Just ONE thing thats making my game less enjoyable.

Before I start, i just want to say im not having a rant at the game, as I think this years version is almost immaculate apart from one tiny part.

I can't understand that, even when my team has copius amounts of money, (i.e. Man City) I cannot offer a player crazy amounts of money if he has no intention of joining. In real life, if Man City contacted a players agent who said he had no intentions of joining, Man City would purely say, how does £500'000 a week sound?

Does anyone else agree, and do you think SI can patch it?

That is a great point.

On FM10, Yannis Tafer had no intentions of joining me at Portsmouth in the second season after helping us get into the Europa league in the first.

So, he had no intentions of joining, I offered him £45,000 a week, and he snapped up the offer just 3 days later.

Inflated wages is ruining football.

yer i no they give you a guidline to follow with the wage budget but surley as long as your in profit you should be able to offer as much as yuo wanted because then its down to you how to run the club wether it be the next portsmouth or not

Just my point, and to link it to real life again, do you think YaYa Toure had no intention of joining Man City before his bumper deal? Nobody can stop a club offering a deal, and so I believe it should be implemented in game again?

Inflated wages is ruining football.

It may be, but that's modern football for you :/

Good point OP, Aguero would always have no intentions of joining my spurs team in 09 i think it was but i'd offer him ludicrous wages and he's sign !

Just my point, and to link it to real life again, do you think YaYa Toure had no intention of joining Man City before his bumper deal? Nobody can stop a club offering a deal, and so I believe it should be implemented in game again?

In fairness Yaya had said that he wanted to play in the same team as Kolo for years.

I dont think you should be able to offer massive wages, remember whatever you are offering you need to times it by 52 to work out how much its going to cost per year in wages alone. I have not found the wage allowances to be unreasonable in any way

Before I start, i just want to say im not having a rant at the game, as I think this years version is almost immaculate apart from one tiny part.

I can't understand that, even when my team has copius amounts of money, (i.e. Man City) I cannot offer a player crazy amounts of money if he has no intention of joining. In real life, if Man City contacted a players agent who said he had no intentions of joining, Man City would purely say, how does £500'000 a week sound?

Does anyone else agree, and do you think SI can patch it?

To be fair I hope this never gets into the game as it's whats killing football in real life. However, it hasnt really happened at Man City has it? I cant think of one player they have who would have prefereed to stay at their old club but their wage promises clinched the deal. There's no Torres, no Gerrard, no Fabregas, no Ronaldinho. No Marquee signings at all.

personally , i cant ever say that the likes of david silva would ever have even considered man city until money was on the table..

i disagree to an extent. I think with Valencias money issues and Villa signing for us he knoew Valencia were going to struggle, granted they are not at the moment, but i think he was keen on a move away and he had said for quite a few years he wanted to move to England so why not Man City?

To be fair I hope this never gets into the game as it's whats killing football in real life. However, it hasnt really happened at Man City has it? I cant think of one player they have who would have prefereed to stay at their old club but their wage promises clinched the deal. There's no Torres, no Gerrard, no Fabregas, no Ronaldinho. No Marquee signings at all.

I can't see David Silva having moved to City out of pure club preference. He might have ended up somewhere else had City not offered him higher wages, the same could be said of Barry I suspect.

I also think that Man City's wage structure is part of the reason Rooney recently held United to ransom "how the hell are both Barry and Milner on 50%ish more than I am Strettsy lad!?")...but that's a different story.

I do agree with you though, the wages are removing the sporting element from the game...football is only a team game in as much as you are in the same coloured shirt these days.

Inflated wages is ruining football.

Yes it is, but as long as that exists IRL, FM should include it too.

I do agree with you though, the wages are removing the sporting element from the game...football is only a team game in as much as you are in the same coloured shirt these days.

What a load of rubbish. Because a couple of teams have spent huge money buying greedy players there is now no loyalty in the sport? What about the teams that have not spent big and have stuck with their players? Or the players who have turned down big money moves to stay loyal? Can think of alot more of these players than the ones in the big money moves!

To be honest, there have really only been about 4-5 rediculously over priced moves in the last 5 years.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

Of course you know I'll be needing a list of these players who have turned down big money moves to remain loyal...lots you say?

I think you might be referring to those players who have only used other club's interest in order to secure themselves more lucrative contracts at their current clubs.

It's no secret that Fabregas was paid more money to stay with Arsenal this summer, and Gerrard went on to sign a 120,000/week contract with Liverpool a few years back...there are numerous other examples of this.

Wages make up a higher percent of club turnover than they ever have done previously; and ultimately the supporters end up footing the bill (increases in Sky TV, merchandise, tickets etc), wages are obscene, and as long as they remain so high they will continue to be the motivating factor in player decisions.

By the way; Noosa > Surfers (horrific)

yes mate lots, your just runing off the names you have seen in the paper. I am not refering to "players who have only used other club's interest in order to secure themselves more lucrative contracts at their current clubs." You mention Cesc, he didnt get a new deal by staying at arsenal, nor a wage increase.

Messi got offered a deal at Inter that would have increased his wages, he said no. Milan offered Puyol money, he said no. Van Persie to countless clubs said no they are just off the top of my head, im sure google would provide alot more. And thats just in the top leagues, i can think of 3 or 4 in the championship and lower that have rejected bigger clubs to stay loyal. What about the kid in the BSS that turned down a massive move to chelsea?!

I agree there are quite a few greedy players, but your comment about there being no loayalty in any player was rubbish

Nobody can stop a club offering a deal

"A club" is not a single, well run organisation. It consists of many individuals, all motivated by slightly different things. The most important ones in this example are the manager (who wants to win matches, so wants to sign the best players possible) and the chairman (who wants to bring in as much money as possible by spending as little as possible).

£500,000 a week is £26m a year. Sorry, but no player is going to bring in £26m every year in revenue for a club, so no chairman should be willing to pay that, especially given the new UEFA rules on financial fair play.

Cesc did, there was an entire show dedicated to this topic a few Mondays ago on 5Live, Motson name-checked him and added he was paid, as an incentive, not to move.

I didn't say there is "no loayalty in any player"(sic); I was generalising in reference to the comment made before mine. It is more noticeable at the top level, finding a one-club player is becoming harder to do, and this is primarily down to money...and agents.

Michael Owen recently did an interview in Sport magazine (free in London) saying club loyalty doesn't exist for most players, citing Alan Smith's move from Leeds to United as an example.

We all would have thought Rooney was loyal 4 weeks ago.

Michael Owen recently did an interview in Sport magazine (free in London) saying club loyalty doesn't exist for most players, citing Alan Smith's move from Leeds to United as an example.

I read that as "to Leeds United" and wondered what you were on about.

Smith was forced to join Manchester United by Leeds. Their offer was the only one they accepted. Smith had the choice between allowing his club to fold or join their bitter rivals. Similarly, Michael Owen had to choose between unemployment or joining Liverpool's bitter rivals (admittedly a long time after leaving the club).

I do agree that player loyalty at the top level is minimal, but then it has been for a long time. Forget Smith, what about McQueen? Moves like Sol Campbell's and William Gallas', or even Harry Redknapp's, would be better examples IMO.

Smith was forced to join Manchester United by Leeds. Their offer was the only one they accepted. Smith had the choice between allowing his club to fold or join their bitter rivals.

Really? I did not know this, it was made out as a complete Judas move...why didn't he say something about it at the time? or even now?

I do agree that player loyalty at the top level is minimal, but then it has been for a long time. Forget Smith, what about McQueen? Moves like Sol Campbell's and William Gallas', or even Harry Redknapp's, would be better examples IMO.

Yeah, there are many examples to use for this.

Really? I did not know this, it was made out as a complete Judas move...why didn't he say something about it at the time? or even now?

Yeah, there are many examples to use for this.

The Alan Smith move was one of the most publicised moves in the game at the time, how could you miss it?

You cant say you were just making a generalisation when you say "football is only a team game in as much as you are in the same coloured shirt these days."

anyway, regardless, as i said i agree that there are plenty of greedy players, but there are more then enough loyal players still in the game, maybe they should be the ones that the media focus on instead of the ones who just play for money.

No. Of course i didn't miss that transfer; but the reasons behind his move are not made clear, even on the BBC

"He signed an improved five-year contract in 1999 and agreed another one in 2001, but after Leeds' relegation he wanted to leave."

Yes. That's exactly why i can make a generalisation; football requires 11 players to be pulling in the same direction in order to achieve, all it takes is 1 or 2 not to be and you are no longer a fully functioning unit (Man City at the weekend is an example, Liverpool all season is another).

Peter Crouch recent move should cause a few people to be concerned about the future of football.