Hello Aymeric and hello everyone,

I'd like to submit an idea for improving the management of young players in our CDFs.
This idea came to me this morning following a frustrating dilemma: I was forced to release a player with a potential of 80 just to free up some space. It's a real waste to see a young player with such potential released, when he could have greatly helped other managers, especially those who are just starting out or who just need it.

The idea:
Allow youngsters from the CDF to be transferred directly between clubs.

The benefits:
Reduced waste: High-potential players are no longer discarded for lack of space, but promoted within the community.

Mutual assistance between managers: This will boost exchanges and reinforce the social and strategic aspects of the game, particularly within the agreements.

Realism: In the real world of football, clubs regularly transfer talented young players who don't yet have a professional contract.
I hope this suggestion can be considered for a future update.
Thanks in advance for your feedback and enjoy the game!

Great idea +1

It's an idea, but I think it needs fine-tuning:

• I don't really like the idea of transferring an 80 pot to a cdf <9. Yes, it exists, particularly with U17 tournaments, but it's still marginal
• it would make it possible to develop cdf management, a subject that has been discussed for a long time and has remained unresolved
• it's certainly interesting for the development of cohesion within agreements, but I think you're creating a huge imbalance between small and large agreements, which A45 refutes from what I've understood (the idea being to develop more agreements, not to give more resources to the big ones).

On the other hand, it's still an interesting idea, and one that could bring up a subject that I think was discussed during the last vocals.

Very good point Lahi, there's too much wastage of youngsters in the CDFs and that's not ideal. Transferring youngsters between CDFs could greatly help some clubs to strengthen themselves in the future and improve their management. I think it's an excellent idea, with perhaps some contributions, and I think the project will be implemented.

I find the idea very interesting, but as has been said, it needs to be refined further. But how can we overcome the difference in cdf levels between clubs in the case of a profile resulting from detection? A young 80+ pot for a 9 or 10 cdf corresponds to a 65 or 67 pot for a less developed cdf.
But otherwise it's a good idea that could boost this aspect of the game and allow more clubs to benefit from talented players.

I had submitted the idea via the discord opened to discuss between the agreements some time ago, to open transfers for the cdf, many had loved the idea then I said to myself, that it would not be feasible compared to the levels of cdf.
Mais si il y a une solution je suis toujours pour en limiteant par exemple a 3 transferts par saison max, il ne faut pas plus qu'il y a de l'abus

An interesting idea for maximising profits between multi-accounts. It will allow some clubs to sell 16 youngsters a season, by the batch, to the training centres of clubs that will never be able to release them, since only 2.5 youngsters can be released per season.

Demi-cerveau: Une idée intéressante pour maximiser les profits entre multi-comptes. Ça permettra à certains clubs de vendre 16 jeunes par saison, à la fournée, aux centres de formation de clubs qui ne pourront jamais les sortir, puisqu'on ne peut sortir que 2,5 jeunes par saison.

Hence my message above about limiting transfers to a maximum of 3 per season.
This project is a good one, but we need to look at it in more detail to avoid abuse.

Demi-cerveau: Une idée intéressante pour maximiser les profits entre multi-comptes. Ça permettra à certains clubs de vendre 16 jeunes par saison, à la fournée, aux centres de formation de clubs qui ne pourront jamais les sortir, puisqu'on ne peut sortir que 2,5 jeunes par saison.

For once, I don't agree with you.
All we need to do is introduce a limit on intra-CDF transfers per season to keep things reasonable.

If we ban all potential improvements using cheats as an argument, we'll never get anywhere. Especially as they don't need that to cheat, it won't change anything.

But what improvement? Which club, which plays seriously in VF with a cdf 10, does not have a single player in its training centre to take out?

I think all the VF clubs do joint scouting, don't they? There are also people who share their scouting for free on this forum.

Lahi explains that he had to "sacrifice" a young potential 80. He forgets to mention that this season we've found a lot of potential 80 players in scouting. At RTG alone, I think we've got around thirty players with a potential 80 or more who have been spotted and ended up being snapped up by nobody!

On the other hand, if we open this Pandora's box, it will mean that the cdf1s will be able to buy cdf10 players with the potential of the cdf10s, with all the problems that will go with that, and a 3 or 4-fold increase in the number of players who will be released each season .... Via multi-accounts.

Without me.

Demi-cerveau: Mais quelle amélioration ? Quel club, qui joue sérieusement à VF avec un cdf 10, n'a pas un seul joueur dans son centre de formation à sortir ?

Je pense que toutes les ententes de VF font de la détection commune, non ? Il y a aussi des personnes qui partagent gratuitement leur détection sur ce forum.

Lahi nous explique qu'il a dû "sacrifier" un jeune potentiel 80. Il oublie de préciser que des joueurs potentiels 80, cette saison, on en a trouvé beaucoup en détection. Rien qu'à la RTG, je ...

Thanks for your feedback. I understand your fears about excesses, but we can't put the brakes on the development of gameplay just because we're afraid of fringe behaviour, especially when there are solutions to limit it (as kiki-sainté and RomyTurtle have suggested).

As for potential 80, whether it's common for some or rare for others, the root of the problem remains the same: lack of interaction and sheer waste. My idea is to make the most of these players and encourage them to help each other.

After that, as you say, it's your opinion; it's noted, but it doesn't invalidate the interest that others have in the project. Enjoy the game!

The very idea of having 80 or more potential players in a tier 1 CDF makes me imagine all the possible abuses. it's going to be hell. Just imagine, it's as if we decided to do away with all the rules governing transfers!!!! That would be crazy!

Nicularo: L'idée même d'avoir des potentiels 80 ou plus dans un CDF de niveau 1 me fait imaginer toutes les dérives possibles. ça va être un enfer. Imaginez-vous, c'est comme si on décidait de supprimer toutes les règles encadrant les transferts!!! Ce serait n'importe quoi!!!

@Nicularo, a level 1 Cdf who gets an 80+ pot via the U17 tournament is already possible today...
So your fear is already a reality of the current game without it causing "hell". The U17 tournament event gives high potential at any CDF level, as does the purchase of nuggets on the market via the store (even if they go straight into the first team, just like the youngsters obtained via university promotion).
So the mechanism already exists in the game's ecosystem.
My project isn't specifically about level 1s, it's about all Cdfs.
The idea is not to create chaos, but to avoid waste by allowing controlled transfers (limited, as proposed above).
So with simple safeguards (quotas to prevent abuse), there's no reason for things to get out of hand.

Nicularo: L'idée même d'avoir des potentiels 80 ou plus dans un CDF de niveau 1 me fait imaginer toutes les dérives possibles. ça va être un enfer. Imaginez-vous, c'est comme si on décidait de supprimer toutes les règles encadrant les transferts!!! Ce serait n'importe quoi!!!

@Nicularo, a level 1 Cdf who gets an 80+ pot via the U17 tournament is already possible today...
So your fear is already a reality of the current game without it causing "hell". The U17 tournament event gives high potential at any CDF level, as does the purchase of nuggets on the market via the store (even if they go straight into the first team, just like the youngsters obtained via university promotion).
So the mechanism already exists in the game's ecosystem.
My project isn't specifically about level 1s, it's about all Cdfs.
The idea is not to create chaos, but to avoid waste by allowing controlled transfers (limited, as proposed above).
So with simple safeguards (quotas to prevent abuse), there's no reason for things to get out of hand.

Demi-cerveau: Une idée intéressante pour maximiser les profits entre multi-comptes. Ça permettra à certains clubs de vendre 16 jeunes par saison, à la fournée, aux centres de formation de clubs qui ne pourront jamais les sortir, puisqu'on ne peut sortir que 2,5 jeunes par saison.

The aim is not to maximise profits between multi-accounts but rather to help each other, so if you've seen the flaw in the idea, you should also think about how to adapt it to correct the flaw in the idea. Being smart enough to see the flaw, I'm sure that if you think hard enough, you can also come up with the idea to fix the proposed improvement.

Example of a personal idea to correct the flaw behind the idea: That all transfers be free and that there be a seniority requirement for players to be transferable after promotion.

They idea is a good one i hope it will be endorse

An idea proposed to Aymeric a few (long) months ago... About 2 years ago, from memory, when we were asked to think about reforms to the main modules of the game.
Among the proposals for the detection module, which have already been mentioned on this forum, one of them was to authorise cdf-to-cdf sales, within a framework that avoided abuse. In practice, it was proposed that :

• the level of cdf of the selling club is lower than that of the buying club (to avoid abusive exchanges between elitist clubs).
• The number of authorised cdf-to-cdf sales would be limited to 1 sale (clubs from level 1 to 9) and/or 1 purchase (clubs from level 2 to 10) per manager (to avoid player trafficking or fraudulently enriching less prestigious clubs) and per season (to avoid destabilising the operation of the detection system).
• Prior to this, the reform aimed at establishing a quantitative rather than qualitative detection system for each CFD level would be implemented. (See #forum?topic=158239).

To date, I don't even know if Aymeric is aware of this proposal.

OncleOink: Idée proposée à Aymeric, il y a quelques (long) mois... 2ans environ, de mémoire, lorsque nous avions été invités à réfléchir sur des réformes sur les principaux modules du jeu.
Parmi les propositions sur le module de la détection, déjà évoquées sur ce forum, l'une d'elle consistait à autoriser, dans un cadre évitant les abus, les ventes de cdf à cdf. En pratique, il était proposé que :

• le niveau de cdf du club vendeur est inférieur à celui du club acheteur (pour éviter les 'échanges abusi...

Thanks for the reminder, I didn't know that the idea had already been formalised two years ago. It shows that there are several of us who think there's something to be done about this module...
The conditions you mention (limiting sales/purchases to one per season and the hierarchy of FDC levels) are excellent safeguards. This directly addresses the fears of abuse expressed earlier, while solving the problem of wasting high potentials.
I hope that digging up this subject today will give Aymeric a second look, especially with the support of the community. Perhaps we've found the right compromise to make this module more dynamic without 'unbalancing' the game.
Thanks in any case for your enlightened feedback 👍🏽

Nicularo: L'idée même d'avoir des potentiels 80 ou plus dans un CDF de niveau 1 me fait imaginer toutes les dérives possibles. ça va être un enfer. Imaginez-vous, c'est comme si on décidait de supprimer toutes les règles encadrant les transferts!!! Ce serait n'importe quoi!!!

Do away with all the rules governing transfers? Fortunately, that's never going to happen 😅! Can you imagine?

Demi-cerveau: Supprimer toutes les règles encadrant les transferts ? Heureusement, ça n'arrivera jamais 😅 ! T'imagines le truc ???

Nicularo has clearly pushed the envelope with his comparison 😄. But basically, I think we all agree that a controlled transfer between CDFs has nothing to do with a general abolition of the rules. Let's stay on topic ... If you have any concrete proposals, they're welcome 😁.

Unfortunately, as Demi mentions, it would be too much of a boon for the multi. They've already proliferated since the end of transfer control, so there's no need to add another layer.

Galywat: Malheureusement, comme le mentionne Demi, ce serait trop une aubaine pour les multi. Déjà qu'ils pullulent encore plus depuis la fin de la régulation des transferts, pas forcément besoin d'ajouter une couche supplémentaire.

Il n'y a rien à faire pour empêcher cela.

I don't agree with this fatalistic view. To say that 'nothing can be done' to prevent abuse is to ignore all the technical solutions already applied elsewhere.
I think the admins already have all the tools they need to track down multis. We're not going to restrict the game because some people are afraid of the shadow of cheaters. With a quota of one transfer per season, there's virtually no point in cheating...

Lahi: Je ne suis pas d'accord avec cette vision fataliste. Dire qu’il n’y a "rien à faire" pour empêcher les abus, c’est ignorer toutes les solutions techniques déjà appliquées ailleurs.
Les admins ont déjà je pense tous les outils pour traquer les multis. On ne va pas brider le jeu parce que certains ont peur de l'ombre des tricheurs. Avec un quota d'un transfert par saison, l'intérêt de frauder est quasi nul...

Yes, and marmots wrap chocolate bars.

Galywat: Oui et les marmottes emballent les tablettes de chocolat.

And the penguins play the cello.

Mdr 53 likes for this idea, which is certainly very nice, but compared to others ^^.
In IRL, how many people is that?

OK, I'm off, where do I leave?

Rull43: Mdr 53 likes pour cette idée, certes fort sympathique, mais par rapport a d'autres ^^.
En IRL, cela fait combien de personnes?

Ok je sors, la sortie c'est par où?

Thanks for the joke. The exit is on the bottom right

the next topic will be to find out if we can share an account between 15 members of the same agreement.

dudziak: le prochain topic ca sera pour savoir si on peux se partager un compte entre 15 membre d'une meme entente

This way, sir, if you want to open a subject 👉🏿 #forum?forum=15&post

There's no point in puffing out your chest and behaving like a physiognomist at the entrance to a nightclub with those who find this improvement project laughable.
Just as it's pointless to get people to like the AFU and AFU2 en masse to inflate the number of likes.
There's only one person who needs convincing and who doesn't care about all that (likes and over-zealousness).

So you've made your proposal, now all you have to do is wait for an opinion from the mdj or a future new feature that goes in this direction.

Lebaygue: Ca ne sert a rien de bomber le torse et de se comporter comme un physionomiste a l entrée d une boite de nuit avec ceux qui trouvent ce projet d amélioration risible.
Tout comme il est inutile de faire liker les AFU et les AFU2 en masse pour gonfler le nombre de likes.
Il n y a qu une personne a convaincre et qui se fiche de tout cela (likes et excès de zéle).

Donc t as fait ta propo,il te reste plus qu a attendre un avis du mdj ou une future nouveauté qui va dans ce sens.

Nice physiognomic analysis and thanks for the nightclub metaphor, it's very graphic...
But don't worry, there's no overzealousness, just enthusiasm for a project. If some people find it 'laughable', others see a point in it: it's the very principle of a forum 😁.

As for likes, it's like on the pitch: you often notice other people's supporters without seeing your own friends self-congratulating in the opposite stand. In the end, everyone sees the likes that suit them. We're not going to get bogged down in conjecture, we'll let the MDJ decide calmly; that's the only thing that counts in the end.
All the best.

à moins de faire des echanges qu'entre niv 10 de cdf voir de meme niveau inferieur dis moi si se projet viendrai à être accepté, quoi servirai t il que les plus petits niveaux de cdf monte encore leur cdf. il suffiraira simplement d'intégrer une entente et lui remplir sont cdf ou en partie.

So as some have shown in their post, it will give another element to promote multis.

Seeing a project like this in the past and we all throw ourselves into the multi and fill our pockets.

dudziak: à moins de faire des echanges qu entre niv 10 de cdf voir de meme niveau inferieur dis moi si se projet viendrai à etre accepté , à quoi servirai t il que les plus petit niveau de cdf monte encore leur cdf. il suffira simplement d'integrer une entente et lui remplir sont cdf ou en partie.

Donc comme certain l'on démontré dans leur post, ca donnera encore un élément en plus pour promouvoir les multis.

Voir un tel projet en plus passé et on se lance tous dans les multi et on se rempli les p...

Possibly. Anyway, have a good evening

If you set up 2 to 3 sales per season, I don't see where you're going to bid on the members of the agreements.
Yes, they will improve thanks to these players, but an agreement is there to help.
Then you have to set maximum and minimum prices.
Lahi, that's what I was saying above, which is why I didn't make this proposal myself because there were too many risks involved and I was sure there would be some unhappy people.
All we need to do is propose this project in more detail and think carefully so that everyone likes it
Courage and rework the project a little.

kiki-sainté: Si tu instaure 2a3 ventes par saison je ne vois pas où tu vas enchérir les membres des ententes
Oui ils vont s amélioré grâce a ces joueurs mais une entente est faite pour aider
Après il faut instauré des prix max et mini
Lahi c est ce que je disais au dessus pour ça que je n avais pas fait moi meme cette proposition car il y avait trop d aléas a côté et sur qu il y allait avoir des mécontents
Il faut juste proposer ce projet avec plus de précision et bien réfléchir pour que ça plaise a t...

The problem isn't that it's a nice feature. The problem is that it will be exploited (and easily encouraged) by multiplayers: there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop it ==> just look at the game since transfers were deregulated.

If anyone comes up with a solution, please share it. Spoiler: there isn't one.

kiki-sainté: Si tu instaure 2a3 ventes par saison je ne vois pas où tu vas enchérir les membres des ententes
Oui ils vont s amélioré grâce a ces joueurs mais une entente est faite pour aider
Après il faut instauré des prix max et mini
Lahi c est ce que je disais au dessus pour ça que je n avais pas fait moi meme cette proposition car il y avait trop d aléas a côté et sur qu il y allait avoir des mécontents
Il faut juste proposer ce projet avec plus de précision et bien réfléchir pour que ça plaise a t...

Thanks kiki, you're right about the need for clarification. The safeguards (quota, minimum/maximum price, traceability, etc.) are already part of the discussion. The MDJ can refine them.
As for the rest, everyone has their own reasons for being for or against - some of them personal. I won't dwell on them 😁. Thanks for your honesty and encouragement.
Enjoy the game!

An improvement project, as its name suggests, is there to try and enhance certain aspects of the game. A project can be in the making and by making real, tangible contributions you could turn it into something. This manoeuvre of trying to dissuade a project that you don't "feel" is ridiculous.
To move the topic forward, I suggest creating a youth auction with a maximum of 3 players per season per club and capping the maximum for auctions.

Say say: Un projet d'amélioration comme son nom l'indique est là pour essayer de plus valoriser certains aspects du jeu. Un projet peut être en gestation et par des contributions réelles et palpables on pourrait faire du projet quelque chose. Cette manille d'essayer de dissuader un projet dont vous ne "sentez pas" est ridicule.
Pour faire avancer le topic je suggère de créer une enchère pour les jeunes avec maximum 3 joueurs par saison par club et plafonner le maximum pour les enchères

Thank you Say Say for this constructive proposal. The idea of an auction with a quota and a ceiling is an interesting one, and goes in the direction of the safeguards we were talking about.

Why not? The only downside I can see is that it risks taking away a bit of the mutual aid aspect between managers (giving a young player to a friendly club or to a beginner without a bidding war). It would become more of a commercial system than a supportive one.

But there's nothing to stop us thinking about a mix: a limited direct transfer (for mutual support) + a small, supervised auction (to increase value).
In any case, thank you for taking this subject forward 👍🏽

Otherwise, to avoid abuse
Simply set a price per potential
Let's say
Potential 80 -> 20m
Potential 81 -> 25m
Etc ...
You'd have to create a transfer area hiding the player's name
That way when you buy the youngster
You don't know which cdf he comes from
And the price is fixed per potential

BVB MIKA: Sinon pour éviter tout abus
Il suffit de fixer un prix par potentiel
Admettons
Potentiel 80 —> 20m
Potentiel 81 —> 25m
Etc …
Il faudrait créer un espace transfert en cachant le nom du joueur
Comme ça quand tu achètes le jeune
Tu ne sais pas de quel cdf il vient
Et le tarif est fixe par potentiel

It's a good idea but the price can be high we're talking about cdf, and then hide the name of the player when you want only dunn it's complicated 😁😁😁

kiki-sainté: C est une bonne idée mais les prix peut etre élevé on parle de cdf ,et puis cacher le nom du joueur quand tu veux que des dunn c est compliquer 😁😁😁

The prices are just an example ^^

BVB MIKA: Sinon pour éviter tout abus
Il suffit de fixer un prix par potentiel
Admettons
Potentiel 80 —> 20m
Potentiel 81 —> 25m
Etc …
Il faudrait créer un espace transfert en cachant le nom du joueur
Comme ça quand tu achètes le jeune
Tu ne sais pas de quel cdf il vient
Et le tarif est fixe par potentiel

The idea of a scale would not be a bad one, but I'm not sure it will be taken into account and priced, given that Aymeric has decided to go with an open market.

Even if it could be a solution, it wouldn't be viable and couldn't last with 2 different markets (scale for the cdf and free market afterwards).

At one time an auction part had been requested (for the staffs and young people), can be that is the solution or another, but improvements cdf and/or staff are for much to remain without continuation.

bluethunders26: L idée du barème serait pas mal mais pas sur que cela sois retenu et pris en compte vue qu Aymeric a décider de passer en marché libre

Même si ça peut être une solution ça ne serait pas viable et pourrais pas durer avec 2 marchés différents ( barème pour le cdf et marché libre pour après )

A une époque une partie enchère avais était demander ( pour les staffs et jeunes ) , peut être est ce cela la solution ou une autre , mais des améliorations cdf et/ou staff sont pour beaucoup rester san...

Auctions would be a good idea