Disclose/Undisclose Transfer Fee

After reading this really good article on the increasingly common occurence of "undisclosed" transfer fees:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/46453-revealed-why-clubs-leave-transfer-fees-undisclosed

I cant help thinking that this should be incorparated in game.

*You could make it a condition of your bid that the amount is disclosed/undisclosed

* Disclosing a transfer free would add pressure to an expensive player but appease the fans looking for big signings (Berbatov) (could also boost club rep/ attract players)

* Disclosing a large fee in a sale would justify to your fans why you have sold a big player (Keane). Disclosing a fee lower than what you payed will show you to be businessly naive or show you accepting the player was a failure (Shevchenko)

* Disclosing a small fee for a youngster will look great for you if they turn out to be great (Anelka/Arsenal). You wont get as much credit if noone knows how cheap you got them.

* Disclosing many large fees can leave your whole team struggling with fan expectation (Tottenham)

Loads of balanced pro's and con's and varying motives between clubs would make this an interesting feature.

i would like to see it.

this would be a great addition to the game

perfect, more realism is a good thing, and this definitely would add realism!

It happens more often these days so it should be reflected in the game. We haven't been informed of all the new features in FM2009 so perhaps its already there.

would love to have this on game...

Great addition . Hope SI have added this into FM09.

It could also tie in with the new press conference/jounalist relationship features. For example

1. Sign young star from club A. Agree to non-disclose fee with club A

2. Player plays brilliant in first 5 games

3. In press conference field several questions asking how much he cost.

4. Decide to brag how cheap player was in press conference. Impress your fans, increase relationship with journalist.

5. Ruin relationship with Club A's manager. Have to pay X amount of compensation for breaking terms of transfer, annoy your own chairman.

6. Club A's manager under pressure from his fans for selling star on the cheap.

7. Other clubs looking for non-disclosed sales tend to ignore your offers as they dont believe you can keep your mouth shut

very good ideas,but its hard to find it this year in FM09,bc transfers in the game still the same (no new options),only the transfer system changed.

It has my vote.

Great idea. The expamples that you gave are spot-on and a RL examples of how it is used in the real world of football.

Its definetly got my vote.

disclosed or not, the media tend to know roughly what you have spent, so the pressure and praise is about the same.

Wenger never discloses fees. Yet we all knew what Anelka came in for. I mean, he was your example!

Meanwhile Berbatov's fee didn't get fans going, Berbatov did. United fans would have been even happier had he cost 20p and a bag of chips.

It is a good idea in theory, but as the above poster said, you always seem to know how much money an 'undisclosed' fee was (IRL).

I would rather see development time spent on other aspects of the game.

Even the article listed indicates that even an "undisclosed" fee rarely stays private for long:

A bit of good old fashion journalistic research later (honestly, the hacks will always find out eventually!), and the reason for this coyness was revealed—the sum paid was in the region of £11m. Nearly as much as the club received for Nicolas Anelka, on a player that looked slow and out of his depth at Euro 2008. Immediately, the press questioned the acquisition.

from the Exhibit A section, with this repeated in Exhibit B:

The irony of course, is that the media will inevitably reveal the details in the end. No one involved can keep quiet forever—and the very fact clubs try so hard to keep things secret only heightens the media reaction. More often than not, honesty would be a far better policy.

I do like your section regarding the pros and cons - its rare to see a nicely balanced idea posted - but it seems like its not necessary to add the "undisclosed" option to get the majority of the impact (increased pressure on players / teams, fan reaction, etc).

I think if we were going to add it, we might do the following:

1. It only occurs if both buying and selling club decide to keep it secret

2. Its not contractually obligated

3. The actual amount is revealed at the end of the current fiscal quarter

I think I'd also want the "business sense" logic to be quite sophisticated - the easiest example would be a player bought at age 25 for millions, and sold at age 35 for 100,000. That's not bad business, we got ten good years out of him. Likewise, selling mediocre players whom the previous manager overpaid for shouldn't count against me .. and I've even had cases where a player bought in League One played a key role in getting the club up to the Premiership, but was eventually sold on for less than his purchase price due to the prevalence of better options on the club.

and a vote from me

from me too, it happens all the time so surely should be in

Whilst the idea, and its effects are a gr8 idea, most of the time, despite a transfer fee being undisclosed, everyone know how much a player is sold or bought for......the papers find out everything

Sounds like a good idea to me as Amaroq said need to be careful of certain occurances that were nothing to do with you or if there is a logical reason for selling off cheap then the game should recognise that.

thanks for all the support. Hopefully SI take note and add this in (if not in already)

IRL, pretty much every transfer fee is undisclosed. Like Am said, do we really just want to wait a few weeks for the media to work it out/take a guess? Does that actually improve the game at all? Even if we add the other options, they become null and void when the fee is released. I think Keane's transfer was undisclosed at first, wasn't it?

Also, the main reason a lot of fees are "undisclosed" it that most of them are actually paid in installments. Perhaps when fees are paid in installments, they could be called "an undisclosed fee rumoured to be around (rounded to 1 significant figure)"

disclosed or not, the media tend to know roughly what you have spent, so the pressure and praise is about the same.

Wenger never discloses fees. Yet we all knew what Anelka came in for. I mean, he was your example!

Meanwhile Berbatov's fee didn't get fans going, Berbatov did. United fans would have been even happier had he cost 20p and a bag of chips.

Wenger may never disclose fees, but arsenal have share holders, therefore their results have to be released and then you can see what they have spent, same with most clubs. This doesnt affect clubs like chelsea and man Utd who are privately owned.

So maybe there should also be a little more information at the start of the season when the dividends are paid to shreholders. Or maybe quartly/annual results should be released and then the press can make comment ..... such as "turnover up by x%" or "Arsenal's wage budget has gone throught he roof",etc.....

Every time you bid something for a player suddenly every other club knows about it, however some AI clubs bid and you have no idea.