PDA

View Full Version : Monthly Payments when buying players



Oskar
05-07-2010, 14:25
Hello, I have a question about the monthly payments when buying players in FM 2010.

Now you can buy a player for 10 millions even if you just have 2,5 millions in your budget. Is this a bug or is it suppose to be that whay?

Isn't it unrealisic that a team with a summer transfer budget of 10 millions can buy players at a total cost of 40 millions?

If you manage a team in The Championship and gets promoted with a transfer budget of 8 millions and then sell a player for 7 millions you now, if your board is giving you 100 percent of your sales, can buy players for 60 millions over 48 months. Then you can sell some players the next year when you have secured a new P.L. spot.

In a way it takes the whealing-and-dealing factor away.. Shouldn't it be better if the transfer budget is getting smaller even if you use monthly payments?

:)

DBond5
05-07-2010, 14:29
Portsmouth did that exact same thing and look where they are today. If you can't pay the wages/transfers over a period of time, it will catch up to you.

TacticalGenius
05-07-2010, 14:36
Portsmouth did that exact same thing and look where they are today. If you can't pay the wages/transfers over a period of time, it will catch up to you.

This.

Just because you can now, doesn't mean you should. It will come back to haunt you unless you get start earning CL places, etc.

robertcornell68
05-07-2010, 14:43
Basically, you're spending money from future success.

No success = big trouble.

Oskar
05-07-2010, 14:44
This.

Just because you can now, doesn't mean you should. It will come back to haunt you unless you get start earning CL places, etc.

That's true. What I mean is that it shouldn't be the managers thing to decide whether the club is going to use this kind of dangerous "loans". It's a Peter Ridsdale thing to do.

Brian Shanahan
05-07-2010, 14:49
Hello, I have a question about the monthly payments when buying players in FM 2010.

Now you can buy a player for 10 millions even if you just have 2,5 millions in your budget. Is this a bug or is it suppose to be that whay?

Well what happens is that when you buy a player under installments the amount is chopped up for your budget and taken out over time. Any down payment you make plus the amount in installments divided by the number of years of the installment length. The rest is taken out of your budget in subsequent years for as long as you pay installments.
E.G. I am Sao Paolo manager and I want to bring a 30 y.o. Kaka back from Real (he's transfer listed). He's valued at 8.5M and is interested, but I've a problem I've only 4M in my kitty. So I go to Real and say I'll give 1.5m up front plus the remaining 6.5m over 36 months. The amount of my kitty used is 1.5m+(6.5m/3)=2.65m (roughly), leaving me with 1.35m to buy the Regen popped up from Santa Cruz who my scouts rate at potentially 4 1/2 stars. The remaining 4.35m of the transfer will be taken out in two sums of 2.15m 2.2m in the next two seasons, thus lowering my transfer budget in those two seasons.


Isn't it unrealisic that a team with a summer transfer budget of 10 millions can buy players at a total cost of 40 millions?

If you manage a team in The Championship and gets promoted with a transfer budget of 8 millions and then sell a player for 7 millions you now, if your board is giving you 100 percent of your sales, can buy players for 60 millions over 48 months. Then you can sell some players the next year when you have secured a new P.L. spot.

In a way it takes the whealing-and-dealing factor away.. Shouldn't it be better if the transfer budget is getting smaller even if you use monthly payments?

:)

As I explained above installments do affect your budgets fully, they're just spread over a few years. But the main affect of installments is that you can buy players you can't afford in the hope that their performances will allow you to afford the price down the line. All too often though this doesn't pan out (either he doesn't perform, the team is too far below him to keep up, a bad injury crisis, bad luck, too many players in on similar methods causing collapse in finances) and the club ends up paying for an old star player they can't get rid of and don't want and you find yourself as assistant youth coach at Accrington Stanley.

pelicanstuff
05-07-2010, 15:13
I have to say that there should be a chance of the Chairman blocking these big 48 month transfers (maybe at the bidding stage rather than at the confirmation stage) if he feels they'd be detrimental to the club's long-term financial health.

drmanley
05-07-2010, 15:48
I have to say that there should be a chance of the Chairman blocking these big 48 month transfers (maybe at the bidding stage rather than at the confirmation stage) if he feels they'd be detrimental to the club's long-term financial health.

I agree, the chairman should be far more involved. The fact that every club and chairman in the world allows you to massively overspend on day 1 in the job is absolutely crazy.

Personally I think that we, as managers, should agree the fee with the club and then the chairman negotiates the payment terms dependent on his attributes. For instance an ambitious chairman with poor business attributes would allow loads of massive deals over 48 months while other chairman would be more cautious. If the chairmen can't agree the terms then the deal would collapse. As long as we are aware of the terms before confirming the deal I feel this would be a far more realistic reflection of the transfer Market.

Perhaps the ability to negotiate terms would be given to the manager after a long period of success after trust has been built.

TacticalGenius
05-07-2010, 15:50
I agree, the chairman should be far more involved. The fact that every club and chairman in the world allows you to massively overspend on day 1 in the job is absolutely crazy.

Personally I think that we, as managers, should agree the fee with the club and then the chairman negotiates the payment terms dependent on his attributes. For instance an ambitious chairman with poor business attributes would allow loads of massive deals over 48 months while other chairman would be more cautious. If the chairmen can't agree the terms then the deal would collapse. As long as we are aware of the terms before confirming the deal I feel this would be a far more realistic reflection of the transfer Market.

Perhaps the ability to negotiate terms would be given to the manager after a long period of success after trust has been built.

Sounds good to me.

Oskar
05-07-2010, 15:51
[QUOTE=drmanley;5623852]I agree, the chairman should be far more involved. The fact that every club and chairman in the world allows you to massively overspend on day 1 in the job is absolutely crazy.

Personally I think that we, as managers, should agree the fee with the club and then the chairman negotiates the payment terms dependent on his attributes. For instance an ambitious chairman with poor business attributes would allow loads of massive deals over 48 months while other chairman would be more cautious. If the chairmen can't agree the terms then the deal would collapse. As long as we are aware of the terms before confirming the deal I feel this would be a far more realistic reflection of the transfer Market.


Yes this sounds more realistic!

Perhaps the ability to negotiate terms would be given to the manager after a long period of success after trust has been built. :thup:

pelicanstuff
05-07-2010, 16:02
I agree, the chairman should be far more involved. The fact that every club and chairman in the world allows you to massively overspend on day 1 in the job is absolutely crazy.

Personally I think that we, as managers, should agree the fee with the club and then the chairman negotiates the payment terms dependent on his attributes. For instance an ambitious chairman with poor business attributes would allow loads of massive deals over 48 months while other chairman would be more cautious. If the chairmen can't agree the terms then the deal would collapse. As long as we are aware of the terms before confirming the deal I feel this would be a far more realistic reflection of the transfer Market.

Perhaps the ability to negotiate terms would be given to the manager after a long period of success after trust has been built.

I really like this idea - but I have the unfortunate feeling SI won't want to go down that route for business reasons.

Downzie_Boi
05-07-2010, 16:05
Thing is they had it in Cm for a while but got rid of it because people didn't like it!

Oskar
06-07-2010, 21:57
It's not the Chairman thing I am negative to.

It's more like this:

You get promoted with West Brom and the Chairman think that it is ok to buy one 5 m player and three 3 m players at a total cost of 14 m. Previous years, in real life AND FM, the club more often paid a larger sum straight away. But nowadays it's more common to use this monthly payments, cause it's a financial crisis going on.

Football Manager 2010 has taken this into count and now uses 48 months of montly payments.

The thing is that the clubs do this cause their saldos isn't what it should be. It's not like the Chairman nowadays says: it's ok to buy one 20 m player and three 12 m players at a total cost of 56m. But this its what is happening in the game when the transfer budget isn't getting smaller then it does when you buy a player over 48 months.

IRL the clubs is buying less but in the game they are buing more, do you get what I mean?

When aiming for a more realistic transfer system I think other parts of the system is getting less realistic.

Brian Shanahan
07-07-2010, 00:29
Well it's what a lot of clubs were doing recently until their finances got so bad that they couldn't afford even a few million up front. Remember nearly every transfer you've read about (and probably the ones this summer) have been done at least partly on long term deals. In fiact if they were for anything else the deals would be called HPs.

The realism is that there are a lot of clubs out there overspending and getting into trouble because of it.

Oskar
12-07-2010, 09:03
Yes it is realistic that there are a lot of clubs out there overspending and getting into trouble because of it. But, in real life, the clubs are buying cheeper or players that costs the same as previous years but they are spreading the money over years. In the game the clubs buy more expansive the before. I mean, a club like Newcastle can sell a player for 10 m and then buy two players worth 20 m. That happens in the game but it will not happend irl. Maybe a couple of years ago but not now.

It is more realtistic that clubs can get inte trouble now but isn't it even more unrealistic that clubs sell for 20m and then its ok to buy players worth 80m? This happens because the transfer budget is not declining more than it is. The transfer budget should be set in relation to the saldo. If the saldo in the club is 25m, the manager for example is handed 12m to buy for. This should mean that for example, if you are the Liverpool manager you can, maybe, buy Brede Hangeland in a 12 m deal. It should not mean that you can buy Wesley Sneijder in a 48 m deal. This happens with the new system.

The thing I dont like is that it has become too easy to sign many expansive players. And that is not the case irl.
Reflections about this?

Best Regards

Oskar

Ozzsam
13-07-2010, 02:08
Maybe they should take it out the budget for the seasons the transfer is active in.

I'll explain myself:
You buy a player with a 4m deal over 48 months. The game should take out 1m out of the budget and for the next 3 years. Monthly if necessary, depending how well it will calculate the remaining budget.

Cougar2010
13-07-2010, 02:25
Maybe they should take it out the budget for the seasons the transfer is active in.

I'll explain myself:
You buy a player with a 4m deal over 48 months. The game should take out 1m out of the budget and for the next 3 years. Monthly if necessary, depending how well it will calculate the remaining budget.


That already happens.

Ozzsam
13-07-2010, 02:33
There we go then, problem sorted...

pelicanstuff
15-07-2010, 02:03
There we go then, problem sorted...

In that case transfer budgets are way too high, as it is too easy to make transfers using the 48 month function that any idiot will be able to see will hurt the club badly in the future.

Le Jake
15-07-2010, 02:19
You're moaning that it should be the chairmans job to negotiate, but tbh a lot of the stuff the manager does in FM is chairman/board stuff.
Beginning of the season deciding if you're gonna have a reserve and under 18 team for example, even contract negotiations.

So chill out, if you dont like it, don't do it :)

pelicanstuff
15-07-2010, 11:50
You're moaning that it should be the chairmans job to negotiate, but tbh a lot of the stuff the manager does in FM is chairman/board stuff.
Beginning of the season deciding if you're gonna have a reserve and under 18 team for example

This actually is the manager's function at a lot of clubs and is the reason why Tottenham didn't have a reserve team last season.

Oskar
15-07-2010, 11:57
Eh?

It may be my bad english cause it's not getting through...

Its to easy to buy players but it seems that everyone is ok with it cause now you can buy whoever you want. I liked it better when it was more difficult to get your dream players.

http://yfrog.com/0onewdjkfpodsjfpodsjkfpdsp

Is this realistic? Newcastle, 2012? Rooney signs when the got promoted?

pelicanstuff
16-07-2010, 00:49
Indeed, it's much too easy. Part of this is transfer-budget related as explored in this thread, part of it is players being too willing to move - particularly hot prospects who will move to a much smaller team at a young age rather than stay at a big club for a few years to try and make the first team.

edgar555
16-07-2010, 00:59
Eh?

It may be my bad english cause it's not getting through...

Its to easy to buy players but it seems that everyone is ok with it cause now you can buy whoever you want. I liked it better when it was more difficult to get your dream players.

http://yfrog.com/0onewdjkfpodsjfpodsjkfpdsp

Is this realistic? Newcastle, 2012? Rooney signs when the got promoted?

Even if you can afford anyone, it doesn't necessarily mean they will sign for you. Top class players want CL football (or the appropriate continental equivalent). You can't sign just anyone.

I also have no objection to more chairman involvement/interaction. For better or worse they are more and more involved in transfer deals (and targets in a lot of cases) and discussion between chairman and manager surely happens more often than our current FM lot of deciding our contracts and asking for feeder clubs/more seats/training and youth facility improvement.

Oskar
30-07-2010, 08:34
This is what I mean.

I've just finished my first season with Lecce. I won the Serie B. In the first season I had a couple of millions to buy players for, which mean I can sign players worth 8 m and get a much easier race for promotion. Ok?

Now it's time for the silly season ahead of my first Serie A season. This has always been the funniest part of the FM (and previous CM). You maybe get 10m which have to be spent on the right players tom make your team as good as possible. Sell som expensive player and sign a few cheaper.

I was handed 11 m to sign for ahead of the new season. With the system used in FM now it means you can sign pretty good players for every single position. I signe Buonanotte in a 4,5 m deal (48 months) and still there is 10 m left. I''ve found two good left backs which cost 8 m together and I can sign them both and still have 8 m. I sold a central defender named Fabiano in a 4 m deal, with 80% from the funds to sign a new defender (0,8 * 4 = 3,2 m). This 3,2 m would have to be spent visely in previos games, maybe 2m on a defender and 1m on a back up striker. Now I can use 4 m on a defender and 8 m on a attacker. The best thing with the manager role, the wealing and dealing, is not fun anymore!

I now you can get in trouble when overspending etc. Butin previous games, the first season when promoted you have to play with a pretty poor team and try to survive anyway. Now you pretty much have a team for Europe straight away.

Lets say I use all the money, I buy players for a total amount of 40m. But then I realise, I don't have a good keeper! Sell a couple of guys in the reserve team, maybe 3 players for 0,5 m each. Then you can sign a keeper for 5-6 m...

Reflections?

I rather have a transfer system with no installments at all, like the old Championship manager games, then have installments and make the player transfers be this unrealistic. I dont think a newly promotes team can get players worth 50 m their first season..

Can anyone from Sports Interactive make a reply on this also?

Thanks!

PhroX
30-07-2010, 09:32
Personally, I think it would be good if, in addition to your current transfer budget, the board would have a "esitmated future budget" - that being the money they expect to have available in the near future. Any over time fees beyond the current year would come out of that, and of course, these fees would reduce the transfer budget in future years. The exact amount vailable would depend on various factors - the team's finances, the expected prize money, the chairman's attributes, their relation with the manager etc.

Brian Shanahan
30-07-2010, 13:29
This is what I mean.

I've just finished my first season with Lecce. I won the Serie B. In the first season I had a couple of millions to buy players for, which mean I can sign players worth 8 m and get a much easier race for promotion. Ok?

Now it's time for the silly season ahead of my first Serie A season. This has always been the funniest part of the FM (and previous CM). You maybe get 10m which have to be spent on the right players tom make your team as good as possible. Sell som expensive player and sign a few cheaper.

I was handed 11 m to sign for ahead of the new season. With the system used in FM now it means you can sign pretty good players for every single position. I signe Buonanotte in a 4,5 m deal (48 months) and still there is 10 m left. I''ve found two good left backs which cost 8 m together and I can sign them both and still have 8 m. I sold a central defender named Fabiano in a 4 m deal, with 80% from the funds to sign a new defender (0,8 * 4 = 3,2 m). This 3,2 m would have to be spent visely in previos games, maybe 2m on a defender and 1m on a back up striker. Now I can use 4 m on a defender and 8 m on a attacker. The best thing with the manager role, the wealing and dealing, is not fun anymore!

I now you can get in trouble when overspending etc. Butin previous games, the first season when promoted you have to play with a pretty poor team and try to survive anyway. Now you pretty much have a team for Europe straight away.

Lets say I use all the money, I buy players for a total amount of 40m. But then I realise, I don't have a good keeper! Sell a couple of guys in the reserve team, maybe 3 players for 0,5 m each. Then you can sign a keeper for 5-6 m...

Reflections?

I rather have a transfer system with no installments at all, like the old Championship manager games, then have installments and make the player transfers be this unrealistic. I dont think a newly promotes team can get players worth 50 m their first season..

Can anyone from Sports Interactive make a reply on this also?

Thanks!

Congratulations! You've just bankrupted Lecce.

TheRealMagpies
30-07-2010, 16:26
It's the whole realism vs playability issue again.

Reality =
Some managers only advise on transfer targets, and have no involvement in the negotiations at ANY stage
Few managers have unrestricted transfer methods, and are heavily involved in all stages of the proccess
Most fall somewhere between these 2 extremes

Playability =
It makes a game more 'fun' if the manager does ALL the negotiating.




The odd thing is the people who constantly ask for realism, reject heavier board influence/interfence in thier game.

pelicanstuff
01-08-2010, 21:58
Congratulations! You've just bankrupted Lecce.

The point he's making is that the Lecce chairman shouldn't just sit there and watch the manager make transactions that are clearly going to bankrupt the club. With the 48 month option as it is, it means that either a) Lecce's transfer budget (and everyone else's) has to be drastically reduced or b) Lecce's chairman should step in to prevent this kind of damage.