Credit for developing young players?!

I have been with spurs for couple of years now (Year 2017).

Having moved from lower leagues, i have found that as i hit PRM (first by leading Cov to promotion then switching to spurs), i have focused more and more on finding and buying young players (largely because established player are too expensive).

As a result i spent $50mil last year on 3 18/19 year olds. Naturally enough the spent most of their time on the bench or in the reserves. Even when they played they were barely decent. As a result all the fans got very negative on those players yet all 3 of them are well on their way to becoming leading stars of the PRM in a couple of years and will likely repay the original investment 4 times over.

Any way for fans or board to recognize this as they surely would in IRL? maybe link fan/board expectation to the role offered (hot prospect, decent young player etc) to the players when acquiring them?

I also spent another $20mil on a bunch of 16 years olds and as a result my under 18 team dominated their league (+62GD, lost only 1 game all season) despite being a younger than average team and having some top under 18s in competition (Aresnal, Chelsea). Of the players i have acquired, about 6 to 10 will be longterm good PRM players.

Theoretically, i may not have to buy another player for 10 years and still be competitive in the PRM.

Again since the board does not recognize it, i could be fired before i ever get the benefit of these acquisitions!!

Akaz

Does represent a good point in my view, If you buy them with the 'decent player' or 'hot prospect' then you should be given time, maybe the fans views could be

'Looking forward to the future with this signing'

'Not so sure what the manager see's in X Player'

Stuff like that, sounds like a good idea in my view.

50 million on 3 players for the reserves! I would be furious.lol.

Thats an average of 16.6 million each. Any sensible premier league board would want an instant impact from a player costing that amount of money. In the real world that would have brought Torres (26m) Anelka (10m) and Deco (7m) and still had change. (prices they moved for when purchaced)

But thats where the problem lies. In the real world Liverpool could pick up torres for 26million. In FM i had to spend 50million to get him. (i was glad when the real transfer went through)

It seems that you have to spent enourmous amounts of money to get world class players in fm, 40 50 or 60 million. Where in real life the record is about 32million. I would like to see this aspect of the game improved in future versions.

You cant spend 20 million on a youngster and expect the fans and board not to want immediate results. But i do agree; if you get a youngster for a reasonably low transfer fee, the board should not be concerned if he spends five years in the reserves before he hits the first team. Have often spent 700k or so on a 17 year old and when he has not played in the first team within 6 months they think its a bad bit of business.

Yeah, but how much do you think it would take to get Torres off Liverpool now.....certainly not the £26m they splashed out originally and more like the 40, 50 or 60 million?

Mind you, if you have spent 50 million on 3 18yrs old and you dont play them.. what would the fans think? "he's just spent the budget on 3 players that he plans to keep on the bench or reserves for a couple of years until there good enough" you would need to have them on at least a 5 yr contract, because if they do improver to superstars, the bigger clubs will nick them!

50 Million dollars = 25 Million UK Money

Still to much to be spending on 3 for the future though

its a good idea though, but i'd be going mental if my club spent that on 3 players!

6-10 future first teamers are no good if you get relegated in the 3 seasons leading up to it lol as you will just get them bought off you

NEED TO FIND A MIX DUDE

Yeah' date=' but how much do you think it would take to get Torres off Liverpool now.....certainly not the £26m they splashed out originally and more like the 40, 50 or 60 million?[/quote']

I would expect to pay that now. But before liverpool brought him in real life he cost me 50million in Fm. Then 6months on in real life he goes for 26million. I know it must be hard to value a world class player but they seem overpriced on fm. Also you must consider Torres was still somewhat unproven when liverpool brought him. He had a good record at athletico and was an international. But had never played at a "top club" and had not played champions league football.

I didn't spot the $ sign first off but even 25-30 million £ is too much not to expect immediate results. Can you inagine the spurs fans reaction if spurs spent 25 million in the summer then they didn't see any new players in the first team.

Look at Modric lol, £16mil and hes not doing the bus and Ramos is in the S**t

I don't know about your example for it, spending that much should warrant criticism from fans and the board, but I do agree with the need to fix board/fan reactions to signings.

Perhaps an easy way to fix it is to only allow coaches/fans to criticize signings for your top 5 highest fee signings, but still allowing them to give praise to any signing that deserves it despite how much they cost. That way they can criticize you heavily for your 15m transfer that turned out to a flop but not your 6 youth/reserve signings that didn't see the pitch often.

Yeah' date=' but how much do you think it would take to get Torres off Liverpool now.....certainly not the £26m they splashed out originally and more like the 40, 50 or 60 million?[/quote']

and the rest sonny

First up it was dollars not pounds.

Second most players that would improve my team (rated 4 star or higher) and are willing to move cost at least $50M. While with these 3, i got two 5star and 1 4star players. One established 5star player would cost around $80-100M.

Third, the 3 young ones did play in the first season with me, just not as good as regular first teamers. 2 of the 3 are 5 star potential (currently both are 3 star ie decent PRM players). 2 of the 3 also were 2nd and 3rd in young players of the years awards in PRM.

Four, i didnt trash current season to build for the future either. Did win CL (though barely, and due to some luck in earlier rounds) and was runner up in PRM (though Aresnal did win the PRM with about 8 games to go in the season, they lost only 1 game all season). While i am still a second tier team relative to European competition (CL trophy aside) with Aresnal, RMadrid and others being the top ones. But still doing okay.

Akaz

EDIT: All young players are signed to maximum (4 or 5) year contracts. I also extend the contracts quickly if they progress according to plan

50 million on 3 players for the reserves! I would be furious.lol.

Thats an average of 16.6 million each. Any sensible premier league board would want an instant impact from a player costing that amount of money. In the real world that would have brought Torres (26m) Anelka (10m) and Deco (7m) and still had change. (prices they moved for when purchaced)

But thats where the problem lies. In the real world Liverpool could pick up torres for 26million. In FM i had to spend 50million to get him. (i was glad when the real transfer went through)

It seems that you have to spent enourmous amounts of money to get world class players in fm, 40 50 or 60 million. Where in real life the record is about 32million. I would like to see this aspect of the game improved in future versions.

You cant spend 20 million on a youngster and expect the fans and board not to want immediate results. But i do agree; if you get a youngster for a reasonably low transfer fee, the board should not be concerned if he spends five years in the reserves before he hits the first team. Have often spent 700k or so on a 17 year old and when he has not played in the first team within 6 months they think its a bad bit of business.

i think the reason we pay over the odds is because i think the cash flow in recent fm years is to much. they could lower the cash beeing branded about leaving less for transfers which means players value would be less.. In FM Torres is prob worht 20 million and iv worked out that a player with at least 3 years on his current deal you have to bid 3 times his value to get near his asking price..

So to summorise im not sure it's the price you have to pay but the overall finances that need to be looked at closely.

agreed.........

How much did Wenger spend on Walcott, somewhere in the region of £9 million, thats with all the add ons and stuff, I reckon that should be in or around the max you should have to pay for an excellent prospect that is not going into the first team, even at that eyebrows were raised

With all the youngsters that get picke dup by top teams these days, the transfer deal is normally focussed on future pay out depending on performace.

Walcotts transfer to arsenal was about 5 million pounds up front, but that could go up to 12 million - which is probably has with him playing and scoring for England.

You would like to think that FM could replicate the views of smaller clubs, ie. resinged to losing their best talent for a 'nominal fee' up front and then with plenty of add ons that aren't payment in instalments.

With all the youngsters that get picke dup by top teams these days, the transfer deal is normally focussed on future pay out depending on performace.

Walcotts transfer to arsenal was about 5 million pounds up front, but that could go up to 12 million - which is probably has with him playing and scoring for England.

You would like to think that FM could replicate the views of smaller clubs, ie. resinged to losing their best talent for a 'nominal fee' up front and then with plenty of add ons that aren't payment in instalments.

This is now incorrect as Southampton decided that they didnt want to wait for the extra 7million over next few years so they struck a deal with arsenal that mean they would only have to pay 2-3mil more now so that southampton could help ease their financial difficulties i think. There was another player where this happened too.

On topic: I agree that finances need to be redone which in turn should help lower crazy fees like £60mil. But they have already informed us that they have changed this in 09. Hopefully fans don't expect as much of players who are hot prospects! Maybe have a new signings section which has transfers you make over last year and the fans opinion then a hot prospect section where fans give opinions on the deal and their progress over say 3 years?

Wijnaldum

Alex Texiera

Lulinha

Aquino

Camacho

Will cost u atleast 5 mill n u wont have to spend anymore money for a good few years if u development them well

With all the youngsters that get picke dup by top teams these days, the transfer deal is normally focussed on future pay out depending on performace.

Walcotts transfer to arsenal was about 5 million pounds up front, but that could go up to 12 million - which is probably has with him playing and scoring for England.

You would like to think that FM could replicate the views of smaller clubs, ie. resinged to losing their best talent for a 'nominal fee' up front and then with plenty of add ons that aren't payment in instalments.

I don't think we have received anything else yet for the Walcott deal, I think it may have been after about 10 international goals or something like that along with a fair amount of international appearances but I may be wrong so please don't quote me on that, the only major bit of money we got recently was money from Pompey after they bought Crouch which was only about £1.5m I think

If you think about things logically, world class players cost so much because the top teams dont want to sell there players... its simple as that

Wijnaldum

Alex Texiera

Lulinha

Aquino

Camacho

Will cost u atleast 5 mill n u wont have to spend anymore money for a good few years if u development them well

he's in 2017, they will be quite a lot older and with more rep so they will be worth way more.

It doesn't even take me one million to accumulate U17 players who will rock the U18 league in a comparable manner.

Seriously, if you spend that much money on players, the fans and the general public will always expect an immediate impact. The expectations are only linked to the transfer fee and not to age or potential. Even though we know that in the long run these investments might be wiser, the game (football, not fm) is more centered around short-term success. Your team now would be stronger if you had invested in fewer immediate first-teamers. I like your strategy but I find it expectable to not get cheers only for that in the public.

Well my prize young striker was voted worse acquisition of the year (). And given his first year contribution it was probably fair. But in my game i am finding it nearly impossible to find a good player for anything under $50M. Worse the AI is doing completely crazy stuff.

I have been trying to buy off a regen player for one of the bottom teams for $27M but kept getting refused. Then one of the AI bid $17M for him and i dont bid thinking that it will never be accepted. But low and behold it does get accepted. I immediately bid for the played as well but on next news update the players already signed up for the other AI team.

Ridiculous.

Akaz

PS. The team i was buying from was not considered a 'Rival'.

Just a quick addition i would like to be added to the game.

When searching through unnattached players on the player search screen it would be very useful to have a column which states what there last club was, that way i won't have to search through so many players being released from non-league clubs and won't be good enough to sign.

This would be particularly useful in non-league games.

Thanks