Meaningless Wage Budget Cut with NEC Nijmegen

There you have the title.

I'm through the second half of the first season with NEC Nijmegen. The club possesses a balance of $ 12m. Overall wage total is 275k per annum lower than the wage budget allocated. However I'm constrained to very ridiculous amounts of wage while offering a contract to a player which was at normal levels before.

As you see I have a wealthy balance with a healthy wage structure and a reputation that I'm sure the players I'm interested would be interested in joining my club as well. But there you go, of all players I offered a contract, none said something different than "X doesn't think your club has enough sources to meet his demands".

Please elaborate what may be wrong. Thanks in advance.

Have you offered lots of contracts at high wages or have a lot of future transfers?

I've played as NEC, and I think I hit the same point. 275k per annum is basically one good player's salary for NEC, and doesn't cover any "Key Player"'s salary.

So, its not surprising that the board are trying to keep a tight reign on the salaries.

The logjam opened up a bit wth the budgets for my next season, as we were qualified for the UEFA Cup (won the playoff after finishing 9th). I think I'd also sold two key players who weren't willing to renew their contracts, getting big money in return.

So my advice would be, just sit it out. It'll get better.

In the interim, have you tried using the board room feature to shift some of your transfer budget to wage budget?

I've seen some evidence in my own games that wage structures that you currently have at a club will limit the wages you can offer incoming players, modified by the board's assessment of the player.

If you have some time to experiment, try restructuring the wages across the club in various configurations. I've had success by releasing many low-wage players, and by getting the low end of wages a bit higher for the team. But I have not seen anyone else post to this effect, so take it as 'one man's experience' and not a fact.

Have you offered lots of contracts at high wages or have a lot of future transfers?

I only have 3 future transfers done -those whom I could meet their wage demands by setting their squad status to "key player", who are absolutely can not be counted as key players actually.

@Amaroq

I've finished the my first season being 3rd.

Also I'm sure that I was able to offer Gregory Thil 675k p/a at the beginning of the season so that I could snap him (Brilliant transfer, btw). But the issue is that although board says nothing such as "keep an eye on wage budget" or something, my ability to offer such salaries to players has been restricted to very ridiculous levels now.

In the interim, have you tried using the board room feature to shift some of your transfer budget to wage budget?

"The board can allow no allocation of funds from the transfer budget for wages". So, yes. Unsuccesfully.

Smac, that's an interesting point there, I'll see if I can experiment such shifting.

Thanks so far and looking forward to more if possible.

I've finished the my first season being 3rd.

So ... why am I giving you advice and not the other way around?

If I'm reading your two posts together, you're 275k p/a under the budget in around June of the first season .. and you have Thil coming in on 675k p/a on the July 1st window. So .. aren't the board thinking that you have more than spent what they have available? (If they are looking at your future transfers.)

I think they should re-evaluate the budget on June 22nd, or whatever the Dutch season tick-over date is, and, assuming you won your playoff and are playing C.L. football next season, they should be giving you a pretty sizeable increase in transfer and wage budget, right?

If I'm right, you're only going to have this problem for a short while longer.

Smac - I've never done that for the low end of wages, but it does work like that at the high end:

I had a player who wanted (and deserved) btwn 2.5M p/a and 3.0M p/a, but the next highest salary on the club was 1.5M p/a. The board restricted me to 2.0M p/a despite a lot of available wage budget (5.0M - 6.0M).

I took my *second best* player and offered him 2.0M p/a. He accepted.

Then my board would let me offer 2.4M p/a to my best player. He also accepted, even if it was a bit under what he'd really wanted.

Amaroq,

No, Thil joined the team at the BEGINNING of the season, he's not a future transfer. He has alreaddy bagged in many goals and truly was more than useful.

Here's what happened minutes ago. I released/sold two players. Then I offered a contract to a player named Haris Medunjanin which is highly regarded (whom we failed at snapping due to those contract limitations for a couple of times prior to this offer). The board set the offerable wage to the normal level, making our eyes shine, rejoicing, running around and sliding on the floor.

However this did not continue for longer. For a very very bargain player from Panama, board decided to treat him like crap and drew the offerable wage to a ridiculous level again.

Then probably you'll say "boards may do this, they may strict wage to transfers that they think are nothing good". However Haris Medunjanin was exposed to both types of treatment. He was treated like a cheesy player from Panama and eventually as a player to be definitely struck a deal with.

Whaddahell, for god's sake.

you have 3 future transfers? these will eat wage budget. Offering a contract to this other guy may push your anticipated future wage bill over budget, which your board will not want...

Smac - I've never done that for the low end of wages, but it does work like that at the high end:

Yeah, I really like the complexity of the wage structure, whatever the hey is going on in there! The effect of the 'low end' on the high end, if my impression is correct, is like a rubber-band around the wages: Too many low wages bring tension at the high end of things. A simple test is to free-transfer your whole U-18 squad and then reapproach the target. Their total wages are usually miniscule, but the effect on high-end wages is, IMO, large. Much larger than the offset to expenses would indicate. Something is happening in there and I'm excited to think that it is a wage-structure algorithm.

But if it is, I think an explanation from SI would be helpful (not to mention putting this in the manual). I can't imagine that many FM players would understand wage table rules for a club, especially as they are not public info.

you have 3 future transfers? these will eat wage budget. Offering a contract to this other guy may push your anticipated future wage bill over budget, which your board will not want...

Well, although you're absolutely on spot, still it does not explain why the same player would get totally different approaches from the board in a couple of weeks.

you sold some players, freed up a little extra bit of future budget, made the signing, which then used it up again?

you sold some players, freed up a little extra bit of future budget, made the signing, which then used it up again?

Was no one at that time.

Well as soon as the expectations and stuff for the new season was declared, the wage budget problem seems to have disappeared for the time being. However its previous stance's mystery still remains, I guess.

Thanks for your input, lads.