Transfer system and contract exploits

I've noticed a number of exploits in transfer and contract systems that should be fixed:

1) When buying over 48 months you budget is only deccreased by (25%), it means you can spend way more and buy way more players than you should be able to. Also paying over 48 months does not seem to cost more when infact loan repayments would be significant on 40m over 4 years and cost of player should take this into account.

2) If you loan a player with a huge future fee, you can often then buy them for a lot less than the asking price of the player prior to being loaned.

3) You can easily negotiate shorter contracts with coaches you don't want and then terminate them for much less money.

There was one other exploit I noticed but forgot it now, if I remember will update the thread.

I've noticed a number of exploits in transfer and contract systems that should be fixed:

1) When buying over 48 months you budget is only deccreased by (25%), it means you can spend way more and buy way more players than you should be able to. Also paying over 48 months does not seem to cost more when infact loan repayments would be significant on 40m over 4 years and cost of player should take this into account.

2) If you loan a player with a huge future fee, you can often then buy them for a lot less than the asking price of the player prior to being loaned.

3) You can easily negotiate shorter contracts with coaches you don't want and then terminate them for much less money.

There was one other exploit I noticed but forgot it now, if I remember will update the thread.

Your 3rd point doesn't sound like an exploit mate... If I don't want a coach for long, giving him a short contract is my way of letting him know this...

I'm also not sure if the 2nd point is an exploit, but yes it is a sure fire way of getting a promising youngster on the cheap...

The 1st point would catch up to you in the long run if you buy enough people.

too many 4 year repayments and 3 years later when you need someone new you have no money because you are still paying for old players.

I've noticed a number of exploits in transfer and contract systems that should be fixed:

1) When buying over 48 months you budget is only deccreased by (25%), it means you can spend way more and buy way more players than you should be able to. Also paying over 48 months does not seem to cost more when infact loan repayments would be significant on 40m over 4 years and cost of player should take this into account.

I will explain why you are wrong in this case.

1) Its not a loan. You are not having to borrow any money because you are only paying a small amount each month, but it all comes directly out of your balance & transfer budget, not from a seperate loan.

2) It isn't an exploit as there is a downside to it, basically if you sign a lot of players like this then it will have a long term effect on your bank balance, constantly draining money out of it for a long time. Also, I believe that your transfer budget in the few seasons you are paying for the player will be reduced.

3) It can be a very high risk strategy as if you sign a lot of players like this and don't have success for the whole 4 years then you will really struggle and it will ruin your finances.

Having read the "48 month exploit" a lot on these forums, it makes me wonder if all these people posting are in serious financial trouble in real life.

Lolz, wonderred wen peeple wood work out you can do this in real life two! I got credit card last week, and I can bye as much as like and dont paye till later!

3) Well it is an exploit because employees would simply say no thanks to an offer of a poorer contract when they already have a better one.

2) Well sure except I can buy players that would cost me 45M for 10M instead just by first loaning then buying. The future fee yopu put on is not what you have to pay.

Point one is kind of and exploit with Man City though, Because you will get about a £80mil budget then buy players over 48 months allowing you to spend about 200 million every window and the Board will continuously clear any debt making it ridiculously easy. Probably the same with other sugar daddys.

Point 1: Portsmouth, and other clubs in trouble because they bought like there was no tomorrow.

Points 2 and 3 - yeh, they are unrealistic exploits.

With regard to point 1, a feature should be added where the board should stop you from carrying out transfers that are detrimental to the long-term well-being of the club, for instance spending £10m when you have a £2.5m budget and fairly tight cashflow already.

Points 2 and 3 sound like they need fixing.

Another exploit, probably will be fixed by next patch.

You can restart contract negotiations by adjusting your budget. So if you know a certain agent allows only five turns, you can adjust your transfer/wage budget after the fourth turn to start the cycle again. But this time, you'll have a better idea on what's acceptable.

With regard to point 1, a feature should be added where the board should stop you from carrying out transfers that are detrimental to the long-term well-being of the club, for instance spending £10m when you have a £2.5m budget and fairly tight cashflow already.

Allow me to repeat: PORTSMOUTH!!!!!!!!

Allow me to repeat: PORTSMOUTH!!!!!!!!

i was going to say, why would there be a rule that stops you finacially runing a club, look how many clubs are now in crisis because they have overspent, if we are going for realism then this should not be removed from the game.

Lolz, wonderred wen peeple wood work out you can do this in real life two! I got credit card last week, and I can bye as much as like and dont paye till later!

Some of the people who play the game and spend so much that they send their clubs into debt make me think whether they like to spend like that IRL..

I personally buy players like I do IRL, within the budget and looking for bargains (or clearance sales IRL ). I occasionally go over my budget if I really want it or it's really worth it.

I think the 48 months thing is an exploit and the board should give you two budgets one for up front payments and one if you spend over 48 months. In my opinion it can bring around unrealistic spending, sure it is up to the user but people want this game to be realistic don't they? I play as Sunderland and in November time the board raise the budget to around £25 million I also sold a further £15 million worth of players. In real life there is no chance in hell that the chairman would allow a manager of a team like Sunderland to spend £160 million on players.

Portsmouth are an example but the game takes that and makes it an even bigger extreme. If you play as Fulham and sell Hangeland for £15 million you can then combine that with the £5 million you already have and spend £80 million in one window. Portsmouth in real life was due to having a bad chairman, maybe the transfer budget for monthly payments can be based on the chairmans business stat.

I think the 48 months thing is an exploit and the board should give you two budgets one for up front payments and one if you spend over 48 months. In my opinion it can bring around unrealistic spending, sure it is up to the user but people want this game to be realistic don't they? I play as Sunderland and in November time the board raise the budget to around £25 million I also sold a further £15 million worth of players. In real life there is no chance in hell that the chairman would allow a manager of a team like Sunderland to spend £160 million on players.

Portsmouth are an example but the game takes that and makes it an even bigger extreme. If you play as Fulham and sell Hangeland for £15 million you can then combine that with the £5 million you already have and spend £80 million in one window. Portsmouth in real life was due to having a bad chairman, maybe the transfer budget for monthly payments can be based on the chairmans business stat.

for a club that averages around 20,00 fans through the door to spend the money they did would equate to the spending you can do with a sunderland who take it easily twice as many fans a week. Crouch for over 10m, diara for around the same, never mind the huge wages they were paying.

Remember you can spend that 80m, BUT it will catch up with you unless you have massive success and are generating huge amounts of prize money. You will not be able to spend 80m each season forever.

I know it will catch up eventually but I feel it is unrealistic to be able to spend that money in the first place. There is no way that Niall Quinn would allow a manager to spend over £100 million in January at a club like Sunderland.

I know it will catch up eventually but I feel it is unrealistic to be able to spend that money in the first place. There is no way that Niall Quinn would allow a manager to spend over £100 million in January at a club like Sunderland.

I do actually agree to a point but we have seen chairman massivly overspending in recent years only for it to come back and majorly bite them in the ass, ie pompy or up here dundee. You would have thought there was no way a chairman would allow a division one club to outspend every team in scotland bar celtic, but they did and now they are ruined.

You can chase the dream but if you dont get there you will run the club into finacial ruin.

Does no one here know about a club called Pompey.

I think Leeds are still paying for Harry Kewell

i was going to say, why would there be a rule that stops you finacially runing a club, look how many clubs are now in crisis because they have overspent, if we are going for realism then this should not be removed from the game.

Portsmouth suffered from overambitious and incompetent owners. A less incompetent board should block you from ruining the club. Chairmen in game do have stats that can be used to work out how competent they are.

1) When buying over 48 months you budget is only deccreased by (25%), it means you can spend way more and buy way more players than you should be able to. Also paying over 48 months does not seem to cost more when infact loan repayments would be significant on 40m over 4 years and cost of player should take this into account.

Not really great business practice there. If you do that multiple times based on the misapprehension that your "saving money", in the future all those players will be coming out of contract at about the same time you are still paying for the transfer. So, with signing on fees, agent fees, etc.. your club will be getting hit with multiple debits at once. And whilst the transfer budget is shown as a partially separate entity, it is in fact very much linked to your overall finances. I can see financial ruin for your club in the future.

It is a gamble the 48 months payment but it can also be used as an exploit.

If you are in say the Championship and basically spend 5 times your transfer kitty on new players and win promotion then the gamble has almost paid off,once the <whisper it>transfer system is sorted or tweaked you can then sell those players you bought for around the same value or in most cases a bit more,which in turn boast's your transfer kitty for that year,then as long as you control how you use the "exploit" your club will be secure with the Premiership money.

I think it is an exploit but 1 that takes a bit of work and thinking to make it work,going every year and doing the same thing for every player you buy could spell big trouble for your club but used properly could have you with some great players and a wealthy balance.

Absolutely not an exploit. The "gamble" you have just described has been tried by many and failed often - see Leeds and Pompey in real life. Tell the fans of those clubs its an exploit...

What happens if you offer £0 for a player and then £30m after 50 league games, then sell them after 49 games? Would you still have to pay the £30m after their first game for a new club?

What happens if you offer £0 for a player and then £30m after 50 league games, then sell them after 49 games? Would you still have to pay the £30m after their first game for a new club?

No. But I doubt any club would accept the deal anyway.

Absolutely not an exploit. The "gamble" you have just described has been tried by many and failed often - see Leeds and Pompey in real life. Tell the fans of those clubs its an exploit...

I do not remember Pompy or Leeds using this "exploit" from the Championship and using the "exploit"to there advantage to get into the Premiership and build from there.

Apple's and Orange's.

edit-This is what I did say in my original post that you chose to ignore with regards to the "exploit"