Percentage of transfer revenue made available

Ok, so I'm in the second preseason with Liverpool after winning the title and the league cup. I have about £20 million available for transfers and the total club balance is £55 million. The board will only allow me to respend 25% of any transfer revenue I make, which is incredibly annoying and doesn't really make sense.

I know Liverpool have a large debt, and that those £55 million will be eaten up på loan payments during the season. But if the club was completely broke they would't give me £20 million at the start of the season, so surely the board feel, that the books will be balanced even after I spend that amount. So any transfer revenue coming in should not really be that crucial for club finances, and should instead be made available to me, right? Usually it's the other way round when the club is in trouble; you don't get a transfer budget apart from any money you can bring in from selling players.

Can someone give me some sort of explanation for this? Other than the board being greedy, of course. If not, I really think it should be tweaked. It doesn't make sense that you get a transfer budget, but aren't allowed to keep the money you make in the transfer market. At least I'd like to be able to complain to the board.

Simply, its because of the large loan repayments. Think about it, you say you balance is £55 million right? Take that £20 million off and it leaves a balance of £35 million. Now dont forget that through the season the club will be making a monthly loss, and that will eat into what is left of your balance.

If the club let you sell players and keep the money, they would run the risk of being severly in the red come the end of the season, possibly sliding into administartion.

You really need to keep a handle on your finances, especially if your a club with a big loan. Getting the wage bill down and selling any unwanted/unneeded players is a must.

Simply, its because of the large loan repayments. Think about it, you say you balance is £55 million right? Take that £20 million off and it leaves a balance of £35 million. Now dont forget that through the season the club will be making a monthly loss, and that will eat into what is left of your balance.

If the club let you sell players and keep the money, they would run the risk of being severly in the red come the end of the season, possibly sliding into administartion.

You really need to keep a handle on your finances, especially if your a club with a big loan. Getting the wage bill down and selling any unwanted/unneeded players is a must.

But that doesn't make any sense. Surely the board can't depend on money from players that MAY be sold (unless we're REALLY skint, and in that case I wouldn't get a transfer budget at all)? And if they don't depend on that money when making their budget for the season, then surely I should be able to spend them - since they were never factored in the original budget.

If those £20 million they gave me for transfers is going to ruin the club, then they probably shouldn't give them to me in the first place, right? And instead say: "Hey, we can't afford to give you any money because of the loan payments, but if you sell players, you get to respend whatever you make". Or even: "Hey, we can't afford to give you any money because of the loan payments, and you only get 25% of whatever you make on transfers".

That would be ok and logical, but it doesn't make sense to give me money to spend with one hand, and then keep the majority of any EVENTUAL transfer income with the other. And it really annoys me, as I have to work out some part exchange deals instead in order to get most out of the players I don't need.

Wouldn't you rather they just gave you the money as they have done here, rather than giving you a smaller budget and saying you have to make up the rest through theoretical player sales as the Liverpool board supposedly do IRL. Honestly I have no idea why you have a problem with this

The board basically says "Look, this is the maximum we can afford to give you right now because of the finances". They're not asking you to spend it and in spending it you may end up bankrupting the club because of the signing on fees and wages but most boards want to give you at least something. Look at the United board in the games, you get in the beginning around 10million after a massive summer spending. Financially you don't need to be using that money but a "big club" is going to try and give you a few bob if you're a high rep manager.

Bestie.

Wouldn't you rather they just gave you the money as they have done here, rather than giving you a smaller budget and saying you have to make up the rest through theoretical player sales as the Liverpool board supposedly do IRL. Honestly I have no idea why you have a problem with this

Actually, no. I think I would be able to get a bigger transfer budget if the board gave me nothing up front but I was allowed to keep 100% of any transfer revenue. That's why I have a problem with it - plus it's not very realistic, in my opinion.

The board basically says "Look, this is the maximum we can afford to give you right now because of the finances". They're not asking you to spend it and in spending it you may end up bankrupting the club because of the signing on fees and wages but most boards want to give you at least something.

Well, I expect the board to give me a transfer and wage budget that's within the means of the club and which won't end up bankrupting us if I spend it. If they can't really afford to give me a budget, I would rather not have one at all, but be able to respend whatever I make as stated above.

i agree completely with this guy. only makes sense to me when you get a percentage of the sale if you have no budget.

why people are saying "honestly i have no idea why you have a problem with this" is beyond me, it's pretty clear why he'd have a problem with it!

think of liverpool in real life last summer, do you think they said to benitez they'd give him 18m for transfers but only let him have 60% of transfers so he thought he'd buy johnson with his money and then sell alonso for 35 so he could get aquilani for 20?

if you do, you're really a bit thick. it doesn't make sense, and it is annoying!

agree with topic starter - dont make logical sense.

I disagree.

Look at Rangers, 0 transfer budget and 0% of sale into the budget IRL. On the game i think you get 50%. But anyway, the club have offered you this to allow you to bring in maybe a star player, that would in turn do well in the CL and/or the Premiership which would bring in more money in prize money than you could by selling Torres and doing pants. As a result they give you this £20M, but in return say listen we'll take 75% of whhat you make by selling players and this would allow the books to be better balanced, if you bring in £20M then great, but they wont want you selling a star player such as Torres to make this.

i dont know why your saying its not realistic because no matter how much a team bring in by selling players no manager ever gets all the money to spend again you always get a percentage ........ i am man city and i just asked for them to increase my transfer revenue and the did to 55%