Future transfer fees bug (Kind of a cheat)

Hi all not sure if this has been discussed, but there is quite a significant bug in the game, which allows you to offer huge future fees for players regardless of your clubs finances. For example if you have no transfer funds and want a quick way of buying players, you can offer 0 for transfer fee up front and it will still allow you to offer 40 mil for 50 league appearances and 40 mil for 50 league goals in future fees. Basically this allows you to get world class players for nothing use them for 49 games and then sell them on for a profit without paying a penny. The downside is that if you miscaculate then your club is likely to end up in administration as the future fees come out regardless.

Is there any way to correct this as surely a club shouldn't be able to offer future money they don't have, I believe this was the case on previous versions but may be wrong.

Do the bids you make of this type actually get accepted? If not then it's not a problem. If so then it's down to you to decide whether you feel you're cheating yourself in doing this.

I'm sure managers in real life could offer these kind of deals, but the selling club would probably not accept them. If they are accepting them then that may be the problem.

I think someone posted about this a while ago. I would raise it in the bugs forum as it is unrealistic.

Do the bids you make of this type actually get accepted? If not then it's not a problem. If so then it's down to you to decide whether you feel you're cheating yourself in doing this.

I'm sure managers in real life could offer these kind of deals, but the selling club would probably not accept them. If they are accepting them then that may be the problem.

Yes they are accepting them and that is my point. its unrelaistic that Villa would let Agbonlohor go for 0 initial fee for example.

So in theory, you could offer £50,000,000 after 50 goals for a GK.? And a Defender? In which case, you could potentially have them for nothing, forever. Wow. Big bug.

So in theory, you could offer £50,000,000 after 50 goals for a GK.? And a Defender? In which case, you could potentially have them for nothing, forever. Wow. Big bug.

Goals doesn;t working with keepers but does with defenders. Problem is when you forget the clauses and have 7 players all play the 50 games at once, administration lol. I can't believe its not been dealt with on this forum. The key to working it is obviously moving the players on after 49 games and making a profit, but the main reason i'd like it removed is that i have a friend who I play a Network game with who insists on using this loophole and the only was I can compete with him is to use it lol.

this doesnt work for me by the way?

I also notice this; basically future transfer fees are not kept in count as present transfer budget, hence you can put as much as you want in future transfer fee and this won't affect your transfer budget.

I'm sure this was working in 08. Basically if the future transfer fees would go against the transfer budget the problem would be resolved.

I tried this out on FM08 with Derby County. Basically, if you offer £0 up front + £40m after 50 league apps the AI treats it like it is a flat out £40m bid and will accept if 40m is a good offer for the player. You can then keep track of how many games they've got to go in the Transfers\Clauses screen before punting them on for a profit without paying the club you got them from any money.

Basically, if you don't like don't use it. Tell your friend you won't play with him if he's going to use it. I never bothered since FM08 so I didn't know if it had been fixed for 09 or not (there was at least 1 thread about it from last year), it got boring real fast and you can't get attached to anyone you sign unless you make a wad of cash off others.

It isnt reallly a bug, its up to the user wether they want to do it or not, its not worth reporting things that users can fix on their own.

I'd say it is a bug, as the selling club accepts the bid, which they shouldn't, because they should be clever enough to realise that you may sell before they hit the quota

I'd say it is also a bug because it lets you buy players even if you don't have enough transfer funds.

It's a major bug, obviously.

Do anyone really believe IRL any club would sell a world class player on the promise that they would be paid only after 50 league appearances? And note the word "league". Cup appearances, either local or international, don't count towards this limit. So, you could easily end up with a player playing for you, at least 2 full seasons (if you manage his league appearances wisely), sell him when you feel like it and the initial selling club would receive nothing?

If this is not a bug I don't know what a bug is.

yep certainly a bug, again surprised it wasn't fixed for the third and final patch for this game as it's been mentioned several times on the forums.

I'd say it is also a bug because it lets you buy players even if you don't have enough transfer funds.

I just tried this.

I offered £0 for a player with:

£40 million after 40 League Games

£40 million after 20 goals

My bid got accepted, I offered a contract and the player agreed.

I then got the message saying I couldn't sign the player due to me not having £80 million.

I see no bug with this?

9.3 btw

I just tried this.

I offered £0 for a player with:

£40 million after 40 League Games

£40 million after 20 goals

My bid got accepted, I offered a contract and the player agreed.

I then got the message saying I couldn't sign the player due to me not having £80 million.

I see no bug with this?

9.3 btw

Hey hey. Perhaps it was fixed in 9.3.0 if it was raised in the Bugs Forum ???

Just checked it with 9.2 and it worked, so they must have sorted it with 9.3

It's not fixed. I'm on 9.3.0 as well, and took control of Man Utd in a save. They had a transfer budget of £80m and managed to sign Taye Taiwo no problem for £0 with £42m if he plays 50 league games (plus a friendly)

Transfer budget was at £81m before the deal, it was at £81m after the deal...

...so I retired and took charge of Barnsley...

I went for Christopher Samba.

As you can see, I got him, for £40m after 50 league games and £40m after 20 league goals

Barnsley had a transfer budget of £13m before the deal, and they still do after the deal.

I have no idea why it didn't work for homerjnick, but it damn well worked for me.

It hasn't worked for me and I offered money up front as well!

Then again it was Sergio Ramos! Maybe £40 mil up front, with £40 mil after 50 games and £40 mil after goals wasn't attractive enough!!!

its not tottally unrealistic, okay maybe for top players but thats the terms on the everton Saha deal and its impossible to make it work for some and not for others unless the selling club is unwilling to sell

It hasn't worked for me and I offered money up front as well!

Then again it was Sergio Ramos! Maybe £40 mil up front, with £40 mil after 50 games and £40 mil after goals wasn't attractive enough!!!

Too low for Sergio, I'm afraid...

I just tried this.

I offered £0 for a player with:

£40 million after 40 League Games

£40 million after 20 goals

My bid got accepted, I offered a contract and the player agreed.

I then got the message saying I couldn't sign the player due to me not having £80 million.

I see no bug with this?

I still see a bug. Maybe the part where the check is made if you have funds is OK (below someone says it is not). Anyway, the main point remains: clubs would never part with their top players for nothing and just promises. This is the major bug, not the check if you have money or not. And if you had the £80M, by the way? It would have been accepted and you had basically got a player for free.

I have heard people say you can do this but i have tried it and it said i didnt have the 40 million to use, which i didn't of course. So unless others are majorly cheating then i see no bug.

Perhaps it has to do with the chairman as to why it isn't working for some people. Maybe the chairman assumes you will be keeping the player past having to shell out the cash and there's no way of making the 80m anytime soon. Obviously Championship clubs won't have any chance of making that sort of cash anyway but perhaps its just down to how interfering or how ambitious your chairman is. Or how tight your board are at the moment with regards to improving their bank balance. It's all I can think of.

But you can't buy the player if you haven't got the £40 million in the bank in the first place, no?

yeah i just signed vagner love for 80 mil

40 after 50 games and 40 after 50 goals, needless to say at the start of next season i will sell him on for a tidy profit

It hasn't worked for me and I offered money up front as well!

Then again it was Sergio Ramos! Maybe £40 mil up front, with £40 mil after 50 games and £40 mil after goals wasn't attractive enough!!!

it took me lassana diarra (whom they wanted), and £120mill (id negotiated down from £180mill) for them to accept....i didnt go through with it though

I think the rule is you have to have 50% of the total transfer value in your budget to be accepted, so the Samba deal above would work if you had £40 Million in the budget

I think the rule is you have to have 50% of the total transfer value in your budget to be accepted, so the Samba deal above would work if you had £40 Million in the budget

No, that is for 24 months of payments. This has worked with possibly even no budget and hardly anything in the bank

its not tottally unrealistic

You're totally right. I remember only last season when Plymouth signed Michael Owen for £80m in future transers, Rio Ferdinand for £60m after he scores fifty league goals and raided Inter for £300m in future transfers.

They should fix this by making the club is eligible to pay the money in the clause even after the player has been sold (when the player has completed 50 league appearance in other club), since the contract is stated 50 league appearance, and did not specifiy that he need to appear 50 league appearance in the first club that bought the player.

I also notice this; basically future transfer fees are not kept in count as present transfer budget, hence you can put as much as you want in future transfer fee and this won't affect your transfer budget.

I'm sure this was working in 08. Basically if the future transfer fees would go against the transfer budget the problem would be resolved.

This is the wrong solution! The selling club needs to evaluate the offers more realistically. Future fees are useful for buying young players for example - hated when these used to come straight out your budget.

But, if your a CCC club and you bid 80m in future transfers for a prem club's player, what is to say that player accepts the contract?

The other bug was selling players. If you had interest from a club for your player, and they were uncapped for the national team, you said (insert fee here) and 40m after one international app. Only worked if they were guarenteed to get one though, as they had to come from small islands (venezuala, bermuda etc). Then, when they got called up you automatically got 40m.

You're totally right. I remember only last season when Plymouth signed Michael Owen for £80m in future transers, Rio Ferdinand for £60m after he scores fifty league goals and raided Inter for £300m in future transfers.

why would Rio Ferdinand and Michael Owen want to join Plymouth?

yeah i just signed vagner love for 80 mil

40 after 50 games and 40 after 50 goals, needless to say at the start of next season i will sell him on for a tidy profit

I'd say you were ripped off already Man City signed him for 16million on mine! lol

Now I'm patched it definitely does still work, as Hull boss I've just signed Kerzhakov, Riquelme, Donovan and McFadden using the £0 + £40m after 50 app technique, just like it did in last years game.

Yeah works for me too. I won't be using it though as I hate to cheat

I don't even get how this got through to the game. It's a huge bug, and it should be fixed. You can buy players for nothing. i.e. offer x mil. for 50 goals to a fullback and the club accepts??? When is a fullback going to score 50 goals? In his whole carrier maybe. Would never happen in real life, and it shouldn't happen in a simulation like this. 9.3.1 I don't see what is the big deal with this patches. When a big bug like this happens just make a patch and give us the link. Nothing wrong with that. I would have no problem with downloading a patch, even if it is one that just fixes one problem like this.

P.S.

bought Camoranesi and Riquelme like this , but wont buy any players that i would like to have for a longer period

I've just signed Beckham for QPR in the 1st transfer window!

I don't even get how this got through to the game. It's a huge bug' date=' and it should be fixed. You can buy players for nothing. i.e. offer x mil. for 50 goals to a fullback and the club accepts??? When is a fullback going to score 50 goals? In his whole carrier maybe. Would never happen in real life, and it shouldn't happen in a simulation like this. 9.3.1 I don't see what is the big deal with this patches. When a big bug like this happens just make a patch and give us the link. Nothing wrong with that. I would have no problem with downloading a patch, even if it is one that just fixes one problem like this.

P.S.

bought Camoranesi and Riquelme like this , but wont buy any players that i would like to have for a longer period[/quote']

I don't think it is a big bug at all. The AI never use it so it won't ruin your enjoyment of the game, all you have to do is exercise self control and not use it yourself.

I don't think I'd want a World Class player for only 49 games

I dont believe it is a bug, i remember reading a thread like this a few days ago. Some posters had real liffe examples of transfer deals like this. Maybe someone better at searching this forum could find it?

But of course the AI needs to be a bit more clued up on it, so it doesnt happen when it's clear the buyers will never be able to pay it.

I don't think it is a big bug at all. The AI never use it so it won't ruin your enjoyment of the game, all you have to do is exercise self control and not use it yourself.

You don't think it's a bug to be able to buy a world class player, i.e. a fullback, on a min. 50 goals clause? You don't see the illogic in a club accepting an offer for a fullback of 0 €, but 40 mil. when he scores 50 goals??? When did you see a fullback that scores 50 goals? There are maybe a couple that scored that in their whole carriers in the whole history of the sport. Not a bug? What then?

I don't think I'd want a World Class player for only 49 games

You don't have to buy him for 50 games, you can buy him for 0, and a minimum of 50 goals. That is especially useful for players that don't score much, like defensive players, and you can have him for years, and years. Or you could buy older players that you wouldn't use for more then 50 games anyway.

I said "big bug", not bug. Of course it's illogical for them to accept, but to me a big bug is something that actually affects your every game to the point where its really annoying, like major flaws in the match engine and so on. It is definitely a bug, I just wouldn't consider it one of the magnitude you said it was in your previous post ie "huge bug" and "big bug".

Yes it doesn't affect your game if you don't use it, but it's a big mistake to just overlook such a thing in a football simulation game. Bug is a wrong word for this. This is not something that makes conflicts with something, but it's a thing that has been overlooked.

You have to think about people who don't visit forums, and just play the game. They don't know that this is a mistake in the game, and will see this as something wrong, and it will ruin their experience that should be as realistic as possible.

If this was my game, i would just issue a patch every time a bug or a problem occurs. The first thread on this forum should be the update thread, always on top, and people would have no problems downloading small patches to fix the problems that are there.

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of people that don't use the forums will never find out about this specific exploit.

Anyway, about your patching every time a bug is found theory, here's a quote from Miles I read the other day:

As for releasing incremental patches, this is something we've discussed loads in the past internally, but even taking aside the issues of cost and QA on smaller patches, unless all users are on STEAM (including Mac users, for whom there is no STEAM client), it would cause huge problems for customer service with loads of different versions of the game out there.

Anyway, I'm sorry that people don't feel that our patching policy is correct, but it's taken years for us to get to the conclusions that we have and, as always, we constantly review it. We are pretty happy with the policies and procedures at the moment, although not happy with the amount of people who have had issues with the game, even though the figures are very small compared to the sales of the game.

But then, for us, 1 person having a problem is too many, and we strive to have no issues at all, however unreal that likelyhood is.

source: http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=2788990&postcount=78

It has also been said by SI that a lot of the time fixing one bug often creates others, and time is needed to do vigorous testing to try and ensure that no other problems have been created.

This is not ME related bug. This would probably be a 10 kb patch. It would just have to change the criteria for clubs accepting bids that are ridiculous, like 50 goals for a defending player. Don't see how is this difficult (posting a rapidshare link takes about 1 min.), steam is a useless thing that has no relevance to no one.

I'm not saying that they should release a patch just for this bug, but if there are couple more, why not?

It looks that si have a policy of 3 patches, and that's it. It just seams a funny policy, when you can just make a fourth one and make the game better. It's not like it would cost 10.000 € to make it. It's probably 2 minutes for a programmer, and 1 min. to upload it.

Just the knowledge that i can buy players for nothing ruins the experience for me.

Have a look in the bug forum, theres loads of allsorts of bugs being reported. Some will be actual bugs and some won't, but they have to investigate them all thoroughly and then prioritise which are the most important to work on first.

I gave you Miles' words on the subject, what else can a mere mortal like me say. Sorry that how they run things isn't how you like or how you would, but we really can't change it. You seem to think that fixing bugs is the easiest thing in the world for these people.

"Just the knowledge that i can buy players for nothing ruins the experience for me."

Stop being such a baby. Exercise some self control and don't bother with it. Or do bother with it and see how empty the game becomes for you because of it and then make a conscious decision not to use it again. The choice is yours but you seem to just like to moan a lot. This conversation seems to be going round in circles regardless of what I say to you.

This bug or expolit does exist, but its no use if you are building a team for the future as I normally do. Also players seldom move within a year of being bought so that does make it expensive, particularly if you are paying a lot in terms of wages.

Also when you sell the player, many teams do the same to you. They pay in tiny installments with little up front.

This is not ME related bug. This would probably be a 10 kb patch. It would just have to change the criteria for clubs accepting bids that are ridiculous' date=' like 50 goals for a defending player. Don't see how is this difficult (posting a rapidshare link takes about 1 min.), steam is a useless thing that has no relevance to no one.

I'm not saying that they should release a patch just for this bug, but if there are couple more, why not?

It looks that si have a policy of 3 patches, and that's it. It just seams a funny policy, when you can just make a fourth one and make the game better. It's not like it would cost 10.000 € to make it. It's probably 2 minutes for a programmer, and 1 min. to upload it.

Just the knowledge that i can buy players for nothing ruins the experience for me.[/quote']

I can't believe someone is already talking about a 4th patch. A 4th is very unlikely now; I read in another thread that work on FM10 is beginning soon, so there is no point in releasing 9.4.0.

Also interesting is how easy you seem to think it would be to change the features in a game. Muncherdave also said another quote from SI claiming that fixing some bugs presents them with new ones