Aston villa finances are all wrong?

hi, i'm confused about this but pretty sure i'm right.

v11.1: villa have a balance of 41m, 18m to spend on transfers -due to having sold james milner, NOT in installments, in one go

v11.3: villa have a balance of 22m, 5m to spend on transfers -due to having bought darren bent supposedly. BUT villa are paying 36x333333 installments for this transfer, so havent spent all this money and should therefore have about the same budget and balance in 11.3. ok, they bought Makoun too (no pun) but that doesnt mean budget and balance should havce gone down that much.

anyone know the reason for this anomaly? i'm guessing SI are taking the darren bent money TWICE and i intend to have it back, but will wait for responses before editing my DB, hate doing it, but i see a mistake here. please please prove me wrong??

neil

will be best off asking HERE the Aston Villa researcher will be able to tell you i would have thought

36x333333 only comes to £12m and Bent cost more than that didn't he? Something like £18m rising to £24m? I don't know what it is set at in the game but if they are paying £12m over 3 years and, say £6m up front then that means £6m + one third of £12m which makes £10m total up front, which would come out of this year's budget.

THANKS, yeah, i regret writing that post cos it is, indeed, correct. i'm happy i was wrong:)

THANKS, yeah, i regret writing that post cos it is, indeed, correct. i'm happy i was wrong:)

No worries fella.