Jump to content

Transfer over 48 months_ press/board/fans reactions_ other things


Recommended Posts

Slightly concerned this hasn't really been addressed?

It takes a larger chunk out of the purse, but it doesn't really stop you. The board don't say anything or readjust the budget.

Example:

Playing as Arsenal. I have €58m budget. I sign Neymar for €68m. Transfer budget is reduced to €15m (or similar).

No reaction from Board. No reaction from fans. No reaction from press (except press conference which I can ignore)

With the remaining €15m I bought a rake of other players, Hamsik, Cavani, Hummels, and a few others over 48 months.

I sold a few players for about €1m or €2m each.

Which seemed to really boost my cash flow when making the deals.

  1. Will the board now take this into consideration at the end of next season for my next transfer budget?
  2. Should the board:
    • re-evaluate my transfer budget after an expensive signing?
    • limit the amount of X months transfer deals?

[*]Why no reaction from the press for a world record fee for a teenager?

[*]Why don't the board react? Not even a boost in sales of shirts?

(can we stay away from "limit yourself to making 48 month transfers" and other such things)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

If you sign a player on a 48 Month contract over time (say the next season) your transfer budget will continually get lower to compensate this fact. Likewise if you overspend eventually you're going to cripple the club financially. Basically the short-term gains are far outweighed by the long-term punishments - unless you're successful of course. That's the gamble. And Leeds United say hello! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leeds Enrons are a great example. But... I've done this continuously in FM11 and see no drastic reduction over the years. Or effect. In fact I can lose a lot of money every month, and then still climb UP the world financial rankings.

Will this be the same in FM12?

What about Board reactions? Board putting the finger down on transfers.

In FM12 Demo I spent over €200m with Arsenal in the first transfer window. Fair enough if I was Man City. But Arsenal?

Fan reactions? News reactions to world record signings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fan reactions? News reactions to world record signings?

This I totally agree with and has been a bug-bear for a while. We get news articles about all sorts of (relatively) pointless things but breaking the world record has always been anti-climactic. You would, in due course, get an identical set of press conference questions to those which you'd get if you'd spent £10k as a BSS club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LoL

In La Liga, 268 million was spent.

200 million of that was me with Malaga. From 48 months instals, and the thing is, in the actual game you wont even have to worry about going into debt because of there "background sugardaddy"

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unrealistic because the transfer budget set researchers is a realistic representation of what's available to spend. Multiplying that 4 negates this work, Arsenal would never spend 200 million in a window whatever the circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you sign a player on a 48 Month contract over time (say the next season) your transfer budget will continually get lower to compensate this fact. Likewise if you overspend eventually you're going to cripple the club financially. Basically the short-term gains are far outweighed by the long-term punishments - unless you're successful of course. That's the gamble. And Leeds United say hello! :)

I don't think gambling is the issue; I agree with all you said.

I think its the fact there is no reward shown from the board - say on the confidence screen - for making a healthy profit is the problem or vice versa.

Again, it isn't OK to keep your job when you bankrupt a club because you have a world class reputation and great success plus staff on your side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the 48 month is an exploit/cheat. But I thought it would be taken care of for FM12. And it's not.

Basically I can buy a new world class player for every position for Arsenal with €58m in one transfer window.

Granted I may have to sell a few of the lower rated players to make ends meet. But I can still do it.

And there's no real financial risk or reprimand from the board, no reaction from the fans, and little from the press (excpet at the end of transfer window when you get a roundup)

I really think this option should be knocked on the head all together and the board should have a bigger say if you're spending 4 times the transfer budget in one transfer window.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh in real life this happens a lot. We may read on the papers that x players costed 12M euros but it's quite common that it's 4M on the signing, another 4M to be paid within a year, and the other 4M within two years. That's how it is most of the times at least in Italy

Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh in real life this happens a lot. We may read on the papers that x players costed 12M euros but it's quite common that it's 4M on the signing, another 4M to be paid within a year, and the other 4M within two years. That's how it is most of the times at least in Italy

Yes, but no club essentially spends 4 years worth of players in one go... It is far too risky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even know that this could be done!!! I always thought if you had a transfer budget of say £40m and bought a player for £30m over 48 months that your budget reduced the full amount to £10m?

If this is not the case then how much would it reduce by? Just one amount of the £30m divided by 48?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the transfer budget is reduced by the first year's worth of payments (even if the transfer takes place in January), so buying a player for £10m upfront and £30m over 36 months will see your budget reduced by £20m (the initial £10m plus one year's worth of instalments).

A player bought for £30m over for 4 years with nothing upfront would see your budget reduced by £7.5m for the current season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the transfer budget is reduced by the first year's worth of payments (even if the transfer takes place in January), so buying a player for £10m upfront and £30m over 36 months will see your budget reduced by £20m (the initial £10m plus one year's worth of instalments).

A player bought for £30m over for 4 years with nothing upfront would see your budget reduced by £7.5m for the current season.

Great, thanks for that. I will be playing as Arsenal at the start so that makes things quite interesting considering they have a considerable amount of cash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always do the reverse and look to sell players by spreading their payments over 2, 3 or 4 years. It's nice being able to balance the books each month with regular transfer payments.

Do you find teams are willing to pay more if you spread it over longer periods?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a cheat, if anything it would be an exploit. But it isn't that either as it is working as designed.

as long as the board does not stop you from ruining the future of the clubs economy its a cheat/exploit. call it what you want. i never use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as the board does not stop you from ruining the future of the clubs economy its a cheat/exploit. call it what you want. i never use it.

I can see both sides. At the end of the day you are still paying for the transfer in the long run so aslong as the board realise this and give you a minimal transfer budget as a lot of money is already needed to pay off old transfer deals then I don't see a problem with it.

If the board don't take into account your long term deals when giving you the transfer budget each year then there is a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even know that this could be done!!! I always thought if you had a transfer budget of say £40m and bought a player for £30m over 48 months that your budget reduced the full amount to £10m?

If this is not the case then how much would it reduce by? Just one amount of the £30m divided by 48?

mate its a loophole that can be exploited.....(but this is how real transfers are done anyway I doubt if any major transfer is a straight cash up front deal anymore)

I have tried it even having no cash left using the wage adjustment....and that worked

I just moved a couple of players on to free up more wages......and away to go again:thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is far too easy to buy £50-100M worth of players in one window. And the board did not take this in to account in FM11, you would still get a huge transfer budget the next year, even if you were loosing money each month. I was hoping it would be fixed this year, but it does not seem so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always do the reverse and look to sell players by spreading their payments over 2, 3 or 4 years. It's nice being able to balance the books each month with regular transfer payments.

In FM11 that cash was immediately added to your transfer kitty. I'm not sure if it is in FM12? But surely it shouldn't?

I can see both sides. At the end of the day you are still paying for the transfer in the long run so aslong as the board realise this and give you a minimal transfer budget as a lot of money is already needed to pay off old transfer deals then I don't see a problem with it.

If the board don't take into account your long term deals when giving you the transfer budget each year then there is a problem.

Yes but the board NEVER step in and say "you've already spent €60m on x2 players over 48 months we can't allow anymore".

If this was done the 48 month option could get grayed out, and you would have to select 12 or 24 months or something.

Or perhaps the board could tie your hands to sell a player(s) before you make another purchase.

That's how it is in real life too.

mate its a loophole that can be exploited.....(but this is how real transfers are done anyway I doubt if any major transfer is a straight cash up front deal anymore)

I have tried it even having no cash left using the wage adjustment....and that worked

I just moved a couple of players on to free up more wages......and away to go again:thup:

Yes it is how it is in real life. But only a board as crazy as the Leeds Enrons would allow this. Most don't.

Look at Arsenal, Wenger wants to buy players, but the board constantly restricts expenditure on players and limits the wage budget so tightly.

The Arsenal method is not enforced in the game. You can basically sign who you want.

I spent €200m in the first transfer window.

Yes, it is far too easy to buy £50-100M worth of players in one window. And the board did not take this in to account in FM11, you would still get a huge transfer budget the next year, even if you were loosing money each month. I was hoping it would be fixed this year, but it does not seem so.

Exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory spending massive amounts over 48 month deals should have a big downside in terms of the impact on future transfer budgets, but in practice I'm not sure it does have as much impact as it should in game.

I seem to remember I managed to cripple my club's finances quite successfully in FM10 by spending too much money on 48 month deals, ended up in massive debt with drastically reduced transfer budgets so long term it definitely caused problems. Got the stage where I was getting about £2m a year transfer budget in the Premier League, so definite downsides there.

But in FM11 it seemed not to be so much of a problem, whenever the club got in to debt one of the Directors would just pay it off.

So the real question for FM12 is how the impact of using 48 month deals will be reflected in game over the longer term - something that it's not possible to see from just the demo. If it's done realistically and it does have a big impact on future years then I think it's fine, but if it ends up being too easy to spend lots of cash over 48 months with no real consequences then it's not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

totally agree, its not realistic in 2011 with arsenal i had a budget of 40million second season and bought 302 million worth of top class players now to me the board at some piont should say something,and i know people will say longer term it could hurt you, but i think the point is you should not be allowed to spend that sort of money in the first pace. can anybody name a club (irl) that does (except man city) i think that when you get your season expectations there should be some options from the board ie you have a budget of 25million but if you would like to pay over 48 months we can go to x amount.or if you have 25million it should just be 25million and if you want more you should have to go and talk to your chairman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup , i agree , im very dissapointed to see this exploit still existing , to show how bad it is , in fm 2011 i was Sunderland , i sold any deadweight and a few "decent players" over the next 2 seasons i was able to spend almost 250m on players and qualified for the champs league with Sunderland in only my second season , i was waiting for bankruptcy and the forced sale of players and possibly the 12 point deduction , but no , it never came , instead the directors refinanced the now massive debt into a " chairman loan " then another one , i had a ridiculous squad of people for a club of sunderlands size and a board who just kept wiping the slate clean !

Completely unrealistic sadly , its fine playing by yourself as you can just set yourself a rule of " im not using monthly payments " but when you play a LAN / Online game , it becomes another issue as you have to either follow suit or get left behind.

P.S , i love FM , a great game, ive owned them all right back to Amiga days and im not a moaner, thanks for all your hard work and many hours of entertainment, but it would be great if this issue was ironed out !

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of reality, most deals are structured, but this doesn't mean we need to take a commonly-reported transfer fee (say Berbatov, c.£30m) and then assume that we will be able to buy 4 Berbatovs over 4 years, or 4 Berbatovs in one transfer window. What it means is that the £30m fee is a transfer budget over 4 years). So essentially, when we get our transfer budgets, it is almost like dividing it in 4 and assuming it is going to be used over 4 years anyway.

Long-term transfers can be riskier, too, depending on where you are in the table - if you are in January and are 20 points clear from second place in the Championship, then the board should be more willing to consider 24-month transfers since you have likely secured Premier League football which promises huge financial rewards, but 36-month and 48-month transfers are riskier because you could go down again the following season. On the other hand, a team that is struggling and a relegation candidate will only accept short-term fixes and long-term investments as future cashflows look poor, so 12-month transfers and reduced transfer budgets are more likely, but 24-month, 36-month and 48-month transfers are out of the question unless they are cheap.

So georgey's post, for example, where he bought £250m worth of players in 2 seasons - it implies £125m per season spent, and around a £30m transfer budget (times 4 to give you around £125m). I really think it's £30m over 4 years, implying a £7.5m budget immediately.

In order to achieve a better model, though, we really need to see less "bailouts" and takeovers. In addition, we need a much better financial "future" screen of some sort where the board estimates what the future looks like and factors in risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think that say if Arsenal tell me that I have a transfer budget of €60m

That this could be changed to say "Our financial future looks secure, over the next 4 seasons we have allocated €240m for transfers".

If I spend €70m on a player, that would bring my overall transfer budget down to €170m, for example.

That means buying 3 players, perhaps €70m, €45m, €30m over 48 months would reduce the overall wage budget for 4 seasons to €95m.

That would mean that I would only have €95m left for 4 seasons. And the board could interject and say "You've spent enough this transfer window we're putting a limit on transfer expenditures for this quarter".

You could appeal to the board if you have long term injuries or not enough players to cover a role. Or the Board might say "Our league position looks good and we're relinquishing more capital to secure a top signing this quarter"

This would mean at the next transfer window (January), I would have €95m for the next 3.5 years. I could then spend this budget.

But say come the end of the season, depending on whether I qualify for the champs league/euro cup or not at all.

The board would evaluate this and say we've extended the budget to €150m/€100m or reduced it to €50m as we're not in european competitons and lack of competition prize money etc.

[rough idea]

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a "cheat". The second year's payments come from the second year's Transfer Budget. If the Board was planning to give you a Transfer Budget in the second year that wouldn't cover these payments, then you shouldn't be allowed to make the deals, but do their financial projections go beyond one year?

To those of you who want it to be changed, who do you want it to be changed for? Certainly not yourselves, because you are going to avoid doing it anyway aren't you? Have any of you done this then underachieved for a couple of years?

Have any of you ever offered a larger fee to an agent to secure an overall cheaper deal on a player's wages? How 'right' is that?

Do any of you, when managing in the UK, have 'feeder' clubs within the UK? As far as I am aware, this isn't allowed in real life.

It comes down to what happens to bug you I suppose. Rather than complain about this facility I would be more inclined to argue that it's not very hard to achieve the amount of success required to avoid any negative consequences of using it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an easy way to avoid this being a problem - start off with a team that doesn't have a transfer budget ;)

Yeh. Did that with Leeds.

5 seasons later I was spending €300m in a transfer window and winning the leauge.

Now, you think the Leeds board would have more sense ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It happens in real life and many clubs pay over time rather than all upfront.

The temptation to spend is the biggest downfall, if I were say Aston Villa and bought a really good player that'd help me push for a slightly higher position, I paid 20 million over 48 months then you could see the benefits and risk involved. If I were to get to a UEFA Cup place then my budget the next season would be slightly lower than I'd expect.

The worst part is, if I were a bigger team and spent a lot more over 48 months, the following season the board may still give me a high transfer budget to keep challenging. I've never seen a season where 48 month deals have drastically reduced a transfer budget for bigger teams. With money there, it's easy to be tempted to keep having 48 month deals. In the long term however, this is crippling and through experimentation I've managed to put Chelsea massively into debt because the board keep giving me a large transfer budget every year.

Use self-restraint and you'll be okay. Clubs have ruined themselves financially and have been lumbered with past transfer agreements, Leeds are a brilliant example of this and one player that comes to mind is Seth Johnson, they bought him for £7 million and he played 54. He got injured and when he returned the club could no longer afford to have him play another game as his 55th would have triggered a clause, Leeds would have owed another £1 million on top.

The 48 month transfer model is useful, viable but ultimately it's human greed that ruins the game. I make a rule that if I buy somebody and pay over 48 months, any sales I make I will try to get it over 48 months, until the initial purchase is almost offset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit silly really, it does make the game far too easy.

In my most recent demo save for example, started off with Swansea, a newly promoted team with a budget of about £7.75m for midtable finish. Sold a good few players and adjusted the wage budget so I had around an £18m budget. I then went out and spent £75m on a whole new team of players on 48month deals including the likes of Ganso (£27m) and Papiss Cisse (£16m).

Currently sitting in the top 6 after 7 games with only 1 loss...if this was the full game I would easily finish top half, then probably at least qualify for the Champions League 2nd season. In real life there's no way Swansea would be allowed to spend £75m in their first season in the Premiership.

In FM11 doing the same thing allowed me to win the Premiership with Blackpool in the 2nd season

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, and there's no real risk involved, because if you're even half-decent at the game, you can just qualify for the Champions League every season and it never really comes back to haunt you, as the money from that covers the monthly payments.

I couldn't tell you the amount of times I have done that with numerous teams over the years.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit silly really, it does make the game far too easy.

In my most recent demo save for example, started off with Swansea, a newly promoted team with a budget of about £7.75m for midtable finish. Sold a good few players and adjusted the wage budget so I had around an £18m budget. I then went out and spent £75m on a whole new team of players on 48month deals including the likes of Ganso (£27m) and Papiss Cisse (£16m).

Currently sitting in the top 6 after 7 games with only 1 loss...if this was the full game I would easily finish top half, then probably at least qualify for the Champions League 2nd season. In real life there's no way Swansea would be allowed to spend £75m in their first season in the Premiership.

In FM11 doing the same thing allowed me to win the Premiership with Blackpool in the 2nd season

Are they likely to be able to get these players in real life?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think that say if Arsenal tell me that I have a transfer budget of €60m

That this could be changed to say "Our financial future looks secure, over the next 4 seasons we have allocated €240m for transfers".

If I spend €70m on a player, that would bring my overall transfer budget down to €170m, for example.

That means buying 3 players, perhaps €70m, €45m, €30m over 48 months would reduce the overall wage budget for 4 seasons to €95m.

That would mean that I would only have €95m left for 4 seasons. And the board could interject and say "You've spent enough this transfer window we're putting a limit on transfer expenditures for this quarter".

You could appeal to the board if you have long term injuries or not enough players to cover a role. Or the Board might say "Our league position looks good and we're relinquishing more capital to secure a top signing this quarter"

This would mean at the next transfer window (January), I would have €95m for the next 3.5 years. I could then spend this budget.

But say come the end of the season, depending on whether I qualify for the champs league/euro cup or not at all.

The board would evaluate this and say we've extended the budget to €150m/€100m or reduced it to €50m as we're not in european competitons and lack of competition prize money etc.

[rough idea]

I'm not sure the board should allow you to spend "today's transfer budget times 4" today... Even if the future is bright, the time value of money suggests that £100 today is worth more than £100 in a year's time (as you can stick £100 in the bank and get interest). In addition, no club can ever be that sure of the future, certainly not 3-4 years down the line. As a result, I think the transfer budget should really be at most "times 2" rather than "times 4".

In addition, €60m per season on a one-year basis sounds steep for any club except for City and Arsenal. For argument's sake, say City in the media are reported to have spent €60m this summer and for the past few summers - I'm sure that most of this is on a long-term, yearly basis - i.e. over 24/48 months. In other words, €60m is your 4-year budget - your "one-year budget" is €15m. This is more reasonable, in all honesty, rather than €240m over 4 years.

Which is why, yes, some people are saying "clubs do this all the time" - but no club blows £75m regularly and the board are happy to oblige. Think about it - when the media reports a transfer, they tend to report the full value rather than the broken-down value - so we are wrong to assume that this full value is our yearly budget. It's actually some of the yearly budget, and some of the future budget.

Essentially, I'm suggesting we need to divide transfer budgets in-game by 4, and then strongly suggesting to the user that long-term budgets are risky but possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is a case of that we all want the board to consider the financial outlay that already lies ahead by using 48 months before giving new budgets each season. At the moment the game doesn't seem to do that , as far as i can tell anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the board should allow you to spend "today's transfer budget times 4" today... Even if the future is bright, the time value of money suggests that £100 today is worth more than £100 in a year's time (as you can stick £100 in the bank and get interest). In addition, no club can ever be that sure of the future, certainly not 3-4 years down the line. As a result, I think the transfer budget should really be at most "times 2" rather than "times 4".

In addition, €60m per season on a one-year basis sounds steep for any club except for City and Arsenal. For argument's sake, say City in the media are reported to have spent €60m this summer and for the past few summers - I'm sure that most of this is on a long-term, yearly basis - i.e. over 24/48 months. In other words, €60m is your 4-year budget - your "one-year budget" is €15m. This is more reasonable, in all honesty, rather than €240m over 4 years.

Which is why, yes, some people are saying "clubs do this all the time" - but no club blows £75m regularly and the board are happy to oblige. Think about it - when the media reports a transfer, they tend to report the full value rather than the broken-down value - so we are wrong to assume that this full value is our yearly budget. It's actually some of the yearly budget, and some of the future budget.

Essentially, I'm suggesting we need to divide transfer budgets in-game by 4, and then strongly suggesting to the user that long-term budgets are risky but possible.

This is arguably a good reason to spread/delay payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is arguably a good reason to spread/delay payments.
Not really, as it's been accounted for (or should be in-game) - it should cost "more" in crude addition terms over a longer period (i.e. £10m up front, £15m over 4 years).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I did notice that the reply to buying the player on initial value of €0 and over 48 months, the club replied with €1.5m or so plus x amount over 48 months.

But yes definitely the clubs demanding more upfront would be welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted about this before in my opinion when you get your transfer budget the board should set it so you can spend for example £10 million up front or £20 million if you use monthly payments. With a data update on FM11 I played as Sunderland through not spending during the first season I was given a transfer budget of £28 million for the second season I also sold £30 million worth of players because I could keep all money made from transfers I had a budget of £58 million. How can it be right that I could go out and spend 100's of million in the second season as Sunderland manager. There is no way in hell the Sunderland board would sanction a spending spree of £200 million yet the board let you do this in FM.

I know people can avoid spending it but I think it should be limited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, as it's been accounted for (or should be in-game) - it should cost "more" in crude addition terms over a longer period (i.e. £10m up front, £15m over 4 years).

The initial payment & first year's payments are accounted for, but only the initial payment goes from your account. With no interest being charged, all subsequent payments will progressively 'cost' less. (unless there is deflation)

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...