Player cannot sign cos there are no funds, despite it all being paid over 48 months

Guillermo Ochoa has agreed the contract, granted a work permit but now its say i cant sign him

I have offered 0 upfront and £7.25mil over 48 months, my budget is 0 but surely as I am paying it over time it should be affordable? I have signed other players for more mopney than my budget e.g budget was £2.5mil and I signed Wheater for £1mil upfront and £3.5mil over 48 months, i still had money to spend after that ...

so why cant i bring in ochoa?

You have to have a least some transfer money for it to happen .

If you have no transfer budget left, then you cannot afford the initial monthly payments.

because you would have to pay a sum in the first month, if you dont have any funds left you cant pay this initial payment and thus you cant afford him.

ahh ok, so if i adjust my budget so i have less wages but some transfer money then i will be sound?

You need enough money in your current budget to cover the first 12 months, so if you buy a player for £4.8 million over 48 months you need £1.2 million (£100,000 a month x 12) in your transfer budget when trying to confirm the transfer.

ahh ok, so if i adjust my budget so i have less wages but some transfer money then i will be sound?

hmm as long as you have enough to cover the cost of the first month of payments, it might be the first year but i never use that option so i cant be exact.

edit

lol see above post.

They need to tighten up on this aspect of the game. A lot of people seem to abuse the 48 month delayed payment method of signing players they can't, in reality, afford.

Very few clubs in real life would accept this kind of £0 up front of £x over 48 months deal. Perhaps it could come into play in some cases, for example when a club is desperate to rid itself of a player from it's wage bill and there isn't much interest in him but generally it wouldn't be acceptable and certainly not in the case of players they want to keep or other clubs are interested in.

All that happens when you do this on the game is your clubs bank balance goes down dramatically over the season. Once it gets to a ridiculous level, say overdrawn by £50m or so it comes up with a message saying the club has renegotiated with its creditors or something. In effect this just transfers it into a loan. In my current game with Everton the total loans I have is something like £148m and the repayments are something like £2m a month in total, so it's just a repeat cycle of debt building up, being taken as a loan, repayments increasing etc. I've not gone on long enough to see if this eventually causes the financial meltdown ala Leeds or Portsmouth that it would in real life, but this is something they need to look into.

Perhaps it could be linked to the personality or the Chairman? Some would be financially astute and prudent (Everton, Villa?), others reckless with the spending in an attempt to buy short term success (Malaga, City, Leeds, Portsmouth etc).

Not really, Stoke bought Kenwynne Jones on a deal worth £8m from Sunderland this summer, we didn't pay a penny upfront, infact it cost Sunderland £2m for him to come to us as they had agreed to sell him without him requesting it and something to do with his contract. Stoke are paying £2m per year for 4 years. Very, very few deals are cash upfront now. Other sizable deals for a club like Stoke include the one for Dave Kitson for £5.5m, because of the fact he never scored many goals for Stoke the final transfer fee paid to reading was somewhere between £3 - £4m.

Portsmouth, Leeds and others were able to utilise deals like this to run up massive debts, but its very much part and parcel of the game now. Cash upfront is much rarer once you start getting above £2 - £3m for most clubs. Clubs can't endleslly extend their debt though and it does come back to haunt you unless you are massively successful.

thanks for the help guys

Guillermo Ochoa has agreed the contract, granted a work permit but now its say i cant sign him

I have offered 0 upfront and £7.25mil over 48 months, my budget is 0 but surely as I am paying it over time it should be affordable? I have signed other players for more mopney than my budget e.g budget was £2.5mil and I signed Wheater for £1mil upfront and £3.5mil over 48 months, i still had money to spend after that ...

so why cant i bring in ochoa?

You pay the first 12 months (I believe) up front. So in this case you need to pay just over £1.8m straight away.

Not really, Stoke bought Kenwynne Jones on a deal worth £8m from Sunderland this summer, we didn't pay a penny upfront, infact it cost Sunderland £2m for him to come to us as they had agreed to sell him without him requesting it and something to do with his contract. Stoke are paying £2m per year for 4 years. Very, very few deals are cash upfront now. Other sizable deals for a club like Stoke include the one for Dave Kitson for £5.5m, because of the fact he never scored many goals for Stoke the final transfer fee paid to reading was somewhere between £3 - £4m.

Portsmouth, Leeds and others were able to utilise deals like this to run up massive debts, but its very much part and parcel of the game now. Cash upfront is much rarer once you start getting above £2 - £3m for most clubs. Clubs can't endleslly extend their debt though and it does come back to haunt you unless you are massively successful.

Yeah I'm not saying there aren't examples of it, but you shouldn't be able to do it for every player like it seems you can now.

Out of interest what happens on FM if the player leaves when you are on this arrangement? Do you keep paying or is it immediately due?

Totally agree - on my 1st game on FM 11 I spent £160 million worth of transfers in my 1st season on my Fulham team buying players like Neymar, Lukaku, Henrique, Renan, Shawcross, Rodwell, Jones, Munoz and so on...

I did this as it was my first game and I wanted to see what would happen whilst having a bit of fun (I had never done it on previous FM's). I had to sell my whole starting team to get £40 million. It is totally unrealistic and I was in massive debt by the end of the season. At the start of the 2nd season my board gave me another £20 million budget even though my committed payments were around £40 million for the season and I was £10 million in the red!!! So that means with the 48 month rule I could have spent another £80 million on transfers + my £40 million committed payments. I then gave up as was too far fetched for the Fulham board to do that. I know I would have gone into administration (I think, never happened to me before) but is something SI definately have to look at. On my new game I only pay upfront but it is always in the back of my mind to do a 48 monther and exploit the stupidity of the AI/Board. FM 11 is not built as a financial sim (I hear this quoted alot around the forum) so the argument that it is upto the indiviual is a bit limp IMO!

They need to tighten up on this aspect of the game. A lot of people seem to abuse the 48 month delayed payment method of signing players they can't, in reality, afford.

Very few clubs in real life would accept this kind of £0 up front of £x over 48 months deal. Perhaps it could come into play in some cases, for example when a club is desperate to rid itself of a player from it's wage bill and there isn't much interest in him but generally it wouldn't be acceptable and certainly not in the case of players they want to keep or other clubs are interested in.

All that happens when you do this on the game is your clubs bank balance goes down dramatically over the season. Once it gets to a ridiculous level, say overdrawn by £50m or so it comes up with a message saying the club has renegotiated with its creditors or something. In effect this just transfers it into a loan. In my current game with Everton the total loans I have is something like £148m and the repayments are something like £2m a month in total, so it's just a repeat cycle of debt building up, being taken as a loan, repayments increasing etc. I've not gone on long enough to see if this eventually causes the financial meltdown ala Leeds or Portsmouth that it would in real life, but this is something they need to look into.

Perhaps it could be linked to the personality or the Chairman? Some would be financially astute and prudent (Everton, Villa?), others reckless with the spending in an attempt to buy short term success (Malaga, City, Leeds, Portsmouth etc).

The board needs to be more prohibiting when you start to abuse the 48-month system. You'll have to pay it all eventually. The problem with FM is that you never seem to be stopped from using this. I mean, when your finances reach red, the board has (should) do something to contain that.

The board needs to be more prohibiting when you start to abuse the 48-month system. You'll have to pay it all eventually. The problem with FM is that you never seem to be stopped from using this. I mean, when your finances reach red, the board has (should) do something to contain that.

Mine does, they take out an expensive loan and give me another £30m we don't have in order to sign more players I can't afford.

It's too easy really - 48-month transfers in-game literally allow you to quadruple your transfer budget if paid over 4 years. In reality, I would be surprised if you could even double your budget over 4 years!

I would argue that clubs should give managers budgets over multiple years. For example, £37.5m over 4 years, £35m over 3 years, £30m over 2 years and £20m over one year. This reflects the fact that next year may be a bad year but if you don't discount future transfer budgets, you end up paying today's expenses at tomorrow's circumstances - a financial meltdown waiting to happen.

The option exists and is often used IRL so it should be in the game. For those who say it makes the game to easy, it is only true if you are successful. if your gamble doesn't pay off you'll be in a lot of fiancial trouble. This is also the case in many other businesses where lots of money is invloved. For example, if you win the lottery they will also give you the money in installments.

They need to tighten up on this aspect of the game. A lot of people seem to abuse the 48 month delayed payment method of signing players they can't, in reality, afford.

Very few clubs in real life would accept this kind of £0 up front of £x over 48 months deal. Perhaps it could come into play in some cases, for example when a club is desperate to rid itself of a player from it's wage bill and there isn't much interest in him but generally it wouldn't be acceptable and certainly not in the case of players they want to keep or other clubs are interested in.

All that happens when you do this on the game is your clubs bank balance goes down dramatically over the season. Once it gets to a ridiculous level, say overdrawn by £50m or so it comes up with a message saying the club has renegotiated with its creditors or something. In effect this just transfers it into a loan. In my current game with Everton the total loans I have is something like £148m and the repayments are something like £2m a month in total, so it's just a repeat cycle of debt building up, being taken as a loan, repayments increasing etc. I've not gone on long enough to see if this eventually causes the financial meltdown ala Leeds or Portsmouth that it would in real life, but this is something they need to look into.

Perhaps it could be linked to the personality or the Chairman? Some would be financially astute and prudent (Everton, Villa?), others reckless with the spending in an attempt to buy short term success (Malaga, City, Leeds, Portsmouth etc).

I too use this and all i can say is that by the time all the crippling paybacks come in, i am a successful club due to me knowing who to buy to make it that way. In real life, these teams gambled and lost. What i find on my tottenham game is that my chairman kindly bails me out every year with £50m or £70m or more injected into the coffers to help with running costs! Put it this way, after 4 years, i had a front 5 of Neymar, Hazard, Pato, Rooney and Aguero. That's a lot of money spent! It does seem a bit daft to allow a 4x transfer budget every season!

The option exists and is often used IRL so it should be in the game. For those who say it makes the game to easy, it is only true if you are successful. if your gamble doesn't pay off you'll be in a lot of fiancial trouble. This is also the case in many other businesses where lots of money is invloved. For example, if you win the lottery they will also give you the money in installments.

It should be there, but clubs wouldn't often take the risks you are freely allowed to in FM, even as a rookie coach. One signing over 48 months might not be a problem, but signing 6 or 7 and spending four times your yearly budget is clearly going to lead to financial risk. An unknown manager would rarely be given so much power or allowed to take such risks.

And it shouldn't be up to the manager. Modern football is such that I doubt very much that any manager in world football would even be involved in the kind of financial negotiations and discussions they are on the game. For example signing a player, in real life I doubt Harry Redknapp gets down the dirty details about repayment schedules and future fees etc. It'll be more of a case of 'I desperately need a striker, I could do with a backup right back too. I reckon Lavezzi and Phil Neville' etc.

It's a toughie on the game because the Italian and Spanish leagues would be horrendous to manage in. Choose Real Madrid or Barca, get given players with no input, win the league and get sacked.