que les tableaux de prix de joueurs ne sont très vite plus à jour. Surtout avec les nouvelles générations ou les prix s'envolent.

Après ce n'est pas pour blâmer... Mais s'il est écrit que le transfert de fond est interdit (ou 100M maxi par saison à une entente), cela ne sert à rien de contourner la règle mais ce n'est que mon avis.

Il faudrait peut-être une règle plus claire à ce sujet, ou alors autoriser en cas de suppression de compte.

you have the right to pour 100m ced even if you stop or if you take 1 big break that's the rule

redbull77: 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 mis en place .
Meme si cela peut parraitre du transfert de fond et je me repete car ici meme cela a ete signale par moi meme par le passe et la reponse que l on m a donne etait celle ci par morten.
le tableau a ete mis en place suite a 1regulation et 1obligation de le faire
Donc si le 1er achat qui est en direct rentre dans ce tableau...

Whoa,

The 100M transfer may now be authorised via agreements, that is, if that has changed.

Transferring funds via the VF transfers module, on the other hand, is prohibited.

Galywat: Encore une fois, vous vous fixez sur les tableaux (vous de façon générale), ce n'est pas la seule partie du règlement.

Le transfert de fonds via ventes de joueurs, évident ici d'autant plus qu'admis par l'intéressé, est strictement interdit par le règlement.

Et ce, quand bien même les sommes respectent le tableau.

That was precisely my fear when I saw this.
That's why I took the initiative of raising the matter immediately and personally.
But after studying it, I was told that it was legal, in accordance with the regulations.
OK, fine. I don't like it though, clearly. The rest is between Aguado and me.

That said, I'd quite like to see the rules changed to regulate this in the future. But that's just an opinion, a personal feeling.

redbull77: tu as le droit de verser 100m ced meme si tu stops ou si tu fais 1grosse pause c est ca la regle

Yes, I agree, but when you buy several players at top price and then sell them on at auction. On paper there's nothing illegal about that, but it's clearly a way of getting around the rules.

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

Ced90: Oui d'accord mais bon quand tu achètes plusieurs joueurs prix maxi pour les revendre aux enchères dans la foulée. Sur le papier rien d'illégal, mais c'est clairement un contournement du règlement

je sais ced mais aucun admin ne peut passer au-dessus de la régulation ( le fameux tableaux ) , pour ca que je dis que cela ne bougera jamais plus en ce sens et ce qui et était dit à l'époque
at the admin's discretion it's been buried since regulation came along
you can change the table according to the market, but that's it.

Magpie: Justement, c'était ma crainte en voyant cela.
C'est pour ça que j'ai pris l'initiative de faire remonter la chose tout de suite, et personnellement.
Mais après étude, il m'a été répondu que c'était pourtant légal, en accord avec le règlement.
Bon, OK. Je n'aime pas pour autant, clairement. Le reste restera entre Aguado et moi.

Cela dit j'aimerais assez que le règlement change pour encadrer ça à l'avenir. Mais ce n'est qu'un avis, un ressenti personnel.

In my opinion, the current rules give admins enough latitude to judge the situation.

I'm no longer an admin, but this part of the rules has remained the same. At the time I wouldn't have given my approval. In fact, I've refused on several occasions.

Kevin-7130: Solution simple : Autoriser de donner sa banque à l'entente en cas de suppression de compte?

That's what I suggested above, but the rules at the time were different. Probably for a reason

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 ;)

minadinho: Le soucis et de plus pouvoir reverser sont compte à l’entente .
Ce qui étais possible dans le passé .
Malheureusement cela n’est plus possible et faut se mettre à la pages et faire avec .
Toute entente a connu ça c’est dernière année et ont as du s’adapté.
Ont va pas se voilé la fasse , tu as fait la solution qui reste dans les règles pour lipidé ton argent .
Tu dit que tu n’as pas acheté que dans ton entente mais forcément ont le sais tous pourquoi ^^( faut bien noyé le poissons dans l’eau ...

kitty
deja au temps de galy on dit arrête vos conneries en etant admin, sur l'instant T on paraissent pour des fous mais nous savonsons que a 1 moment cela allait pete avec 1membre qui irrait plus loin, le result est la et plus personne meme pas aymeric ne pourra changer tout ceci.
We members are now paying for what the admins have done in the past and nothing can change that.
There's too much admin appreciation and judgement behind it, now we have to deal with it and move forward in the game with what we've got. and that's not much.

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.

zejl: Moi je retiens surtout que pour 100000 euros aux enchères tu peux chopper un joueur de 40m , pour tous les nouveaux les bonnes affaires sont les enchères si vous voulez monter une équipe compétitive rapidement

You just have to be there! You've got 1 hour to sniff it out!

minadinho: Faut juste être assez présent ! Tu as 1h pour flairer le coup !

You've really hit the nail on the head: 2-hour flash auctions are nonsense. The minimum should be 12 hours.

zejl: Moi je retiens surtout que pour 100000 euros aux enchères tu peux chopper un joueur de 40m , pour tous les nouveaux les bonnes affaires sont les enchères si vous voulez monter une équipe compétitive rapidement

And above all everyone could bid, I come across some great opportunities myself and ja gives in for the lower levels when they're on it.

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.

minadinho: Retourné à l’ancienne formule ( pouvoir reversé sont argent à l’entente ) tout en gardant les 20m par saison de don et par club .
Serais la meilleur formule pour moi .
Sachant que même par le passé le club pouvais donné 1 joueur par club ce qui n’est plus possible maintenant aussi .

Nostalgic grandpa mina :D

🍿🍿

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 👍

remi3048: Moi ce qui me surprend le plus c'est qu'on se rend compte en quelques semaines qu'il y a des arrangements litigeux qui ont concerné 2 des plus grosses ententes du jeu : LR et CP

18 ans que je joue à ce jeu et je suis toujours aussi surpris de la réflexion de certains joueurs (et par ricochet parfois des grosses ententes...)

Chacun joue à VF à sa façon mais je suis totalement d'accord sur le fait que ces arrangements/contournements de règles (voir de sens éthique) doivent être limité au maxi...

Contentious arrangements for the LR?

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.

remi3048: Moi ce qui me surprend le plus c'est qu'on se rend compte en quelques semaines qu'il y a des arrangements litigeux qui ont concerné 2 des plus grosses ententes du jeu : LR et CP

18 ans que je joue à ce jeu et je suis toujours aussi surpris de la réflexion de certains joueurs (et par ricochet parfois des grosses ententes...)

Chacun joue à VF à sa façon mais je suis totalement d'accord sur le fait que ces arrangements/contournements de règles (voir de sens éthique) doivent être limité au maxi...

Contentious arrangements for CP?

If you have files, you should state them. Otherwise, your post is pointless and defamatory.
And, I think, punishable....

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

minadinho: Retourné à l’ancienne formule ( pouvoir reversé sont argent à l’entente ) tout en gardant les 20m par saison de don et par club .
Serais la meilleur formule pour moi .
Sachant que même par le passé le club pouvais donné 1 joueur par club ce qui n’est plus possible maintenant aussi .

What is authorised is not 20 million per season but a donation of 20 million per week, which is not at all the same thing! .....ça allows certain clubs to "suck" 1 billion per year (52 weeks) from their "safe" agreement.

minadinho: Le soucis et de plus pouvoir reverser sont compte à l’entente .
Ce qui étais possible dans le passé .
Malheureusement cela n’est plus possible et faut se mettre à la pages et faire avec .
Toute entente a connu ça c’est dernière année et ont as du s’adapté.
Ont va pas se voilé la fasse , tu as fait la solution qui reste dans les règles pour lipidé ton argent .
Tu dit que tu n’as pas acheté que dans ton entente mais forcément ont le sais tous pourquoi ^^( faut bien noyé le poissons dans l’eau ...

Drowning the fish in the water? I simply bought from the people with whom I got hooked on the game, and even then, I could still have bought from many others, but my bank isn't expandable. There was nothing to do with the deal, otherwise believe me I would only have bought from CP and not elsewhere, and I think there are more elsewhere than CP or close to it in my transactions ;).

But as usual, you're missing the point.

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.

myforsans: Tout le probleme vient de l'obsolescence de ces tableaux. A l'époque Morten avait fait un long et précis travail pour les réaliser mais malheureusement les conditions du marché ont profondément changé avec une offre pléthorique de vieux joueurs à grosse NG que beaucoup de clubs soldent.
C'est sûr que acheter a un club "ami" un joueur au max autorisé du tableau obsolète et le revendre aux enchères dans la foulée en sachant qu'on va arreter le jeu et en osant dire c'est pas de ma faute si les e...

There's no dishonesty in that, I could just as easily have bought the players and not resold them, and you'd all still be crying foul.

I don't care if the auctions are cancelled ;).

But with you, everything is always calculated and dishonest ;)!

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.

Aguado: Noyer le poisson dans l'eau? J'ai simplement acheté aux personnes avec qui j'ai accroché sur le jeu, et encore, j'aurais encore pu le faire à bien d'autres, seulement ma banque n'est pas extensible. Il n'y avait en rien un lien avec l'entente sinon crois moi que j'aurais uniquement acheté aux CP et pas ailleurs, je pense d'ailleurs qu'il y a plus d'ailleurs que de CP ou pas loin dans mes transactions ;).

Mais bon comme d'habitude, t'es à côté de la plaque.

So I was well aware of the rules.
It was this point that I wanted you to understand, denying it was pointless.
As for your friends or your agreement, I totally understand and I'd be the 1st to be delighted if this point in the rules changed. (while finding a good solution to limit abuse).
A little dedication to Rémi, but don't worry, I also get messages every time I write a post saying the same thing.
You'll get used to it ;)