Club Finances - new features ideas

I have started a couple of topics recently about future ideas. This one is about Club Finances, my other ones are about Contracts and Managerial Expectations (in other threads). Oh, and before anyone points me in the direction of the Wishlist Thread, that's for "list" ideas - this is about a whole specific topic.

I have started a couple of topics recently about future ideas. This one is about Club Finances, my other ones are about Contracts and Managerial Expectations (in other threads). Oh, and before anyone points me in the direction of the Wishlist Thread, that's for "list" ideas - this is about a whole specific topic.

One of my current problems with the game is that there are a few cases where we’re asked to make a choice but, because there is no financial impact on our choice, we pretty much ALWAYS make the same decision. Two examples are first up:

Youth/Reserve Leagues: We’re invited to partake in the youth and reserve leagues every season (in England at least). We pretty much always tick yes. Why wouldn’t we? It doesn’t seem to cost anything to enter. Yet I remember Keegan at Newcastle abandoned the youth team, presumably because of cost (or so I assume). I’m not sure whether it’s strictly a managerial decision IRL, but let’s keep it in the game, but we have to weigh up whether we can afford it. If I’m a struggling League Two club with not much money it can be a difficult choice: abstain from the youth league and save some money, or enter the youth league and have a much better chance of developing some youngsters who, in turn, may make me money if I sell them. Chances are, I’ll jettison the reserve league. But there should be a cost element attached to this.

Injuries: If I have a player suffer a serious injury I may have two choices: leave him to physio and he’ll be out for six months, or leave him to the specialist and he’ll be out for four. Which one would I like to choose? Well, duh… So, again, there should be a cost element. So a Premier League club will nearly always send their player to a specialist, whereas a lower league club may not.

Transfer deals: IRL it’s fairly common knowledge that, particularly for big-money deals, the amounts are rarely, rarely paid in full up front. Far more often, you’ll see a lump payment with the remainder paid in a year, or over two years. Rooney’s transfer was the most famous example of this, but it happens all the time. Sometimes, like when Southampton sold both Walcott and Bale, you’ll find that there’s a lump sum payable, then the remainder will be paid over two or three years, AND there are added bonuses depending on how well the player does. (IRL Southampton actually asked Arsenal and Spurs to pay early, and in doing so forfeited more money that would have been owed to them, but this seems to me to be exceptional, so I wouldn’t recommend that it was put in the game). I’d like to see transfer deals split up in more complex ways as IRL.

Club/Owner money. IRL Chelsea are massively in debt. And QPR are just as poor as they’ve always been. United are in debt, and Man City’s bank balance is similar to my own (i.e. not very large). However, especially with Chelsea and QPR, the owners are filthy rich. I’d like to see this reflected in the game – so the club can be £600m in debt, but if the owner is worth several £billion, then the club can keep funding big money transfers.

Operating in debt: some clubs/leagues allow clubs to operate in debt, some don’t. There are strict rules in the Football League about the amount you’re allowed to spend on transfer fees and wages, and these are linked to your operating turnover. Barry Fry was moaning about this when they spent £400K on Joe Lewis, because the transfer almost didn’t go through. It’d need more research, but if we are armed with all the facts, I see no reason why this shouldn’t be in the game. Spanish clubs are allowed humongous debts – so let’s see it in the game!

Recovering from debt: Talking of debts, football clubs are going into administration left, right and centre IRL, so let’s see it a bit more in the game. It might be tricky to implement (because IRL the decisions seem somewhat arbitrary), but if we could have it so that a club that goes into administration more than once over a few years could face the possibility of a further points deduction on top of their mandatory 10, then that would be an interesting element. Also, the game already knows if the club owns the ground or not. If they do, the board in the game could sell the ground, and/or training facilities (thereby lowering your facilities) and/or scrap youth/reserve teams to get more money in.

Finances are, believe it or not, a fascinating part of football, and a more dynamic model would be a great improvement to an already fantastic game. It’d be hard work involving a lot of research and, believe me, a SHED load of coding, but it would be worth it!

As ever, I'd be grateful for your thoughts, both on my ideas and, more importantly, with any ideas of your own! Cheers!

FM 2007 had the sugar daddy concept, is that still in FM2008? I haven't looked.

I agree that finances could be a bit more complex, mainly because after you've played the game for a while, you get bored with the match engine and play each season, except the transfer windows, in holiday mode.

Youth/Reserve Leagues & Injuries

I agree with these points that there should be a more noticable impact on your decisions. Could also make it so that once you reach a certain level of money in the bank/club reputation, you don't make the decisions anymore as it becomes 'club policy' to enter the reserve league or send to specialist.

Transfer deals

I agree generally that transfers could be a bit more complex in their payment. However how do you suggest it is implemented? Do you structure the deal yourself when making a bid, or do you agree a general fee which the AI/transfer director then structures for example?

In FM08, i can structure deals over x months with international/league appearnces etc., but to be honest i'd rather just pay £5m up front and be done with it. If the AI then somehow re-structures it with certain clauses/payments then great, but personally i wouldn't want to be made to do it myself.

Club/Owner money & Operating in debt

As for these points, i don't really know enough about their implementation in the game but they seem like good ideas.

Recovering from debt

I think it's already in the game that clubs in alot of debt reduce the quality of their training facilities and close parts of their ground. I think it would be a nice touch, if your a smaller club and heavily in debt, to see your youth team or reserves physically dissaper because the board have decided to disband them to save money. You would then be forced to either move the players into the first team or release them altogher.

Youth/Reserve Leagues & Injuries

Transfer deals

I agree generally that transfers could be a bit more complex in their payment. However how do you suggest it is implemented? Do you structure the deal yourself when making a bid, or do you agree a general fee which the AI/transfer director then structures for example?

In FM08, i can structure deals over x months with international/league appearnces etc., but to be honest i'd rather just pay £5m up front and be done with it. If the AI then somehow re-structures it with certain clauses/payments then great, but personally i wouldn't want to be made to do it myself.

Not a bad point. I'm sure a lot of the financial structure of a deal is left to the chairman to sort out.

perhaps adding the owner would have more say? like mr.abramovich has previous had say in tranfer(s)? assistant manager giving you a more in depth opinion of squad, i.e perhaps sign a left winger as current is lacking or lack cover for that certain area? also someone mentioned something like challanges? that be quite good, also the influence that selecting your favorite club should have or a player puttin you down as fav personel, should have more effect. suppose for the game to be bit more crueler, ive gone from juventus, to barca now at liverpool, whove wont the league 3 times running but am currently second, perhaps that ive spent good amount on tranfers, sold few key players from previous season to change the squad to my likings an didnt pay off to get sacked if im usucessful?

Club/Owner money. IRL Chelsea are massively in debt. And QPR are just as poor as they’ve always been. United are in debt, and Man City’s bank balance is similar to my own (i.e. not very large). However, especially with Chelsea and QPR, the owners are filthy rich. I’d like to see this reflected in the game – so the club can be £600m in debt, but if the owner is worth several £billion, then the club can keep funding big money transfers.

What u say is true. However i think Chelsea have already made it clear that there will be very few big money transfers in the coming years since they already have a top class squad. Instead they are spending it on their academy and get youngsters through to the first team. I think that was one of the main reasons why Mourinho had to be a miser in his final season (though it might be because of his lovers tiff with Roman ) This year it might be different since they have a new manager but i dont think they have spent that much (less than 30 million i think for the two players)

And if wikipedia is to be believed then even QPR have not splashed the cash (just 450,000 so far) Chelsea are not in debt...they have posted record losses but their bank balance is worth billions . If this suggestion is implemented, then going on making those big money transfers with inflated wages every year will be a tad unrealistic.

The idea is great, the owners/chairmen allowing huge transfer budgets for one, two or even three seasons but it should depend on the manager reputation, last season's performance and the level of the squad. So a national level manager should be given a big budget for his first, a continental manager for a second season provided the performance in first one was satisfactory or exposed a serious weakness in the squad and a world class manager for a third season provided the performances in the first two were good or the squad was weak in one/some areas or the avg CA/PA of the squad was less than a specific level (of course that should not be visible to us:))

Also the last option could be used to increase the interaction between the board/media/manager...say the owner/chairman cites the last reason for not giving a big budget then a media question could be posed something like "The club chairman has said that the squad has got enough quality players to achieve (expectations) and more transfer funds will be available only if some players are sold" something like that and we have the option to accept that the current squad is the best in the league, criticize the board, say that there are a couple of weaknesses that have to be addressed or decline to comment. Depending on your answer, your relationship with the board will strengthen/weaken increasing pressure on ur job.

In fact this could be used whenever we request for additional transfer funds but the board refuses

Gills i agree with all the points you've made in the 3 threads ive read from you. Have you written more than 3? If so i would be interested in reading them and no doubt agreeing with you! KUTGW

Youth/Reserve Leagues: We’re invited to partake in the youth and reserve leagues every season (in England at least). We pretty much always tick yes. Why wouldn’t we? It doesn’t seem to cost anything to enter.

Another reason would be to have them less stress. They can spend more time on training rather than play in a competition, which may have influence in their stats, while gaining less experience.

It's the same for going on loan; perhaps he plays less there, or they have worse training facilities, but he does get first team experience. What do you pick? Having said that, I agree you should get some insight in what a youth/reserve team does in terms of player development, or financial costs.

Injuries: If I have a player suffer a serious injury I may have two choices: leave him to physio and he’ll be out for six months, or leave him to the specialist and he’ll be out for four. Which one would I like to choose? Well, duh… So, again, there should be a cost element. So a Premier League club will nearly always send their player to a specialist, whereas a lower league club may not.

Fully agree. I was first thinking they should just leave it out, but I seem to remember back in the old CM days that there used to be a cost element in that. Either I recalled incorrectly, or they left it out in FM nowadays. Not sure what the reason would be for that, though. So yeah, I support you.

Transfer deals: IRL it’s fairly common knowledge that, particularly for big-money deals, the amounts are rarely, rarely paid in full up front. Far more often, you’ll see a lump payment with the remainder paid in a year, or over two years.

Personally, I prefer paying or getting everything up front, because I don't want to get reminded of it over a long period, but I see that the AI nearly always tries to spread it out over 1 or 2 years. So this is already happening, perhaps more often than you see, since with my deals I always have to negotiate it back to paying up front.

Club/Owner money. I’d like to see this reflected in the game – so the club can be £600m in debt, but if the owner is worth several £billion, then the club can keep funding big money transfers.

Why? The only reason I think that would be useful is to incorporate it into the previously mentioned 'Chairman Stats', where he could get that 'sugardaddy' status, or simply being 'rich'. No need for a seperate mention, imho.

Operating in debt: Spanish clubs are allowed humongous debts – so let’s see it in the game!

I don't think I support that ... the FIFA and such are trying to reduce all of those debts and even giving out warnings to clubs who don't reduce them. I don't think we should apply this to the game as 'realism', since it pretty much doesn't add anything as a player. Just because the club has more debt doesn't have any impace on anything, you just pay a monthly fee and when your sugardaddy spoils you, you get transfer money.

The 'recovery' on the other hand, used to be part of FM. I remember how you could have board takeovers, stadium being sold and so on. Has that been scrapped by now?

@DontCallItSoccer - according to the FM editor, clubs still have a checkbox for Sugardaddy. Not sure if it gets used, since my clubs don't have them, but it's still there.

imo the managers (us) shouldnt really be in charge of taking care of the clubs finances and shouldnt be held responsible for a dire financial model. At the beginning of the season, i think that you should be allocated a transfer budget depending on clubs finances etc. (like it is now) and you should have that for the rest of the season. After that, you shouldnt need to worry about finances and it SHOULD NOT put you under the firing line if you are just using your transfer budget.

The following things are based on a fixed transfer market in fm09 (easier to get rid of players, good negotiating etc):

Firstly, if the board set you a budget of 20m but in the process of buying a player they negoitiate it to somehting like 21 or even 22m depending on your financial status you should be able to ask the board for that extra couple of mil to pay for that player and you should have to give a reason why yo uneed the money such as 'could play a vital roll in the team winning the league' and stuff like that. For this player, if he is a flop, the board would lose their confidence in you and be less likely to give you money in the future.

Secondly, if the club is in financial trouble, the board should ask you to sell off some players (maybe this could be your transfer budget or it could just be because the club is broke and you get very little money made available). If you want you can chose to sell a few youngsters to meet a certain quota of cash raised or you could just sell one first team player to raise this cash.. its up to you. Obviously this system would need tweeking to make it better as my system is quite poor (lol)but it could just be basic guidelines.

Anyway after digressing a bit, i beleive that the finances should be controlled by the board and you should only really need to know what your transfer / wage budget is and what the current financial status of the club is so that you can know if you want to stay with the club or move on. YOu should not held resposible for club debt as you are in fm08 but big more emphassis would be on flop players if you are in financial trouble and you payed alot of money for them and saying that they could really help the team.

thanks for reading (hope it makes sense)

imo the managers (us) shouldnt really be in charge of taking care of the clubs finances and shouldnt be held responsible for a dire financial model. At the beginning of the season, i think that you should be allocated a transfer budget depending on clubs finances etc. (like it is now) and you should have that for the rest of the season. After that, you shouldnt need to worry about finances and it SHOULD NOT put you under the firing line if you are just using your transfer budget.

Well, a real manager does have some influence in the line of finances. I agree it might not be the most realistic way in FM, since in real life the Board/Chairman handles the transfers, but honestly, with the flaws the board currently has, I really don't want to have even more financial aspects handled by the board. Because, honestly, contract renewals is also done by the board, if I recall correctly. Next thing you know they forget to renew contracts, or let your best player expire his contract because they believe he shouldn't be asking so many wages.

No, I prefer to deal with my finances myself then, thank you very much.

I prefer to have it the same way, but simply lots less flawed. I don't mind handling my own wages when they give me a wage budget and transfer budget. I can think of it myself if I am x above my wage budget, that finances will drop. I also know that when I want more transfer money, I need to sell players.

In fact, the board regularly tells me that whenever I want to bid for someone and I am close to my wage limit, they already restrict me with wages. I don't mind. And if I believe this player is important for my team, I'll give him a key role, which means the wage limit gets overruled anyway.

I don't see any problems there.

If the club is in financial trouble, it should simply gives you less wage budget/transfer budget. Then it's up to you whether you let players leave, or rake in money through other means. After all, selling players does get the wage budget higher.

What I do agree with you, is that, when you do abide by the wage budget, you shouldn't be held responsible if the club doesn't make a profit. It'll be either a faulty wage budget-limit (Chairman fault), or you underperformed in the first place (manager fault), which you will eventually feel anyway. But that's not a financial problem, that is a Board-problem, which is already plagued by hundreds of other flaws.

Transfers over 24 months are much more common (in-game) outside of the big nations. Playing a game where I have several managers in different countries, I've seen a lot of them over Brazil, Croatia, and Holland. In fact, I'd venture to say that most of the bids I've received in those countries are small-initial-fee, bulk-over-24-months deals.

I'm very much in favour of the clubs being more aggressive financially - I'd like to see chairmen take risks like taking out a big loan to finance a stadium upgrade (or push for promotion / Europe) .. and for the team to struggle badly if they come up short of their projected improved performance. Struggling teams, "fire sales", taking over teams in massive debt, and administration should all be fairly common occurrences in the game.

I think adding this, however, means you would need to adjust the way that the board considers manager financial performance. The board should really be looking at Profit/Loss rather than Bank Balance for judging my performance. Further, we need to start judging Profit/Loss accurately, instead of as is currently done.

I made a mini spread-sheet for myself on FM'05 based on the P&L a real corporation would show, and it was vastly different from what FM reports. I'll see if I can dig it out for a further post on this topic.

Even better, though, I'd like to see some instances of the tight-fisted chairman: in other words, ones who judge me based on FINANCES, not performance on the pitch. "Its a business, son, we have to turn a profit." The fans might hate this sort of chairman, but they do exist IRL and really need to exist in-game.

Well, a real manager does have some influence in the line of finances. I agree it might not be the most realistic way in FM, since in real life the Board/Chairman handles the transfers, but honestly, with the flaws the board currently has, I really don't want to have even more financial aspects handled by the board. Because, honestly, contract renewals is also done by the board, if I recall correctly. Next thing you know they forget to renew contracts, or let your best player expire his contract because they believe he shouldn't be asking so many wages.

No, I prefer to deal with my finances myself then, thank you very much.

I prefer to have it the same way, but simply lots less flawed. I don't mind handling my own wages when they give me a wage budget and transfer budget. I can think of it myself if I am x above my wage budget, that finances will drop. I also know that when I want more transfer money, I need to sell players.

In fact, the board regularly tells me that whenever I want to bid for someone and I am close to my wage limit, they already restrict me with wages. I don't mind. And if I believe this player is important for my team, I'll give him a key role, which means the wage limit gets overruled anyway.

I don't see any problems there.

If the club is in financial trouble, it should simply gives you less wage budget/transfer budget. Then it's up to you whether you let players leave, or rake in money through other means. After all, selling players does get the wage budget higher.

What I do agree with you, is that, when you do abide by the wage budget, you shouldn't be held responsible if the club doesn't make a profit. It'll be either a faulty wage budget-limit (Chairman fault), or you underperformed in the first place (manager fault), which you will eventually feel anyway. But that's not a financial problem, that is a Board-problem, which is already plagued by hundreds of other flaws.

ok i agree with that (it was kind of what i was getting at but didnt really word it properly)

when you are in financial trouble you shouldnt be held responsible if you havent overspent etc and the board should do something to try and get you out like ask you to raise some money from selling players or taking out a short term loan until the end of the season or something when you will be able to pay it back from prize money and tv money (if you perform). If you dont perform and they are expecting you to do so (qualify for cl league knockout stages, gain promotion etc), and they have taken out a loan then you should be in trouble from the board as you have induced some of the troubles in a way by not meeting board expectations.

This being said, it would be very difficult to let the ai actually take control of crucial decisions like telling you to sell players since they might have a different idea to what you have in regards to how well the club is doing finacially. I suppose it could have somehting to do with some of the stats the chairman has but like i said it would be hard to implement and could be potentially very buggy and frustrating to play with

I would certainly like to see chairman with a bit more ambition financially. I am currently managing Mangotsfield (Dafuges challenge) and I am in the Championship, but I only have a 2500 seater stadium. The problem I have is I am currently doing fairly well, in 9th position and the stadium is pretty much full every home game and we have almost 2 million in the bank, but still the chairman won't agree to a stadium expansion.

I would like to see the chairman take out a loan to expand the stadium to perhaps 5000 or 6000 if possible, which would help to raise takings at the gates plus higher season ticket sales and have a knock-on effect on the rest of the finances.

The chairmen don't seem to take into account how well a team is doing in the league, or much better they could do with a bit more cash from higher attendances, they just seem to only look at the bank balance.

Hope that makes sense.

I would certainly like to see chairman with a bit more ambition financially. I am currently managing Mangotsfield (Dafuges challenge) and I am in the Championship, but I only have a 2500 seater stadium. The problem I have is I am currently doing fairly well, in 9th position and the stadium is pretty much full every home game and we have almost 2 million in the bank, but still the chairman won't agree to a stadium expansion.

I would like to see the chairman take out a loan to expand the stadium to perhaps 5000 or 6000 if possible, which would help to raise takings at the gates plus higher season ticket sales and have a knock-on effect on the rest of the finances.

The chairmen don't seem to take into account how well a team is doing in the league, or much better they could do with a bit more cash from higher attendances, they just seem to only look at the bank balance.

Hope that makes sense.

Wow - what happens if you get promoted, you won't be able to play in the Premier League with a stadium like that!

This may not apply to this thread but i'd like to see something that will help club finances. Prize Money!!! According to reports, clubs from england receive £15mill when they qualify for the group stage of the CL, in the game, they get £3mill. I am sure, i heard somewhere that the club that wins the Prem, gets around £50mill, yet, in the game, you get £20mill??? (i think). Everybody wants the game to be as realistic as possible and this would help. I haven't got time to go in to more detail, but i am sure you get my idea.

This may not apply to this thread but i'd like to see something that will help club finances. Prize Money!!! According to reports, clubs from england receive £15mill when they qualify for the group stage of the CL, in the game, they get £3mill. I am sure, i heard somewhere that the club that wins the Prem, gets around £50mill, yet, in the game, you get £20mill??? (i think). Everybody wants the game to be as realistic as possible and this would help. I haven't got time to go in to more detail, but i am sure you get my idea.

this is true however if this were to happen they would need to completly change all the finances in the game as at the moment, there is not enough expenditure for the clubs to cope with that extra amount that would come in so there would be huge amounts of money sitting around the game inflating transfers even more than they currently are. Also financial aspects of other leagues would also need to be adjusted so all the english clubs dont dominate the world after a few seasons

Finances: Expenditure - Other

I've always assumed this was mostly scouting/medical costs as the value typically goes down when i have fewer injuries and have my scout on just match reports, if this is the case then it already covers a few of your ideas

Average Attendance (which is your major income)

a futher enhancement to the financial model would be to have this split into Home:Away fields

my 2 local clubs field approximately 22,000/3,500 fans at home and 7,500/500 fans away, ingame they get listed as 20,000/4,000. although it means a bit more researching and DB info it would give a better finance model ingame.

Operating in debt:

The only time i experience this ingame is when managing part-time bottom level clubs, as soon as these clubs go fully pro ingame the board usually get very unhappy about poor finances. i feel the game should pretty much stay as it is on this area.

Transfer deals:

How involved are Chairman, Directors of Football, General Managers in transfer of playes generally in real life ? Why does a chairman with a very high ambition/interferance rating almost NEVER actually interfere ? Is a Director of Football little more than a Head Scout ? Is a General Manager more financially based than "the Manager" ?

If chairmen can intervene and accept a bid they feel is 'too good to refuse', why don't they approach players they feel are 'too good to ignore' as i'm fairly certain it happens in real life every now & then, or reject a bid as the player is 'too valuable to the team' to release.

Youth/Reserve Leagues: We’re invited to partake in the youth and reserve leagues every season (in England at least). We pretty much always tick yes. Why wouldn’t we? It doesn’t seem to cost anything to enter. Yet I remember Keegan at Newcastle abandoned the youth team, presumably because of cost (or so I assume). I’m not sure whether it’s strictly a managerial decision IRL, but let’s keep it in the game, but we have to weigh up whether we can afford it. If I’m a struggling League Two club with not much money it can be a difficult choice: abstain from the youth league and save some money, or enter the youth league and have a much better chance of developing some youngsters who, in turn, may make me money if I sell them. Chances are, I’ll jettison the reserve league. But there should be a cost element attached to this.

I like this. Maybe the chairman would force your hand in certain situations, and give strong hints in others.

Injuries: If I have a player suffer a serious injury I may have two choices: leave him to physio and he’ll be out for six months, or leave him to the specialist and he’ll be out for four. Which one would I like to choose? Well, duh… So, again, there should be a cost element. So a Premier League club will nearly always send their player to a specialist, whereas a lower league club may not.

Again, I like this. I'm sure this was in the original version of CM or possibly in Premier Manager. I thought it might already be implemented in a less visible way, but I guess that would be unlikely. This could be another area where the chairman/finance director gets to have his say. It would also be good for richer clubs to (automatically) take out insurance on more valuable players in case of long-term injury.

Transfer deals: IRL it’s fairly common knowledge that, particularly for big-money deals, the amounts are rarely, rarely paid in full up front. Far more often, you’ll see a lump payment with the remainder paid in a year, or over two years. Rooney’s transfer was the most famous example of this, but it happens all the time. Sometimes, like when Southampton sold both Walcott and Bale, you’ll find that there’s a lump sum payable, then the remainder will be paid over two or three years, AND there are added bonuses depending on how well the player does. (IRL Southampton actually asked Arsenal and Spurs to pay early, and in doing so forfeited more money that would have been owed to them, but this seems to me to be exceptional, so I wouldn’t recommend that it was put in the game). I’d like to see transfer deals split up in more complex ways as IRL.

Things already can be done in a fairly complex way, but it would be good to see the AI using the complex options (per game, after X games, after X international caps) much more often as in RL.

Club/Owner money. IRL Chelsea are massively in debt. And QPR are just as poor as they’ve always been. United are in debt, and Man City’s bank balance is similar to my own (i.e. not very large). However, especially with Chelsea and QPR, the owners are filthy rich. I’d like to see this reflected in the game – so the club can be £600m in debt, but if the owner is worth several £billion, then the club can keep funding big money transfers.

This is already implemented. The bank balance shouldn't be in negative, as the club isn't overdrawn. The existing way of handling this in the game - huge chairman loans - seems to be accurate to me.

Operating in debt: some clubs/leagues allow clubs to operate in debt, some don’t. There are strict rules in the Football League about the amount you’re allowed to spend on transfer fees and wages, and these are linked to your operating turnover. Barry Fry was moaning about this when they spent £400K on Joe Lewis, because the transfer almost didn’t go through. It’d need more research, but if we are armed with all the facts, I see no reason why this shouldn’t be in the game. Spanish clubs are allowed humongous debts – so let’s see it in the game!

This would be interesting, but it would be very important to do it accurately and without bugs - and I reckon this is an area that would be very prone to potential problems.

Recovering from debt: Talking of debts, football clubs are going into administration left, right and centre IRL, so let’s see it a bit more in the game. It might be tricky to implement (because IRL the decisions seem somewhat arbitrary), but if we could have it so that a club that goes into administration more than once over a few years could face the possibility of a further points deduction on top of their mandatory 10, then that would be an interesting element. Also, the game already knows if the club owns the ground or not. If they do, the board in the game could sell the ground, and/or training facilities (thereby lowering your facilities) and/or scrap youth/reserve teams to get more money in.

Of course this should be in the game, but cashflow needs a thorough overhaul. It is simply too easy to be profitable in England. One thing I would very much like to see in finances is projected future turnover and costs on the graphs - i.e. future TV revenue, future sponsorship when a new deal is signed, projected season ticket sales. On the other side, if the board promises to upgrade the stadium or training facilities, then the cost of this should be projected and money set aside. This would hopefully cause the board to give more in-depth evaluations of the longer-term financial situation, and help them to budget more sensibly in general.

Misposted. sorry

Grrrr, here's another suggestion. My chairman is worried about the state of the finances and has been for some time. At the beginning of the season, he set me a salary budget which I'm well below, and I'm still losing money (£128,000 per month on interest on the club's bank loan). Surely the chairman should have budgeted a wage budget that ensures a positive cash flow?

Then again, maybe I'm being over simplistic here - I'm doing my bit by coming in well below the salary budget and I'm selling players, but we're still losing money.

Then again...maybe this is realistic for League One clubs.

Grrrr, here's another suggestion. My chairman is worried about the state of the finances and has been for some time. At the beginning of the season, he set me a salary budget which I'm well below, and I'm still losing money (£128,000 per month on interest on the club's bank loan). Surely the chairman should have budgeted a wage budget that ensures a positive cash flow?

Unfortunately, that's not always the case. My brother used to play with Bromley back in the BSS, which he brought up to the Championship. He also complained about how he always ended up with less money despite winning all cups, promoting to higher leagues and even while selling all his best players, he still didn't make an earning. Usually he barely managed to keep his balance in the black, but if he didn't win the cup/league and didn't sell his best players, he'd be in the red numbers.

Some chairmen simply don't have a feel for making up a balance, I guess. Perhaps a poor business-stat?

Perhaps a poor business-stat?

Ooh - good thought. It probably is you know. I'll see if I can investigate this!