Chairman Accepting Large Transfer Offers

I'm managing Bayern and we don't really need any money. Recently Man U offered 45 million Euros for a 20.5 million Euro valued AM(RLC) and my Chairman accepted even though I specifically commanded that all transfer offers are auto-rejected and that I have stated on more than one occasion to other clubs that I have no intention of allowing this player to escape via transfers.

I'm managing Bayern and we don't really need any money. Recently Man U offered 45 million Euros for a 20.5 million Euro valued AM(RLC) and my Chairman accepted even though I specifically commanded that all transfer offers are auto-rejected and that I have stated on more than one occasion to other clubs that I have no intention of allowing this player to escape via transfers.

45m is ALOT of money.

Thats life I'm afraid!

It depends on your chairman I believe. Some clubs are more willing to do this than others.

But it does work both ways; I offered £6mill for a defender rated at £4mill and the board couldn't refuse the offer.

This has been widely reported too btw

Not when you have ~100+ million available for transfers . . . and when he's practically the center of your team (FYI he's a created Chinese Player) and without him, my midfield would probably crumble.

So you have 140m+, you could buy practically any midfeilder in the game so does it matter

Of course it matters - it's BS.

I do note that this is after already transferring four good players (my sweeper, a right wing back, a striker and an ok backup goalie that was never going to get any playing time) for a combined 60 million. I was intent on rebuilding my team around my star midfielder and signing a star striker (my forwards have trouble scoring, so my mids usually get the most goals) and some good defenders (I had decent ones, but no one spectacular).

The whole matter is an issue of principle. I don't want Breckenbauer interfering, however great a player that he was.

Anyways . . . Thankfully, Man U was really stingy with their weekly wage offer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The whole matter is an issue of principle. I don't want Breckenbauer interfering, however great a player that he was </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then leave and manage a club that has a more 'less hands on approach' or hope he sells up.

Whilest this has been mentioned a million times already, it is something way back in the annulls of time that was requested by many, and it is somehting that 'does' happen a lot more often in real life than you would care to imagine.

Look at Chelski as a prime example.

just over value everyone- put your CHN midfielder at 100 million. that should keep the wolves at bay

i have noticed that with my brighton team, becasue prior to a sell of my good premiership players of 4.8, where i had negotiated 10 mil for him already but board accepted 4.8, my biggest sell was around 1.2 mil....so this sell seemed huge to them, i have a feeling it is a bug where the board havent addressed the situation correctly

i think there should be an option to ultimatum to get the chairman to reject this. or sack u i had a player called Raffael De Vita, bought him 55k for grimsby league 2 got to league 1 and he was worth 1.7mill and watford offered 1.7mill for him and i lost him :'(

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

Not when you have ~100+ million available for transfers . . . and when he's practically the center of your team (FYI he's a created Chinese Player) and without him, my midfield would probably crumble. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But a chairman is a business man, NOT a football manager. Microsoft make too much money but I can't see them saying, "Right, we've made enough now lads, let's pack it up" Business men always want to make more profit. Chairmen and Managers will always disagree on this sort of subject, it must happen IRL too.

If he had sold your player for 15m or something, I'd see your complaint but 45m? Almost every player in the world would go for that. Your player sounds alot like Gerrard and Liverpool almost sold him to Chelski for around 30m (not 100%).

Happens in football all the time, sometimes in reverse ala Abramovich and Mourinho. You got double the amount he was valued, what Chairman on earth would take your word and say no no we can do without that extra 20m?

If you are at Bayern and have 100m to spend how exactly would your midfield crumble because of the loss of one player?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

Happens in football all the time, sometimes in reverse ala Abramovich and Mourinho. You got double the amount he was valued, what Chairman on earth would take your word and say no no we can do without that extra 20m?

If you are at Bayern and have 100m to spend how exactly would your midfield crumble because of the loss of one player? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in my game Kompany was valued 14,5 mil.€ and Beckenbauer accepted a 21 mil.€ offer. The problem was, that I've had to pay 45% of that to Hamburg, so I got a little more than 10 mil. for a class defender and had to spend 25 mil. for a new one. And my finances were superb, I was the 2nd richest club in the world behind Barca.

Surely that's your own fault BayernMB, I never never never make a bid with a sell on clause and given your financial situation I don't know why you did. I would have thought it would be quite hard for the game to be built so as to recognise when there is a sell on clause and how much it is worth and whether or not it is still good value.

i had 4 wingers in my team, Babel, Anderson, Leto and Fernadez ( I am Liverpool) One january transfer window the chairman decides that offers for Babel, Anderson and Leto were togood and sold them. i would have been ablee to cope but out of the rought 45-50mill i got for these three players he gave me 1 mill extra to spend on transfers.

So i had one winger (Mataias Fernadez, and about 10mill to spend)

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

i had 4 wingers in my team, Babel, Anderson, Leto and Fernadez ( I am Liverpool) One january transfer window the chairman decides that offers for Babel, Anderson and Leto were togood and sold them. i would have been ablee to cope but out of the rought 45-50mill i got for these three players he gave me 1 mill extra to spend on transfers.

So i had one winger (Mataias Fernadez, and about 10mill to spend) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What were your finances at the time? You must have spent a lot getting Anderson and Fernandez etc maybe he didn't like the way the balance was considering the huge loan debt Liverpool have.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

Surely that's your own fault BayernMB, I never never never make a bid with a sell on clause and given your financial situation I don't know why you did. I would have thought it would be quite hard for the game to be built so as to recognise when there is a sell on clause and how much it is worth and whether or not it is still good value. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, that is't partly my fault, but don't you think, that a chairman should consider such clauses, before he offloads a star player... When I bought him, I didn't have that much transfer funds, and I never considered selling this player before he was 31-32 years old and then hic price wouldn't be so high that It would matter much

But that's what i'm saying, yes in an ideal world that should be the case. How can a computer game be programmd to recognised which transfer make economic sense wand which don't re: sell on fees. I dunno much about computers but i'd say it wouldn't be easy.

At the risk of asking stupid questions: Why on Earth are you building your club round one player anyway? That's suicide. What if he gets injured?

I was rebuilding the squad with him as one of the few starting players on my team. The transfer period just started and I had already made a couple of contract offers (teams accepted transfer bids). I understand the economic standpoint that Breckenbauer is coming from, but it's still annoying when the Board has promised that it won't interfere and when they've consistently applauded my manager for his wins.

I also have to point out that I received five enquiries and two transfer bids prior with me rejecting them all. I specifically changed his status to "Unavailable for Loan" and "Reject All Offers" before Breckenbauer accepted that offer.

ZeroCrusade:

"Reject All Offers" only impacts the offers which you personally are in control of.

You don't control your chairman - you work for him. So, you don't get to dictate what actions he will take.

I've never seen a board "promise that it won't interfere", either.

. . .

That said, I do think that there's an issue here:

I think the club's decisions about assets needs to have a much stronger tie to the current financial situation.

For example, if we've been massively profitable the past three years, I'd like to see even a hands-on chairman back off and let the manager run the club the (clearly successful!) way he has been.

Further, if he's already sold 4 players for 60M, he should be looking at that: the club has already made a huge profit this transfer season, and should probably be a buyer, not a seller, at that point.

On the other hand, if the club was steadily losing money, or had a huge debt, or had lost a bunch of money this season - yeah, cashing in on a player for 45M makes very good sense: take the money, because IRL the player always could blow out a knee and never be the same.

. . .

Pursuant to the "Considering the bid in context" aspect, with the 45% sell-on clause, I think your chairman should be considering that. For the purposes of his "interfering chairman" decision to sell, he should be looking at the 45M bid as 45M * 0.55 = 24.75M ... and realizing that what profit he's going to see from it really isn't as jaw-dropping as the bid sounds.

(Of course, then we protect all of our best assets by offering 50% sell-on clauses to keep our chairmen's mitts off.. ... so maybe interfering chairmen would have to refuse to agree to that clause for high-value players.)

. . .

I'd also like to see a way to impact the chairman at this point.

For example, this seems a perfect example of a time when we should be able to issue an Ultimatum. (As cooLLedge said)

"No, listen, if you sell Chun Li out from under me, you'll have my resignation on your desk by the end of the day."

Results: either the chairman cancels the proposed transfer, or he fires you. Ideally, if he cancels the transfer, he backs off of his "interfering" nature a bit as well.

. . .

Finally, there still is something you can do. When the club comes in with a bid, offer a new contract to the player. If he accepts your contract, he will reject the bidding player .. and that at least buys you some more time with him.

bit of a bummer though if ur low league and high league offers! hes like WOO big club im gone! lol. but nice points amaroq hopefully something in 2009 like this.

just because your chairman accepts doesnt mean you have lost the player.

Tottenham offered me 8 million for Allan Hutton and my Chairman accepted, so i offered him a bigger wage and he accepted.

Though he still started to moan about a year later and ended up being sold anyway.

Though after a year he didnt get played a whole lot and i was able to buy him back and now hes my vice captain and im training him up to take over as captain when Barry Fergusson retires.

Minimum Fee Release Clause - I find this always keeps clubs away unless they desperately want the player, at a massively inflated price you can deal with. Also helps by telling the chairman that is the only price you will accept, and even if a very good offer comes in under the Clause, you can deal with it the way you want.

At least thats what happens to me

erm minimum release clause.. isnt that when u terminate contract? im sure it was as my player was 200m minimum release clause

There's really only 1 solution for this for FM 09. And that would be for the start of a new game, have an option like Attribute Masking, and all that, have an option to allow Chairman's to interfere. That would cause less complaining on the boards if we had that option available to us.

Yesterday my board allowed me to negotiate an 8m offer from Chelsea, which they later withdrew (I asked for 9m - which was his release clause). A few days later they went over my head and accepted a 2.1m bid from Levski Sofia and off he went.

I think the board should first come to you with such a decision. In that way you can give the board an ultimatum in a way like "if my startplayer goes, then i'm out the door too".

I cant believe irl the chairman just sells a player without even telling the manager. Or am i wrong?

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

I think the board should first come to you with such a decision. In that way you can give the board an ultimatum in a way like "if my startplayer goes, then i'm out the door too".

I cant believe irl the chairman just sells a player without even telling the manager. Or am i wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with that is it could bring morale down from the rest of the team.

They need to be assured that you're going to stick by the team, and not by 1 player alone.

I dont agree. If you have a few keyplayers, which you can state even in their contractdetails, it's logical that you try to fight to keep them. Players on a squad rolation or backupstatus can suffer a lower moral because one of the most important players is going to leave. But that's my point of view