SUGGESTION: How to overcome starting buget issue

Every year we seem to have the same issue that clubs we choose to manage never seem to have a decent budget, we complain to the researchers and every year we get the same answer “your club has just spent x amount, how can you justify another x amount on top of what has just been spent”, and if the club doesn’t spend then they still get no money “The club obviously has no money as they haven’t spent anything this summer”.

I seem to have an idea to get around this.

When you start at your club, the players that have come in over the summer should not already be there yet as the transfers in real life haven't happened yet, meaning you should decide on how the budget is spent.

I don't know about anyone else but it really infuriates me having to wait until the following year before I can sign anybody.

Here goes...

What I suggest is that the game has all the real life transfers over the summer prearranged in memory ready to be done on the date that they went through in real life. So you start off with the squad that would be there at the date the game starts. Then the transfers get done parallel to when they happened in real life. It will also mean that the season starts with more or less the squads it starts off in real life.

If you are not the manager involved in one of these transfers then they go through as per usual, however when you are involved then you should have the final say.

For example lets use Zat Knight.

If you don’t play as Villa or Bolton the transfer of Zat Knight goes through as per normal on the 25th of July 2009 (the date the deal was done in real life).

However if you are

a) Aston Villa - a bid will come in from Bolton which you can accept or refuse,

b) Bolton - Aston Villa offer you Zat Knight for £5m on same date, or your board says they have come to an agreement.

It is then up to you if you want to accept or refuse. The budget obviously changes accordingly depending on whether you make these transfers or not.

It obviously means a bit more work for the programmers, but it would make the game even more amazing than it already is and really would stop so many annoyed gamers at having little no budget.

I really hope SI at least consider this.

Now there you have quite a good idea. However maybe the game should come with two DB, one with the players at their future clubs and one with them arranged as future transfers. This would help people who just want to dive in.

Cracking idea

Does anyone know how I can tag this thread so it appears on this suggestions page?

http://community.sigames.com/tags.php?tag=fm-suggestion

I've got a different idea.

If we're that bothered we can open the editor and enter what we think the club should have for funds?

Good idea.

SI tag the threads, if they think they are good enough.

Not a bad idea, but would take a lot of coding, especially as it isn't technically a future transfer because you can refuse it.

I've got a different idea.

If we're that bothered we can open the editor and enter what we think the club should have for funds?

Not everyone will want to use the editor though.

I always tick the box for no budget in first transfer window anyway. So the squads are what they are now once the window has closed.

Only problem i have with this is back room staff. The above prevents you from signing staff from another club.

The idea in itself is very good but i cant imagine how you could incompass this into the game. Just easier to use the editor to change the budgets in the game

Not everyone can use the editor, without ruining their game.

I've got a different idea.

If we're that bothered we can open the editor and enter what we think the club should have for funds?

This is also about not having to have transfers that the real life manager has made. There is logic to the thinking that if the game starts in July, signings from August go ahead in August. This gives you a better element of control

example, in FM10 Man U will have Valencia and Owen and Obertan. However if i manage them in game i might want to sign just one striker or winger, say villa.

HOWEVER, i think that you should only have a choice of buying players, not selling them as well. It just seems to me that if you don't have to sell ronaldo etc then you aren't really playing the game quite properly.

Not everyone will want to use the editor though.

I understand that mate. But I also understand that if we want some fancy stuff in the database that we'll just have to get fancy with the database/editor ourselves.

I understand that mate. But I also understand that if we want some fancy stuff in the database that we'll just have to get fancy with the database/editor ourselves.

Why? We're paying upwards of £30, so why should we have to do some of the work? Presumably SI pay people to make the game. Its their job to put in 'fancy stuff' not ours. And, to point, this is hardly a complex suggestion. Change transfers to future transfers. Might take and extra 10 seconds a transfer or so. Not the largest task ever, compared to editing every players data.

This is also about not having to have transfers that the real life manager has made.

So you want an edited database (edited from the default) - edit it. People can't expect SI to make/code somthing like this, I don't think. Maybe I've got it wrong - if I have sorry everyone :o

I always tick the box for no budget in first transfer window anyway. So the squads are what they are now once the window has closed.

Only problem i have with this is back room staff. The above prevents you from signing staff from another club.

The idea in itself is very good but i cant imagine how you could incompass this into the game. Just easier to use the editor to change the budgets in the game

I have exactly this problem and it frustrates me. I want to have the same team as IRL etc with no budget but I hate the fact with no budget you have to get free staff. No way round it so you just have to pretend you kept the same coaches lol.

Not quite TheMister, it's about having, if anything, a more realistic starting DB, where you get the squad as off the day you started, not as of September 1st. I'm not 100% sure why but i do like the idea.

Another point is that if Krankjar had signed earlier in the transfer window (for spurs) the league table would look different.

So you want an edited database (edited from the default) - edit it.

I know i said it wasn't much work, but for me to do it, for every transfer, on my own would take months. I assume SI have a simpler way of doing things (merging DBs etc) so it would take them maybe 10 people-hours.

Silva, I agree with your reasoning, just not that it should be done for us; I think if it was SI would be spending a lot of time pandering to the whims of individuals instead of working on more important things.

We'll just need to agree to disagree mate.

Fine. TBH it's a good idea, although not one i would use very often, or spend time creating/downloading.

Silva, I agree with your reasoning, just not that it should be done for us; I think if it was SI would be spending a lot of time pandering to the whims of individuals instead of working on more important things.

We'll just need to agree to disagree mate.

Maybe some people think this is more important than other things.

The game starts in July which in real life is the start of the transfer window

Yet all clubs start off with £3-6m, a time in real life where you spend finding new players for your team - in the game you spend clicking the continue button becuase you havent got any money to buy players.

I think its something that should be addressed.

When you manage quite lower league teams it is routine to find a legal exploit against budget rules...sometimes you will spot a weak corner of the programming lines but that will eventually result in a " real " exploit therefore you will start bounding for another one and so on....hopefully " legal " ...

It is always a very thin line that divides the " legal " way of making a small amount of money from the " illegal " exploit of game routines to pile a small amount of money....

This is not a good idea, as it will unbalance the squads affected by you turning down already done deals. Take Warnock's transfer from Blackburn for instance. Because he left, Blackburn got the money and the need to buy a replacement, Chimbonda. If you on your game decides to manage Villa, and turns down the transfer of Warnock, Blackburn will get a player they dont need, and use money they dont have, when Chimbonda transfers as in real life.

The game is plenty of anti-cheating barriers, sometimes I find them not strictly " legal " themselves. This was intended to prevent players from cheating.

Barriers anyway stimulate the way of workarounding them, legally of course, so editors are not a funny option indeed

Thats a good point Bjaart, but i think Blackburn having an extra defender doesnt really affect the human player in anyway enough for this not to be a success. Blackburn could sell another defender whos not as good. Do you seriously click through every team and analyze every transfer that dosent affect you? Theres been more bizzare transfers in the game without intereference from human player influence.

Silva, I agree with your reasoning, just not that it should be done for us; I think if it was SI would be spending a lot of time pandering to the whims of individuals instead of working on more important things.

We'll just need to agree to disagree mate.

This is not a good idea, as it will unbalance the squads affected by you turning down already done deals. Take Warnock's transfer from Blackburn for instance. Because he left, Blackburn got the money and the need to buy a replacement, Chimbonda. If you on your game decides to manage Villa, and turns down the transfer of Warnock, Blackburn will get a player they dont need, and use money they dont have, when Chimbonda transfers as in real life.

You could also argue that if Blackburn don't sell Warnock then they wont have the funds for Chimbonda, so it may well be that he doesnt go there anyway.

The transfers would be pre-arranged but if the funds arent there then they wont go through.

Im sure SI programmers have had to deal with more complicated things than this anyway, so they could find a workaround.

I always play this game with a mate as a network-game. So what would happen if I manage Blackburn and my friend choose Villa?

Tbh, if I don't want updated transfers I'll play FM 09 and use a fully updated version, and adjust the budget. I'd get sick and tired of having to go through and confirm transfers because I want my game up to date.

I can see what you're getting at, it just isn't for me

I think if a club spends an x amount, then what should be reflected in the budget is their capacity to have been able to do that. Unless all buys were financed by sales, in which case your transfer budget wouldn't be different had transfers been made or not.

So for example;

We know Everton don't have many funds so I imagine they start off like that. Their transfers were financed through sales, not standing funds. So it makes sense for them to have a small budget to the player. To reflect that you must raise the funds through sales.

A club like Man City, although they've spent a shed load, we must consider their how they managed to finance it; standing funds, it would make sense then that they'd still be able to provide the player a significant budget. To reflect that you aren't needed to raise funds yourself.

Does this make sense? :\

Bjaart, like I said in my opening post, if youre the manager then you get final say. In this situation the assistant manager, head scout or board recommend that you buy Warnock from Blackburn, if you decide to make a bid then Blackburn human manager decides to accept/refuse.

Its very unlikely that the transfers in the game would be exactly like they finish in real life, but the whole point is that you get control of the summer spending at you club.

As an example last summer Villa spent over £50m and were the biggest spenders in the UK, in the game we started with £6m - we were told the moneys already spent, and how can you justify more money after spending over £40m in the summer

The year before Randy Lerner took over the club late in the window and we didnt get a chance to splash the cash but board promised class signings - we were given £5m (maybe less). - we were told theres no indication that money is there

This year we have spent over £30m but I think we will only be given a small amount again due to "money already been spent".

in short Villa have spent more than all team except for Manchester City in the last 2 years, yet the combined starting buget is £11m for last 2 seasons. Ok you get money in January from the board, but you can be sacked by then if youre not careful.

Now im not having a go, as I completely understand the reasoning behind the low budgets, and I believe all clubs are starting off with little or no spending money not just Villa.

Im simply trying to come up with a suggestion to justify having some kind of decent starting budget for human players, and give the game a bit more of realistic feel to having real life transfers going through before your eyes at the same time giving you more control of the budget. The start of the game is when the player is excited and the first thing he wants to do is buy some players (like a new manager at a new club in real life) but he can't because he has no money.

Just untick the "allow transfer budget the first transfer window".

The database has already up to date.

I've never played with that option before, didnt even notice it.

Does this option to uncheck the "allow transfer budget" put an embargo on all clubs or just human players?

It's for all clubs.

I think if a club spends an x amount, then what should be reflected in the budget is their capacity to have been able to do that. Unless all buys were financed by sales, in which case your transfer budget wouldn't be different had transfers been made or not.

So for example;

We know Everton don't have many funds so I imagine they start off like that. Their transfers were financed through sales, not standing funds. So it makes sense for them to have a small budget to the player. To reflect that you must raise the funds through sales.

A club like Man City, although they've spent a shed load, we must consider their how they managed to finance it; standing funds, it would make sense then that they'd still be able to provide the player a significant budget. To reflect that you aren't needed to raise funds yourself.

Does this make sense? :\

Yes, that makes perfect sense (though remember Everton have all that Lescott money now).

Bjaart, like I said in my opening post, if youre the manager then you get final say. In this situation the assistant manager, head scout or board recommend that you buy Warnock from Blackburn, if you decide to make a bid then Blackburn human manager decides to accept/refuse.

Its very unlikely that the transfers in the game would be exactly like they finish in real life, but the whole point is that you get control of the summer spending at you club.

As an example last summer Villa spent over £50m and were the biggest spenders in the UK, in the game we started with £6m - we were told the moneys already spent, and how can you justify more money after spending over £40m in the summer

The year before Randy Lerner took over the club late in the window and we didnt get a chance to splash the cash but board promised class signings - we were given £5m (maybe less). - we were told theres no indication that money is there

This year we have spent over £30m but I think we will only be given a small amount again due to "money already been spent".

in short Villa have spent more than all team except for Manchester City in the last 2 years, yet the combined starting buget is £11m for last 2 seasons. Ok you get money in January from the board, but you can be sacked by then if youre not careful.

Now im not having a go, as I completely understand the reasoning behind the low budgets, and I believe all clubs are starting off with little or no spending money not just Villa.

Im simply trying to come up with a suggestion to justify having some kind of decent starting budget for human players, and give the game a bit more of realistic feel to having real life transfers going through before your eyes at the same time giving you more control of the budget. The start of the game is when the player is excited and the first thing he wants to do is buy some players (like a new manager at a new club in real life) but he can't because he has no money.

Considering Villa spent last summer trying to find enough money down the sofa to sign Doyle, the amounts you were given were very accurate.

This wouldn't be the easy suggestion you're making it out to be. It would almost triple the workload of the researchers. At present, they input:

1. Club contracted to
   
2. Transfer fee
   
3. Breakdown of transfer fee (after x games or goals, installments, etc.)
   
4. Transfer date
   
5. Date contract started
   
6. Date contract ends
   
7. Wages
   
8. Bonuses
   
9. Squad number
   

for every single transfer. There are probably more. Your way, they'd need to do:

1. Starting club (for Knight, this is Villa)
   
2. Club transferred to (Bolton)
   
3. Club transferred to in the future transfer (Bolton)
   
4. Transfer fee
   
5. Future transfer fee
   
6. Breakdown of the transfer
   
7. Breakdown of the future transfer
   
8. Date of transfer
   
9. Date of future transfer
   
10. Date contract started (new club)
    
11. Date contract started (old club)
    
12. Date contract started (future transfer)
    
13. Date contract ends (new club)
    
14. Date contract ends (old club)
    
15. Date contract ends (future transfer)
    
16. Wages (regular db)
    
17. Future wages (after transfer)
    
18. Current wages (before transfer)
    
19. Bonuses
    
20. Future bonuses
    
21. Current bonuses
    
22. Squad number
    
23. Future squad number
    
24. Current squad number
    

Furthermore, it isn't possible to do a future loan. How does that fit in?

One of the worst things about the current system is things like Arshavin being at Arsenal for the whole season.

One of the worst things about the current system is things like Arshavin being at Arsenal for the whole season.

Thats why I'd like to have a DB starting in say Jan/Feb

I don't see why we can't have January signings as future transfers for whatever date they join. Indeed, I don't see how it's sensible to have it any other way.

I agree, it would be, essentially, as starting a saved game. I guess that would be the easiest way to have it done?

But yeah, I don't like how January's RL ends up affecting the way I start my season.