Weird Transfer Budget

My first year managing Wigan I was given a transfer budget of 6M and finished 13th. My second year the budget was increased to 12M and I finished 14th. Now, about to enter my third season, I am asked to avoid relegation and given a transfer budget of 27M. This seems completely unrealistic as a team like Wigan would never get this kind of budget (by the way, I do not have any player sales pending), in fact, very few Premier League teams are given 29M. This dilutes the challenge of trying to build a viable team with limited funds. I'd be interested to know if others have had the same huge increase to their transfer budgets while managing mid-level teams.

Have you looked trough the details of the club's finances? The money must be coming from somewhere...

Yeah i had the exact same thing with Wigan infact and many other english clubs including relgated Blackburn had over £25 million, it seems not to re-occur after the second season but I wouldn't spend all of it because the clubs finances dont support the lavish spending they allow you.

I had this with Portsmouth...mid-table finish would give me £45m...it's not long before you're competing for the title - especially when you make £30m profit on selling players each year too.

English league is too easy because clubs get a lot of money. I mean I won CL on my 4th season with Wolves. Was League Champs in 3rd season and missed it on 4th season by 6 points due to a bad start in the beginning.

It depends, last years both Stoke, Hull and West Brom spent considerable amounts in the transfer market. Stoke start the game with a budget of 0 (because 25/26m has already been spent for this season) but then to avoid relegation again next season you can find yourself quite easily with a 30m budget.

Birmingham have spent a fair bit for this season as well, just because you get a certain budget though, it doesn't mean the club can carry it off. Sometimes its making it available, at the risk of financial difficulties.