Concerned that the current furore over the external ownership of players is in danger of promoting a knee jerk reaction without the issue being fully discussed and thoroughly thought through I write expressing my view that care and a considered approach needs to be taken in implementing any rules to prevent possible abuse of the transfer system whilst retaining some degree of flexibility to managers within the constraints and limitations of the current SM transfer system.
Amongst the many areas of game play which I feel SM is lacking is the very limited ability to construct transfer deals, the options being simply – cash, 1 for 1 or 2 for 1.
As we see from Game Worlds like T100 transfers are an essential part of constructing an active GW where managers interact, the current transfer options are adequate when dealing with external clubs but human managers are more complex and push the boundaries and as such a more sophisticated method for constructing deals is required.
I don’t want to digress further on that so won’t go in to my thoughts and suggestions for how this could be achieved, I’ll keep that powder dry for another day maybe.
The current issue we have in T100 regarding external ownership has arisen through that natural human trait of pushing beyond limiting and often undesirable constraints, which is fine in itself until it conflicts with desirable constraints which is a skeleton that currently rattling in our cupboard.
Before going on further I should define what I see as being external ownership.
In T100 we have a transfer code of honour that any transfer mutually agreed by two managers whether via the SM transfer system, in the News Feed or through Chat or Private Message is a binding agreement, reneging on that deal being seen as a violation of T100 rules. The only exception being when a transfer is accepted in error through the SM system and is cancelled immediately.
This works fine when a simple cash for 1, 1 for 1 or 2 for 1 transfer is agreed, the bid is placed, accepted and the deal is completed, transparent throughout.
The potential for “external ownership” arises when a more complex multi-part deal is negotiated and agreed and when the 2nd or subsequent parts are not acted on immediately after the 1st part has been completed leaving a player or players agreed as part of the overall deal still at their original club.
To those outside the deal they see the ownership of the player being at the club at which they are still at whilst to those party to the deal and under T100’s code of honour they see the ownership being at the deal agreed final destination club, “external ownership”.
Whilst many may argue that there is nothing wrong with this in principal and and that these “2nd Party Ownership” deals go on all the time but as is currently being highlighted they have the potential to create issues or at worst are open to being abused.
Scenario 1
Manager A agrees to exchange Players X & Z for Player Y from Manager B, Player X is currently transfer banned so it agreed that Z will be transferred for cash and X exchanged for Y when the transfer ban is up.
Two days after the transfer of Z Manager B resigns, his former club now have all three players, is that clubs new manager obliged to stand by a deal they did not make and probably nobody but Managers A & B are aware of, if so how can that be enforced?
Manager A is at their squad limit of 50 but is tempted by an offer to exchange their Player Y for Players X & Z from Manager B. The managers agree to Y being exchanged for X whilst Z will stay in Manager B’s squad until a later date but is now “externally owned” by Manager A.
Whilst Manager A has not gone over the 50 squad limit they have in effect a 51 player squad. Is this acceptable within T100 squad cap rules and if not how can this be policed?
The situation gets even murkier when we move into “3rdParty Ownership” where players like Z in Scenario 2 are used in a further transfer without the original transfer ever being completed.
Scenario 3
Manager A would also like to do a deal for Player W from Manager C but has already done 3 transfer deals with them this season, however A knows that C is interested in Player Z.
Managers A & B agree to exchange Players Y & X and that Player Z will be exchanged by Manager B for Player W from Manager C but will in effect be “externally owned” by Manager A, effectively bypassing the 3 transfer limit.
Scenario 4
Manager A has received an offer to exchange their Player Y for Players X & Z from Manager B.
Manager A would also like to do a deal for Player W from Manager C but has nobody currently in his squad that interests Manager C, however A knows that C is interested in Player Z but Manager A wants Player W now and is not prepared to wait until Player Z’s transfer ban is up and risk missing out on a deal.
Managers A & B agree to exchange Players Y & X and that Player Z will be sold by Manager B to Manager C whilst Player W in return is sold by Manager C to Manager A.
Effectively Player Z is transferred twice but serves only one transfer ban.
Whilst these scenarios and others may appear fanciful or far fetched they are all very possible and nobody can say with any degree of certainty that similar actual transfers haven’t already been conducted within T100 due to the total lack of transparency that there is in such deals.
At present there is nothing within T100 that state that these types of transfers are against its rules and as such they are currently legitimate methods of circumventing both SM game rules and also T100 game world rules.
Legitimate or not they undoubtedly stretch the realms of fair play to the limit and possibly beyond by at best avoiding SM restrictions imposed by transfer bans and transfer limits and at worst bypassing T100 rules, all of which should apply equally to all Managers at all times.
I would propose that if the current poll being conducted, which relates solely to 3rd party ownership, falls on the side of it being banned further discussion and debate on external ownership on the whole be entered into to formulate transfer rules which give managers a degree of flexibility beyond the rigid structure imposed by the SM software but in turn close off current loop holes that have the potential to be exploited.
Top 100 
Leave a comment