Why is complete wage control within budget not in the game?

The title might be a bit confusing, I have the chance to sign a top striker for my team I am 450k a week under my wage budget. The guy wants 250k a week after several different attempts I can get him down to 155k a week however I can only offer 135k despite being nearly half a million a week under my budget. Why can't I have the option to offer whatever I want that is under my budget, I know people might not agree but I should be able to offer him 445k a week if I wanted to as I would still be under budget.

This has happened with lower clubs as well despite being 75k under my 125k a week budget I cannot offer the player more than 12k a week. It just doesn't seem right to me.

look at the players role on the team - is he set to backup or rotation? up his importance to a first team or indespensable player and the board will allow you to offer more. the board doesnt want you spending top wages on a backup player.

Wage structures do exist at most clubs along with budget control. Overpaying someone massively may not seem like a big issue at first glance but it's going to set a precedent and can very easily set off a snowball effect which no club owners want to see - unless they're filthy rich oil barons who will pay whatever it takes to attract players who would otherwise have no interest in joining their club.

It is set to key player and this issue happened on FM10 for me as Liverpool, I got taken over by a tycoon who placed £150 million into the clubs balance upped all the facilities. He gave me a wage budget of £2.7 million a week so I went after Leo Messi despite being able to offer £120 million I could offer him 215k a week and he wanted 235k a week. There should at least be an option to approach the board about allowing more for individual players. Seems backwards to me that the board are fine with me offer a 16 year old 215k a week but are not fine with me wanting to offer the best player on the planet 235k a week.

I think this should be like control over feeder clubs- you can do it if you have the absolute trust of the board.

That would be a good idea there should maybe some sort of reputation based offers, I mean you should not be able to go sign Calvin Zola on a 5 year 300k a week contract.

I agree, I'm in the Premier League with Leeds in 2012, trying to sign good players, under my budget but still can't offer over £30k on a key player.

Should be changed as long as you've got the budget to do so.

I think this should be like control over feeder clubs- you can do it if you have the absolute trust of the board.

Maybe you should be allowed to ask the board to sanction the deal? So they can say "no, Reina is not that good a player, and we could find just as good for cheaper", "I'm sorry, but paying one player that much would have an adverse effect on the squad", "we're sorry but unfortunately it is too big a risk" or "sure, we trust your judgement completely", "yes, Messi would considerably improve our squad and he is one of the best in the world."

Depending on a number of factors, including the board's trust in you.

I agree, I'm in the Premier League with Leeds in 2012, trying to sign good players, under my budget but still can't offer over £30k on a key player.

Should be changed as long as you've got the budget to do so.

Yes this is a hiderence when moving up through the divisions, but the wages do gradually go up. Its not like Blackpool are going to offer renewals or incoming players huge contracts in their first season in the prem is it? Granted down the line, as long as they have consolidated in the league and achive respectable positions their allowences will go up. Else they will end up doing a Hull City.

As to the Messi/Liverpool related thing, I think the snowball effect mentioned is a good response. Look at Man City, because they are farming players, offering huge contracts to sub-standard players, the supposed 'superstars' are demanding audacious contracts to join/stay, mentioning no names....