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?

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.

#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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

This morning, I still had a 100k offer that had been cancelled, but it's all very dull and you shudder every time you're turned down because you can't see anything.

So I'm obviously in favour, both of being able to put in players who can't be transferred, but above all of having a real double validation on which you can see something, because at the moment we have to admit that that's not the case.

Perhaps a colour code, or a very specific style, which would be different. To clearly differentiate the 2 pages (Refusal / Agreement)
That way, after all, when you've refused so many times, it's easy to get to know the 'refusal' page. On the other hand, when you see the "Agreement" page, it might make you wonder "What's this different page?

That would avoid the 'usual' gesture.

Personally, I think it's pretty telling, but it depends on the size of the screen 😅

Incidentally, the option of withdrawing a counter-offer would also be useful.

An idea to improve the game is always a good one. We're not talking about a boost, regression, advantage or disadvantage, so there shouldn't even be a debate.

As for the ensuing argument, cool guys, pretty pointless, even if I did get out the popcorn.

Personally, I'd have given the player back whoever was in front of me. My father always said to me, and I still say it to my son, don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you. If only in this world we followed that maxim. On the other hand, everyone is free to do what they want too.

Good evening. Then, if we apply the rules, and if there is an agreement in mp between Grissaisman and Adrimax that predates the transfer ....

image](https://i.imgur.com/y9mYJYg.jpeg)

I'll sell you my GAC for 60M! To anyone !!!!!
I'm waiting for the offer!!!

It's practical, the law, it avoids having a conscience.

@Magpie