Jump to content

What the actual *************************************


Recommended Posts

My chairman has accepted a 3.9mil offer for Shane Long who is worth 2.9mil.

HOW IS THAT OFFER TOO GOOD TO ACCEPT.

Ok if they offer about 6 fair enough, but thats ridicolous.

Most unrealisitic thing ive ever seen on football manager.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a reading fan thanks very much.

About negative 1 mil.

In real life...the manager would say to the chairman, the best way to improve the finances is to keep our BEST PLAYER to boost our chances of promotion, and therefore reap the financial rewards of the premiership.

Not risk 40+mil for 3.9mil....

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're 1million in the red and a team has offered a million more than the player is worth. I'm sure your chairman was licking his lips at the prospect.

What is his status? Does your chairman love the club or looking to leave etc? Not sure, but this may affect the way they act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a reading fan thanks very much.

About negative 1 mil.

In real life...the manager would say to the chairman, the best way to improve the finances is to keep our BEST PLAYER to boost our chances of promotion, and therefore reap the financial rewards of the premiership.

Not risk 40+mil for 3.9mil....

It doesn't make any difference whether you're a Reading fan. I don't think you know what's going through the mind of the Reading chairman. How far are you into the season?

Also if you finances are in the red and don't look like they will get any better then he may accept to reduce the losses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah nobody understands football here. He loves the club, therefore would do best thing for club not his finances.

If fm is going to be this stupid, there should at least be a way to go to the chairman and issue an ultimatum about selling the player

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah nobody understands football here. He loves the club, therefore would do best thing for club not his finances.

If fm is going to be this stupid, there should at least be a way to go to the chairman and issue an ultimatum about selling the player

Of course everybody understands football. Just because he loves the club, it doesn't mean he won't sell your players. It's his club and if he's bankrolling the club with his own money, he has every right to accept a bid of £3.9m. Especially if you're in the red :thup:.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Simply no. Selling the best player would risk losing 40 odd million from gaining promotion. If we dont go up, fine no worries sell him. But you dont sell him in January when hes banging in the goals and your top of the league. No need. Stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah nobody understands football here. He loves the club, therefore would do best thing for club not his finances.

If fm is going to be this stupid, there should at least be a way to go to the chairman and issue an ultimatum about selling the player

the irony of the first part of your post is brilliant!

Anyway your in debt and the chairman thinks its a good enough bid, no brainer really. Madjeski would not be willing to bank roll the club constantly, he didnt do it when you guys made it into the EPL so when your in the championship and obviously losing money then it makes sense to cash in and make a bit of money, most championship clubs have to sell to balance the books now a days.

The £40m you COULD make is not guarenteed, whereas this money is being offered right away without any delay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Selling a player at 33% greater than his value and deeming it "too good to turn down" is absurd, no matter how you look at it. £1m in the red isn't a huge deal - many clubs start off in the red, but they don't jump at the chance to sell players slightly above their premium!

To me, the chairman should only intervene if the club is desperately in the red or the bid is miles above the player's value - and 33% is not miles above it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life...the manager would say to the chairman, the best way to improve the finances is to keep our BEST PLAYER to boost our chances of promotion, and therefore reap the financial rewards of the premiership.

Not risk 40+mil for 3.9mil....

Lol :)

Thats very naive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Selling a player at 33% greater than his value and deeming it "too good to turn down" is absurd, no matter how you look at it. £1m in the red isn't a huge deal - many clubs start off in the red, but they don't jump at the chance to sell players slightly above their premium!

To me, the chairman should only intervene if the club is desperately in the red or the bid is miles above the player's value - and 33% is not miles above it.

when the club is in debt and unless they get promoted there will be no prize money for the season, then how else can the club make that money back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life...the manager would say to the chairman, the best way to improve the finances is to keep our BEST PLAYER to boost our chances of promotion, and therefore reap the financial rewards of the premiership.

Hello Sean. Three years ago, Reading let their best player go on a free transfer, then sold their second best player for around £4m, then their third best player for £3m, then their top scorer so far that season for £2m (though that was Sonko, a centre back, on three goals after three games :D). The following season, they sold their best player for £6m, another of their most effective players for £3m, and the best defender in the league for another £3m. Last summer, they sold their best player for £6.6m. Little, Kitson, Shorey, Doyle, Hunt, Bikey and Sigurdsson were all much better players than Shane Long. Except Hunt, maybe. You describe Long as your best player, meaning you have already sold Kébé.

You know what? It would be unrealistic if Madejski wasn't accepting £4m offers for Shane Long. Yeah, he's been amazing for a few months, but he hasn't been nearly as amazing as Sigurdsson was last season, and he's about 5 years older. £4m is great value for you. Use the money well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Selling a player at 33% greater than his value and deeming it "too good to turn down" is absurd, no matter how you look at it. £1m in the red isn't a huge deal - many clubs start off in the red, but they don't jump at the chance to sell players slightly above their premium!

To me, the chairman should only intervene if the club is desperately in the red or the bid is miles above the player's value - and 33% is not miles above it.

I love this guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

am sorry but the ole saying one player doesnt make a team comes to mind. What would of happened if you had lost him via injury?? Fair move by the chairman in my view with you esp in the red. Promotion is never guarnteed, you may of hit a bad patch of form etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Simply no. Selling the best player would risk losing 40 odd million from gaining promotion. If we dont go up, fine no worries sell him. But you dont sell him in January when hes banging in the goals and your top of the league. No need. Stupid.

Well lets see that £40m is a BS figure that turns up every year at around the time of the playoff finals. It was originally gotten by claculating max gate receipts (over two years), strong performances (assumed safe mid-table) and higher than average games picked for TV. And even with that it was only revenue, considering about £100m would have to be spent on two years premiership it's not much.

Second point, as SCIAG has said Madjeski is known as a chairman who is willing to sell especially if he thinks it is worth it financially. On occasions he has even mentioned selling the ground and the club, so accepting £1m over the odds is par for the course. Long is a player with potential and goalscoring record granted but getting more than £5m for him (in my current game playing in Brazil) is not a feasible proposition IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah nobody understands football here. He loves the club, therefore would do best thing for club not his finances.

If fm is going to be this stupid, there should at least be a way to go to the chairman and issue an ultimatum about selling the player

dont clubs get docked points etc, if they go bankrupt? how can that be the best thing for the club?

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont clubs get docked points etc, if they go bankrupt? how can that be the best thing for the club?

That is exactly Madejski's real life reasoning. Whilst he can bankroll the club, he wants them to be self sufficient, which means selling high earners (Long has been at the club for 6 years this summer so has naturally racked up quite the wage), especially if someone offers a significant sum for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP. Shane Long would never get sold for that little money. Especially only 1 mil in red. thats nothing and can be cleared in a couple of months. What I do when stuff like that that isn't realistic is offer them out to clubs. Accept bids, hope he goes to sign for them and then cancel the deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP. Shane Long would never get sold for that little money.

If Reading receive a £4m bid for him in the summer, he will go. I think he'd go for £3m tbh. Kevin Doyle is a much better player and went for £6m, Dave Kitson is/was a much better player and went for £4m (potentially rising to £5.5m, though it didn't rise). £3.9m is the fourth highest value Reading have ever received for a player, let alone on the back of three months of good form, unproven in the Premier League, with attitude problems. £4m is plenty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when the club is in debt and unless they get promoted there will be no prize money for the season, then how else can the club make that money back?

By that logic, any Championship club in debt should be selling its players at a 33% premium!

If Reading receive a £4m bid for him in the summer, he will go. I think he'd go for £3m tbh. Kevin Doyle is a much better player and went for £6m, Dave Kitson is/was a much better player and went for £4m (potentially rising to £5.5m, though it didn't rise). £3.9m is the fourth highest value Reading have ever received for a player, let alone on the back of three months of good form, unproven in the Premier League, with attitude problems. £4m is plenty.

However, would you see Madejski pushing Long out of the club, or will it be a managerial decision?

Do you think it's a realistic that the game's chairmen push players out at a 33% premium under their managers' noses?

"Too good to refuse" should be a decision made when the bid is truly silly, and not just a "good" offer. £4m is a good offer for Long (from Reading's point of view), but I don't see it as Madejski butting-in and selling the player - especially since Reading have received similar values for similar players before!

Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic, any Championship club in debt should be selling its players at a 33% premium!

However, would you see Madejski pushing Long out of the club, or will it be a managerial decision?

no by that logic it means any championship club will consider a bid for any of their players unless its looking almost guarenteed that they will be promoted, if they find it acceptable then the player goes, in this instance its clear, the club is struggling finacially, Mandjeski will have a good buisness rating and will not let the club go bust, so almost any bid will be considered, he has done it in real life in the past and will do it again in the future, he wont bankroll the club, he wants it to survive on its own, and as watford have shown part of balancing the books is selling your best players to richer clubs.

Remember in real life this wouldnt be a 33% premium, because there is no set price in real life, no set value of a player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no by that logic it means any championship club will consider a bid for any of their players unless its looking almost guarenteed that they will be promoted, if they find it acceptable then the player goes, in this instance its clear, the club is struggling finacially, Mandjeski will have a good buisness rating and will not let the club go bust, so almost any bid will be considered, he has done it in real life in the past and will do it again in the future, he wont bankroll the club, he wants it to survive on its own, and as watford have shown part of balancing the books is selling your best players to richer clubs.

So any "good" deal for a player at a club that is stuck in mid-table is worth the chairman butting-in?

Whatever happening to board confidence for finances where the board asks the manager to ensure the club stays afloat with a solid balance and low wage budget?

No, he won't bankroll the club, but I see £4m for Long as merely a "good" deal, not a silly one worth the chairman butting in. It is not easy to replace Long since a new player will cost roughly the same but will take a signing bonus too. This is why the bid has to be outrageously silly in order for the chairman to intervene. In reality, I simply see Madejski going up to the manager and asking him to seriously consider it - perhaps the manager has a better idea to sell other players but keep Long. It's simply not outrageous enough for a 33% premium.

For the chairman to go over the manager's head, the bid must essentially be a free lottery ticket - the manager must be easily able to replace Long and then have money left over, and the squad must not suffer (i.e. the downside of bedding-in a new player must be outweighed by his quality, and then some). To me, £4m isn't enough, given the signing-on bonus of the player(s) signed in return for his transfer fee, and need to bed the player/players in to the team.

Look at Ronaldo - even at his transfer fee, Ferguson had the final say. Granted, their financial positions are very different, but £1m in the red isn't a terrible place to be, especially if you are getting good - if not outrageous - bids for your players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a championship fan myself I sympathise with you massively.

Cardiff rejected 6m for Ross McCormack and Joe Ledley each.

We then about a year or so later sold McCormack for 500k and Ledley left on a bosman.

I'll tell you who the ****ing chairman was, Peter Ridsdale!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So any "good" deal for a player at a club that is stuck in mid-table is worth the chairman butting-in?

Whatever happening to board confidence for finances where the board asks the manager to ensure the club stays afloat with a solid balance and low wage budget?

No, he won't bankroll the club, but I see £4m for Long as merely a "good" deal, not a silly one worth the chairman butting in. It is not easy to replace Long since a new player will cost roughly the same but will take a signing bonus too. This is why the bid has to be outrageously silly in order for the chairman to intervene. In reality, I simply see Madejski going up to the manager and asking him to seriously consider it - perhaps the manager has a better idea to sell other players but keep Long. It's simply not outrageous enough for a 33% premium.

For the chairman to go over the manager's head, the bid must essentially be a free lottery ticket - the manager must be easily able to replace Long and then have money left over, and the squad must not suffer (i.e. the downside of bedding-in a new player must be outweighed by his quality, and then some). To me, £4m isn't enough, given the signing-on bonus of the player(s) signed in return for his transfer fee, and need to bed the player/players in to the team.

Look at Ronaldo - even at his transfer fee, Ferguson had the final say. Granted, their financial positions are very different, but £1m in the red isn't a terrible place to be, especially if you are getting good - if not outrageous - bids for your players.

we have no idea who calls the shots transfer wise at Reading or anyother club, i know to a point up here in aberdeen if we recieve a good enough bid for one of our players then the manager has no say, we need the money, thats also been the same at most clubs up here in recent years, managers get a say up to a point but at the end of the day the chairman runs the club, and the finances, if he thinks its good enough then it tough for the manager, things might have been different years ago but now with the finacial constraints in football clubs are more likely to sell their players. As i said before, they are in debt, i would imagine they will be losing money each month before he is £1m in debt at xmas, unless they get promoted there is no prize money at all, so if they are already losing money, and no prize money to come in, and very little TV money, where do they make it back from? Selling players, its simple buisness. £4m at that level will easily buy you a replacement, christ half that money would if you look hard enough and not sulk about losing your star player.

Fergie is in a very unique position, even Pep HAD to sell players in the summer to balance the books at Barca, you wouldnt say it was an offer they couldnt refuse value wise, they lost £10m on the centre back they signed last year, but he was told they needed to sell, luckily man u havent needed to sell for a number of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, Madejski once practically advertised the fact that Reading was up for sale and he would 'welcome offers' during an interview on Football Focus. That's the sort of chairman you're dealing with here

He's very open about the fact that the club is for sale, and has been for 20 years!

However, would you see Madejski pushing Long out of the club, or will it be a managerial decision?

Do you think it's a realistic that the game's chairmen push players out at a 33% premium under their managers' noses?

"Too good to refuse" should be a decision made when the bid is truly silly, and not just a "good" offer. £4m is a good offer for Long (from Reading's point of view), but I don't see it as Madejski butting-in and selling the player - especially since Reading have received similar values for similar players before!

We have a Director of Football (Nicky Hammond) who answers to Madejski before the manager. He sold Doyle, Hunt and Bikey without Rodgers's full backing, and found loans for Harper and Rosenior. It has been made clear to managers and players that offers over X will be accepted for them. I imagine X will be £4m at most for Long. So yes, it wouldn't be the manager's decision, though if he wanted Long gone he'd be gone even if Madejski wasn't fussed, and Long's opinion would matter more than the manager's.

There is no such single number as "value" in real life. IMO the fees for Doyle and Kitson were roughly what the market dictated for players of their quality for a club in Reading's situation at the time (which has only worsened as we have moved further from promotion and lost parachute payments). Similarly, £4m seems about right for Long, as does £3.5m for that matter.

We haven't received similar fees for similar players. Aside from Sigurdsson (who is an immensely talented attacking midfielder with a similar goals-to-game ratio to Long form a deeper position), all our "big fee" players were proven in the Premier League. Doyle and Kitson had both hit double figures in a season, Doyle despite being injured for a few months, Kitson despite being in a side offering very little service. Long has scored about 5 PL goals in two seasons, and simply doesn't have the rounded game of Kitson or Doyle. Long is like Saha to Kitson's Berbatov and Doyle's Rooney. His CA is much lower than Doyle's or Kitson's at the time of their sales. We were also in much better positions both financially and in footballing terms at the time, so could command higher fees.

We have already got a "replacement" for Long in Manset, any money from Long's sale which does not go on the year's wages will go on recruiting a cheap striker with potential who may replace Manset in three years when we sell him for £2m. That's how the club works these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a Director of Football (Nicky Hammond) who answers to Madejski before the manager. He sold Doyle, Hunt and Bikey without Rodgers's full backing, and found loans for Harper and Rosenior. It has been made clear to managers and players that offers over X will be accepted for them. I imagine X will be £4m at most for Long. So yes, it wouldn't be the manager's decision, though if he wanted Long gone he'd be gone even if Madejski wasn't fussed, and Long's opinion would matter more than the manager's.

There is no Director of Football role within the game (at least none that is more than cosmetic).

Within the context of the game, £4m is "good" for Long, but it is hardly "too good to refuse".

There is no such single number as "value" in real life. IMO the fees for Doyle and Kitson were roughly what the market dictated for players of their quality for a club in Reading's situation at the time (which has only worsened as we have moved further from promotion and lost parachute payments). Similarly, £4m seems about right for Long, as does £3.5m for that matter.

It is possible to calculate a rough market value based on what he has achieved and how he compares to the rest of the players in his league or thereabouts.

You say £4m sounds "about right" for Long, but it is not "too good to refuse". "Too good to refuse" should be a deal that is so insane the manager won't even think twice before selling. There's nothing "insane" about £4m for Long, although you can of course get a better deal - but the context of the OP's game could imply other things (i.e. high demand, had a very good season...).

I simply don't see £1m in debt as so extreme that the board has to intervene whenever it receives a "good" offer for one of their players. I can see why the OP is upset - how else is he supposed to build a squad when a bid of £4m (which, by the way, is comfortably amongst the ballpark region amongst some of Reading's outbound transfers) is going to go over his head? For £4m, he may be able to get another £2.5m striker but will have to pay a signing-on fee and blend him into the squad, and that assumes one such striker is available. That doesn't sound like a fantastic deal to me. A bid of, say, £6m, would be insane and I would understand why the board would intervene, since you can easily improve on Long for that price, perhaps even getting two good players in his stead. Not £4m.

I've never been a fan of this chairman going over your head because at the end of the day users want to control their team, not become virtual football managers. Things like this are frustrating and annoying, and contrary to the idea of a game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only real problem here is the phrase "too good to refuse". Perhaps if the Chairman had said he felt the club needed the money, or was concerned by the financial position or something, that might be a bit fairer. Also I'd prefer to see more discussion with the board in these circumstances. Something like this:

Chairman: I think £4m is a great amount of money, can you cope without him?

Manager: He's key to our promotion challenge, I want him to stay

Chairman: I've considered it, but I'm worried about our financial position, so I'm sorry but I have to step in here and accept

The manager could then issue an ultimatum if he wanted etc. Just an idea really

I do think £4m for long is a great offer though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not totally unrealistic but I understand what the the OP is saying.

1 Million in debt is no where near panick stations for a football club, most operate with debts so IRL I would imagine they would wait until the end of the season before making that decision to sell or not, based on which division they will be playing in next season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a championship fan myself I sympathise with you massively.

Cardiff rejected 6m for Ross McCormack and Joe Ledley each.

We then about a year or so later sold McCormack for 500k and Ledley left on a bosman.

I'll tell you who the ****ing chairman was, Peter Ridsdale!!!!!!!!!!

Yup Ridsdale gambled and it almost crippled the club, if you had sold both of those players i doubt there would have been so many stories about the club struggling financially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no Director of Football role within the game (at least none that is more than cosmetic).

Within the context of the game, £4m is "good" for Long, but it is hardly "too good to refuse".

It is possible to calculate a rough market value based on what he has achieved and how he compares to the rest of the players in his league or thereabouts.

You say £4m sounds "about right" for Long, but it is not "too good to refuse". "Too good to refuse" should be a deal that is so insane the manager won't even think twice before selling. There's nothing "insane" about £4m for Long, although you can of course get a better deal - but the context of the OP's game could imply other things (i.e. high demand, had a very good season...).

I simply don't see £1m in debt as so extreme that the board has to intervene whenever it receives a "good" offer for one of their players. I can see why the OP is upset - how else is he supposed to build a squad when a bid of £4m (which, by the way, is comfortably amongst the ballpark region amongst some of Reading's outbound transfers) is going to go over his head? For £4m, he may be able to get another £2.5m striker but will have to pay a signing-on fee and blend him into the squad, and that assumes one such striker is available. That doesn't sound like a fantastic deal to me. A bid of, say, £6m, would be insane and I would understand why the board would intervene, since you can easily improve on Long for that price, perhaps even getting two good players in his stead. Not £4m.

I've never been a fan of this chairman going over your head because at the end of the day users want to control their team, not become virtual football managers. Things like this are frustrating and annoying, and contrary to the idea of a game.

You seem intent on saying that the manager is the only person who should be able to sell players, when infact it is the Chairman who runs the club and simply employs the manager to MANAGE the team. Therefore if the chairman deems it necessary to sell a player, he will. It is more than likely just cosmetic that the game uses the term "Too good to refuse" as the reason for selling and it is just that the chairman has decided to sell for his own reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem intent on saying that the manager is the only person who should be able to sell players, when infact it is the Chairman who runs the club and simply employs the manager to MANAGE the team. Therefore if the chairman deems it necessary to sell a player, he will. It is more than likely just cosmetic that the game uses the term "Too good to refuse" as the reason for selling and it is just that the chairman has decided to sell for his own reasons.

A manager's role isn't limited to managing the team, however - some clubs give their managers a much bigger scope for control, unlike a manager/DoF split.

The main reason why I don't think this is a good idea is that users are not expecting chairmen to go round selling players for "good" values, especially when they feel that money can be made elsewhere. For example, they could be selling another player to make up the shortfall, or selling multiple, other players, who may not get such a large transfer fee but shaves off more wages.

This is, after all, the whole point of the finance confidence section, isn't it? The board requires you to keep the club in the black, and keep wages down. To me, this implies that the board are entrusting you with a large portion of the finances - and therefore if the chairman intervenes, it really has to be an idiotic bid (i.e. £8m for Long) - not simply a "good" one.

Imagine if you are negotiating the sale of around £5m worth of players, and the chairman sees this £4m bid for Long and puts it ahead, despite the fact the manager wants Long to fulfil a specific role in the team, hence the sale of so many other players?

Unless we have a Director of Football role that is not cosmetic, I do not really see why the chairman needs to intervene at £4m for Long, which is simply a good, not outrageous, bid.

I believe the game should simply "nudge" the user in the direction to sell, by perhaps saying "I want the club to be in the black by the end of the season" or "you need to have a net spend of -£1m by the end of this transfer window, with wages no greater than before" or something - then it is up to the user to do that. But most objectives should be longer-term unless it is an emergency (i.e. Portsmouth a few seasons ago, where immediate cash takes priority above all).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand Seann94's frustration, and tbf without Long, Reading would have no chance of promotion this season.

However, I'm guessing you've maxed out the wage bill, probably over what is allowed, and your £1m in debt because you've signed other players.

Does it seem that hard to beleive that the club, if given the opportunity, would not turn down a deal that gives Reading £3mill in the bank and a lower wage bill?

You've also got to remember that in terms of transfers and loans the 5/6 players we signed in January are in the game from the start and therefore you're almost 4 months ahead (does that make sense) , and I'm sure we'll be selling Shane Long in the summer.

In the two games i've played since the new patch, Shane Long went to Newcastle in January (i turn off transfers in the first window) as the replacement for Andy Carroll in both for £4m+. And Reading dropped from 2nd to 9th by the end of the season.

Did you buy a replacement striker?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand Seann94's frustration, and tbf without Long, Reading would have no chance of promotion this season.

However, I'm guessing you've maxed out the wage bill, probably over what is allowed, and your £1m in debt because you've signed other players.

Does it seem that hard to beleive that the club, if given the opportunity, would not turn down a deal that gives Reading £3mill in the bank and a lower wage bill?

Madejski will likely poke the manager in that direction, but perhaps the manager has other ideas on where to gain money? Perhaps the manager plans on playing 4-3-1-2 and therefore the wingers will be gone first before Long is considered?

Of course the manager or management team will consider it, but I don't think £4m for Long is worth the chairman intervening. £6m perhaps. £8m yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm playing dafuge challenge.

I bought (I'm a championship team) a good AML with leading premiership potential.

From Bolton for 4.5 million.

He played the season, 7 goals, 5 assists, 7.02 AvR.

As always happens, his value has dropped down through the season back to his 'true' current value, down to 1.7 million.

Chelsea made a bid on him of 3.3 million at the end of that first season.

The chairman accepted over my head because it's 'too good to refuse'.

A loss of 1.2 million is not "too good to refuse". My finances were 2 or 3 million in the black.

Combined with a massive injury crisis, instead of pushing for the title, I'm scrapping for the 2nd place automatic promotion spot and could easily end up in a playoff I'll lose since the game has decided this year that half my team will be out for every match.

Funny thing is, whenever I bid on a player, I have to bid 5 or 6 times their value before the AI will even start negotiation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My chairman is selling it most of my team. I don't think I would care that much if there actually was enough intelligence in the game to realise that there has to be a certain number of homegrown players and that it is actually useful to have at least 2 goalkeepers. And also selling out the key players with 5 star potential of the team in January for about the same as their value while we are fighting for a promotion seems abit strange. The chairman must be made smart enough to realise that they ruin chances of promotion when they force you to play with 1 star ability youth players and set the expectations thereafter.

It is getting totally ridiculous he has sofar sold 7 key players in less than 2 seasons, the team is crashing from promotion contenders to losing against lower division teams. So damn frustrating to be able to tell him he is destroying the team in a pressconference but it has zero effect in the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sean. Three years ago, Reading let their best player go on a free transfer, then sold their second best player for around £4m, then their third best player for £3m, then their top scorer so far that season for £2m (though that was Sonko, a centre back, on three goals after three games :D). The following season, they sold their best player for £6m, another of their most effective players for £3m, and the best defender in the league for another £3m. Last summer, they sold their best player for £6.6m. Little, Kitson, Shorey, Doyle, Hunt, Bikey and Sigurdsson were all much better players than Shane Long. Except Hunt, maybe. You describe Long as your best player, meaning you have already sold Kébé.

You know what? It would be unrealistic if Madejski wasn't accepting £4m offers for Shane Long. Yeah, he's been amazing for a few months, but he hasn't been nearly as amazing as Sigurdsson was last season, and he's about 5 years older. £4m is great value for you. Use the money well.

Real life is unrealistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...