GUYS - Has this ever happened to any of you?

3rd season at Everton.

Have won the UEFA Cup and FA Cup.

In the summer I was given £44m to spend and I raised another £10m by selling players.

Bought Cardoso £23m, £12m Santana, and £10m for Sakho.

Here's the weird bit ... I had £33m in the bank (to spend) and Kenwright accepted a £7m bid from Villa for Fleck without asking me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would they give me £40m to spend and then sell players behind my back?

Also, they were giving me 75% of the transfer budget and this has reduced to just 10%!!

Whats going on?!

What does your actual bank account look like?

I've been in a situation where the board room gave me a budget of 50M, while there was only 10M on the actual bank account itself. I didn't check it and just spend it all. Next thing you know, I'm in a big financial crisis.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is (or can be) a big difference between your transfer budget and the amount of money that you actually own.

What does your actual bank account look like?

I've been in a situation where the board room gave me a budget of 50M, while there was only 10M on the actual bank account itself. I didn't check it and just spend it all. Next thing you know, I'm in a big financial crisis.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is (or can be) a big difference between your transfer budget and the amount of money that you actually own.

You are right mate, I have just had to sell Anichebe for £7m to reduce the debt from £14m to £7m.

So obvious question, why give me £44m when you havent got it? Where did it come from?

Why not just give me £20m?!

To quote a famous piece of literature:

"That is a fair question, my lord."

To be honest I don't really know the answer either. All I know is that I always check my bank account before spending money. I guess that when your transfer budget is way bigger then the cash you possess, the board accepts loans from banks, leaving you with big amounts of interest to pay every month. Making your problems even bigger.

Probably the reason why the economy is so screwed up. Spending money that they don't have.

Your board are stupid.

I think, correct me if I'm wrong, the board give you money according to how much they think they'll accumulate during the season. I could be wrong but usually when they give me more then I have in the bank we usually end up plus at the end of the year just as long as I keep up with their expectations.

Good point.

Maybe you sold some players and you´re still being paid for them, meaning you actually are in debt but expect to get 10m in the next months.

i think it may because the chairman/owner is giving you money out of his own pocket, the clubs money is different

All of these quotes are valid however why sell a player behind my back?!

This would surely not happen in reality? (Not the bit about selling players behind the manager's back, but a Chairman handing over £40m and then selling a player because we need the money!!!!!).

I think we have to class this as a BUG - de de derrrrrrrrrrrr!!

It does seem a bit odd... but maybe you have to see the two actions in isolation

1) Borrowing to give a large transfer budget- Leeds United anyone? A chairman might do this if he felt that the talent you bring in would guarantee CL football and income every year.

2) Selling talent behind your back- maybe the Chairman just reckoned that the bid made for your player was so financially attractive that he accepted it. That would have nothing to do with your bank balance per se, but more to do with being offered more than a player is worth and it making good business sense to sell him on.

Not a great situation, but it makes more sense when you look at the happenings separately...

I would post in the bugs forum. Someone posted something similar a while back and was asked to upload a saved game, but I'm not sure if they ever did.

The problem is that the board is allocating you too much money in transfer funds. Once this is spent, it is then putting you into a debt situation from where the chairman is likely to accept relatively low offers to get rid of players and balance the books.

I would post in the bugs forum. Someone posted something similar a while back and was asked to upload a saved game, but I'm not sure if they ever did.

The problem is that the board is allocating you too much money in transfer funds. Once this is spent, it is then putting you into a debt situation from where the chairman is likely to accept relatively low offers to get rid of players and balance the books.

Think you are spot on mate but it just so depressing when you get in a player of Fleck's ability and lose him for a miserly £7m.

How am I meant to build a successful youthful side if the Chairman keeps selling my young wonder kids. Other Club's are not stupid - they will pay over the odds for young superstars because they are paying for potential ... not current ability.

To make matters worse, I was celebrating securing CL football by finishing 4th and Chelsea went and won the bloody thing ... leaving me back in the UEFA Cup!!

Haha, yeah that is a pain Shez!

"This would surely not happen in reality?"

I give you the example of Chris Sutton 1994 Norwich to Blackburn £5million (then British record), scumbag then Norwich chairman Robert Chase sells Sutton behind the back of the manager. It was this single transaction (followed by a few more like it), that is the main reason Norwich are where we are today, when in reality we had the chance to actually be one of the top 6 sides in the country (queue sniggering from the younger members).

"This would surely not happen in reality?"

I give you the example of Chris Sutton 1994 Norwich to Blackburn £5million (then British record), scumbag then Norwich chairman Robert Chase sells Sutton behind the back of the manager. It was this single transaction (followed by a few more like it), that is the main reason Norwich are where we are today, when in reality we had the chance to actually be one of the top 6 sides in the country (queue sniggering from the younger members).

Blimey - that was a long time ago just like Agent Johnson selling Duncan Ferguson behind Walter Smith's back.

If you read the post carefully, I did say selling players behind a manager's back does happen. What doesnt happen is a manager being handed £40m and then two weeks later selling a young prodigy because the club needs the money!

They base your budget on your potential earnings for the season, so if you spend all your funds outright you are going to be massively in the red. the key to it is spending money over months and not spending ahead of your means. If you put your club in the red, the chariman will accept bids, regardless of your club or stature.

I have noticed this and funnily enough I am everton too. Spending the money over months and over the two transfer windows seems to work for me just nicely

"This would surely not happen in reality?"

I give you the example of Chris Sutton 1994 Norwich to Blackburn £5million (then British record), scumbag then Norwich chairman Robert Chase sells Sutton behind the back of the manager. It was this single transaction (followed by a few more like it), that is the main reason Norwich are where we are today, when in reality we had the chance to actually be one of the top 6 sides in the country (queue sniggering from the younger members).

Even moreso the events at Leeds when Ridsdale gave O'Leary tens of millions to spend, didn't have it in the bacnk and then had to sell Woodgate to Newcastle against Venables' wishes.

A responsible Chairman should only give you transfer budget to take you into the red if he knows the club will get it back at the end of the season. But then, if all Chairmen were responsible, Leeds would still be a Premiership club...