Player/Coach refused. Why?

I’ve just started a patch 3 game with Weymouth.

Apart from two youth teamers, Weymouth have no goalkeepers. None at all.

They also have an assistant manager, a coach and a fitness coach who, between them, muster a maximum of a half a star for goalkeeper coaching, even I dedicated either the asstnt mngr or general coach to goalkeeping only.

Clearly, I need to get a goalkeeper in and improve, if possible, my goalkeeping coaching otherwise any keeper I bring in will be whining within weeks about the “quality of the goalkeeping coaching”.

Solution: I offer contracts to a promising younger free agent keeper (1.5K a year), and a 34 year-old free agent keeper/goalkeeping coach (3K a year – leaving me miles within my salaries budget). Therefore, I have two keepers for the first team and I improve my goalkeeping coaching, all for the same price in wages as bringing in two player-only keepers.

Perfectly reasonable, no?

On offering the veteran keeper a player/goalkeeper coach contract on a wage no higher than a standard keeper I noticed the “the board recommends two coaches – you currently have two coaches” message.

“Surely”, I foolishly thought to myself, “there will be no problem if another coach is also a player. When the wages are no higher than bringing in a player. Especially in a position where I am completely bereft. Especially when I can currently muster a mere half a star in training. Surely the board aren’t programmed to be so stratospherically stupid that they will cancel this perfectly reasonable, sensible and money-saving transfer!”

Off course, I was wrong. Transfer cancelled by an idiot board.

Why, exactly, do SI have this petty obsession with coaches? Why, when managers now have a reality-inspired freer reign over the whole player/staff/transfer budget are these silly little stipulations insisted upon?

Can you imagine the real-life situation where a chairman would refuse this? On what grounds would he? What would be his logic? What is SI’s logic? Why do SI go out of their way to give the impression that they put things into the game simply to annoy?

Why is it that experienced players are allowed to tutor younger players if this daft coach limit has been reached? Tutoring is coaching by another name isn’t it? Shouldn’t the chairman come thundering onto the training ground when he gets wind that a senior player is committing the cardinal sin of coaching?

Chairman: “What the hell does that senior player think he’s doing teaching that promising youngster how the play better? Haven’t I told you lot I don’t want more than two coaches at this club?”

Manager: “But he’s doing it for no extra money than we’re already spending. It improves the whole learning experience. It’ll improve the team!”

Chairman: “Sod that. Two coaches is two coaches. They’ll be no more coaching around here!”

Manager: “By what logic do you reach this extraordinary conclusion?”

Chairman: “Because SI have programmed me to be a petty-minded, sensationally stupid fool of the very highest order, that’s why.”

Spleen vented.

Totally agree with you. The conversation at the end was a nice touch.

Well if you allow player/coaches to break the limit on coaches some people will just go out and hire loads of player/coaches to circumvent the limits .

Yeah, and part of the (obvious) text of the orginal post is to ask "what's the problem with that"?

Why is it a crime for a player to also coach, especially if the salary is no higher? Especially if the player fills a position that's urgently required to be filled?

Why this obsession with the amount of people that are actually qualified and prepared to improve the playing ability of others? What's the problem if it has no adverse effect on the budget?

Well if you allow player/coaches to break the limit on coaches some people will just go out and hire loads of player/coaches to circumvent the limits .

But the Board's reaction is totally unrealistic. Nobody in their senses would not take advantage of coaching expertise if it was available and didn't cost any more than getting the guy just as a player would do.

It's symptomatic of a general weakness in the game over budget control. I think that if you want, you can get rid of all your original players at the start of the game by releasing them on a free. Of course, it costs loads and loads of money but, as far as I'm aware, the idiot Board doesn't stop you from actually doing it. So they gripe at a single extra coach at (say) £100 a week but let thousands and thousands go out of the club in compensation payments without a single protest.

This coaching position is very annoying. The opposite side of the coin is that player coaches don't appear to accept mutual termination. So you are stuck with a lousy player who is also a lousy coach if you are managing a team in the lower echelons (or more than one - some have a rotten player coach AND a rotten player assistant manager tying up loads and loads of the wage budget). Of course, you could use the 'free release' option....

Needs sorting, I'd say!

This has been an argument for a while. It should be the choice of the player as to how he spends his wage budget. The counter argument is obviously that a board will set a budget and you have to live with that. I personally think that the board would be willing to listen and adjust budgets, but you don't get that option.

As for your situation, is there any chance you could offer the player a simple player contract? Would he accept that, or does he think he's told to just be a player? Other than that I think your best bet would be to look at a loan keeper.

In my game Weymouth appear to have gotten in a goalkeeper from Farsley.

I'm going to give you a hint, but ignore this is you want to scout the players. This is a goalie who looks as good as the one Weymouth have signed in my game and you may well get him cheap. Local too. Just highlight below.

For some reason the game doesn't seem to find too much talent at non-playable leagues.

>Wimborne Town keeper<

There'll be a few Farsely players looking for clubs - they've just been liquidated.

Anyway, on topic, yes i agree it's utterly illogical to refuse player/coaches on the same salary as players. It's even more annoying when you're old carthorse retires and wants to stay on as coach or player/coach but the board refuse.

I wonder if your imaginary conversation is similar to the one at Pompey:

David James: I want to pay the salaries of staff you've just laid off out of my own pocket.

Administrator: Well you can't, it's against my cheating AI rules. now run along and buy a new Bentley.

I was just thinking couldn't you offer the player/coach a player only contract and then offer him the player/coach contract when he has signed? I'm not sure but I believe this is a way around your problem. Maybe anyway.

Another possible 'cheat' springs to mind.

Put another manager into the game at a club with a generous transfer budget and coaching allowance. Duly offer jobs to your Weymouth dead wood thus getting them out of the way, subsequently retiring this new manager. If it comes to that, I suppose you could get rid of some rotten players for grossly inflated transfer fees at the same time........

Such convolutions shouldn't be necessary, of course.

I think this a grey area that SI haven't filled.

I understand the cap on coaches - this is realistic, however in real life, you would have the opportunity to negotiate. Through no real fault of SI's (I can't see any sort of negotiating feature working, mainly because you're arguing against a computer, which is programmed to give an answer), this is impossible. However, in this instance, I agree with you - you should have the chance to sign a player and ask him to provide additional coaching.There should be another category for this away from players and coaches.

Don't know how it would work, but it is something that SI need to sort out I think.

I was just thinking couldn't you offer the player/coach a player only contract and then offer him the player/coach contract when he has signed? I'm not sure but I believe this is a way around your problem. Maybe anyway.

That worked!!!!

I offered him a deal as a bog-standard player. The day after he joined (right after I refused the "unveiling" press conference) I offered him a new contract as player-coach. It went through without a whimper from the board! I now have three stars in GK coaching and a half decent backup keeper for the first team!

Good. I don't mind helping a fellow FMer when they are in need. I hope your future at Weymouth is prosperous and happy coaching, with your new goalkeeping coach.