Everything is wrong with this news item!

Secondly, his "market value" is 1.9 million, and that is what the media think Manchester United would have to pay to "prise him away" from me. Multiply that by 5 and then I would be willing to discuss a transfer with them, just like I would have to do if they had a potential leading star in their youth ranks who I would want to sign...

Thirdly, 7.13 av.r isn't "largely disappointing"

And finally, he is a "Hot prospect for the future"! Starting three times and being a substitute one time would be great for a 18-years old - so "featuring only intermittently" is utterly nonsense in this case!

-------

But maybe this is hyper-realistic! Everyone knows that Manchester United are poaching youngsters rather than strengthening their ageing team, and that media are talking nonsense...

Think you're quibbling with semantics over the last point. 4 games in your season is feauturing intermittently whether you are 16 or 36.

You highlight an important point about the media speculation though as they always quote the asking price. What would be nice is if you could suggest a price to the media (like Holloway did with Charlie Adam) or for it to take into account the inflation of a club that doesn't need to sell.

Remember the top clubs wouldn't only scout the first team performances of a player irl, judging them over a longer period of time through youth team games aswell.

"Prise him away" is merely a saying and I wouldnt read too much into it, though I would prefer the game not to state values, and say something like, "it would take a big offer....".

Could be a few reasons for the average rating and "largely disappointing" reference, not sure how the game interprets and comes to this conclusion. He may have played one good game, and the other 3 been absolutely appauling.

"featuring only intermittently" is not absolute nonsense, it's completely true. No matter what his status he has only played a handful of games, thus intermittently

The only thing i was going to say was the value quoted is his face value, the media will take this as what your asking price could be because you have not set it any higher, if you had set a fee for him it would have read much different.

The general gist is that Palermo is apparently an out-of-favour player on his way away from Las Palmas for peanuts. That is how I interpret the news message. Maybe I am overly harsh but the transfer "mini-game" really needs improvement - perhaps by removing the default "market price" altogether. It is not indicative of what you have to pay for a player and it never has been. This way, transfer listed players and agents of "unsettled" players would be how you would find available players for your team. The list of famous players with market value would also have to go. Maybe this could be another realism immersion choice done when you create a new game, just like player attribute masking.

That's a very good point actually. There really is no need for a figure to be put on a player on the transfer screens. If you scout them then the scout can suggest a price to you or the news articles might then become more relevent as they quote an asking price you might be expected to pay.

That's a very good point actually. There really is no need for a figure to be put on a player on the transfer screens. If you scout them then the scout can suggest a price to you or the news articles might then become more relevent as they quote an asking price you might be expected to pay.

Not really a good idea since there "is" a market price for a player, which does represent his "innate" value - the value at which he by himself is worth, rather than his worth to the club. It's not representative of how much you will have to pay (in general) but this doesn't mean it has no use.

Not really a good idea since there "is" a market price for a player, which does represent his "innate" value - the value at which he by himself is worth, rather than his worth to the club. It's not representative of how much you will have to pay (in general) but this doesn't mean it has no use.

But he is never by himself is he? The player will always belong to a club in which case you will have to pay what the club want or he will be a free agent and thus you won't have to pay anything.

The game will say that Jonjo Shelvey's (as an example and this isn't his in-game value as I don't have the game open) innate value is £3 million, but if Liverpool want £8 million for him that number is worthless. What purpose does it serve?

But he is never by himself is he? The player will always belong to a club in which case you will have to pay what the club want or he will be a free agent and thus you won't have to pay anything.

Yes, but then again, the face value of something is almost-surely never equal to its selling value. The market value of, say, a sandwich, is the amount spent to make it; the selling value is the value attached to the sandwich by the shops. The market value is a useful thing to have, but isn't trusted. It's a rough gauge used to determine whether something is being sold under face value or over face value - for example, if your player is approaching the end of his contract, he will likely have market value below his face value - but you need a face value to judge what that market value may be. The same goes for players on long-term contracts.

The game will say that Jonjo Shelvey's (as an example and this isn't his in-game value as I don't have the game open) innate value is £3 million, but if Liverpool want £8 million for him that number is worthless. What purpose does it serve?

It means that in theory, Shelvey and Shelvey alone, without Liverpool's interest (or in the case of, say, Konchesky, lack of interest) in retaining the player, he would be worth £3m. If you like, he has "£3m" worth of talent in his body. It just so happens the future potential of Shelvey means that Liverpool want to be compensated for his future ability - hence the higher amount over face value.

Without the face value, it would be extremely hard to tell whether a player is overvalued or undervalued - you'd have to pretty much bid for every single player in his "ability range" to find out what the face value is - that is just silly. That's all the face value is - a rough approximation of face value, dependent on the player and player alone, modified depending on actual circumstances.

If Messi at his peak started to stall over a new contract, he would still arguably be a "£60m" (or whatever) player in the sense that he is "£20m" better than just about every other player in the world. That's all face value is - it is a rough value which you can use to judge players against.

Yes, but then again, the face value of something is almost-surely never equal to its selling value. The market value of, say, a sandwich, is the amount spent to make it; the selling value is the value attached to the sandwich by the shops. The market value is a useful thing to have, but isn't trusted. It's a rough gauge used to determine whether something is being sold under face value or over face value - for example, if your player is approaching the end of his contract, he will likely have market value below his face value - but you need a face value to judge what that market value may be. The same goes for players on long-term contracts.

It means that in theory, Shelvey and Shelvey alone, without Liverpool's interest (or in the case of, say, Konchesky, lack of interest) in retaining the player, he would be worth £3m. If you like, he has "£3m" worth of talent in his body. It just so happens the future potential of Shelvey means that Liverpool want to be compensated for his future ability - hence the higher amount over face value.

Without the face value, it would be extremely hard to tell whether a player is overvalued or undervalued - you'd have to pretty much bid for every single player in his "ability range" to find out what the face value is - that is just silly. That's all the face value is - a rough approximation of face value, dependent on the player and player alone, modified depending on actual circumstances.

If Messi at his peak started to stall over a new contract, he would still arguably be a "£60m" (or whatever) player in the sense that he is "£20m" better than just about every other player in the world. That's all face value is - it is a rough value which you can use to judge players against.

I don't disagree with your market value/face value argument. You make a fair point about knowing how ripped off you're going to get when buying someone. What sets this face value rate in game though? We don't actually have anything like that IRL. If Liverpool were to drop back in at The Valley tomorrow to sign Scott Wagstaff because Shelvey misses a friendly face Dalglish and Comolli don't have a finite price they can look at. IRL there is no face value for Scott Wagstaff and they will have to weigh up what the player will bring to the club and negotiate with Charlton to get a price. They can't say Wagstaff has a face value of £150,000 grand so we won't pay anymore than £500,000 as he's too overvalued.

What is a problem I guess is that there is no way to really emulate this in the game at the moment so we have to rely on the face value as our starting point for negotiation.

Good points, all, but I suppose the problem really is that in 11.3 "Hot Prospect" means the player is more available/less important to the club than a backup player. That is of course nonsense!

Indispensable to the Club

Important First Team Player

Hot Prospect for the Future

Squad Rotation Player

Back-up to the First Team

Decent Youngster

Not Needed By the Club

I want this order in the future. It would also be help battle the silly amount of youngsters the rich clubs are buying who then rots in their reserves until their contracts go out.

Coming back to the OP, I'd say don't worry about it too much. The media isn't always going to be very well done because there are only a few different lines of text that get randomly stuck together to make a news report. So sometimes they're kinda silly.

Like getting the news item "Jame on form in narrow Gloucester win":

"The Gloucester defender looked tidy and hardly put a foot wrong all game. Young centre-back Will James was left red-faced in the 48th minute as he managed to put the ball into his own net."

Admittedly, he might have scored the own goal with a header, but I'm putting my money on this being down to how news items are generated - paste a couple of phrases together.

Coming back to the OP, I'd say don't worry about it too much. The media isn't always going to be very well done because there are only a few different lines of text that get randomly stuck together to make a news report. So sometimes they're kinda silly.

Like getting the news item "Jame on form in narrow Gloucester win":

"The Gloucester defender looked tidy and hardly put a foot wrong all game. Young centre-back Will James was left red-faced in the 48th minute as he managed to put the ball into his own net."

Admittedly, he might have scored the own goal with a header, but I'm putting my money on this being down to how news items are generated - paste a couple of phrases together.

They did bid 1.9 mill for him, though. Like if that would happen. 1.9 millions is exactly enough for me to send them a fax with a giant middle finger on it. Especially with a transfer revenue of 20%...

They did bid 1.9 mill for him, though. Like if that would happen. 1.9 millions is exactly enough for me to send them a fax with a giant middle finger on it. Especially with a transfer revenue of 20%...

I know where you're coming from, but that's less a media issue and more of a transfer issue. I've actually found the transfers on FM2011 a lot better than they used to be, so while it ain't perfect, credit where credit is due. I've actually sold squad players for good money and found it relatively easy to get rid of dead wood.

But on that note, have you actually set the "Unavailable for transfer" option for the player and set his value very high? I always do that if I've got nice youngsters and the big boys come sniffing.

I know where you're coming from, but that's less a media issue and more of a transfer issue. I've actually found the transfers on FM2011 a lot better than they used to be, so while it ain't perfect, credit where credit is due. I've actually sold squad players for good money and found it relatively easy to get rid of dead wood.

But on that note, have you actually set the "Unavailable for transfer" option for the player and set his value very high? I always do that if I've got nice youngsters and the big boys come sniffing.

Yeah unlike earlier versions, if you are an attractive club and offer "deawood" to clubs, they will normally buy him for his market value. That is an improvement. However, proper bids for proper players happens very rarely. Emenike is my top goalscorer with at least one per game on average, his market value is only £2,5m and he has a release clause of 7.5m. Don't you think of one the absolute goalscoring stars in BBVA would be gone before you could shout "not for sale" if this was the case in RL?

There are many interested clubs, and I have set his asking price to 7.5m of course, and this somehow deters potential buyers. Nice for me in the short term but mostly just silly.

I don't disagree with your market value/face value argument. You make a fair point about knowing how ripped off you're going to get when buying someone. What sets this face value rate in game though? We don't actually have anything like that IRL. If Liverpool were to drop back in at The Valley tomorrow to sign Scott Wagstaff because Shelvey misses a friendly face Dalglish and Comolli don't have a finite price they can look at. IRL there is no face value for Scott Wagstaff and they will have to weigh up what the player will bring to the club and negotiate with Charlton to get a price. They can't say Wagstaff has a face value of £150,000 grand so we won't pay anymore than £500,000 as he's too overvalued.

What is a problem I guess is that there is no way to really emulate this in the game at the moment so we have to rely on the face value as our starting point for negotiation.

We do, actually... There was a piece of paper that detailed all the attributes that went in to a (I think) Newcastle United transfer, and it factored in things like commercial revenue, wages, injuries...

The face value could well be the average price paid for players like Wagstaff - young League One midfielders who are approaching 100 appearances (if he hasn't passed it already), who have had a solid season.

The face value could even represent some weighted "average" of his attributes and reputation. If you like, if he has face value £150k, he will give you £150k of ability.

A bit like saying, "I want a £30m striker." You have rough expectations of such a striker - for example, will get into double-figures in the league alone for the season consistently, is likely to score more than 20 per season, and has the odd chance of hitting 30 or even 40. Strikers like Berbatov or van Persie - the mere mention of "£30m striker" immediately implies this. It's a benchmark, if you like. If Berbatov were available on a free right now, he would be a "£30m striker" worth £0 (ignoring wages) - absolute bargain.

That's all it is really - a benchmark figure that is useful to gauge and is possible to calculate.