i hope this unrealistic chairman accepting bids thing is fixed for fm09

i know there are many threads with people griping about this but here my story.

i am caen in 2nd season and mauro zarate is scoring more goals than i have ever seen before ever with 32 league goals by mid january so easily the most prolific striker in the world. i have £15m in the bank so am not in particularly in need to sell. i get a £22m bid for zarate from palermo with £14m up front and the rest over 24 months and the chairman sells. absolutely ridiculous.

my replacement marcelo moreno cost £13.5m anyway and is not even half the player of zarate. i ended up winning the league so have finally got over the zarate departure and now i have £30m in the bank. when i get a bid for luis jimenez for £18m with only £7m up front. the chairman accepts and is sold.

how to ruin a game i was really enjoying. this feature is very poorly implemented as it doesn't seem to take into account three things.

1) the financial position of the club, even if it is healthy the chairman still accepts

2) the fact that the club can't attract a replacement nearly as good as the player being sold

3) the fact that you might actually be able to get more money than the board accept, i.e. £18m for jimenez is pittance, i could have got £30m up front.

zarate was scoring more goals than pele, had a higher average rating than cristiano ronaldo would have had irl last season so he is not sold for world record fee but for nothing.

i have given up now and will wait patiently for fm09.

yes this definatly something that has been brought up before and definatly something that should be fixed for FM09. it has created loads of problems for me in my current save and i am forever rushing round trying to get replacments for players my chairmen has sold.

It does happen too often in FM08, but to remove it would be unrealistic, especially given the week West Ham and Newcastle have just had.

It does happen too often in FM08, but to remove it would be unrealistic, especially given the week West Ham and Newcastle have just had.

Agreed as a NUFC fan we have had Milner sold from under us and the reports suggest that other players were up for grabs. Ands if you read what happened to Curbishey he had 4 players sold without his knowledge or approval.

So not really unrealistic.

AFAIK neither club is in actual financial difficulty, so low balance is not a prerequisite for chairmen taking control both in game and IRL.

happens all the time in the lower leagues i.e league one below.

Its with the current cash crunch around the world today teams do rely on the sale of young talented players for big sums of money in order to survive.

Chairman will always have the bank balance at heart.

Would be good though if after this happens i.e the chairman sells a player under the managers nose, this new press conference system they have bought in comes in and you get to blast your chairman over the sale or console the supporters etc

it is unrealistic and this is why.

i am caen a smallish club who have never won anything. i am leading the league by 10 points in january in my 2nd season. you'd think that i would have some trust from the board that i know what i'm doing. keegan doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

also i had zarate at the club barely 5 months. who sells a player who is doing very well only 5 months after buying him, who would even bid?

also zarate had scored 32 goals in 20 appearances, that isn't a £22m player. more like £50m

i am not saying they should remove the feature but they shouldn't use it at all unless it is fully spot on as it will cause many aggro

just to put a point across this happens irl. maybe not in Italy or England but certainly up here in Scotland it does. Ill use one exaple that happened in January 2008 so it in most peoples memory.

Rangers have a decent bank balacnce compare to 5 years ago, Alan Hutton comes through the youth ranks. Easily the best player at Rnagers with a love for the club, the fans manager or the assistant manager didnt want him to leave, yet Spurs bid £9million and he is sold by the chirman, at many rangers fans dispair, infact most of us where in confushion of why to sell, expessially when most people rated him as a double figures player.

Can any scottish club includeing the old firm fight off the like of Spurs to capture a player like Hutton one of Scotland and at the time Rnagers best players, and even if we could could we for £9million.

We certainly havent as of yet.

here is another important point i forgot to mention that does render the feature fully pointless.

i had 100% of sale revenue made available for me which shows that the chairman wasn't even going to profit from the sale as the money was made available to me and i did use it within days to sign a substandard player. so club doesn't lose any money but we do lose a good player with no able substitute

Come January the likes of Liverpool, Manchester Utd, and Arsenal, along with Chelsea will all be facing chairmen accepting astronomical bids of between £60m and £130m for Torres, Gerrard, Cristiano Ronaldo, Rooney, Cesc, Terry et al respectively.

Every player has a price.

Do the Mancs need the money? No. Do Chelsea? Not really, but they'll accept the bids over the managers heads as it's simply good business.

The problem with the game is that once we immerse ourselves into the gameworld on day 1, all realism is lost since we are able to immediately sign 20+ players many of which would never come in real life. Naturally we buy the best players and thereby increase the chances of a club with lots of money making a bid.

It shouldn't matter how much money we have. If Abramovich gets offered £60m for his little toy Deco in January - Deco's gone. Simple business. Entirely realistic, and the by product of the game is that if we build squads of highly sought after youngsters, we get lots of bids. The more succesful we are, the more bids we get. The more bids we get the more likely it is that the chairman will accept.

Inconvenient for us, yes, but entirely realistic which is what keeps SI and FM ahead of the chasing pack of other crap.

i am caen a smallish club who have never won anything.

I was going to go through each of your points and tell you why it was realisitic e.g. £22m instead of £50m, but really you've answered your own question with the above quote.

also stupid clubs sending out enquiries to players which already have asking prices will disappear as well?

i am caen a smallish club who have never won anything. i am leading the league by 10 points in january in my 2nd season. you'd think that i would have some trust from the board that i know what i'm doing. keegan doesn't exactly inspire confidence. - Keagan inspires both players and fans so your point is lost on me also he was brought in by the Board!

also i had zarate at the club barely 5 months. who sells a player who is doing very well only 5 months after buying him, who would even bid? - That happens - just happened to us we got a year long loan for a player who had been signed for Valencia for 5 days.

also zarate had scored 32 goals in 20 appearances, that isn't a £22m player. more like £50m - depends on opponents and age and so on.

i am not saying they should remove the feature but they shouldn't use it at all unless it is fully spot on as it will cause many aggro - how do you judge that "fully spot on" - maybe what your after is to be able to turn the feature off!

;-)

The only unrealistic thing about this feature is that many of the prices are too low. I'm no expert on the nuts and bolts, but I think - at present - it is linked to the reputation of the player and/or the club. Zarate at Caen means £22million isn't a bad price. Just like McCartney at West Ham, £8m ain't bad either. Milner for £10-12million isn't exactly an irresistable sum, though. Of course, it's also dependent on the chairman's personality/objectives. The guys who just bought Man City are unlikely to sell over the manager's head because they seem to be in it for the glory, but a chairman like Ken Bates or the consortium in charge of Liverpool are there solely to make a profit.

I agree in principle that the feature is annoying, but it has to remain... just get it linked to things like club finances (if you're in the black, why sell your best player?), current form, what the fans think of him, etc, and have THAT push the price up a bit further.

here is another important point i forgot to mention that does render the feature fully pointless.

i had 100% of sale revenue made available for me which shows that the chairman wasn't even going to profit from the sale as the money was made available to me and i did use it within days to sign a substandard player. so club doesn't lose any money but we do lose a good player with no able substitute

Well that's irrelevant. It's not about needing the money, it's about it being a good piece of business. Real Madrid nether needed nor wanted to sell Robinho, but he's gone because the bid was too good to tun down. That 32.5m is now immediately available to spend so what's your point?

I was going to go through each of your points and tell you why it was realisitic e.g. £22m instead of £50m, but really you've answered your own question with the above quote.

Exactly. Small club, player performing brilliantly, and bought into the unwelcome spotlight.

here is another important point i forgot to mention that does render the feature fully pointless.

i had 100% of sale revenue made available for me which shows that the chairman wasn't even going to profit from the sale as the money was made available to me and i did use it within days to sign a substandard player. so club doesn't lose any money but we do lose a good player with no able substitute

Another good point.

I agree in principle that the feature is annoying, but it has to remain... just get it linked to things like club finances (if you're in the black, why sell your best player?), current form, what the fans think of him, etc, and have THAT push the price up a bit further.

I like this idea linking it all to those issues then making a decision though whether that happens in RL is questionable.

there is a work around.

set the players value at $0.

clubs that bid for your players will bid $0 and there is no way the chairman would sell

it is unrealistic and this is why.

i am caen a smallish club who have never won anything. i am leading the league by 10 points in january in my 2nd season. you'd think that i would have some trust from the board that i know what i'm doing. keegan doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Oooh! I just couldn't let the irony of that comment pass without a response! You've been at the club 18 months (I assume) and you think you should have the board's trust because you are 10 points clear and yet you say Keegan doesn't inspire confidence. If you asked anyone which is the most memorable title collapse they know of, most people in England would say the year Newcastle threw away a 12 point lead to lose the Premiership...sure that was some 12 years ago, but still, it does rather make a mockery of your point that you should have the confidence of the board because of your position when the one person you choose to make a comparison with is the one person who shows the folly of your argument more than most!

Apart from that, the offer you received was to basically double your bank balance. That is a lot of money and some clubs will almost always be selling clubs. Sure, it needs toning down, but it is realistic enough. What is not realistic is the fact that in such cases, and where you have 100% of transfer funds put into the kitty, the chairman quite happily allows you to spend all that money on one player who may be inferior to the one you sold.

MCDOUL - robinho left because the day before he left he announced in a press conference that he wanted to leave immediatley and how he doesn't want to put on a real madrid shirt again. it wasn't about being a good piece of business at all. he signed for some £20m anyway so they only profited £10m or so. your robinho analogy is irrelevant. anyway robinho scored 15 goals last season and was important but was not as key as van nostelrooy or casillas. so it wasn't as if they were selling the best player at the club.

for me zarate had scored 32 in 20, only half way through the season. if he stayed all season he might have scored 60.

i completely disagree with you that my point about sale revenue is irrelevant, because the chairman doesn't profit so why does he not let me deal with it as manager.

zarate was superhuman and this is what you fail to recognise. 32 in 20 by mid jan!!!!! on that form i win the league, qualify for the champions league and then we see real money.

GLAMDRING - irony has nothing to do with it. if you were mike ashley would you trust that kevin keegan knew what he was doing in the transfer market. surley not. the man was dissatisfied with the signing of jonas cos he hadn't heard of him and would rather have bought british, but i watch a lot of la liga and i know jonas is better than any winger newcastle have. the guy doesn't have a clue, if i was ashley i would have never appointed him. he is living in the world of 10 years ago where most people did buy british. things have moved on kev

This is one thing that has never happened to me. Ever.

zarate was superhuman and this is what you fail to recognise. 32 in 20 by mid jan!!!!! on that form i win the league, qualify for the champions league and then we see real money.

Bit optimistic, I seem to remember Marco Negri scoring 36 by January for the Gers and then scoring about 3 in the second ahlf of the season

We could go around in circles all day with this, but as far as i'm concerned the instance you describe is totally realistic, however receiving 100% of the fee for future transfers is unrealistic, so you have half a point.

PS I love the way 32 goals in 20 games in Frances top division is acceptable, but a chairman accepting bids on your behalf isn't If you're so keen on realism, which of those scenarios do you think is most likely to happen IRL

zarate was superhuman and this is what you fail to recognise. 32 in 20 by mid jan!!!!! on that form i win the league, qualify for the champions league and then we see real money.

He might have developed a career-threatening injury or your defence might have started to leak goals so badly you would fall away. Money people make decisions that are based on risk-reward and some don't like risks - it's the way it is. I remember thinking what tools Huddersfield Town were years ago for selling Marcus Stewart to rivals Ipswich when he was scoring the goals that looked like taking them to at least the play-offs in the Championship and possibly onto the promised land and idiotic cash of the Premiership. Instead they chose to cash in on him and ended up failing to even make the play-offs and then of course got relegated a few seasons later - it happens, not everyone in life is totally logical with the decisions they make, especially people involved in football!

GLAMDRING - irony has nothing to do with it. if you were mike ashley would you trust that kevin keegan knew what he was doing in the transfer market. surley not. the man was dissatisfied with the signing of jonas cos he hadn't heard of him and would rather have bought british, but i watch a lot of la liga and i know jonas is better than any winger newcastle have. the guy doesn't have a clue, if i was ashley i would have never appointed him. he is living in the world of 10 years ago where most people did buy british. things have moved on kev

Well, to be honest I wouldn't appoint you either! That's no criticism of you btw, I wouldn't appoint me either, but you are still basing your argument on your achievements of 18 months and where you are in the league table after that.

Bit optimistic, I seem to remember Marco Negri scoring 36 by January for the Gers and then scoring about 3 in the second ahlf of the season

We could go around in circles all day with this, but as far as i'm concerned the instance you describe is totally realistic, however receiving 100% of the fee for future transfers is unrealistic, so you have half a point.

how could we go around in circles. lets pretend dean ashton scores 32 league goals by january, do you think that would go unnoticed? i think there would be gastronomical bids. anyway i don't remember negri scoring that many goals in half a season, he was good one season but 30 in half a season, unlikely.

i have a whole point

I agree though that it is in fact -not- good business sense to sell a very important player for such an amount and then have the manager use that same money to buy an inadequate replacement.

If there's not going to be any profit, as all of the money is going to be used to patch the newly created hole in the team, and the overall team quality will decrease, then this has little to do with good business sense.

Well, to be honest I wouldn't appoint you either! That's no criticism of you btw, I wouldn't appoint me either, but you are still basing your argument on your achievements of 18 months and where you are in the league table after that.

i don't remember criticising you either. i never said i would appoint myself but kevin keegan??

i just think 32 in 20 is absurd and then he goes to palermo to be backup, is that realistic as well?

how could we go around in circles. lets pretend dean ashton scores 32 league goals by january, do you think that would go unnoticed? i think there would be gastronomical bids.

Aye, I reckon bids would come flying in - 27 truck loads of cucumbers, 57 of prime beef and 22 of melons in exchange for so prolific a striker.

Negri did score at pretty much the rate Nomis07 mentioned.

If Dean Ashton scored 32 league goals by January there would be bids and the West Ham board would sell him. That backs up your point how exactly?

Also I agree with Nomis07 that the most unrealistic part of the whole scenario is that the guy scored 32 goals in 20 games in the first place.

If Dean Ashton scored 32 goals in 19 games i'd think that it was incredibly unrealistic, a point you seem to have completey missed. As for Negri, by January he had over a goal a game in the bag.

Sorry but i'm getting a bit fed up with this debate and your unwillingness to listen to reason. Lets put it all in conext;

Chairman accepting bids over a managers head has happened on a relatively regular basis over the last few years.

A player scoring 32 goals in 20 games in one of Europes top 5 divisions has not.

Which is more realistic?

Another good point.

How exactly. Profit is made when player is sold for more than he weas purchased for. This has been achieved. The poster makes no point whatsoever other than demonstrating how spectacularly he's mmissed the point.

Of course the funds are available... a profit has already been made, it's not a question of going to the chairmans pocket it's a question of accepting £22m for a relatively low valued player who you didn't pay much for and reinvesting for the benefit of the team. Of course, £22m doesn;t guarantee you another lucky cheap catch like Zarate, but that's all part of the challenge.

i don't remember criticising you either. i never said i would appoint myself but kevin keegan??

Well, that's the point I'm making. I'd rather have Kevin Keegan in charge of my football club than you (or me). I'm somewhat biased on the matter though anyway and success in terms of trophies means absolutely zero to me, but every manager makes some bad decisions in the transfer market. I trust Keegan as much as I'd trust anyone else...(Dennis Wise anyone?!! )

Just to add some light humour to this debate, does anyone remember what ruined Negri's goal scoring spree?

A squash ball in the eye and a couple of weeks out, when he came back he was half the player.

Look. Some of you guys obviously just like to argue.

The situation is this.

Chairmen accepting bids over your head is an improvement to the game when the chairman didn't get involved.

I would agree that it's not quite right, but it's pretty good in the main. They don't accept piddling little bids and at the end of the day it is them and not you who take the club forward in terms of finance and resource management.

You may have control of the purse strings, but only within pre-agreed levels.

The chairman on the other hand has to look at the bigger picture and consider the long term future of the club including facilities improvement that might mean that he is considering a stadium expansion/relocation.

In this case it is probably neither of these and probably just a case of an overzelous interfeering chairman.

I don't mind what the chairman does or doesn't do, (I quite like the fact that they interfere), but I would REALLY like the chance to give him an ultimatum and say "If you sell this player then I am resigning". Obviously like most other ultimatums it would be ignored and you would be shown the door, but I think that is the next step along the road anyway.

So basically, if you don't like what your chairman is doing, leave.

Aye, I reckon bids would come flying in - 27 truck loads of cucumbers, 57 of prime beef and 22 of melons in exchange for so prolific a striker.

Hahahaha, on re-reading it and the quote it refers to I get this now I was slightly confused to start off with, but that's top notch

If Dean Ashton scored 32 goals in 19 games i'd think that it was incredibly unrealistic, a point you seem to have completey missed. As for Negri, by January he had over a goal a game in the bag.

Sorry but i'm getting a bit fed up with this debate and your unwillingness to listen to reason. Lets put it all in conext;

Chairman accepting bids over a managers head has happened on a relatively regular basis over the last few years.

A player scoring 32 goals in 20 games in one of Europes top 5 divisions has not.

Which is more realistic?

whs.... any player in the chamionship scores 32 goals in 20 games by Christmas this season would be snapped up by a club making any sort of a large bid because it's turning a profit. It matters not whether there's a replacement the point will come down to what they paid for him, if anything, and what they can sell him for.

Robinho is exactly the same. Madrid bought him. Large bid comes in and they can make £20m profit on the original purchase. He wants to go so that's a good profit. Had he wanted to stay Man City would have bid £40-£50 and he'd still have gone as Real would be making a 'profit'.

Business decision - Schuster politely told to get stuffed despite spending all week threatening to quit if Robinho was sold.

Aye, I reckon bids would come flying in - 27 truck loads of cucumbers, 57 of prime beef and 22 of melons in exchange for so prolific a striker.

Negri did score at pretty much the rate Nomis07 mentioned.

If Dean Ashton scored 32 league goals by January there would be bids and the West Ham board would sell him. That backs up your point how exactly?

Also I agree with Nomis07 that the most unrealistic part of the whole scenario is that the guy scored 32 goals in 20 games in the first place.

i agree with nomis that zarate scoring 32 in 20 is unrealistic but what i'm saying is if that did happen you wouldn't sell for £14m up front.

when nomis said that negri scored 30 in half a season he was implying that it was insignificant because he didn't score many more, with ashton i was repying by saying if that happened today it would be a massive story and yes he probably would be sold,

but would he be sold if west ham were top of the league headed for the champions league and would it be £14m up front.

i doubt that they would sell if that was the circumstance

If Dean Ashton scored 32 goals in 19 games i'd think that it was incredibly unrealistic, a point you seem to have completey missed. As for Negri, by January he had over a goal a game in the bag.

Sorry but i'm getting a bit fed up with this debate and your unwillingness to listen to reason. Lets put it all in conext;

Chairman accepting bids over a managers head has happened on a relatively regular basis over the last few years.

A player scoring 32 goals in 20 games in one of Europes top 5 divisions has not.

Which is more realistic?

i agree with nomis that zarate scoring 32 in 20 is unrealistic but what i'm saying is if that did happen you wouldn't sell for £14m up front.

when nomis said that negri scored 30 in half a season he was implying that it was insignificant because he didn't score many more, with ashton i was repying by saying if that happened today it would be a massive story and yes he probably would be sold,

but would he be sold if west ham were top of the league headed for the champions league and would it be £14m up front.

I doubt that they would sell if that was the circumstance

I'd agree that the spread payment stings, and that such a payment should not immediately be in your transfer fund as an extra £22m... this is something SI needs to review.

Worth noting that EPL transfers it was revealed during the Barry saga are paid 50% immediately and the other 50% within 12 months. SI need to look at that too in relation to EPL transfers.

I appreciate you are in France and therefore not affected by the latter.

when nomis said that negri scored 30 in half a season he was implying that it was insignificant because he didn't score many more,

No my point is that form is game to game. You said that given Zarate's form you would have won the leage and CL, but as Glamdring said, he could get injured in your next game and not play for the rest of the season and you you could end up in 2nd a la Newcastle. Whilst you were willing to base your choice in transfer policy on presumptions that the player would maintain form, consistency and match fitness, perhaps the board were not so willing.

Like I said earlier, you have a point when you take into account that the board gave you all the money back so there was no financial gain in selling the player, but IRL I think the player would have been sold and the money kept by the board. To sum up no it's not unrealistic that the board accepted the offer despite the players form, but yes it is unrealistic that they then gave you all the money back and didn't put it in the bank.

i agree with nomis that zarate scoring 32 in 20 is unrealistic but what i'm saying is if that did happen you wouldn't sell for £14m up front.

I probably wouldn't no, but my board might well do and I reckon the current boards of Newcastle and West Ham would too!

when nomis said that negri scored 30 in half a season he was implying that it was insignificant because he didn't score many more, with ashton i was repying by saying if that happened today it would be a massive story and yes he probably would be sold

My interpretation of what Nomis said is that just because a player has scored 30 goals by January doesn't mean he'll carry on scoring at that rate so your assumption that he would lead you to the title may be flawed and the board might well think that this is the time to sell him before he has a run of just 3 goals in the rest of the seasono and his valuation drops forever. A goal ratio like that is not something that comes along regularly (ok so it does in FM, but in reality it doesn't) so many chairmen would want to cash in then, knowing full well that the scoring ratio won't continue and that they may never get another bid that good in the future.

but would he be sold if west ham were top of the league headed for the champions league and would it be £14m up front.

We could argue over how many millions until the cows come home, but the Premier League is a lot bigger in money terms than the French league anyway so the comparison is not the best.

On a side note an instance of a player being sold despite being in top form and then the board being vindicated in their decision is Benjani from Portsmouth to City.

I probably wouldn't no, but my board might well do and I reckon the current boards of Newcastle and West Ham would too!

My interpretation of what Nomis said is that just because a player has scored 30 goals by January doesn't mean he'll carry on scoring at that rate so your assumption that he would lead you to the title may be flawed and the board might well think that this is the time to sell him before he has a run of just 3 goals in the rest of the seasono and his valuation drops forever. A goal ratio like that is not something that comes along regularly (ok so it does in FM, but in reality it doesn't) so many chairmen would want to cash in then, knowing full well that the scoring ratio won't continue and that they may never get another bid that good in the future.

We could argue over how many millions until the cows come home, but the Premier League is a lot bigger in money terms than the French league anyway so the comparison is not the best.

good interesting points and yes we could argue until the cows come home.

i like your point about the board thinking that it is unlikely that he will continue the form and that the board sell up while they have the chance, it is a good point and the only comeback i can think of is: surely the game doesn't take that into account. it can't be written in the code that if a player has a good half a season his form may suffer so sell up quickly. so the fact is you've made a good point that would apply to real life but probably not the game

good argument boys, me against the world, or i could offend you by calling you fanboys! but i think your heart lies in the right place.

good interesting points and yes we could argue until the cows come home.

i like your point about the board thinking that it is unlikely that he will continue the form and that the board sell up while they have the chance, it is a good point and the only comeback i can think of is: surely the game doesn't take that into account. it can't be written in the code that if a player has a good half a season his form may suffer so sell up quickly. so the fact is you've made a good point that would apply to real life but probably not the game

Could well be true, but in the end it is about a realistic outcome even if the reasons behind it may not have been what they might be in real life. I've no idea what factors are taken into account, but something has to be taken into account when a chairman decides to step in and accept a bid so it may well take into account the fact that the chairman considers the player to be at the absolute top of his form - not necessarily that the chairman thinks he will lose his form, but that he is at the top of his game now and whether he'll stay there for the next 10 years or the next 10 minutes the board will sell him now anyway because they are nervous people who see immediate £-signs and don't fully understand football anyway (I'm sure plenty of fans would say the latter of their club's board!)

Look. Some of you guys obviously just like to argue.

The situation is this.

Chairmen accepting bids over your head is an improvement to the game when the chairman didn't get involved.

I would agree that it's not quite right, but it's pretty good in the main. They don't accept piddling little bids and at the end of the day it is them and not you who take the club forward in terms of finance and resource management.

You may have control of the purse strings, but only within pre-agreed levels.

The chairman on the other hand has to look at the bigger picture and consider the long term future of the club including facilities improvement that might mean that he is considering a stadium expansion/relocation.

In this case it is probably neither of these and probably just a case of an overzelous interfeering chairman.

I don't mind what the chairman does or doesn't do, (I quite like the fact that they interfere), but I would REALLY like the chance to give him an ultimatum and say "If you sell this player then I am resigning". Obviously like most other ultimatums it would be ignored and you would be shown the door, but I think that is the next step along the road anyway.

So basically, if you don't like what your chairman is doing, leave.

couldn't agree with you more Jimbo

No my point is that form is game to game. You said that given Zarate's form you would have won the leage and CL, but as Glamdring said, he could get injured in your next game and not play for the rest of the season and you you could end up in 2nd a la Newcastle. Whilst you were willing to base your choice in transfer policy on presumptions that the player would maintain form, consistency and match fitness, perhaps the board were not so willing.

Like I said earlier, you have a point when you take into account that the board gave you all the money back so there was no financial gain in selling the player, but IRL I think the player would have been sold and the money kept by the board. To sum up no it's not unrealistic that the board accepted the offer despite the players form, but yes it is unrealistic that they then gave you all the money back and didn't put it in the bank.

But there was financial gain and herein your repeated argument is fundamentally flawed. The clubs finances ARE the boards.

Zarate is bought for £4-5m - you have made an investment.

The investment rapidly becomes a valued commodity having performed well.

You are offered £22m for your commodity in lieu of such performance and increased potential value.

The Board [read: club] sells for £22m as this is a £17m profit and the players form is neither here nore there since the bid is too good to refuse.

The whole idea of the board interfering is that the club is a business and all businesses exist to turn a profit - this has been achieved spectacularly through the sale of Zarate.

The £22m is received by the club and reinvested - whether it should all be made available is neither here nor there in the business decision it is merely a potential oversight of the game, but since the board is the club they've made £22m, £17m of which is profit, with which to invest into the business via the medium of the transfer market.

Whether Zarate can be replaced is of course not the chairmans concern.

If Zaki scores 23 goals by Christmas and Inter Milan bid £22m for him he's gone regardless of performance since the club will make a profit and be able to reinvest £22m into the club.

I'm not sure why this simple process in causing such a fuss beyound the fact we don;t like clubs selling our players as realistic as it in point of fact is.

Could well be true, but in the end it is about a realistic outcome even if the reasons behind it may not have been what they might be in real life. I've no idea what factors are taken into account, but something has to be taken into account when a chairman decides to step in and accept a bid so it may well take into account the fact that the chairman considers the player to be at the absolute top of his form - not necessarily that the chairman thinks he will lose his form, but that he is at the top of his game now and whether he'll stay there for the next 10 years or the next 10 minutes the board will sell him now anyway because they are nervous people who see immediate £-signs and don't fully understand football anyway (I'm sure plenty of fans would say the latter of their club's board!)

can the chairman not say i've spent £3.2m with a 10% next sale fee going to al-sadd, why don't i keep him, he's only 21, he's scored 32 in 20 he could be a 30 goal a season player for the next 10 years. surely that is better for the club

can the chairman not say i've spent £3.2m with a 10% next sale fee going to al-sadd, why don't i keep him, he's only 21, he's scored 32 in 20 he could be a 30 goal a season player for the next 10 years. surely that is better for the club

No 'cos there's no guarantee he'll stay on form (Shevchenko/Ronaldo) and as such the turnover made from the sale vastly outweighs the chance of a bigger profit later.

That said, FM's finances should be better in FM09, and we should have the chance to have a say prior to a baord decision.

good argument boys, me against the world, or i could offend you by calling you fanboys! but i think your heart lies in the right place.

Lol, I don't think i'm a fanboy just that there are more important aspects of the game that need fixed than this one. I think eventually we all agreed that this feature does need fixed, but we just don't agree on the way in which it needs to be fixed

I actually like the feature anyway, I think it adds a bit of excitement now and again. In my first ever save with FM08 I was managing Newcastle and in my 3rd season the board sold a player without consulting me, I resigned immediately and tbh I liked the fact that there was something in the game that would push me towards resignation other than results or better jobs.