Paying over 48 months.

There were quite a few threads about this subject for the 2010 game but Ive not noticed any for 2011.

Do you think the paying over 48 months option for transfers makes the game a bit easy?

I do. And I start several games with the intention of denying myself this option but when your struggling in the league at xmas and you got 1mil to spend, the option is just too tempting.

I think it would be a good idea if we had an option at start up to stop paying over time for transfers for all teams, human and AI controlled.

Also, as I said often last year, I think that if for example you buy player X for 4 mil over 48 months, 1 Mil should be taken DIRECTLY from your agreed transfer funds for each of the following 3 seasons.

This would directly impact the game making it more difficult.

At the moment, as the game stands, there seems to be little penalty to paying over 48 months.

First season at West Ham you get 500k.

In my second season there, the fund jumps to over 10 mil, sometimes more and thats from a club with huge loan debts.

That allows me to spent 40 mil or more. I dont think there's enough though or control over the transfer payment system in the game and somthing should be done.

In 3 seasons at West Ham I spent 120 mil or more on some quality youngsters. This allows me to build a strong squad relatively quickly and in some case's it's a little unrealistic.

Ofcourse if I had more discipline, I wouldnt use the option .... But it's soooo tempting

It makes it easy to build up a team quickly yes. Although I tend to watch what i'm spending after i've say got into the champions league or cemented my place in the EPL as they could financially cripple you in the long term. You could buy a world class striker for £30m lets say but if you don't progress much you will feel it when debts mount up 4 years later. So it's swings and roundabouts really, good for building up a team but bad for stabilising a team I would say.

yer but it isnt exactly free money is it? You still need to pay the installments every year, there have been alot of threads about people trying to work out why their team was in debt and having players sold off etc and 9 times out of 10 it was cause they had crippling transfer repayments. It doesnt make the game too easy in my opinion if you use it properly.

One or 2 decent seasons and you never have to worry about money again.

You make a few big signings to start with. Then you just buy the top youth. Have them all on cheap contracts. Sell off the ones that dont quite make it for a profit. Never have to spend more than £10m for a world class player as they are all under 20 when you buy them. Get the odd player on a free transfer for depth, or experience.

If paying in monthly installments is an option that clubs have in the real world (which they do), then it should be in the game. As simple as that, in my opinion.

This might be a stupid question, but say if you have a transfer budget of £2m, and really wanted a player worth £14m, can you offer to pay over 48 months and the board won't prevent you doing it?

no as paying over 48 months effectively quadruples your budget so you would have a £2m budget but could afford £8m over 48 months or £2m p/year

no as paying over 48 months effectively quadruples your budget so you would have a £2m budget but could afford £8m over 48 months or £2m p/year

Ahh gotcha. I've always just stayed within a seasonal budget so I didn't know that.

Can see what the OP means though. I currently have £11m, so technically could blow £44m on a player? Juicy!

you could although if you don't improve much over the 4 years it could just end up crippling you financially

you could although if you don't improve much over the 4 years it could just end up crippling you financially

Aye I understand that particular downside

It's good to know though. For example, I'm considering bidding for Babacar but he's worth £12.5m, and I only have £11m, so using this function I can "top it up".

Makes sense too when you think about it.

an upside financially is it makes it easier to pay it off when its at a rate of £100k p/month rather than £4.8m in one big payment

an upside financially is it makes it easier to pay it off when its at a rate of £100k p/month rather than £4.8m in one big payment

Not if you suffer two consecutive relegations in the meantime xD

It's about reasonably gambling I guess. It's like Leeds - they gambled in a similar way assuming Champions League football would cover the losses.

Ive never had a club where we got into finnacial dificulties.

Like I said, West Ham spending 120 mil over 3 seasons is unrealistic even if they spread the payments.

But while I have that option, I'll use it. Would be nice if the penalties for doing so made the game a little tougher in the long run though.

I just buy whatever player is recommended to me by the scouts. But they have to have a rating of 4.5 or 5 stars.

It doesn't matter how much it costs. In one transfer window I can buy 4 players for 30m each payed over 48 months.

So simple to buy the best players. You can buy a whole new team in about 2 - 3 seaons. All top.

Simples.

I always thought that you only have to have a 1/48th part of the transfer value for this kind of transfer to go through.

By that I mean that you could buy a player for 48 mil even if you transfer budget was 1 mil.

yes i agree it does makes ur first season easier by making use of installment payments. it does have its cons though. by making many big signings using installments, u will find that every year ur making a huge financial loss during financial reporting.

juz finished a new save m making sure i dun over utilise it anymore, by occasionally using full payments and try to lesser the installment durations i.e 12/24 mths and found that im making profit every year.

The " issue " is that despiting spamming the payment over years those good players almost never want to join your team. For example if your team is within League 1,2 or Championship League it will be almost impossible to sign players valued more than the average value of the best players in the league you are playing on.

Playing within Premier is like stealing candies from babies IMO

One or two 48 month deals won't hurt you as long as you do well for at least one of these two seasons. People start complaining when they make 5 £20M deals spread over two years and then wonder why their team is being sold off.

You got to be kidding me. I bought 4 players in 30m deals in the one transfer window. I couldn't do anything else but win the league with players like that. Climbed from 8th to 1st from January to end of season.

I really like having the ability to pay over 48 months. But I really wish it wasn't in the game. Or the Board actually stopped you from spending so much money in one transfer window. It just makes the game too easy.

And lets face it, it doesn't happen in real life. Well Leeds Enrons tried it and look where it got them.

You got to be kidding me. I bought 4 players in 30m deals in the one transfer window. I couldn't do anything else but win the league with players like that. Climbed from 8th to 1st from January to end of season.

I really like having the ability to pay over 48 months. But I really wish it wasn't in the game. Or the Board actually stopped you from spending so much money in one transfer window. It just makes the game too easy.

And lets face it, it doesn't happen in real life. Well Leeds Enrons tried it and look where it got them.

leeds, shef wed, dundee all tried to overspend in the hope of success and failed, so it does happen, you take the risks if you spend like that, if you dont win the league or at the very least qualify for europe then you will be in big trouble finacially.

If it makes the game too easy, dont do it, simple as, you are activly choosing to try and exploit your budget and yet coming on here and complaining about it.....................................

Why wouldn't I do it? That's like saying if you have the ability to fly then get the train? Ef that, it's a game, I want to win. I'll take advantage of anything I can. Like early games of Fifa that sweet spot from the corner of the box. Course I'm gonna shoot if I'm guaranteed a goal.

Yeh I am exploiting the budget. But I'm not complaining, I'm saying the game shouldn't allow it - this is a forum to talk about things that are good and bad in the game. This is one feature I would like to see switched off or managed better.

Nothing wrong with saying the game is too easy because of it. And it is. So I'm right.

i just think its very hollow saving before each game to make sure you get the result you want, whats the point in bothering even signing players when you can just sit reloading constantly until you are happy its a realistic result in your favour. I personally preferr to actually manage my team and get the best out of them, but for the third time each to their own, if cheating helps you enjoy FM then by all means carry on

Im glad your so certain that your correct, its made my day a bit happier, i guess if it makes the game easier then you dont have to reload all the time, so i guess it works in your favour. everyones happy

It's nothing to do with me being happier or being right. The fact is the 48 month thing makes it far to easy to sign players for large amount of cash. Fair enough, 1 per transfer window or per season or something.

What about teams rejecting the offer of 48 months outright. Why can't clubs have policies stating that payments must be in lump sums, or 50% upfront?

It's insanity with the 48 month option. Just buy whatever player you want and there are no consequences.

Well I haven't had any and I've been using the 48 month option in the last few editions of FM.

It's nothing to do with me being happier or being right. The fact is the 48 month thing makes it far to easy to sign players for large amount of cash. Fair enough, 1 per transfer window or per season or something.

What about teams rejecting the offer of 48 months outright. Why can't clubs have policies stating that payments must be in lump sums, or 50% upfront?

It's insanity with the 48 month option. Just buy whatever player you want and there are no consequences.

Well I haven't had any and I've been using the 48 month option in the last few editions of FM.

because no club has that policy, it would be daft to reject 30m even if it was spread over 48 months, do you think Real paid man u upfront for Ronaldo?

Each team will decided on a deal by deal basis what works best for their club.

How do you know what policies clubs have? Fair enough Ronaldo transfer is paid over a period of time. That's fine. Because it's 80m, nobody hands out 80m like candy to another club.

But what about if I want to sign a young player. Every deal I put through I do through the 48 month deal option.

I sign players for 1m, 3m, 7.5m, etc. all over 48 months.

Why? Becuase my transfer budget stays quite high that way. My transfer budget barely has a dent in it each year. Sure I can out and buy a €30m midfielder spread it over 48 months, makes perfect sense. But that only takes a dent of €6.5m out of my budget.

How can I sign 4 players for €30m each and only have €20m deducted from transfer kitty. THEN my transfer kitty is topped up again at the next transfer window or the end of the season???

It doesn't make sense in how it works.

In RL you will have troubles finding a club that pays a transfer right away. It's usual to pay over a couple years. 4 years is probably the most common. The option in the game is as realistic as you can get. There is not point discussing it.

How do you know what policies clubs have? Fair enough Ronaldo transfer is paid over a period of time. That's fine. Because it's 80m, nobody hands out 80m like candy to another club.

But what about if I want to sign a young player. Every deal I put through I do through the 48 month deal option.

I sign players for 1m, 3m, 7.5m, etc. all over 48 months.

Why? Becuase my transfer budget stays quite high that way. My transfer budget barely has a dent in it each year. Sure I can out and buy a €30m midfielder spread it over 48 months, makes perfect sense. But that only takes a dent of €6.5m out of my budget.

How can I sign 4 players for €30m each and only have €20m deducted from transfer kitty. THEN my transfer kitty is topped up again at the next transfer window or the end of the season???

It doesn't make sense in how it works.

Erm of course it makes sense, I don't understand how you can't understand it. If you pay £40m up front you lose £40m. If you pay £40m over 48 months you lose a couple million straight away, so you're left with more cash, simple no? It's then up to you to balance the finances, because if you buy too many player's this way your monthly expenditure may be well over what your income is, so you can easily take the club in to admin if you're not careful

How do you know what policies clubs have? Fair enough Ronaldo transfer is paid over a period of time. That's fine. Because it's 80m, nobody hands out 80m like candy to another club.

But what about if I want to sign a young player. Every deal I put through I do through the 48 month deal option.

I sign players for 1m, 3m, 7.5m, etc. all over 48 months.

Why? Becuase my transfer budget stays quite high that way. My transfer budget barely has a dent in it each year. Sure I can out and buy a €30m midfielder spread it over 48 months, makes perfect sense. But that only takes a dent of €6.5m out of my budget.

How can I sign 4 players for €30m each and only have €20m deducted from transfer kitty. THEN my transfer kitty is topped up again at the next transfer window or the end of the season???

It doesn't make sense in how it works.

Because if teams did not allow it, the feature would not be FM. Some teams may not be willing to negotiate on this basis, ive had it happen to me, or they may want more money if its based over a period of 48 months. Your just going out of your way to exploit something in the game, then coming on here saying it shouldnt be allowed, ill say it again, if you dont like the feature or how it works, do not use it and certainly do not exploit it.

If your winning the league and doing well in Europe your board will give you money every season because they will always cover their costs, if you sell a players you are taking money in which will counter the money you have spent, there is no limitless pot of money in FM, if you spend and do not succeed you will pay for it, if you choose to overspend when your one of the big clubs it wont really matter, look at barca and real, massivly overspend in recent years but they will still find cash for new players every season due only to their success.

One or 2 decent seasons and you never have to worry about money again.

You make a few big signings to start with. Then you just buy the top youth. Have them all on cheap contracts. Sell off the ones that dont quite make it for a profit. Never have to spend more than £10m for a world class player as they are all under 20 when you buy them. Get the odd player on a free transfer for depth, or experience.

exactly.

when you start your game, sell all the old players with huge salaries, adjust the budget and then go talent hunting.only pay a quarter or even less upfront, the rest over 48 months.

now you have a young, talented squad on low wages, play 2-3 season and avoid getting relegated.once you get into EL or CL the money gonna come back plus you have a team full of soon-to-be world class players and you don't have to spend any money on transfers.after some years you have 100 million sitting on your bank account, time to by some 60 mil superstar.

i did this in fm10 with hsv, got verratti, sanogo, sandro, aurier and similar folk in the first two seasons, won the CL in my 6th season and had like 180 million euros in the bank.next season i bought zapata and paloschi for 50mil each and sold some quality regen for 40mil.still too much money on my hands

I always assumed that the instalments were calculated into the next season's finances as they're a known expense...

You always pay your initial fee and the first 12 months instalments out of your transfer budget when buying that way, that much I get, but you guys are saying that the board don't take into account the existing commitments when calculating the next season's budgets... that's got to be wrong!

hasn't it?

and if it isn't, and the club goes under, it's the board's fault, not yours, because they knew about the financial commitments to other clubs!

because no club has that policy, it would be daft to reject 30m even if it was spread over 48 months, do you think Real paid man u upfront for Ronaldo?

Each team will decided on a deal by deal basis what works best for their club.

I never accept bids on my players over 48 months because I dont get the benefit of it.

If im offered 40mil for a player over 48 months, and accept, I get only 10 mil in my kitty and then the board dont always aloow you 100% of tranfer fee's.

So you are wrong,,,, There are lots of clubs who would not accept these kind of deals.

In some cases, pro clubs may accept a deal like it in real life, but only when they are in dire finnacial difficulties and even then, they have to include their bank in the negotiations so that the monthly payments actually go direct to debts, sometimes the club never see a penny from these deals.

All Im saying is, there should be more penalties for using the 48mth method like take the monthly payments out of each years allocate dtransfer fund.

Clubs should reject these payment offers sometimes. Some players should not be buyable over 48 months and I dont mean the 20 mil guys, I mean the 4/5/6 mil players. Clubs should demand at most 24 month option on their players of this type in some cases but not in others. Mix it up a bit.

A start up choice on the main menu to stop 48/36/24 month payment options would be good, Personally Id check the "Dont allow 48 and 36 month payment option" but I think 24 month is fine and far more realistic.

i wouldnt use it.. if i didnt have to pay over the odds for AI players..

It's completely fine I'll just keep spending 107m in a season players and pay the clubs over 48 months.

No skin off my nose. I still think it's implemented wrong in the game.

A club should demand more money up front for a player being bought for 2 or 3 million. Or shorter monthly repayments.

It should have a bigger affect on your transfer budget for the following seasons.

or a club should demand a bit more if its to be paid over X months. so if a club had a £10m rated player for sale, £10m upfront would be accepted, £11m over 12 months, £12m over 24 months etc etc.

I always assumed that the instalments were calculated into the next season's finances as they're a known expense...

You always pay your initial fee and the first 12 months instalments out of your transfer budget when buying that way, that much I get, but you guys are saying that the board don't take into account the existing commitments when calculating the next season's budgets... that's got to be wrong!

hasn't it?

and if it isn't, and the club goes under, it's the board's fault, not yours, because they knew about the financial commitments to other clubs!

That's exactly what Im saying,,,,, There is no penalty to the "HumanPlayer" for using the 48 month payment plan. The clucb suffer in the short term as for the first 5/6 seasons, the monthly fee's are large. But it does not seem to affect transfer funds or wage caps ..... I mean c'mon..... How should I be able to do this at the start of season two at West Ham, a club with massive loan debts. ......... http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8228/season2transfers.jpg

or a club should demand a bit more if its to be paid over X months. so if a club had a £10m rated player for sale, £10m upfront would be accepted, £11m over 12 months, £12m over 24 months etc etc.

Its not a bad idea, but still no big deal when the board give you 20mil funds.... Thats 80mil in real terms, what dif will a mil or two make?

No mate, i think fee's should be taken out of you fund each year, you could find yourself with 0 trasnfer funds then

and some clubs could auto refuse payment plans when their finances are excellent.

Theres tuns of simple things they could do to toughen the game up a tad .

So you are wrong,,,, There are lots of clubs who would not accept these kind of deals.

In some cases, pro clubs may accept a deal like it in real life, but only when they are in dire finnacial difficulties and even then, they have to include their bank in the negotiations so that the monthly payments actually go direct to debts, sometimes the club never see a penny from these deals.

Not at all, i can guarentee Real did not pay man u 80m upfront or that barca paid AC Milan all the money for Ibra upfront, chrst most deals now a days are done by a payment plan, ive read quite a few stories about clubs missing payments, look at cardiff and motherwell, hardly a massive fee yet cardif have paid it up over a year or so. Pompy had their issues with this as well, i think you will find it much more common than you would imagine, very few clubs have millions lying about spare to give to clubs instantly. Infact very few multi million pound deals in any way shape or form will be done as a full upfront payment in any kind of buisness most are done through payment plans and loans.

Clubs may never see a pennie from any deal so that point is completely invalid.

2nd season with Palmero

That's exactly what Im saying,,,,, There is no penalty to the "HumanPlayer" for using the 48 month payment plan. The clucb suffer in the short term as for the first 5/6 seasons, the monthly fee's are large. But it does not seem to affect transfer funds or wage caps ..... I mean c'mon..... How should I be able to do this at the start of season two at West Ham, a club with massive loan debts. ......... http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8228/season2transfers.jpg

HAHA! Sullivan would probably freak if you spent 7.5million in pre-season!! - 75million would cause him to die of shock!

I've never realised that instalments weren't taken into account when the finances were calculated... it's nonsensical to not do so. In RL every club knows what it's financial commitments are for the season ahead and what their likely income will be and set their budgets accordingly. If you guys are right, then in FM that's not what happens...

and if you are right, then it definitely needs sorting out!

Not at all, i can guarentee Real did not pay man u 80m upfront or that barca paid AC Milan all the money for Ibra upfront, chrst most deals now a days are done by a payment plan, ive read quite a few stories about clubs missing payments, look at cardiff and motherwell, hardly a massive fee yet cardif have paid it up over a year or so. Pompy had their issues with this as well, i think you will find it much more common than you would imagine, very few clubs have millions lying about spare to give to clubs instantly. Infact very few multi million pound deals in any way shape or form will be done as a full upfront payment in any kind of buisness most are done through payment plans and loans.

Clubs may never see a pennie from any deal so that point is completely invalid.

Who cares what the big clubs can afford? Of Course they are done over payment plans.

In the Screenshot above I signed the players under €5m on 48 month plans.

I do this for every single transfer, regardless of price tag.

Why don't clubs say - "Eh we want you to pay the 3.5m over 12 months" or 24 months???????????

Of course clubs in real life would negotiate this part of a deal.

I have posted about this before in my opinion your board should limit how much you can spend over 48 months. For me it is not really a cheat or an exploit but it is unrealistic. Sure teams buy in monthly payments but in real life do you really think at the start of this season the Fulham chairman would say to Mark Hughes don't worry if you sell Hangeland for £15 million and add that to the £10 million you already have you can go out and spend £100 million as long as you pay monthly. Does not make sense at all and no one can tell me it is realistic to be able to spend £100 million with a team who will be battling relegation. The user should be given two budgets one for upfront payments and the other that can be spent in monthly payments.

So you are wrong,,,, There are lots of clubs who would not accept these kind of deals.

In some cases, pro clubs may accept a deal like it in real life, but only when they are in dire finnacial difficulties and even then, they have to include their bank in the negotiations so that the monthly payments actually go direct to debts, sometimes the club never see a penny from these deals.

Who cares what the big clubs can afford? Of Course they are done over payment plans.

In the Screenshot above I signed the players under €5m on 48 month plans.

I do this for every single transfer, regardless of price tag.

Why don't clubs say - "Eh we want you to pay the 3.5m over 12 months" or 24 months???????????

Of course clubs in real life would negotiate this part of a deal.

you just said no clubs except those in dire financial conditions will accept a payment deal, then you say of course bigger clubs will, unless you mean only big clubs in financial trouble then you are contradicting yourself.

Clubs may or may not negotiate this deal, if the club is not desperate for instant cash then they wont mind, i dont mind if a club pays over 2-4 years, i still get the money at the end of the day but then my clubs are never in dire need of money.

Its not a bad idea, but still no big deal when the board give you 20mil funds.... Thats 80mil in real terms, what dif will a mil or two make?

No mate, i think fee's should be taken out of you fund each year, you could find yourself with 0 trasnfer funds then

and some clubs could auto refuse payment plans when their finances are excellent.

Theres tuns of simple things they could do to toughen the game up a tad .

obviously i mean scale it up as the price goes up, so the above example works there but then when you get to £40m players, it can go up £5m increments etc etc.

this'll only work if you didnt pay over the odds though..

I have posted about this before in my opinion your board should limit how much you can spend over 48 months. For me it is not really a cheat or an exploit but it is unrealistic. Sure teams buy in monthly payments but in real life do you really think at the start of this season the Fulham chairman would say to Mark Hughes don't worry if you sell Hangeland for £15 million and add that to the £10 million you already have you can go out and spend £100 million as long as you pay monthly. Does not make sense at all and no one can tell me it is realistic to be able to spend £100 million with a team who will be battling relegation. The user should be given two budgets one for upfront payments and the other that can be spent in monthly payments.

Word.

Something should be done

I have posted about this before in my opinion your board should limit how much you can spend over 48 months. For me it is not really a cheat or an exploit but it is unrealistic. Sure teams buy in monthly payments but in real life do you really think at the start of this season the Fulham chairman would say to Mark Hughes don't worry if you sell Hangeland for £15 million and add that to the £10 million you already have you can go out and spend £100 million as long as you pay monthly. Does not make sense at all and no one can tell me it is realistic to be able to spend £100 million with a team who will be battling relegation. The user should be given two budgets one for upfront payments and the other that can be spent in monthly payments.

i think maybe what the board are not looking at is the long term picture, they would say that to mark hughes if he could guarentee the league and champs leage for next year obviously this doesnt happen as chairmen look to the next few years financially not just the current season, in this game i would highly doubt anyone going out and spending that kind of money will not bring huge sucess to the club, hence it will never become an issue, try doing this and cheat the game so you dont walk over the league and europe and see what happens to the finaces of your club.

you just said no clubs except those in dire financial conditions will accept a payment deal, then you say of course bigger clubs will, unless you mean only big clubs in financial trouble then you are contradicting yourself.

Clubs may or may not negotiate this deal, if the club is not desperate for instant cash then they wont mind, i dont mind if a club pays over 2-4 years, i still get the money at the end of the day but then my clubs are never in dire need of money.

You're quoting two different people there.

I just don't agree with how 48 month deals are handled in the game. Could be be way better and that would make the game harder. It's far to easy. How come on a 40m budget I can spend 107m in a season???

And then the next season I get an even bigger budget???

You're quoting two different people there.

I just don't agree with how 48 month deals are handled in the game. Could be be way better and that would make the game harder. It's far to easy. How come on a 40m budget I can spend 107m in a season???

And then the next season I get an even bigger budget???

hahahha my bad very sorry!!!

If you are succesful and you are making a seasonal profit why wouldnt you get more money the next season? Clubs make profit to help their club grown and in some cases to pay shareholders, so there is no point in not making profits avaliable to spend on improving the team. I guarentee if you make a loss for the season next years budget will be cut.

That's not the issue though. The issue is they can cut my budget to €20m or €10m

I can still go out and spend 50 or 60m no problem using the 48 month plan.

I'm just saying it needs to be curtailed a bit.

For those transfer you are paying out 2.2m a month, if next season you repeat that and again in the 3rd season you are then paying out 6.6m a month and that is simply not something anyone can sustain. You would need revenues of 70m euros alone just to cover transfer costs, not to factor in wages or other costs of a football club. If at that level of financial commitment you then suffer injuries and say finish the season in 5th you are finished. You either need to have a massive clear-out or the debt will cripple you the next season. So you could win the champions league 2 years running and still be screwed over in 1 unlucky season. That is the nature of the beast that is monthly payments.

If in the 4th season you decide to keep all your players and really try to push to recapture what lost last season then you're looking at almost 9m a month on reduced income and you're likely to hit a points deduction before the end of the season with all bar the most generous chairman.