Spēlētāja informācija
Šī lapa satur informāciju par virtulālās spēles tēlu. Jebkuras sakritības ar reāliem cilvēkiem (vārds, uzvārds vai cita informācija) ir nejauša un neparedzēta.
x1
x1
Stasys Dovidaitis
- Forma:
- Lieliska sagatavotība
- Vecums:
- 22 g.
- Garums:
- 197 cm. (6' 6'' )
- Pozīcija:
- SG (SG)
- Stipruma likme (RT):
- 222
- Prognozētais augstākais RT:
- 302
- Potenciāls:
- 7
- Pirmā komanda:
- BC Žūsės
Prasmes
Veselība
Atlētiskums:
Precizitāte:
Aizsardzība:
Uzbrukums:
Līguma informācija
| Termiņš | 3 S |
| Alga |
Pilna alga - 9 938 Eu Alga jauniešu komandā - 9 938 Eu |
| Viedoklis | Labi |
Tirgus informācija
| Minimālā pieprasītā alga | 7 675 Eu |
1.1
Spēlētājs:
+0
Maiņa/Aizdotie spēlētāji:
+0
1.1
+0
4.7
+0
+0
1.1
Parādīt paslēptās ziņas: 6
Dear FPC,
The reason given was a "Suspicion that the trade’s goal is to help one of the teams," with a vote of 10 out of 11 volunteers deeming the trade unfair. While I respect the decision-making process of the volunteers, I believe that the decision to reverse the trade was made without sufficient justification and transparency.
On the surface, this trade appears to be a standard transaction where each team could benefit based on its specific needs and strategies. However, the reversal implies that one of the teams was being unfairly helped, which I find puzzling.
To better understand the decision, I respectfully request a detailed explanation addressing the following points:
1. Please clarify which team was considered to be unfairly benefiting from this trade.
2. What specific facts or analysis led to the conclusion that this trade was intended to unfairly benefit one of the teams? Please provide concrete examples that support this suspicion.
3. Could you clarify the criteria used by the volunteers to assess fairness? What specific aspects of the trade were considered unfair?
4. Was the broader context of each team's needs and strategy considered when making this decision? If so, how was this context factored into the final judgment?
As a committed player, I believe in fair play and transparency. A detailed explanation would help me better understand the reasoning behind the decision and ensure that any future trades I make align with the community's standards and expectations. -- 100 S 35 d.
The reason given was a "Suspicion that the trade’s goal is to help one of the teams," with a vote of 10 out of 11 volunteers deeming the trade unfair. While I respect the decision-making process of the volunteers, I believe that the decision to reverse the trade was made without sufficient justification and transparency.
On the surface, this trade appears to be a standard transaction where each team could benefit based on its specific needs and strategies. However, the reversal implies that one of the teams was being unfairly helped, which I find puzzling.
To better understand the decision, I respectfully request a detailed explanation addressing the following points:
1. Please clarify which team was considered to be unfairly benefiting from this trade.
2. What specific facts or analysis led to the conclusion that this trade was intended to unfairly benefit one of the teams? Please provide concrete examples that support this suspicion.
3. Could you clarify the criteria used by the volunteers to assess fairness? What specific aspects of the trade were considered unfair?
4. Was the broader context of each team's needs and strategy considered when making this decision? If so, how was this context factored into the final judgment?
As a committed player, I believe in fair play and transparency. A detailed explanation would help me better understand the reasoning behind the decision and ensure that any future trades I make align with the community's standards and expectations. -- 100 S 35 d.
--
(Tulkot)
(Tulkot EN)
+0
As each FPC member votes on their own behalf, there is usually no public explanation from FPC members. There is no "single voice" here.
One of the reasons we want to have FPC members from different countries is so you can ask them directly.
So, if you have any questions or doubts, my advice would be to contact one or a few FPC members and ask the questions you have. -- 100 S 45 d.
One of the reasons we want to have FPC members from different countries is so you can ask them directly.
So, if you have any questions or doubts, my advice would be to contact one or a few FPC members and ask the questions you have. -- 100 S 45 d.
--
(Tulkot)
(Tulkot EN)
+0
- Shape: Not prepared
- Shape: Almost not prepared
- Shape: Excellent
- Shape: Tired
- Shape: Exhausted
- Not registrable for match
- Franchise player
- Team captain
- School talent
- Player has ended his career
- Club wants to trade this player
- Club doesn't want to trade this player
- Transferring player is currently not allowed
- Player is on loan (contract with another club)
- Is going to end his career in the end of the season
- Good dunker
- Good defender
- Good 3-point shooter
- Good playmaker
- Gold medal
- Silver medal
- Bronze medal
- MVP of the season
- In season's TOP5
- The most perspective in league
- Participant of the All Star day