PDA

View Full Version : Minimum Wage



Tubey84
22-12-2010, 10:08
I'm Everton at the moment, and I've just offered 17-year-old Abe Donzo a pro contract for a laugh more than anything.

Anyhoo, he signed a full time professional contract on 95 per week, a three year contract.

The minimum wage in England as we speak for a 17 year old is 3.64 an hour, but this contract will extend till he is a 20 year old, where the minimum wage would be 4.92. Theoretically I could have offered him a five year deal, meaning he'd be on 95 a week full time when the minimum wage is 5.93 for a 21 year-old or older person.

So unless I'm missing something obvious (like there's a top up wage that's invisible in the game or something), should the game be allowing slave labour wages for professional footballers? ^^

Maybe the leagues in the game need to have these limits imposed on them? I understand the need for the option to offer 5 a week in South Africa etc. but perhaps if you're managing in England a limitation can be applied.

Bit of background reading...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4898392.stm - Survey Reveals Footballer Wages

League Two players earn an average of 50'000 a year in 2006, which is about 1'000 per week!

Maidel
22-12-2010, 10:13
Yes, but that all assumes he is working a full standard week of 8 hours a day. Footballers don't do that they tend to have half day training sessions and then the academy players goboff and have school work. Therefore he won't be braking them minimum wage as his contracted working hours would be something like 25 a week.

edgar555
22-12-2010, 10:13
There are some exemptions to minimum wage, apprenticeships and other similar schemes so perhaps 'youth' contracts fall under that. Also you will note that in your wage budget it should show you a 'youth allowance' amount, this could be that invisible top up you mention. I don't know the answer but these 2 could well have some bearing.

Ditmar van Nostrilboy
22-12-2010, 10:13
Technically you're wrong I'm afraid. There is a clause which allows apprentices to be paid 2.50 an hour, so if they're considered to be apprentices then there's nothing illegal.

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 10:17
I'm still pretty certain that a 21 year old footballer in the Premier League shouldn't be on a full time professional contract of 50 per week, 200 per month, 2'400 per year, as is now the case with my 17 year old youth team goalkeeper Connor Roberts on a five-year deal!!!

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 10:19
There are some exemptions to minimum wage, apprenticeships and other similar schemes so perhaps 'youth' contracts fall under that. Also you will note that in your wage budget it should show you a 'youth allowance' amount, this could be that invisible top up you mention. I don't know the answer but these 2 could well have some bearing.

The Youth Grant is a flat bonus into the clubs coffers. At Everton, that's just 700 per week for the entire squad. So I don't think it's that...

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 10:21
Technically you're wrong I'm afraid. There is a clause which allows apprentices to be paid 2.50 an hour, so if they're considered to be apprentices then there's nothing illegal.

It's a standard, full-time professional footballers contract, identical to one you'd offer Lionel Messi. I'm allowing the possibility of some sort of youth top-up just based on the players age, but that's being generous given that these players can be as old as 22 when the contract ends if offered a five-year deal.

LUFC Barmy Army
22-12-2010, 10:31
It is a very good point well made. And an interesting one! A response from SI would be good, to see if they can give us a reason!

Maidel
22-12-2010, 10:33
Yea, sorry - the correct answer is the one I gave in the second post.

I used to work for an estate agent that 'technically' broke EU rules on maximum employment hours. I was working 65+ hour weeks, but my contract said 42 hours. On top of that my basic wage was minimum wage for a 42 hour week, but WAY less than minimum wage for a 65 hour week (obviously as they couldnt actually admit I would be working those hours...)

Basically, the contract he signed will say he works for X hours a week, which would put it into the minimum wage category. Any extra time he spent at the football ground would be considered his own 'personal' time. Basically, football clubs give you X for Y hours work, but then expect you to spend twice as much time in personal training that you arent paid for.

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 10:35
Yea, sorry - the correct answer is the one I gave in the second post.

I used to work for an estate agent that 'technically' broke EU rules on maximum employment hours. I was working 65+ hour weeks, but my contract said 42 hours. On top of that my basic wage was minimum wage for a 42 hour week, but WAY less than minimum wage for a 65 hour week (obviously as they couldnt actually admit I would be working those hours...)

Basically, the contract he signed will say he works for X hours a week, which would put it into the minimum wage category. Any extra time he spent at the football ground would be considered his own 'personal' time. Basically, football clubs give you X for Y hours work, but then expect you to spend twice as much time in personal training that you arent paid for.

I do understand that, but realistically should a professional footballer on a full time professional contract in the top tier of English football, aged 22, be on a contract of 50 per week, regardless of all the above ^^

Maidel
22-12-2010, 10:37
I do understand that, but realistically should a professional footballer on a full time professional contract in the top tier of English football, aged 22, be on a contract of 50 per week, regardless of all the above ^^

Yes, if they are only 'working' say 10 hours a week, which is not unrealistic as that would be 5, 2 hour training sessions each week with the 'match' being played on his own time as he doesnt actually HAVE to play in the match, thats his choice. Employers can really shaft you if they know they have more power than you. Its only when you are a superstar that you can start demanding.

edgar555
22-12-2010, 10:41
Maidel, I hear what you are saying but lets be realistic here, and that amount per week is not realistic. Your reasoning is sound, but it just ain't right. Tubey's figure of about a grand a week in league 2 is bang on, thats the average! If there are loads of kids earning 50p/w then there would need to be some huge earners in L2 to bring that average up and that just isn't the case.

Maidel
22-12-2010, 10:46
Maidel, I hear what you are saying but lets be realistic here, and that amount per week is not realistic. Your reasoning is sound, but it just ain't right. Tubey's figure of about a grand a week in league 2 is bang on, thats the average! If there are loads of kids earning 50p/w then there would need to be some huge earners in L2 to bring that average up and that just isn't the case.

Yea, sorry - no. The BBC article specifically states - (* Average figure takes into account players aged over 20). Therefore it dont matter what the 'kids' are earning because they dont compute in that average.

edgar555
22-12-2010, 10:47
Yea, sorry - no. The BBC article specifically states - (* Average figure takes into account players aged over 20). Therefore it dont matter what the 'kids' are earning because they dont compute in that average.

ah, didn't see that. I stand corrected on the fine details, still don't agree that this 50pw is right.

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 10:49
Yea, sorry - no. The BBC article specifically states - (* Average figure takes into account players aged over 20). Therefore it dont matter what the 'kids' are earning because they dont compute in that average.

I'm stating a five year contract starting at the age of 17, which would end when the player was 22, meaning at age 22 the player is earning 50 a week. In the Premier League.

You're technically right in that technically a player can be offered that amount of money, but realistically all sane reason suggests that you should not be able to offer a five year contract of 50 a week to a top level professional footballer in England!

Maidel
22-12-2010, 10:52
ah, didn't see that. I stand corrected.

Thats alright. For me this would be an issue if EVERY young player was on a really low long term contract, but from what ive seen, they arent and thus its, for me, not an issue. If I could sign hot prospect youngsters on 55 a week then there would be an issue with this, as it is, I struggle to sign any player on less than 5500 a week (as arsenal).

Also, from that article the other thing to take into consideration is those sums are 'total earnings'. Thus league 2 players do not average salarys of 1000 a week, more like 800 a week + bonuses, with many of those bonuses paid out at the completion of the season based on team performance, which makes quite a big difference when we are talking about weekly wages.

Maidel
22-12-2010, 10:54
all sane reason suggests that you should not be able to offer a five year contract of 50 a week to a top level professional footballer in England!

sorry, where did this 'top level proffessional' come from - I thought he was a 17 year old?

If he turns out to be a 'top proffessional' Im pretty certain that by age 19 he will be kicking and screaming for a new contract, but my thoughts on his accepting that contract is that he has absolutely no confidence in his own ability and is thinking himself lucky for whatever he gets.


PS - just a thought, I didnt think you could offer more than 3 year contracts to under 18s?

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 10:56
Thats alright. For me this would be an issue if EVERY young player was on a really low long term contract, but from what ive seen, they arent and thus its, for me, not an issue. If I could sign hot prospect youngsters on 55 a week then there would be an issue with this, as it is, I struggle to sign any player on less than 5500 a week (as arsenal).

Also, from that article the other thing to take into consideration is those sums are 'total earnings'. Thus league 2 players do not average salarys of 1000 a week, more like 800 a week + bonuses, with many of those bonuses paid out at the completion of the season based on team performance, which makes quite a big difference when we are talking about weekly wages.

No, no, no!

I'm not talking about signing players, I'm talking about players that come through your own academy. And I'm not saying they're all on the wage I'm talking about, but I am saying it's possible to offer such a mental contract and have the offer accepted. I'm just saying that the actual ability to offer such an insane contract shouldn't be in the game.

In fact, in theory, it's possible to offer a full time professional footballer a 1 per week contract!

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 10:59
sorry, where did this 'top level proffessional' come from - I thought he was a 17 year old?

If he turns out to be a 'top proffessional' Im pretty certain that by age 19 he will be kicking and screaming for a new contract, but my thoughts on his accepting that contract is that he has absolutely no confidence in his own ability and is thinking himself lucky for whatever he gets.


PS - just a thought, I didnt think you could offer more than 3 year contracts to under 18s?

You're right actually, I can only offer a max of a 3 year contract to a 17 year old. So he'd be 20 when it expired.

Even so, I mean "top level professional" in the sense it's a Premier League club, he's of legal age to be professional employed and is signing an identical contract to any other pro footballer at the club.

I just can't believe that there's any footballer in any of the top three divisions in England that even come close to being on a full-time professional contract of 50 a week, so I don't think the ability to offer that kind of wage should be in the game.

Maidel
22-12-2010, 10:59
In fact, in theory, it's possible to offer a full time professional footballer a 1 per week contract!

You can offer it - they dont have to accept it...

I will come back to my estate agency example. Foxtons offer people the choice of two contracts. Salaried where the agent takes home 9K a year + 10% of sales OR unsalaried, but they take home 15% of anything that they sell. The second set of people are working for no fixed income, but this does not break employment law (I'm not sure how, but it doesnt).

Therefore you can offer a player 1 a week if you want to - if he takes it, the game is broken.

Maidel
22-12-2010, 11:01
I just can't believe that there's any footballer in any of the top three divisions in England that even come close to being on a full-time professional contract of 50 a week, so I don't think the ability to offer that kind of wage should be in the game.

Erm. have you looked at most of the under 18 squads at the begining of the game? Most of the 17 year olds are on 55 a month (unless they are one of the rising stars when they are on 1000+)

dafuge
22-12-2010, 11:01
I've seen a few players ask for deals like that, but they usually have a clause where their wage increases after they have made a certain number of appearances.

It certainly doesn't sound like a typical Premier League contract, is he a Premier League standard player?

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 11:05
I've seen a few players ask for deals like that, but they usually have a clause where their wage increases after they have made a certain number of appearances.

It certainly doesn't sound like a typical Premier League contract, is he a Premier League standard player?

Nah he ain't a Premier League standard player, but he's legitimately in the Everton youth academy in the database.

That ain't the point though - should the ability to even offer that sort of contract be available, never mind have it accepted!


Erm. have you looked at most of the under 18 squads at the begining of the game? Most of the 17 year olds are on 55 a week

Fixed for ya ;)

And yeah, I know. They are youth contracts. I'm talking about full-time professional contracts once the player turns 17.

dafuge
22-12-2010, 11:09
Nah he ain't a Premier League standard player, but he's legitimately in the Everton youth academy in the database.

That ain't the point though - should the ability to even offer that sort of contract be available, never mind have it accepted!




Like you've said though, there are circumstances where a wage of that size would be appropriate. Would this player fit in better in one of those sorts of leagues?

Maidel
22-12-2010, 11:09
Fixed for ya ;)

And yeah, I know. They are youth contracts. I'm talking about full-time professional contracts once the player turns 17.

DOH!!

In answer to the second bit, I dont know - im not sure 'legally' what the difference between a 3 year youth contract signed at 16 (which takes you up to 19) and say a 3 your proffesional contract signed at 17. Both end before you are 21 and wages are forced up, both would be earning the same amount aged 17, 18 and 19 (one would have been earning it the year before as well, but the wage would be the same at 17) therefore I cant see why if you can be earning 50 at 17 having signed a contract at 16, you couldnt sign the same contract at 17, so long as you didnt break the 21 year old barrier.

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 11:18
Like you've said though, there are circumstances where a wage of that size would be appropriate. Would this player fit in better in one of those sorts of leagues?

Probably, but this isn't a regen - he's a legitimate Everton footballer who turns 17 in the first season of the game and is eligible for a professional contract.

Similarly, Connor Roberts is a legitimate Everton goalkeeper who is already 17 and is eligible for a professional contract, and accepts 50 a week :P

I have no stats to back this up, but to be paid 50 per week as a footballer you'd have to be a part timer in the Isthmian league or something, working a second job.



DOH!!

In answer to the second bit, I dont know - im not sure 'legally' what the difference between a 3 year youth contract signed at 16 (which takes you up to 19) and say a 3 your proffesional contract signed at 17. Both end before you are 21 and wages are forced up, both would be earning the same amount aged 17, 18 and 19 (one would have been earning it the year before as well, but the wage would be the same at 17) therefore I cant see why if you can be earning 50 at 17 having signed a contract at 16, you couldnt sign the same contract at 17, so long as you didnt break the 21 year old barrier.


You're technically right - not arguing that. But I'm just talking about realism - in reality, there is no way on earth a footballer would be offered a full time professional contract worth 50 a week by a Premier League club. Scrap that, I'm pretty confident there's no way a League Two club would offer a full-time contract of 50 per week to a footballer.

Regardless of whether it gets accepted or not (which amazingly it does!), should the ability to even offer the contract in the first place be in the game? I'd understand the 1 per week and above feature for when you're managing in the third world but this is England!!!

Maidel
22-12-2010, 11:48
You're technically right - not arguing that. But I'm just talking about realism - in reality, there is no way on earth a footballer would be offered a full time professional contract worth 50 a week by a Premier League club. Scrap that, I'm pretty confident there's no way a League Two club would offer a full-time contract of 50 per week to a footballer.

Regardless of whether it gets accepted or not (which amazingly it does!), should the ability to even offer the contract in the first place be in the game? I'd understand the 1 per week and above feature for when you're managing in the third world but this is England!!!

Realistically? Realistically 1000s of people would PAY for the chance at 17 to play for Everton. Especially if they KNEW they werent very good. Sure, its crap contract now - but they arent thinking about now - they are thinking about being on a bigger stage and getting a chance at a big break.

Its just like senior pros going to lower teams (EG portsmouth) to entice them to go there you need to offer them big wages, bigger than if for example Man united offered them a job. Why? well because they arent going to win anything and their chances of being noticed for internationals is going to be lower and they wont 'look' as good playing in a bad team.

Equally for young players you are FAR more likely to accept 50 a week to stay at Everton when you can live with your parents still and still have the CHANCE of being a premiership player than taking a contract with say telford united for 200 a week when you would have to move, pay rent and know that it was as good as you were likely to get for the rest of your career.

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 11:54
Realistically? Realistically 1000s of people would PAY for the chance at 17 to play for Everton. Especially if they KNEW they werent very good. Sure, its crap contract now - but they arent thinking about now - they are thinking about being on a bigger stage and getting a chance at a big break.

Its just like senior pros going to lower teams (EG portsmouth) to entice them to go there you need to offer them big wages, bigger than if for example Man united offered them a job. Why? well because they arent going to win anything and their chances of being noticed for internationals is going to be lower and they wont 'look' as good playing in a bad team.

Equally for young players you are FAR more likely to accept 50 a week to stay at Everton when you can live with your parents still and still have the CHANCE of being a premiership player than taking a contract with say telford united for 200 a week when you would have to move, pay rent and know that it was as good as you were likely to get for the rest of your career.

Again, completely agree, but that's not how it plays out in real life when we're talking about a full time contract.

I completely agree that a youth player would take 50 a week over 200 a week working as a shop floor assistant at Iceland.

And yes, a youth player would even accept the offer of a 50 a week full time contract if offered by the club, out of desperation to play for the team.

Indeed, most 17-year-olds WOULD pay to play for Everton if that was an option!

But that's not what I'm talking about!

My point is, the club would never actually offer just 50 a week on a professional full-time contract! It's completely beyond the realms of plausability!

Maidel
22-12-2010, 12:06
My point is, the club would never actually offer just 50 a week on a professional full-time contract! It's completely beyond the realms of plausability!

Really?

I thought that football clubs were businesses? I thought they were there to make money?

I you owned a business and you KNEW someone was utterly despirate to work for you and would do anything for that privilage (and you were a bit of an evil hearted *******...) would you not also offer as little as possible?

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 12:10
Really?

I thought that football clubs were businesses? I thought they were there to make money?

I you owned a business and you KNEW someone was utterly despirate to work for you and would do anything for that privilage (and you were a bit of an evil hearted *******...) would you not also offer as little as possible?

Technically, yes. Realistically, as a Premier League football club offering a full time professional contract to an onfield employee, no. :)

I'm not disagreeing with you on technical grounds, where you are absolutely right. In theory you're spot on. I'm just saying, in actual practice, there's no way, ever, a Premier League football club would offer a pro contract of 50 a week to a player.

edgar555
22-12-2010, 12:12
They wouldn't do it mainly because it would cost their rivals peanuts to steal him away.

Maidel
22-12-2010, 12:14
I'm just saying, in actual practice, there's no way, ever, a Premier League football club would offer a pro contract of 50 a week to a player.

Actually - im calling you on that - proof is required because you cant just throw around absolutes wiithout any form of back up.

Is it likely - no, not very likely.

Is it possible - well, until proven otherwise, yes, its possible.

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 12:14
They wouldn't do it mainly because it would cost their rivals peanuts to steal him away.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2634771/2/istockphoto_2634771-hitting-a-nail-on-the-head.jpg

dafuge
22-12-2010, 12:16
I'm just saying, in actual practice, there's no way, ever, a Premier League football club would offer a pro contract of 50 a week to a player.

Probably because the sorts of players that would accept a contract like that wouldn't be good enough for them. Was that the case with your player?

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 12:16
Actually - im calling you on that - proof is required because you cant just throw around absolutes wiithout any form of back up.

Is it likely - no, not very likely.

Is it possible - well, until proven otherwise, yes, its possible.

But how can I possibly provide proof if it'd never actually happen?

It's like I'm saying "naturally occurring rain that tastes of Ben and Jerrys Phish Food Ice Cream will never happen", then asking me for proof that it won't xD


Probably because the sorts of players that would accept a contract like that wouldn't be good enough for them. Was that the case with your player?

I'm not understanding why the quality of the player in question is relevant.

In the instance I'm talking about here, both players aren't regens and in real life are current Everton Football Club youth players, so the club deem them to have the potential to possibly do a job for the club at some point.

Maidel
22-12-2010, 12:17
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2634771/2/istockphoto_2634771-hitting-a-nail-on-the-head.jpg

If he is on a full time contract, not a youth contract, then the other club is forced to negotiate with you like any other player, so unfortunately that doesnt hold any water.

Maidel
22-12-2010, 12:18
It's like I'm saying "naturally occurring rain that tastes of Ben and Jerrys Phish Food Ice Cream will never happen", then asking me for proof that it won't xD

Sorry again - because I can prove that cant naturally occur by explaining the physics of evaporation.

Please try again :)

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 12:23
Sorry again - because I can prove that cant naturally occur by explaining the physics of evaporation.

Please try again :)

Yep, but then you can't prove the physics of evaporation as it's a man made theory. I could disprove evaporation and claim it's caused by angels crying over spilt milk. Then you'd have to counter-argue that, and I'd come up with another equally ridiculous counter-arguement, and we'd go around the world pedantically arguing about theory after theory until we died of old age (a phenomenon which, depending on who you listen to, is either a natural occurrence that happens when a human life expires, or is caused by an ancient warhorse called Nairobi who kills one person at random every time he stomps his hoof, which is made of aged Edam cheese).

See how ridiculous this can get? xD

Anyway, SI, any chance of limiting the ability to offer 1 a week pro contract? ^^

dafuge
22-12-2010, 12:28
I'm not understanding why the quality of the player in question is relevant.




The better the player is, the more likely they are to want a bigger contract. I may be wrong here but I'm guessing this kid isn't anywhere near good enough for your team, which is why he accepted such a pathetic contract. I'm guessing in real life this is the sort of player that would be released after his youth contract rather than signed on a pro deal, which I believe happens a lot with youth players at Premier League clubs.

Maidel
22-12-2010, 12:29
Yep, but then you can't prove the physics of evaporation as it's a man made theory. I could disprove evaporation and claim it's caused by angels crying over spilt milk. Then you'd have to counter-argue that, and I'd come up with another equally ridiculous counter-arguement, and we'd go around the world pedantically arguing about theory after theory until we died of old age (a phenomenon which, depending on who you listen to, is either a natural occurrence that happens when a human life expires, or is caused by an ancient warhorse called Nairobi who kills one person at random every time he stomps his hoof, which is made of aged Edam cheese).

See how ridiculous this can get? xD

Anyway, SI, any chance of limiting the ability to offer 1 a week pro contract? ^^

Sorry - I think by any normal defintion of 'proof' I can prove evaporation exists - if you want to be silly about it then you can, but I was trying to have a reasonable discussion.

There is nothing wrong with being able to offer a 1 a week contract - IF lots of players start accepting it, then thats an issue. Quite a few injury prone senior players in real life have been on 0 a week contracts, its call pay as you play deals. If you can get a player to accept a 1 a week contract with no siging on fee and no bonuses then you will totally win the arguement. But you wont be able to.

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 12:40
Alright, I'll start from scratch.

There's a 17 year old kid in a youth academy in England, at a Premier League club. He's not the best in the world, but he's in the youth academy after passing trials, a club scout has seen him play and he's in the system legitimately.

He's on a real youth contract in the Under 18's. The aim of the Under 18's is to produce players good enough to gain a full time contract with the club.

Now...

The club decides to offer this player a full time contract. A full time contract, remember, indicates the player is good enough to be in and around the actual first team squad (including the reserves).

The club then offers 50 a week for this player to sign a full time contract.




If that has ever happened, I'll eat my house.


All I'm saying here is, given FM2011 is a football simulation that tries to emulate reality, the mere ability for a manager to offer a full-time professional contract of 50 per week whilst managing a top club in one of the worlds top leagues is wildly unrealistic. The player may accept it as he's desperate to simply have any sort of full time contract, but in reality the offer would never have been made in the first place because of the following reasons:

A) If the player warranted a professional contract at the top club in the Premier League, he'd be poached by any number of other clubs who'd be prepared to offer him a lot more than 50 per week! Therefore the club would have to offer competitive terms.
B) If the player WASN'T good enough for the club, then the club would never offer him a pro contract in the first place.

Can't put it clearer than that.

dafuge
22-12-2010, 12:52
I agree with what you are saying, it is unrealistic for PL clubs to sign on sub standard players on tiny pro contracts. This doesn't happen, instead they join the huge list of players who are released at the end of their youth contract which is why things like the Glenn Hoddle academy have been set up.

If the AI was regularly retaining sub standard players at PL clubs then there might be a problem, but I don't think there is anything wrong with giving us the chance to offer these sorts of contracts as we are able to see that there just isn't much point in signing these players.

Maidel
22-12-2010, 12:55
Im sorry - im starting to see some inconsistances with your posts that lead me to believe that you are altering the facts to suit your own arguement:


I'm Everton at the moment, and I've just offered 17-year-old Abe Donzo a pro contract for a laugh more than anything.

There you say that YOU offered him the contract, not the club.


The club decides to offer this player a full time contract. A full time contract, remember, indicates the player is good enough to be in and around the actual first team squad (including the reserves).

Here you say the club offer the contract.


as is now the case with my 17 year old youth team goalkeeper Connor Roberts on a five-year deal!!!

There you say the club offer a 5 year deal, which we know isnt possible for an under 18 player.

What I think you need to do is show us some screen shots of BOTH players contract pages, explain whether you, or the assistant manager is responsible for offering contracts to these players.

Then we can see what bonuses (if any) that the players have been given.

Also - if you can, provide the players PA via fmrte - that way we can see once and for all if the player is remotely good enough for everton or not.

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 13:02
I agree with what you are saying, it is unrealistic for PL clubs to sign on sub standard players on tiny pro contracts. This doesn't happen, instead they join the huge list of players who are released at the end of their youth contract which is why things like the Glenn Hoddle academy have been set up.

If the AI was regularly retaining sub standard players at PL clubs then there might be a problem, but I don't think there is anything wrong with giving us the chance to offer these sorts of contracts as we are able to see that there just isn't much point in signing these players.

Connor Roberts, goalkeeper. I managed to get a defender to sign a 40 per week contract too. There's a fair few you can do it with. Obviously, when you start dealing with Ross Barkley or Jose Baxter or whoever, you pay the "proper" wages as they're worth the full-time professional contract.

It's not a gamebreaker in any way of course, I'm just flagging it for the sake of realism. For example, I go to player search, unattached, pick the worst teenage free agent I can find, try to offer him a contract and he's requesting 425 per week, which is what I'd expect. Yet because my current youth players are in my Under 18's and already at the club, they're accepting 40-90 a week despite being generally better than the random player asking for the 425.

Maidel:

In relation to FM, the manager and the club are the same thing. In reality, the manager doesn't deal with contracts. The fact you're trying to score points on that is actually confusing.

And the five/three year contract mistake I made was because I just maxxed out the contract until the arrow went grey and assumed it was five years. Turned out to be three, makes no difference whatsoever to the discussion.

I don't get what you're so upset about. I've said repeatedly you're technically right, but it's clear that in practice it can't happen.

Search the names Abe Donzo and Connor Roberts on your own game if you want to look at the players!!!

dafuge
22-12-2010, 13:13
Are these players useful signings, or are you just signing them to see how cheap you can get someone?

Maidel
22-12-2010, 13:19
Connor Roberts, goalkeeper. I managed to get a defender to sign a 40 per week contract too. There's a fair few you can do it with. Obviously, when you start dealing with Ross Barkley or Jose Baxter or whoever, you pay the "proper" wages as they're worth the full-time professional contract.

It's not a gamebreaker in any way of course, I'm just flagging it for the sake of realism. For example, I go to player search, unattached, pick the worst teenage free agent I can find, try to offer him a contract and he's requesting 425 per week, which is what I'd expect. Yet because my current youth players are in my Under 18's and already at the club, they're accepting 40-90 a week despite being generally better than the random player asking for the 425.


SPOILER ALERT!!!

Conner Roberts has a PA of -6 meaning that he has a pa of 90-120 meaning that the chances are in your game hes got a sub 100 PA - therefore this means hes not even remotely good enough for everton and hes utterly grateful for whatever he gets.

As I said above, if YOU offered him the contract there is no issue - you are choosing to give a contract to a player who is not good enough and who is therefore so grateful not to be released that he will take whatever hes given.

If your assistant manager gave him the contract then its an issue of a different nature, either that or your assistant manager has a judging future potential rated in minus figures.



In relation to FM, the manager and the club are the same thing. In reality, the manager doesn't deal with contracts. The fact you're trying to score points on that is actually confusing.

Im not trying to 'score points' im trying to argue my perspective from what I consider to be the correct angle, the fact that you are giving misleading and slightly contradictory information is making it more difficult.

Irrelavent of whether the manager conducts contract negotiations in real life, they do in this game - if you think thats the issue, then raise that. The fact is, when playing FM2011 you do conduct contract negotiations and you CHOSE to give a player with less talent than a league 2 player a new contract for everton - what was your choice and he ripped your arm off for it, no matter how low it was.

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 13:19
Are these players useful signings, or are you just signing them to see how cheap you can get someone?

I'm not signing them. I'm managing Everton, I started a new game, the players are part of the current youth academy on youth contracts, they turn 17 and I offer them a professional contract.

They're certainly nowhere near the first team squad and never will be. The PA according to the scouts is very, very low, but they aren't regens and they are part of the youth academy legitimately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Donzo

http://www.evertonfc.com/player-profile/connor-roberts

So real players. :)

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 13:22
SPOILER ALERT!!!

Conner Roberts has a PA of -6 meaning that he has a pa of 90-120 meaning that the chances are in your game hes got a sub 100 PA - therefore this means hes not even remotely good enough for everton and hes utterly grateful for whatever he gets.

As I said above, if YOU offered him the contract there is no issue - you are choosing to give a contract to a player who is not good enough and who is therefore so grateful not to be released that he will take whatever hes given.

If your assistant manager gave him the contract then its an issue of a different nature, either that or your assistant manager has a judging future potential rated in minus figures.

You are completely, completely missing the point utterly.

Once more:

A) If the player warranted a professional contract at the top club in the Premier League, he'd be poached by any number of other clubs who'd be prepared to offer him a lot more than 50 per week! Therefore the club would have to offer competitive terms.
B) If the player WASN'T good enough for the club, then the club would never offer him a pro contract in the first place.

I'm talking about realism. You're right (for the tenth time), he's not good enough for the first team squad. At all. Ever. But the very fact I can offer him a professional contract on absolute peanuts is unrealistic, so I'm highlighting it as such. I'm not even saying it's a bug; I'm just saying the feature that allows me as a manager in-game to do it in the first place is unrealistic.

dafuge
22-12-2010, 13:26
They sound like the sorts of players who would be released at the end of their youth contracts, which is what happened to them on my game. You could argue that common sense is the limitation on offering players like this tiny contracts, most of us wouldn't do it as we know they just aren't worth it. Keeping them at the club on a pro contract does sounds pretty unrealistic, which is why the idea of a 50 p/w contract in the PL sounds so unlikely.

Maidel
22-12-2010, 13:28
I'm talking about realism. You're right (for the tenth time), he's not good enough for the first team squad. At all. Ever. But the very fact I can offer him a professional contract on absolute peanuts is unrealistic, so I'm highlighting it as such. I'm not even saying it's a bug; I'm just saying the feature that allows me as a manager in-game to do it in the first place is unrealistic.

Ah - and here we find the crux of the problem, and, I have a solution for you:

in game follow these steps:

[TEAM NAME]

Team Settings

[TEAM NAME] First Team (tab)

and tick the box that says 'contract renewals handled by assistant manager'

Do this for the reserve team and the under 18s team and voila, your problem is solved, you will not be able to offer silly contracts to players who arent good enough for your team. (well you still will be able to, but you wont have to as the assistant manager/board will be dealing with all contracts on your behalf.)

dafuge
22-12-2010, 13:33
I'm talking about realism. You're right (for the tenth time), he's not good enough for the first team squad. At all. Ever. But the very fact I can offer him a professional contract on absolute peanuts is unrealistic, so I'm highlighting it as such. I'm not even saying it's a bug; I'm just saying the feature that allows me as a manager in-game to do it in the first place is unrealistic.

It is unrealistic, but it is a situation that is only being instigated by the human manager who should be able to use his common sense to see it is a silly thing to do. It's a bit like switching your striker and your goalie, the only thing stopping you from doing it is your common sense telling you it is a stupid move, there's nothing in the game that prevents you from doing it.

Tubey84
22-12-2010, 13:36
Ah - and here we find the crux of the problem, and, I have a solution for you:

in game follow these steps:

[TEAM NAME]

Team Settings

[TEAM NAME] First Team (tab)

and tick the box that says 'contract renewals handled by assistant manager'

Do this for the reserve team and the under 18s team and voila, your problem is solved, you will not be able to offer silly contracts to players who arent good enough for your team. (well you still will be able to, but you wont have to as the assistant manager/board will be dealing with all contracts on your behalf.)


They sound like the sorts of players who would be released at the end of their youth contracts, which is what happened to them on my game. You could argue that common sense is the limitation on offering players like this tiny contracts, most of us wouldn't do it as we know they just aren't worth it. Keeping them at the club on a pro contract does sounds pretty unrealistic, which is why the idea of a 50 p/w contract in the PL sounds so unlikely.

Once again, completely, completely agree with you both (except I don't need to use the Ass. Man as I KNOW not to offer silly contracts). I'm simply bringing it up as "unrealistic".

To go back to my original post...


I'm Everton at the moment, and I've just offered 17-year-old Abe Donzo a pro contract for a laugh more than anything.

Followed by a suggestion; not a screaming rant pointing out a bug...


Maybe the leagues in the game need to have these limits imposed on them? I understand the need for the option to offer 5 a week in South Africa etc. but perhaps if you're managing in England a limitation can be applied.

This was a bloody ordeal...

Maidel
22-12-2010, 13:42
This was a bloody ordeal...

Yes.

But to quote another voice of reason - it was only an ordeal BECAUSE:


but it is a situation that is only being instigated by the human manager who should be able to use his common sense to see it is a silly thing to do. It's a bit like switching your striker and your goalie, the only thing stopping you from doing it is your common sense telling you it is a stupid move, there's nothing in the game that prevents you from doing it.

Would you be pointing out a bug if you saw that you were able to start every match with an outfield player in goal? OR would you want to point out that its unrealistic that you can choose to play as a top side and point blank refuse to renew any players contracts? You can choose to do both things, the game will let you. They arent bugs, they are player choice.