Interference: Logic

I'm playing as Man City, 4th season, finished top 3 each year (including one season as champions), won a CL and two domestic cups. Finances are in a healthy state and team is currently top of the PL in January 2011, everything is going swimmingly one could say...

Until my chairman has decided to make a rather crackpot decision. Having a strong starting squad, I invested largely in young players in my opening season, with the likes of Torje; Guilherme and Alex Teixera joining up. All three have featured heavily this season in first team fixtures and are an integral part of my team. Alex is described as a "quality player" by all my coaches and has developed well, and obviously has lots more to come, yet the chairman has intervened and accepted a £10m bid from Spurs, just one day after I rejected a £13.5m bid from Bayern. Both offers were a straight cash deal (no clauses). Why would the board do this (ie intervene and take a lower offer from a rival team) ?

Thanks in anticipation, and apologies if this has been covered in the past.

because he feels you had no right to reject 13.5mill and decided that he wouldn't give you the choice next time?

That's quite interesting because I found the opposite which I thought was quite a nice touch. When I was looking to cash in on Adrian Mutu my board accepted a bid from Bayern Munich without consulting me, but at the same time they left an exactly equal bid from rivals AC Milan for me to decide whether to accept or reject. In the end I accepted that bid myself because I really wanted the cash and didn't want to risk him rejecting Bayern as the only offer on the table, but it was nice to have that option to reject a bid from a rival club without my chairman stepping in.

Just a reminder that when this happens you should immediately offer the player in question a new contract. If he's happy at your club it's likely that he'll accept your contract offer rather than moving to another club.

Problem solved (most of the time).

good idea chopper

my problem was that in the second season spurs came in for liverpools insua. so i upped their bid to 20mill + 30% sell on to see what they said.

they offered it and my board accepted it. i thought id up the bid so that they'd walk away but i ended up having to sell him.

they sold him a year later for 34 mill to madrid so i made a nice chunk out of that sale too.

Thanks for the replys, guys.

I did offer him a new contract at that time, and he came up with the "currently not interested in signing a new contract at this time" so I was resigned to losing him by this point. He's now employed in bench warming duties while Berbatov and Keane continue as first choice strikers.

Originally posted by chopper99:

Just a reminder that when this happens you should immediately offer the player in question a new contract. If he's happy at your club it's likely that he'll accept your contract offer rather than moving to another club.

Problem solved (most of the time).

That strikes me as being a bit of a bug really - the player almost always signs for the other club (if they are bigger) when you don't offer them a contract, but if you offer them a contract the same as they are already on and with £0 signing on fee they will often sign that rather than move to the other club.

Originally posted by glamdring:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

Just a reminder that when this happens you should immediately offer the player in question a new contract. If he's happy at your club it's likely that he'll accept your contract offer rather than moving to another club.

Problem solved (most of the time).

That strikes me as being a bit of a bug really - the player almost always signs for the other club (if they are bigger) when you don't offer them a contract, but if you offer them a contract the same as they are already on and with £0 signing on fee they will often sign that rather than move to the other club. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true, it would perhaps be a lot better if the player tried to negotiate a bit more money for themselves to stay at your club. Or perhaps this could be expanded so that when this happens you could talk to either the chairman and tell him why you want to keep this player, or the player themselves and try and convince them to stay.

It appears it is programmed so that a player too often takes a decision between contracts that are on the table rather than comparing to the contract he is already on in those situations.

I agree that the board interference logic needs to be changed. A while back playing as Celtic we were the 4th richest club in the world, regularly making the late rounds of the CL, and were at the time over $1 million per week below the salary limit. Money was not a problem.

I had purchased a 15 year old Brazilian regen for $0 and a 25% sell on clause. He joined me at 18 and I stuck him on the youth squad for a year. The next season I promoted him to the senior squad and found out he was good enough to not only play, but to start. He played extremely well that first half season. Unfortunately, his value was still listed as $0. Late December rolls around and Newcastle makes a bid of $38K for him which the chairman feels is just too good too refuse?!? I tried to offer him a new contract but he was not interested. I decided that I was more than justified in cheating this time and it is the only time I did on that save, so used FMM to give him a long term deal at $200K per week and then changed it back to normal after he turned down Newcastle's contract offer.

While I was in FMM I noticed that his CA/PA was 138/192! I ask how is it possible that my chairman would take a 38K offer for a starter on my team who is only 19 and has a PA of 192? Absurd!

Your chairman is no good at judging PA - he just makes business decisions. Some chairman make stupid business decisions.

Fair enough. But no chairman of the 4th richest club in the world, who has been that team's chairman for 8+ years would ever make THAT bad of decision without consulting without at least consulting with his long-time very successful manager. It defies all logic.

Originally posted by kancit5667:

Fair enough. But no chairman of the 4th richest club in the world, who has been that team's chairman for 8+ years would ever make THAT bad of decision without consulting without at least consulting with his long-time very successful manager. It defies all logic.

Abramovic will - give him time ...

I have actually never had the chairman accept a bid over my head. Even when the big clubs came for my star player and offered twice his value. Makes me think that maybe it depends on the amount of money you spend or something about club finances.

If the chairman accepts an offer like this and you want to keep the player, you can offer the player out for £0 and when loads of clubs make a bid (hopefully), then if he chooses one of the £0-clubs you'll be able to cancel the transfer in the last minute.