Pay after 50 games?

I was wondering, having just completed a deal for Kevin Doyle, with £10 million paid after 50 games, whether if I sold him before the 50 games was completed I would not have to pay the money?

Sorry if that sounds grammatically stupid, I'm tired Thanks for bearing with me.

No, if you sold him before he had played 50 games for your team he would not have to pay the money (regardless of what happens at his new club).

Thanks for the quick reply

I'll have to consider selling him then, if I can get a good enough offer next season.

you paid 10 mil for kevin doyle? are you insane?

you paid 10 mil for kevin doyle? are you insane?

Lol I was going to say the same.

I thought this was discussed before and the conclusion that we arrived at was the club would have to pay all of the clauses as soon as the player leaves the club?

I did this with Huddersfield, bout Kierreson for 40 mill after 50 games, played half a season then sold for 40 mill to Man Utd

If this works it could be a great way of getting loads of free players

I didn't think that Reading would accept less after 50 games. I wouldn't pay it up front for him, be serious

And if I do sell him, it will all be profit!

"I thought this was discussed before and the conclusion that we arrived at was the club would have to pay all of the clauses as soon as the player leaves the club?"

Only if the rules have changed in the last few years. I recall a couple of cases around the turn of the millennium where players were sold specifically to avoid triggering such an additional fee (I'm pretty sure one involved an ex-Luton player, sorry I can't remember more details). Understandably, the clause diminished in popularity. In real life I think add-on fees tend to be more complex affairs nowadays, linked to club success where the player is involved (e.g. Rooney, Walcott), and with a decent amount guaranteed plus a sell-on percentage.

If this works it could be a great way of getting loads of free players

Yeh, but you have to balance that with the feeling of flogging your star player when he's bringing you so much success.

Rangers didn't play Michael Ball because if he played one more game they would have had to pay some money to Everton and sold him. This is the only case I know if at the moment. I'd imagine the game works in the same way.

Craig Gordon at Sunderland is another case of owing money after a number of appearances.

I'm pretty sure you don't pay in FM unless the limit is triggered. I've missed out on 30 million once because the player only played 9 internationals and missed on 2 before his transfer because he got injured. That was annoying.

Rangers didn't play Michael Ball because if he played one more game they would have had to pay some money to Everton and sold him. This is the only case I know if at the moment. I'd imagine the game works in the same way.

Apparently this is the case with Bentley at Tottenham at the moment,which is why Redknapp didn't give him a sniff of action in the last month or so of the season

Apparently this is the case with Bentley at Tottenham at the moment,which is why Redknapp didn't give him a sniff of action in the last month or so of the season

I can think of better reasons for not playing Bentley.

I can think of better reasons for not playing Bentley.

Because he's utter ****, right?

Obvious exploit is obvious...

It's also hilarious how many clubs accept these silly bids. Like 100 million after 50 games - then sell him for a profit by not playing him in 50 games.

Or to buy your rivals best player and never play him?