Stupid Financial Controls

I'm having abit of a cash flow problem! Current repayments for players is working out at €3.5m a month. Last season €26m was paid out on players bought and this season, its €30m so far. But come August that will be reduced to ~€1m per month as all payments bar Paulo Henrique will be paid in full.

The silly thing is that Celtic would allow me to spend another €15M on players. The financial controls in this game are idiotic

In just under 4 seasons at Celtic, I've been able to spend €107m on players (including €45m on Paulo Henrique), €12.5m on agent fees and only recouped €35m in player sales. I havent won a European Trophy nor have I gotten to any European Finals so there is no justification for letting me do carte blanche to the clubs finances. I'm afraid to ask for a stadium expansion because I'd probably get it even though, IRL, its deemed not cost effective and riddled with planning constraints. This has been going on for several versions of the game yet SI have done little to sort this sort of exploitation of the game engine.

Sort it out SI!

Thing is tho, Celtic are backed by a multi billionaire they can spend as much as they want and he will always provide funds, this is reflected in game, they will let you get the club in debt because he will pay it off.

A club shouldnt allow a manager to spend money that they dont have, thats my point,

Thing is tho, Celtic are backed by a multi billionaire they can spend as much as they want and he will always provide funds, this is reflected in game, they will let you get the club in debt because he will pay it off.

Celtic arent backed by a multimillionaire, they are PLC. Nobody at Celtic pumps money into the club to buy players, nor does anyone pick up the tab on debt. The club is self sufficient and have strict financial controls to ensure that scenarios that I've manipulated dont ever happen. I suggest that you look up how Celtic is actually run because they are a not a sugar daddy club as you are describing.

A club shouldnt allow a manager to spend money that they dont have, thats my point,

Celtic arent backed by a multimillionaire, they are PLC. Nobody at Celtic pumps money into the club to buy players, nor does anyone pick up the tab on debt. The club is self sufficient and have strict financial controls to ensure that scenarios that I've manipulated dont ever happen. I suggest that you look up how Celtic is actually run because they are a not a sugar daddy club as you are describing.

Of course they are, Dermott or whatever his name is has time and time again pumped millions into celtic, he paid for the loans of Keane and Bellamy out of his own pocket and he does make money avaliable for players, otherwise there is no way celtic could afford the huge outlay on players they have spent this year.

Your hardly in a bad position.

Last season you had income of nearly £100m and made a loss of £13m after paying out £25m in transfer fees meaning you would have made a profit of £12m without transfers.

This season your income looks similar but it seems you have spent more circu £40m which means the club will be in debt at the end of the season. At this point the board will make severe changes to your budgets to rectify your spending. I wouldn't be surprised to see a £0 transfer budget next season and I imagine your wage budget will also be cut by maybe as much as 25%.

Of course they are, Dermott or whatever his name is has time and time again pumped millions into celtic, he paid for the loans of Keane and Bellamy out of his own pocket and he does make money avaliable for players, otherwise there is no way celtic could afford the huge outlay on players they have spent this year.

Desmond hasnt input any money into the club since the share issue to construct Lennoxtown. He cannot invest anymore money into the club without triggering a takeover. He doesnt want to own Celtic outright and he is very much against subsidising Celtic when it comes to buying players. I suggest that you check the books, Celtic paid for Bellamy and Keane, not Desmond out of his own pocket. Also I suggest you check the books on what Celtic have spent this season, Celtic's net spend on players this season is actually close to nothing and they arent paying much more in wages either because selling big earners like Boruc, McManus and McGeady allowed Lennon to sign the players he wanted.

Your hardly in a bad position.

Last season you had income of nearly £100m and made a loss of £13m after paying out £25m in transfer fees meaning you would have made a profit of £12m without transfers.

This season your income looks similar but it seems you have spent more circu £40m which means the club will be in debt at the end of the season. At this point the board will make severe changes to your budgets to rectify your spending. I wouldn't be surprised to see a £0 transfer budget next season and I imagine your wage budget will also be cut by maybe as much as 25%.

My financial situation will get better because all my transfers from the 4 seasons to date have been structured to finish at the end of this season, with the notable exception of Paulo Henrique which will go on for another 2 years. I will go back into a healthy and sustainable position but I could have easily kept pushing the club into more debt if I wanted to. I shouldn't have gotten that transfer budget this season considering the 'load' that was already there on the club.

Also, Celtic would never pay €45m + €65k p/w on one player, even if the repayments were staggered. Peter Lawwell refused to pay €1.5m for James McCarthy and refused to pay more than €4m for Steven Fletcher. I chose no 1st window budgets and I still managed to put €11.75m of 'player debt' onto the clubs books, €25.5m the following season, €57m the next season, and €13m this season. It ridiculous given the reality and this game is suppose to be a realistic simulation.

Monthly payments need to be limited in my opinion or there should be two budgets given one reflecting how much the board is willing to let you spend on monthly payments. I have just taken over as Man United manager and have been given £100 million to spend, I sold £50 million worth of players. My transfer budget is £150 million however I can spend £600 million if I pay in monthly payments, that is ridiculous I think transfers should be cancelled by the board if they feel the monthly payments are too high.

I don't disagree that the financial part of the game could be stricter but you need to remember this is a game at the end of the day.

The main purpose is football management not financial management as well so you have to expect that the financial part probably doesn't get as much attention as the ME.

The answer I'm afraid at this stage is if you are unhappy with the financial aspect you need to show some self control and impose your own limits. Given you seem to understand the financial side this shouldn't be an issue.

Well, to be honest, can't you just... not sign players on so long monthly payments?. If you dislike it and find it silly, just don't do it.

I always see the financial constraints imposed as more like "guidelines" and not neccesarily guidelines to aim towards.

yea to me the board needs to be more strict on the outgoings for players especially when you have just taken over if after a while the board trust you to take the club slightly into the red before making a profit at the end of the season even better, or something that was suggested on here the other day?

a projected profit or loss depending on competition prize money (as im guessing that is static) and if you go to far into the red or theres no chance of you getting into the black by the end of the season the board could step in and limit your dealings?

hopefully that makes sense.

I know I can just not sign the players so I do not. The aim of FM is realism although I do not think that some aspects of real football management should be added I do believe that monthly payments make it too unrealistic. I can play as Sunderland with a £15 million budget this often gets raised to £30 million before January. So the option is there to spend £120 million it is just my opinion that these types of transfers should be limited. If the board give you a budget of £30 million it should be £30 million not over £100 million.

Monthly payments need to be limited in my opinion or there should be two budgets given one reflecting how much the board is willing to let you spend on monthly payments. I have just taken over as Man United manager and have been given £100 million to spend, I sold £50 million worth of players. My transfer budget is £150 million however I can spend £600 million if I pay in monthly payments, that is ridiculous I think transfers should be cancelled by the board if they feel the monthly payments are too high.

Agreed

I don't disagree that the financial part of the game could be stricter but you need to remember this is a game at the end of the day.

The main purpose is football management not financial management as well so you have to expect that the financial part probably doesn't get as much attention as the ME.

The answer I'm afraid at this stage is if you are unhappy with the financial aspect you need to show some self control and impose your own limits. Given you seem to understand the financial side this shouldn't be an issue.

I agree with what you are saying but football is now very much a business as it is a sport. Getting a €45m worldwide rep player into the SPL with ease shouldn't happen, how many versions of the game has this existed yet nothing has been done. If they dont have the manpower to fully test a game before releasing it then they should up the manpower to process the workload quicker. I usually do impose limits and restrictions on myself to make the game more realistic/harder but in this save I signed Paulo Henrique because I could. I actually didnt and dont need him but I decided to spoil myself

Celtic find it very difficult to compete with clubs of similar stature because of the SPL, Scottish Weather, Money & at this stage regular collapse of TV deals. It shouldnt be that difficult to reflect the current situation in the game

Desmond hasnt input any money into the club since the share issue to construct Lennoxtown. He cannot invest anymore money into the club without triggering a takeover. He doesnt want to own Celtic outright and he is very much against subsidising Celtic when it comes to buying players. I suggest that you check the books, Celtic paid for Bellamy and Keane, not Desmond out of his own pocket. Also I suggest you check the books on what Celtic have spent this season, Celtic's net spend on players this season is actually close to nothing and they arent paying much more in wages either because selling big earners like Boruc, McManus and McGeady allowed Lennon to sign the players he wanted.

My financial situation will get better because all my transfers from the 4 seasons to date have been structured to finish at the end of this season, with the notable exception of Paulo Henrique which will go on for another 2 years. I will go back into a healthy and sustainable position but I could have easily kept pushing the club into more debt if I wanted to. I shouldn't have gotten that transfer budget this season considering the 'load' that was already there on the club.

Also, Celtic would never pay €45m + €65k p/w on one player, even if the repayments were staggered. Peter Lawwell refused to pay €1.5m for James McCarthy and refused to pay more than €4m for Steven Fletcher. I chose no 1st window budgets and I still managed to put €11.75m of 'player debt' onto the clubs books, €25.5m the following season, €57m the next season, and €13m this season. It ridiculous given the reality and this game is suppose to be a realistic simulation.

If thats the case then i appologise i was always under the impression he pumped money into Celtic and from what i had read he paid for both those loans out of his own money! sorry mate!

Anyway can you just not use the monthly thing if it bothers you that much?

I don't disagree that the financial part of the game could be stricter but you need to remember this is a game at the end of the day.

The main purpose is football management not financial management as well so you have to expect that the financial part probably doesn't get as much attention as the ME.

The answer I'm afraid at this stage is if you are unhappy with the financial aspect you need to show some self control and impose your own limits. Given you seem to understand the financial side this shouldn't be an issue.

The fact that if you are unable to avoid massive amounts of debt building up over the years because of a poorly implemented financial model means that we as managers face severe punishments in the form of points deductions for going into administration, means that to say it's a game and we should only be concerned with squad management isn't imo a good enough reason to ignore a part of the game that clearly doesn't work as it should and I think is in need of some revision for future installments of a game which professes 'realistic simulation' of managing a football club as one of it's biggest selling points.

If thats the case then i appologise i was always under the impression he pumped money into Celtic and from what i had read he paid for both those loans out of his own money! sorry mate!

Anyway can you just not use the monthly thing if it bothers you that much?

I had to scrap a save on 11.1 because of the poor financial model in the game, this was also with Celtic and in 9 years I never bought a single player over 48 months and reached two CL semi-finals but we still ended up with an absurd amount of debt and if I'd continued administration and a points deduction would have been inevitable without a massive fire sale.

If thats the case then i appologise i was always under the impression he pumped money into Celtic and from what i had read he paid for both those loans out of his own money! sorry mate!

Anyway can you just not use the monthly thing if it bothers you that much?

If he was Celtic's sugar daddy, I wouldnt be complaining and I wouldnt be posting this thread. The papers speculated on his involvement with those transfers alright but if they knew anything about the rules and regulations of a PLC then they'd know that it would need to be shown on the annual accounts. There is nothing on the annual reports about Desmond doing any sort of investment for those players.

At the moment, I have to tip toe around the game trying not to exploit corner tricks and contract negotiation tricks, now how I buy players and the whole financial management of the club. I'm suppose to be the football manager not the football manager/chief executive officer. The game isnt suppose to be played like this. Most clubs have an internal "tug of war" between the footballing side of the club and the business side, this cannot be done in FM because you are inadvertently bending or breaking the game code. There is no point to the board interaction function if this is going on.

I can never understand why people would be against the idea of two budgets. It would be simple, the board would give you a budget of £20 million for transfers up front but would be willing to spend £35 million if the budget is used for monthly payments rather than up front fees. That or they could say your budget is £20 million but if you spend in monthly payments we are willing to give you 35 percent extra. This way if I spend £5 million up front the finance page can calculate and display two budgets one for up front and one for monthly payments changing each time money is spend in either way.

I had to scrap a save on 11.1 because of the poor financial model in the game, this was also with Celtic and in 9 years I never bought a single player over 48 months and reached two CL semi-finals but we still ended up with an absurd amount of debt and if I'd continued administration and a points deduction would have been inevitable without a massive fire sale.

I have no sympathy for you in that situation.

Its not the financial model's fault that you spent more than you should have and went into administration. You need to be able to identify how much is reasonable and apply your own limits rather than relying on the budgets you are given.

I have no sympathy for you in that situation.

Its not the financial model's fault that you spent more than you should have and went into administration. You need to be able to identify how much is reasonable and apply your own limits rather than relying on the budgets you are given.

The main problem I encountered was more to do with the amount of prize money awarded not being sufficient to cover costs such as the ambiguous 'other' which seems to multiply out of control the further you get into the game.

i dont think i have ever ran a club into any financial difficulties, i always stay well under budget every seasons, even in the SPL it is easy enough to put together a top team without overdoing the budget, and thats with my club only having a 25,000 stadium, if your running celtic into trouble with that huge stadium then you cant be looking after the finances very well, or even at all.

i dont think i have ever ran a club into any financial difficulties, i always stay well under budget every seasons, even in the SPL it is easy enough to put together a top team without overdoing the budget, and thats with my club only having a 25,000 stadium, if your running celtic into trouble with that huge stadium then you cant be looking after the finances very well, or even at all.

I normally never run into financial problems but thats because I'm usually quite good with the books but in this save, I've purposely taken the **** to see where it goes.

To back up what slipknot is saying I'll reload an old 11.2.1 save

Its 2025, the most I ever paid for a player was €12.5m and that was over 42 months. Turnover is €225m per annum. I'm paying out €33m p/a on non football costs, €20m in matchday expenses despite only getting €12m in matchday income and €20m leaks out through 'Other'. Thats over 20% going out of the club without anyway to deal with it. My wage bill is €680k p/w, my highest earner is on 75k p/w and he's a 'homegrown' player thats been at the club 13 seasons. My end of season profit is €8m, luckily I won the UCL the previous season otherwise I would have barely broke even for the season.

It's also possible to have the scenario the other way around I managed Borussia Dortmund for 5 seasons before leaving them for Manchester United and I managed to get a balance of around 250 mio. € during my five years and I was never allowed more then 30 mio. € per year in transfer funds.

Yeah irl 99% of managers wouold spend the budget they're given and trust that the financial people know what they talking about. Us having to "know" that spending the budget they give us will lead to bankruptcy is stupid.

And this is without even using the 48 month deals nonsense.

I think this is SI again caring more about the many who want instant success rather than the few who want to play a sensible long term game.

It's also possible to have the scenario the other way around I managed Borussia Dortmund for 5 seasons before leaving them for Manchester United and I managed to get a balance of around 250 mio. € during my five years and I was never allowed more then 30 mio. € per year in transfer funds.

But they have a large debt. Maybe that had something to do with it.

I agree with Jiggsy. The financial model needs some work. It is pretty much a mystery to me. I kinda laugh when i see everyone buying £120m worth of talent, 1st transfer window, all over 48mths, at a club like Sunderland, Newcastle or L'Pool(infact, anyone other than City). Too easy to get these players to sign in the 1st place, and often no repurcussions financially speaking. While monthly installments are the norm in football, a board would never allow that level of spending over 48mths(and i doubt the seller would either). I also think it's too easy to get the board to agree to a higher transfer revenue percentage.

I just impose financial restrictions on myself though. And never buy Neymar or Pastore over 48mths. Still, as i said, finances are a msytery to me. At L'Pool i had a transfer rev. of 95%. I bought something like £110mill of players over 3 windows(Carroll, Suarez, A.Diarra, Kranjcar, Jones, Young, Adam, Enrique) and sold £90mill of players. This was including the Carroll/Suarez/Torres transfers as i didn't start the game with these players. So my net spend was essentially the the budget given to me when i took over the club(in jan 2011). Despite this, i found myself in £30mill worth of debt after season 2. But Henry just ploughed it all back into the club and i was rich again. I don't understand how my balance went so far into the red, as these sorts of players were not World Class nor demanding huge signing on fees/wages.

But as Jiggsy says, Celtic would never ever sanction these sorts of deals, and i'd like to see a more realistic model imposed on the player. But then again, financial fair play may come into effect in FM12/13.

Yeah irl 99% of managers wouold spend the budget they're given and trust that the financial people know what they talking about. Us having to "know" that spending the budget they give us will lead to bankruptcy is stupid.

And this is without even using the 48 month deals nonsense.

I think this is SI again caring more about the many who want instant success rather than the few who want to play a sensible long term game.

I agree with this. Too often we are forced to become the club accountants. I understand that many players enjoy this, and want complete control, but i'd like an option, at least, to delegate transfer negotiations and contracts to the board. Just tell them i want so and so player, and they will get them if possible. If not, we have to go for the cheaper, lesser option. Just like Benitez had to do at L'Pool. As i said, make it an option, not enforced aspect of gameplay. It is a game afterall.

And i agree again, that the 48th stuff is nonsense.

on a game when I was purposefully trying to bankrupt chelsea, I kept buying players from BSN leagues for tens of millions over several months. Why the board was letting me do that was a mystery but I got them bankrupt an relegated out of the league in consecutive years.