Do monthly transfer payments need altering?

Do you think that the monthly payments for transfers need altering, people call for realism on here but this is one of the most unrealistic things about FM. Monthly payments do happen in real life but not to the extent that they do on FM, for example if I get promoted and am given a £20 million budget for my Crewe side in the EPL I can spend £80 million with monthly payments, no board in their right mind would allow a team with a small stadium and a big chance of relegation to spend that kind of money.

I think that when you are given a budget that the board should say you can have a budget of £20 million but if you decide to use monthly payments you cannot exceed a total of £30 million. These figures are just examples of course, I manage Sunderland quite a bit and they lose a few million a month. They do have a high bank balance of £36 million at the start this leads to being given around £25 million in December. There is no chance in hell that Niall Quinn would allow a manager to spend £100 million over monthly payments.

So a simple question do you think that monthly payments for transfers are unrealistic and need changing?

I would prefer a budget that is based over X years.

For example, say I have a £40m budget and next year I am estimated to have £40m by the board (i.e. they calculate based on the future financial situation right now). I can sign 2 £20m players paying £20m up front, for example. However, the board also will allow me to sign 3 £15m players over 2 years.

My "2-year budget" is £40m + £40m = £80m. If I opt for the 3 players, I will have spent £15m x 3 = £45m of this two-year budget, leaving me with £80m - £45m = £35m for the two-year budget. So how much have I spent in one year? It's half! Half is paid this year, and half is paid next year. So my one-year transfer balance is my one-year budget, less half the expenditure of the 3 £15m players - 3 x £15m / 2 = £22.5m.

Case 1: Sign 2 £20m players

One-year budget: £40m

One-year expenses: £40m

One-year balance: £0

Two-year budget: £80m

Two-year expenses: £40m (I still spend £40m - just in the first year)

Two-year budget: £40m (i.e. the board's projected transfer budget for next year)

Case 2: Sign 3 £15m players

One-year budget: £40m

One-year expenses: 3 x £15m / 2 = £22.5m

One-year balance: £40m - £22.5m = £17.5m

Two-year budget: £80m

Two-year expenses: £45m (I spend £45m over two years)

Two-year budget: £35m (This makes sense - if I buy £45m of players right now, I will be in "transfer debt" to the tune of £5m. But since I spread the payments over 2 years, the board simply knocks it off my transfer budget next year)

----

In Case 2, it suggests that I have £17.5m remaining on my "one-year" transfer budget. So I can sign 3 £15m players (over 2 years) and one £17.5m player over one year. This might seem a little steep, because of the risks involved. What I suggest is that depending on your financial standing, the board may opt to say something like "OK, you can sign the 3 £15m players, but we will have to knock your budget next year down by £20m". Alternatively, it may only give you a reduced future budget, i.e. at a discount, even if the projected future budget is higher. For example, it may only give you £40m for year one, and £60m over two years (and £70m over three, and £75m over four). In this case, for Case 2, I can sign 4 £15m players over two years for year one (4 x £15m = £60m = £40m + £20m).

It is then important that future payments are discounted from the next budget. For example, if I sign 4 £15m players, the board must discount 4 x £15m / 2 = £30m from my transfer budget in year two. So if I indeed get a £40m budget next year, as projected, I can only sign one £10m player in year 2. However, if my season turns out to be rubbish and the board can only give me a transfer budget of £20m, it immediately knocks off the £30m needed to be paid, meaning I actually "owe the board" £10m! This makes sense - you took a gamble, and thankfully the board didn't give you the full £80m to work with (only a discounted £60m) - otherwise you would be £30m "in the red"! In the "owing £10m scenario", it means that the board will take your first £10m of transfer income.

So hold on a second - does this mean that if my transfer budget is essentially -£10m, I can't sign players? Ah, yes you can... Pay over several years! Take today's future budget and add it on. For example, say the board will give me £15m for year three (they are very wary). My future budget (year two plus year three) is then £20m + £15m = £35m. I immediately lose £30m because of the 4 £15m players I signed last year, giving me £5m - so I can spend £5m over two years. Harsh? Well, I spent £60m on players last year, and failed the board's expectations rather miserably - so of course the board are wary about my crazy spending.

In essence, in this scenario, the board are basically saying that they have no transfer money to give me up front right now, but are willing to stagger payments over two years (this makes sense). So you can have unusual scenarios.

For example, a team is tipped for promotion, meaning the board sanction lots of payments over one or two years (thanks to expected boosted television revenue as a result of promotion). So future budgets could actually be rather high, while your current budget is woeful. Of course, this means that if you do take the future budget, you must make sure you get promoted! If not, your future budget will be far too high compared with what actually happens, meaning you will be forced to cut your spending (or even make a net sell next year) - this sounds like a strong side being too enthusastic with its money, and ending up struggling financially when promotion doesn't happen.

In reverse, a side tipped for relegation may have a high current budget (television revenue) but a future budget that is only marginally higher than the current budget, reflecting the fact that there's a chance income will go down next year. So you can spend quite a bit now, but don't stagger payments over 4 years - who knows when the next promotion will come along? This sounds like a Premier League side spending too much money trying to stay up, and then realising there isn't much money after all (Hull City, Portsmouth).

This means that we need a feature that can predict our future budget, or at least how much in total will be deducted from transfers for the next 4 years. So if I want to spend £40m over 4 years on a player, I will see that the board will sanction £40m this year, £60m over 2 years, £70m over 3 and £75m over 4. I should be able to see that I will have £10m deducted from each budget over each year for this transfer, and can compare it to my various other confirmed transfers (say I will have £15m deducted next year from another transfer - so I actually lose £25m in year 2). From here, I get a rough idea of how much my transfer budget will be impacted and why the board are so wary about me doing this deal.

</braindump>

An alternative is that the board gives you, say, £80m over four years. This reflects the fact that if I get £40m this year, I probably won't get £40m next year, and £40m the year after, because future transfer budgets are dependent on how much I spend in previous years. For example, Manchester United get a budget of around £60m or something, I believe - but you are not going to get £60m next year if you spend £60m this year! So instead of giving the year breakdown (£40m-£60m-£70m-£75m), it gives me a budget of £80m and suggests I only spend around £20m this year. To prevent confusion, we could have a "yearly budget" for two transfer windows for £20m, but the board will not go ballistic if you marginally go over this limit. It will only prevent deals that will take spending above £80m - it will only throw warnings at you if you exceed £20m ("this may affect your future budget"). Your 4-year budget then becomes a moving window - if the club struggles, your 4-year budget goes down (£80m -> £60m, say), and if it does well, it goes up (£80m -> £90m, say).

This may be confusing, though, with this "window" idea.

You must have thought about this more than I have lol. Great reply, I think a predicted budget that would then control how much you can spend would be a great idea for future FM's.

I'm with you AcidBurn.I play a lot of network games with a few friends and even though we set a gentlemans agreement of not using this bug/exploit whatever you wish to call it,it never happens and i hate then looking at teams and seeing 3 or 4 players who are all valued at 40 milliion+ they have signed using monthly payments.I realise its only an exploit if you use it,but i'm for the realism and it should be toned down.we're only human .intrigued by the above post though.

I think the best way to stop the abuse of the 48 month purchases would be to force clubs to put aside at least 50% of the fee immediately. 25% of the fee over the second year. And what remains of the fee over the rest. Despite your payments being done over 48 months. The transfer budget would be affected in such a way.

Example:

Buying Sneijder for 40 million over 48 months

20 million gets removed out of your transfer budget imidiately.

10 million gets removed out of your transfer budget next season

5 million gets removed in the 3rd season

5 million gets removed in the 4th season

Note : you should also be able to pay off sums earlier than 48 month mark if you chose to.

But in your financial screen, your payments are being done over 48 months, its merely the club taking precaution to put funds aside to assure the payments go through. I assume many clubs learned their lesson watching Portsmouth go down the drain would be adapting such security measures.

Edit : though I do like x42bn6 idea. It would add more thinking and strategy over transfers.

I had no idea you could offer to pay in monthly payments and go beyond your transfer budget by doing this.

How long has it been like this? I thought if you went over your transfer budget, even when offering a monthly payment, the game would come up telling you that you didn't have the money. :confused:

I had no idea you could offer to pay in monthly payments and go beyond your transfer budget by doing this.

How long has it been like this? I thought if you went over your transfer budget, even when offering a monthly payment, the game would come up telling you that you didn't have the money. :confused:

What happens is that the money you will pay this year will be taken out of your budget, what you will pay next year gets taken out of next years budget and so on down the line until the transfer fee is paid off.

@AcidBurn, every single transfer I've heard of that was fully reported in the press has had a significant portion of the fee being a payments by instalments arrangement. I reckon all top level transfers (apart from fees) are carried out this way, not sure about at lower levels.

I agree with the OP, you should be restricted to spend for example 100% of the budget on immediate transfers, and then 30-40% more on monthly payments

I dont think they are unrealistic, but x42bn6 comes up with a great Idea. Over-reaching yourself with them has no effect in the short run (similar to realife), but it has a devastating effect in the long run if you cannot keep up the success to match the heavy payments. I did a "Leeds" with United using the system

Does anyone know when the annual payments are reflected against the transfer budget? When the new year budget is announced in June are the upcoming payments for the year deducted at that time?

@AcidBurn, every single transfer I've heard of that was fully reported in the press has had a significant portion of the fee being a payments by instalments arrangement. I reckon all top level transfers (apart from fees) are carried out this way, not sure about at lower levels.

I know they are common in real life at the top level and it is realistic to have them in the game. I should have been clearer in what I was saying what I want is a restriction on them. If Mark Hughes in real life is given a budget in real life of £5 million to spend in January plus what ever he makes in transfers and he sells Hangeland for £10 million, there is no way he would be allowed to go out and spend £60 million paying monthly.

Obviously it is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own but I am not sure how people can say it is not unrealistic. Another example would be if Newcastle sold Andy Carroll for £25 million to Man City would their board in real life allow them to go out and spend £100 million? No chance. Was David Moyes allowed to spend £100 million after selling Lescott a couple of seasons a go. Monthly payments allow unrealistic spending on FM there is no denying it. I realise it's just a game so maybe people would like to see a bit of realism sacrificed for enjoyment, at the end of the day in real life I doubt it is the managers job to negotiate transfers anyway.