Revzman Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 My brother is playing a network game with his mate and he wants to know whether his mate has found a loophole in the game. Is it realistic for City to have £218m to spend in the summer of 2012 and in January 2013, bearing in mind that he's spent all but 5m in the first season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnhughthom Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 IRL: Not if they want to comply with UEFA's new rules. That will be gotten around with loopholes anyway, so actually it probably is realistic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oma Baktaart Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Don't know if it is really realistic, but if one club in the game should have ridiculous budgets it should be City with their oil money and recent spending spree (in the past years). I do know that City have a 'sugar daddy' set in the game's database; I believe they have the most supportive type; one who keeps pumping money in the club... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gusano Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 yes it is considering they have a sugar daddy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revzman Posted November 19, 2011 Author Share Posted November 19, 2011 I do know that City have a 'sugar daddy' set in the game's database; I believe they have the most supportive type; one who keeps pumping money in the club... That's my thinking. Has anyone had any experience with City on the game? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nottingham Forest Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Man City have a chairman which is a chairman who will pump money into the club regardless iirc(Can't remember the correct term?). If your brothers' mate got £60m to spend in 2012 then in theory he could spend £240m with 48 month transfer payment method. In January, if he was overachieving, then he could get a chance to reassess his expectations and choose a bigger budget. Personally, I don't think your brothers' mate is cheating. However, there is a way for him to check and that is if your brothers' mate provides a screenshot of his transfer clauses page. If he does this and he's paying loads of clauses of deals he's just made over 48 months, then it's fair to say he's not cheated . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nottingham Forest Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 IRL: Not if they want to comply with UEFA's new rules. That will be gotten around with loopholes anyway, so actually it probably is realistic. I don't believe this is fully implemented into the game yet as SI do not know the full ins and outs of how it will work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnhughthom Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 I don't believe this is fully implemented into the game yet as SI do not know the full ins and outs of how it will work. Hence the IRL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtuck01 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Manchester City have billions due to their owners who since buying the club in 2008 have spent over £400million on players. In my opinion, they shouldn't have a transfer budget as they have limitless (well, the limit is the owners bank balance which is billions and billions), amounts of money to spend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcidBurn Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 It is realistic that Man City in real life would have a budget of £60 million but due to the monthly payments on FM this allows us to spend four times whatever budget we are given. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revzman Posted November 19, 2011 Author Share Posted November 19, 2011 Cheers for the answers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.