Suggestion: Minor change to season expectation system

I was thinking, wouldn´t it be better if instead of choosing a wage budget by declaring your expectations you always started with the maximum allowed then expectations changed depending on how much you expend?

For example, lets say you are everton and you are about to sign a player and if that signature goes on you would have spent 75% of your transfer budget then you get message from board saying that they are willing to expend money in this player if you believe it would improve the team but with so much expenditure they´ll accept nothing less than the team qualifying for europe trough league finish or something like that.

Or you are Barcelona and expend your whole transfer budget then you get a message from press saying after having spend X amount it is widely believed that Board and Fans would not accept anythign less than a league win.

I know is just another way to present the same thing but I think this presentation will be more reailstic

I do think the system could be better. However, I don't think this is the best idea. If you look and Man City, for example. They got Robinho, but didn't get into top 4. Maybe in 2-3 Seasons that will be different, but to expect instant changes from 1 player, is a bit much.

Hmm .. I kind of like the current system, it feels like I am choosing how much rope I want. I understand that the system you're proposing gives me much the same ability, but its nice to have it made explicit. Besides, my spending usually isn't finalized until the end of the January window, so it would be tough to drill "expectations" to it.

The change(s) I'd like to see include:

1. New budgets - and expectations - set in April or early May, so that I can re-sign players to contracts if they are expiring, or poach free transfers at the 6-week margin, or make use of the time from my last match to June 23rd by setting up transfers for the July 1st deadline - even if I've hit my budget limits for the year just past.

(Obviously, budgets and expectations might change if a team got promoted / relegated after the initial set - much as they do now with cash influxes, etc.)

2. Budgets and expectations adjusted in December for the January window, perhaps again with the "choice" motif, and based on the current league position as well as the original offers. For example, at pre-season the board had offered me budgets for Title, Title Challenge, Promotion, and Top Half .. but I was a coward and took "Safe Mid Table". At the start of December, we're sitting in fourth. The board might offer me some increased budgets .. if I'm willing to commit retro-actively to an increased target!

On the other hand, if the club is in debt and hemorrhaging money, the board might announce that they've reduced my budgets, and correspondingly reduced my on-pitch targets. They might even set a wage budget that I have to explicitly get beneath by January 31st - leading to the dreaded "fire sale".

3. New expectations set when a manager takes over a club mid-season, based on the current league position and performance. For example, if I take over Newcastle United halfway through the season just past, my expectation ought to be "Avoid Relegation" or "Safely Mid-table", depending on the gap to safety, not the pre-season top-half expectation.

For clubs which have European-sized budgets, this might include a "Qualify for Europe by any means possible" mandate, in which one could rescue "success" via Cup performance despite having inherited an impossible league position.

I think that would give us a much more dynamic feel to the budget and expectation process - rather than the current, where it has a clear "annual turnover day" feeling that feels "gamey". Real

My only thought is that you might spend all your money on youngsters but the expectations might rise. I think the current system is okay but i'd prefer to have less pressure than present.