Allowed installments on FM11 excessive??

Hiya guys

Ive been playing a few games of FM11, along with some friends, trying to completely abuse the installment system, and the game is simply being ruined by excessive allowances on installments on transfers.

(including

One of my friends as Inter, has spent 371m on players - ALL of which was spent using installments, however he had only a 69m budget and sold 40m of players. He was also allowed to offer 120m for Fabregas (installments and other clauses), but Fabregas turned him down. This was all in 1 season, at the end of which his bank balance was -£158m, and was given a cash injection of 120m. The finances were then bumped up through usual start of season payments, and was then allowed to pay £53m for Tevez (installments), leaving him at -12m balance again.

Is it just me or is this completely unrealistic and ridiculous? I understand that many transfers in real football use installments, but the level of which this is allowed on FM11 currently is crazy!!

I agree that is is too easy to abuse the finances in the game by signing great players and plunging the club into debt. Of course there is always a risk that things will go badly (like Pompey or Leeds) but provided the players you sign are great then the risk is pretty small.

I've just put my club £40m in debt through players signed (not with installments) but I know that I can clear that within a year or two provided I keep playing in the Champions League.

I spent £32M first season with West Ham, then £52M then next season because I’d finished fourth prior. Third season has seen me spend £48M and I am currently in January. I think this is pretty unrealisic, but I’ll still do it because I can. With that money, I’ve made myself a title contender this season (currently 2nd behind Chelsea, who are nine points clear, 24 games in). Perhaps there needs to be caps put on, certainly when this fair play regulation thing comes in (if that’s what it’s even called?)

edit: perhaps ‘excessive’ is the word?

To be honest, its possible in real life (most transfers nowadays are paid in installments, ranging mostly from 2 to 4 years), so why would it be excessive? . In the past there have been real-life clubs defaulting due to this kind of transfers, so its not that shocking that its possible in-game.

To be honest, its possible in real life (most transfers nowadays are paid in installments, ranging mostly from 2 to 4 years), so why would it be excessive? . In the past there have been real-life clubs defaulting due to this kind of transfers, so its not that shocking that its possible in-game.

I think the problem is that the size of the risk is too small. I'd imagine that the vast majority of people who stretch the finances to the limit go on to have decent success and no financial trouble. I'd like to hear if there are people about that have ended up like Leeds/Pompey due to excessive spending, but I suspect they are very rare.

They shouldn't allow it, or allowing it should be rare. To be allowed to do it you should need a power hungry, ultra ambitious chairman. When Bill Kenwright is allowing you to spend £30m on installments you know something is massively wrong.

When you do spend £300m on installments and it wrecks your balance you should then be forced to sell players or 'do a Leeds'.

The problem ive seen is that the canebrakes too little from your transfer budget when doing this. If I have a transfer budget of £30 million and I agree to buy a player for £30 million over 4 years, I should not be left with £25+ million left in this years transfer budget. The game let's u's over spend by only removing the physical cash required for the transfer rather than taking out the debt as well.

Well, not all clubs have "underwriter" people who will inject money to cover debts, so not all clubs can pull this off. That said, the level its possible is indeed ridiculous, and any "future payments" should definitely come directly out of next years budget, meaning if you spend that much, you wont be buying anyone for five years.

Transfers are paid in installments in real life. Real did not pay 80mill upfront for Ronaldo. Perhaps it is a little extreme in the game, but the principle of it is correct.

However, doing what that guy did with Inter would never be allowed, but this is because the AI is terminally r*tarded and does not know the difference.

^^^You fail to understand.

In FM, the transfer budgets are set, such that you can buy roughly the same players that the club could buy IRL, but whilst the IRL club might pay in installments, you can pay upfront cash.

If you opt to use installments, then FM has given you a budget 3 or 4 times bigger than is accurate for the club you are notionally taking over.

Thus, either FM should divide all transfer budgets by two/three - and thus force the player to use installments to maintain the same buying power as their real life counterparts, or it should find some other means of ensuring that instalments are not such a ridiculously exploitative option. (And, incidentally, clubs tend to pay in only two or three yearly instalments, not 48 monthly instalments).

Potential solutions:

1. Make clubs ask for much, much, more if the payment is in installments? At the moment, you might shave a few million off a deal by paying it all upfront, but not as much as you'd benefit in your transfer budget if you paid in instalments.

2. Place a club bar on transfers over a certain value, relative to the club's transfer budget? So, for instance, a club with a transfer budget of 10m would never board-approve a transfer costing more than 15m. This would mean that you could buy a few players in instalment-based deals, but you couldn't turn a 10m budget into 40m, as you can do by paying over 48 months.

3. Count one transfer windows instalment deals against next year's budget - so that a player who spent 40m in his first year would have to sell players if he wanted to make transfers next year.

I think 2. and 3. combined would do the trick.

^^^You fail to understand.

In FM, the transfer budgets are set, such that you can buy roughly the same players that the club could buy IRL, but whilst the IRL club might pay in installments, you can pay upfront cash.

If you opt to use installments, then FM has given you a budget 3 or 4 times bigger than is accurate for the club you are notionally taking over.

Thus, either FM should divide all transfer budgets by two/three - and thus force the player to use installments to maintain the same buying power as their real life counterparts, or it should find some other means of ensuring that instalments are not such a ridiculously exploitative option. (And, incidentally, clubs tend to pay in only two or three yearly instalments, not 48 monthly instalments).

Potential solutions:

1. Make clubs ask for much, much, more if the payment is in installments? At the moment, you might shave a few million off a deal by paying it all upfront, but not as much as you'd benefit in your transfer budget if you paid in instalments.

2. Place a club bar on transfers over a certain value, relative to the club's transfer budget? So, for instance, a club with a transfer budget of 10m would never board-approve a transfer costing more than 15m. This would mean that you could buy a few players in instalment-based deals, but you couldn't turn a 10m budget into 40m, as you can do by paying over 48 months.

3. Count one transfer windows instalment deals against next year's budget - so that a player who spent 40m in his first year would have to sell players if he wanted to make transfers next year.

I think 2. and 3. combined would do the trick.

^^^^You fail to make me want to read your terminally boring take on the matter.

I acknowledged that the installments are excessive and need to be reigned in. However, there is a really short-term, sharp and simple solution-Stop exploiting the installment aspect of transfers.

-Stop exploiting the installment aspect of transfers.

Actually, thats a little bit unfair. Yes, you are right, we do not have to exploit the system, but the problem is for people who dont want to exploit it, but want to realistically be able to pay for a player over x months. I personally only do this when I want to buy a player for say, 20 million, but only have 17 to spend, thus I do it over 18 months and I havent been expoiltative.

Its the same as all the other exploits that the game has thrown up during the years. Remember the diablo tactic? I used that for nearly 2 seasons before it actually dawned on me that something was really wrong because I was unbeatable, I just thought I was really good...

People will always continue to use it as there are no obvious consequences to come from using it.

In reality IF they let you do it, they should ramp up the expectations. If you fail to achieve as promised you should be punished, either by forcing you to sell players or by being sacked.

I dont personally understand how people are spending soo much money on transfers, I play as Man Utd and after 2 seasons or so I very very rarely spend over £40mil. I suppose that is kind of to do with my transfer policy however which is generally to be younger players and try to develop them aswell as bringing in players who are still good but refuse to sign new contracts with thier current clubs so I can get them on the cheap (Got Hulk from Chelsea for £5 million this season).

I tend to use the slider thing in board confidence all the way to the wages side, that way my board stays happy and I can afford to give the players currently in my squad the contract renewals they want/deserve. As Man Utd I also want to pay off what are actually preety cripling debts (In the 4th season Im just about keeping my head above water through competition wins and TV rights however during the middle of the season my balance is still dropping below zero.

IMO this abuse of the finances should be allowed, like it is, but then the board should act if the results weren't worth the spendings. For example imagine you spend €100m in a season and your balance becomes -€80m, and the next season you don't reach the season expectations. In that time, the board should act and block you from spending more money, which could lead the club to a financial disaster.

I was expecting the financial fair play rule to be implemented in this years version but I guess there wasn't enough information on it. If there were no Financial Fair Play rules being implemented, the way the monthly installments work now would be realistic. It is the only thing that is holding back clubs from splashing the cash (that and going by the road of the leeds or pompey).

This years version is a bit weird since they tried to curb the transfer engine to how transfers are being done in real life, but they havn't included the major reason to why clubs are doing it.

I expect in FM12 that monthly installments above 24 months will probably actually kill your club, especially if you intend on signing players every year, since they will put you in the red and eventually, you won't be allowed to play in continental competitions.

So many people keep talking about it being "Possible" in RL or , "That's how it happens in the real world" .... Thats rubbish tbh.

I play West Ham a lot, my fav team, and I can assure you that the board would never allow me to spend 40 mil in my first season by spreading payments over 48 months thereby sending the club into either further debt. The clubs debts are well documented.

West Ham are not the only club in this position either ..... Could Moyes do this at Everton? Would Mr "I've got an oppinion on everything" do this at Blackpool?

Ofcourse every club will look at how they finance a deal very carefully and maybe a club like West Ham would bring in a player for 5 mil and spread the payments. But there's no way they do this with 40 mil worth of players.

Here's how it should work.....

1) You buy a player for 10 mil and spread the payment over 48 months. 1/4th of the fee comes out of your budget immediately. 1/4 of the fee comes out of you budget for the next three seasons AFTER your budget is announced. So in season two you are given a budget of 5 mil but 2.5 mil is debited immediately to cover your previous transfer. In some cases, you might end up with zero funds for that season so this would make managing your budget/transfers much more important and a little more difficult/realistic.

2) In FM, every player has a "Trigger Fee". If you offer that fee, the club will automatically acept even if the player has no intention of joining you. It is the only way to do it tbh (Ever notice how AI controlled clubs always seem to offer the perfect amount to sign a player?).

Well with that in mind, my idea is that if a player is bought over a period of months, the trigger should be higher ..... Thats easy to code into the game tbh.

So player X has a trigger of 10mil but you want to pay over 24 month so the trigger is 11 mil, 36 months 12 mil, 48 months 14 mil and so on.

That will hurt your club eventually as you have to contiually pay more to get your man.

3) The board should sometimes step in and block a transfer they feel is unrealistic and will hurt their finaces in future. Obviously this should be carefully implemented because if badly done, no one will ever be able to sign a player

Example; West ham pay 20mil over 48 months for Neymar...... The board step in and say "Wooo there boy, it's your first season and you aint blowing 20 mil in that kind of deal on a player that is 20 years old and unproven" But they may or may not interfere if your paying 20mil cash down for him...... That would seem realistic to me.

4) The board should preventt you from using the payment options too often in a season.

If they stop you spending 40 mil over 48 months on a player, they should also stop you spending 40mil on 4 players over 48 months, it's the same thing....... Perhaps they would allow one, maybe two of those transfers to go ahead, but not all 4.

Using the current transfer system, I can play West Ham and have them dominate Europe within 3 seasons with a squad of world class players who were all bought on "Tick" and when the board give me my next 50mil transfer kitty, I have no targets to spend it on..... A wee bit unrealistic tbh.

West Ham would love Neymar for £20m.

its very simple, just dont do it, dont exploit the financial side of things then come on here complaining its not realistic.

In reality maybe it wouldnt happen, but its almost impossible in this game to spend that kind of money and not be successful so the financial side of things will never matter.