Future Auctions

[Ian]

3 bids would also give the bigger balances the chance of a big player should they have a failed bid.

[Ed@PSG]

the only way to make the big balances pay big is to either have the % bid thing, which i disagree with. Or accept that the big balances will end up with the big players and stick a massive min bid on them eg 75% of expected market value

[Ian]

Not so sure about the 75% idea. Kind of goes against what the auction is about.

[Ed@PSG]

Not so sure about the 75% idea. Kind of goes against what the auction is about.

thats the issue. cant have it all ways. people cant moan the big balances get players cheap then

[Sam@Bilbao]

i think the most recent 5/6 comments have summed it up, unsolvable issue.

[Ian]

I wouldn't have a problem with a big balance getting a bargain if I knew the bid was totally legit. Isnt that part of the apeal.

[Ed@PSG]

I wouldn't have a problem with a big balance getting a bargain if I knew the bid was totally legit. Isnt that part of the apeal.

i beleive the bids are totally legit. Don't you?

[Ian]

i beleive the bids are totally legit. Don't you?

Historically I don't believe they have been Legit, but the new auction yes. We all know the problem with the new auction though, most of the time no one else will bid on a specific player once a higher balance has bid on that said player. Nick was the only one to do so but I feel this will be a rare event if the format stays the same... I think my original suggestion gets around this problem and haven't seen a better alternative IMO.

[Ed@PSG]

Historically I don't believe they have been Legit, but the new auction yes. We all know the problem with the new auction though, most of the time no one else will bid on a specific player once a higher balance has bid on that said player. Nick was the only one to do so but I feel this will be a rare event if the format stays the same... I think my original suggestion gets around this problem and haven't seen a better alternative IMO.

i'm with Talbot. with multiple bids the bigger balances would prob do a bit of shithousery driving up the big players. You say they are more likely to get a player? Yes, but they will probably also pay substantially more

[Ian]

i'm with Talbot. with multiple bids the bigger balances would prob do a bit of shithousery driving up the big players. You say they are more likely to get a player? Yes, but they will probably also pay substantially more

If that's the way it goes fair enough, but to me that's just going to drive up prices for the sake of it with all the big balances still picking up all of the big players. Like I have already said, nothing wrong with a big balance getting a bargain if it is genuine and fairly done. Auction bargains are the auctions main appeal as long as its not a giveaway.

[Steve@Chelsea]

The only giveaway was Nicks really.

I paid 200m. Ed 120 was it? Derek 150 ish.

3 bids would add more battling between the top dogs

[Ian]

The only giveaway was Nicks really.

I paid 200m. Ed 120 was it? Derek 150 ish.

3 bids would add more battling between the top dogs

There was loads of giveaways including mine.

[Ed@PSG]

The only giveaway was Nicks really.

I paid 200m. Ed 120 was it? Derek 150 ish.

3 bids would add more battling between the top dogs

Yeah, ironic that the biggest team got the best bargain lol. at least with 100m min bids or 50% balance that would have cost a lot more

[Steve@Chelsea]

There was loads of giveaways including mine.

Was talking about big balance teams. As big balances seem to be the bug bear.

[Ian]

Was talking about big balance teams. As big balances seem to be the bug bear.

I don't see big balances as a bug bear, they are inevitable. What I would like to see is them genuinely bidding against each other with the intention of winning.