Minimum fee release clauses not working properly? (possible exploit/cheat)

I just wonder.

Whenever I offer the amount from a minimum fee relase clause only over 48 months, my offer is accepted. Also if the player value has meanwhile reached the minimum fee release clause value and thus wouldn't normally be accepted.

Surely, this shouldn't be the case. All release clauses are only applicable if the fee is paid in one payment straight away.

Have you guys had/tried this too?

I'm actually not sure now, but I strongly believe that once also I offered out one of my players at his minimum release fee which was then offered over 48 months which was accepted over my head due to meeting the clause

In that case forget my question above and just take it as my complaint

At the same time you can obviously use this an an exploit to your advantage too.

Ha, the added bit in the headline should make for nice viewing counts

But it's true.

Can't say I've tried it as I always thought it was just if the fee was upfront. I'm not sure how it works IRL though, is it just upfront fees that count?

Can't say I've tried it as I always thought it was just if the fee was upfront. I'm not sure how it works IRL though, is it just upfront fees that count?

You can agree it either way contractually, but it only makes sense if a one-time payment due immediately is offered. Otherwise I would buy Messi in instalments spread over 1000 years if that's good enough to meet his clause

At least I haven't seen any other content in rl release clauses.

It would be nice if you could try it with a player where you feel that the offer should not be accepted normally (surely most offers of ridiculously high fees would be accepted irrespective of any number of instalments).

Otherwise I would buy Messi in instalments spread over 1000 years if that's good enough to meet his clause

Fair point

I always buy the people on loan at Pompey (due to the aranged fee in the contract) over 48months, as it is always accepted

I always buy the people on loan at Pompey (due to the aranged fee in the contract) over 48months, as it is always accepted

Should be the same issue pretty much.

So I guess this is one for the bugs forum

Can't believe it's deliberately designed to be like that.

If SI want to test this, try offering out Rasmussen or the other guys with minimum fee release clauses from Bröndby (I think this is also where it happened to me). There's quite a likelihood that someone will offer the amount in instalments only.

Are pompey not broke?

You can agree it either way contractually, but it only makes sense if a one-time payment due immediately is offered. Otherwise I would buy Messi in instalments spread over 1000 years if that's good enough to meet his clause

Hopefully we can have that added into FM11.

I think it's about right.

The fee means that the club has to let him go for that fee. Now most fees are paid over that sort of time frame in reality, so the real minimum release fees must be if that fee is offered either up front or in up to x installments, probably around 3-4 years.

Other clauses are conditional, and thus different. Payment over time comes out even if you resell him, so adds direct value to the deal.

Are pompey not broke?

This has anything to do with it?

Yeah, actually...

I signed Jordan Spence on loan, with option to buy for £7.5m. I knew I wouldn't have the money at the end of the season, so as soon as he joined.. I offered £7.5m over 48 months, and Bam, I signed him. (Previously was having £15m over 48 months rejected for Spence).

I gather the vast majority of transfers IRL are paid in instalments over 2 or 3 years. This is Portsmouth's problem, they're still paying for transfers from years ago. Hence Glen Johnson costing £7m + the forgiving of £10m owed for Crouch. Also Nico Kranjaer, £2.5m + the forgiving of £6m owed for someone, Kaboul possibly.

It's probably in the small print of real contracts, how the minimum fee can be paid. I wouldn't be surprised if payment in equal monthly instalments over 24 months is valid.

I think it's about right.

The fee means that the club has to let him go for that fee. Now most fees are paid over that sort of time frame in reality, so the real minimum release fees must be if that fee is offered either up front or in up to x installments, probably around 3-4 years.

Other clauses are conditional, and thus different. Payment over time comes out even if you resell him, so adds direct value to the deal.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

While ordinary transfers are usually agreed to be payable in annual instalments over two or three years, any minimum fee release clause makes no sense if instalments are allowed, see my example above. I cannot imagine any club would agree on any such clause which expressly includes the option to pay in instalments.

That's not even necessary on top of that. If a club wants to trigger it and pay in instalments, they are still free to negotiate how little more than the set fee they have to pay to the other club in return or try and get the money from a bank and repay as planned against interests.

But a minimum fee release clause which allows instalments - no.

edit: Wow, post # 5000