Transfer Targets given to the Board?

It seems in real life that managers give their list of targets to the board and then the board OKs them and the manager can go after them. How about being able to draw up a list for your board just before a transfer window and then going after them? You could then justify your targets to the board. Then the better they perform the more leeway you have over who you can bid on.

For example, my Liverpool team at the moment has Aguero, Torres, Huntelaar and Keirrson upfront. If I went to the board with a new striker as a target they may query why I need a new one and not allow me to sign him. Then i may have the option to reply and say that I plan on selling one my existing strikers.

Another example maybe if I want to sign someone from a lower league, the baord may express their concern that he is not of the required quality. This could then be linked to baord confidence in transfers, they more confidence they have in you to make successful transfers they more likely they are to agree to your list of targets.

Interference could be linked to rating in Editor. Eg Ramos at Spurs is rumoured to have not had much control, so Spurs would have high interference. Ferguson seems to be able to sign whoever so his chairman would have a low interference and not often query your list of targets.

Also I think it would be good if their were more fan reactions to player sales. For example outrage if I sold Carragher and Gerrard, or praise if its a good piece of business?

I personally think this is a good idea, if it was implemented well. However, it could lead to us having what is effectively the most exciting part of the game taken away from us. That being making our own transfers.

Really it just hands your shortlist to your board and they monitor it. You could also ask you Ass Man to give you a hand or import directly from your scout report.

I mentioned about telling the board you would sell so you could buy, if you didn't do the selling then it could come back to haunt you in future windows.

I wouldn't like this. I want freedom to sign who I want, when I want, and not having to clear another player with the board if my first choice fell through. Additionally, I don't think that many clubs actually involve the board with this sort of thing as they tend to be non-footballing men. The clubs that do need a manager to check his targets with others normally higher a Director Of Football who will be a footballing man- Newcastle, West Ham, Tottenham, Chelsea and Reading all have DOFs, as do most clubs on the continent. However, it's impossible to implement them realistically as their precise role is very hushed up, and vaires from club to club. Reading's DOFs role seems to be to do the negotiating on behalf of Coppell, whereas at Newcastle Keegan's comments indicate that Wise is actually place in charge of signing players.

Edit: It would also detract from what is IMO the funnest part of the game.

Good idea nonetheless, and you've obviously put a lot of thought into it!

Could work for some, but not all.

For me, I like being personally involved in all transfers, with no interference whatsoever (even the fan confidence does bug me a little. I think they have no right to question my transfer policy). One habit I have is picking up 16 year olds who are unattached and sticking them in my youth team to see how they develop. I wouldn't like to have to go to the board everytime I sign one of these players.

It's a nice idea but I can already smell the issues we'd have with it... clubs like Chelsea would never form because the chairmen "wouldn't see the need" to keep adding top quality players to already good side etc..

Although a feature to argue with the board over the importance of a signing would be nice. I'm sick of managing to gain the interest in a huge star at a struggling relegation side and my board not breaking their maximum wage per player, despite having loads of the wage bill left Example... If Middlesborough had 200,000 free on the wage bill, max per player was 30,000 but Robinho would join for 60,000... are you telling me the board would say no? High reputation should factor a boards decision to break the budget like in real life.

I think it's a good idea. However, on the other side, can you imagine trying to sign a youngster who has potential but the board refuse it for random reasons. If these sort of issues could be addressed, then it would be good.

Could the boards decision to allow the transfer in the Chelsea situation be linked to the players CA/PA. If it is higher than the player he is rumporued to be replacing then they would allow it?

Could the boards decision to allow the transfer in the Chelsea situation be linked to the players CA/PA. If it is higher than the player he is rumporued to be replacing then they would allow it?

But they don't always sign players to replace another. Chelsea do sign players for 'backup', like Mineiro etc.

I suppose it might depend on the level of interaction you could have with the board. If they query the signing then you could explain that he was a backup. The same with a youth player. Again it could come back to haunt you, if you say someone is being signed for the first team and then you never play him, they may not give you as much control in future.

Personally I feel that SI are trying in vain to add every little thing to the game to make it more realistic. Where will the interactions stop before you're discussing the team mascot with Peter Kenyon....

I don't feel that they could programme enough multiple scenarios into the AI in order to make this a workable add on. Just like all the silly interactions you have in FM09 with the fans and the board. There aren't enough possibilities and different reactions to different situations currently to make them exciting and to make them feel right, so to add more would over complicate the game.

Don't like this, at least not for my save.

When I took over at Braintree I axed 25 players in my first 2 weeks and then signed 19 players during the next month.

Would have been a nightmare to gain Board approval for every player.

It's not a bad idea but perhaps there should be an option to choose the level of control that you as the manager have. This could be in the form of your contract negotiation, you could be forced to define in your contract the level of control you want. The variables would be the chairman, the club and your own reputation. This could mean that you could choose to be under Kevin Keegan duress or Martin O'Neil freedom.

Frankly, though, I can't imagine I would ever choose to let the board have control as it is one of the most exciting parts of the game for me. Curtailing my transfer freedom would just be frustrating.

Its a good idea in parts, but could you imagine the state it would be in for the first 5 or 6 versions after it was introduced?

Personally, i was thinking along the lines of being able to go to the Board, if say, you had a striker(or any position) injury crisis and badly needed to bring someone in.

Something like that?

It only came to mind because the Robbie Keane situation. I remembered a few years ago (FM05/06) the baord used to block transfers and even sign players. Rumour has it that Keane was a Rick Parry signing, not a Rafa one. Could this be mirrored perhaps?

Not if the board is as stupid as my scouts. For a feature like this to not be a complete gamekiller it needs to be very perfected and the board actually need to work in reasonable way.

Don't like this at all - the way I play is more like a Director of Football as I don't do much with the training anyway. Signing players is a key part of the game for me.

I remembered a few years ago (FM05/06) the baord used to block transfers and even sign players. Could this be mirrored perhaps?

I remember this! Is it still in the game?

Because i remember people complaining about their board signing average/un-needed players for unrealistic amounts and giving them too high wages making them over their wage budget.

I don't remember it happening in 08 or 09 so far. It seems that it does happen at some clubs, newcastle, spurs, liverpool, man city? and it does depend on the chairman/board so why not reapply it to the game?

With regards to those saying it takes the fun out of transfers, well you still need to find the players, you still negotiate your own bids and contracts, it just you have more accountability to the board, just like real life. Besides, if you have a good transfer record and don't tell the board one thing and do another the system should allow the board to give you more freedom in your transfers. Particularly as you start the game as a complete unknown manager. Clubs veto transfers from experienced managers so why wouldn't they do it to an unknown? Apologies for the Liverpool bias, but as I'm a fan I know more about it, but one rumour around the Gareth Barry situation this summer was that the board did not feel that spending 18million on a central midfielder with Lucas, Gerrard, Mascherano and Alonso on the books was wise so they didn't sanction it. Why can't this be replicated in the game? I'm sure Rafa negotiated with them over this, so why not be able to do this in the game?

I like the idea of it being part of contract negotiations, it does happen IRL (Rafa's situation now). It could be the difference between takingone job and not another.