Minimum Wage

I'm Everton at the moment, and I've just offered 17-year-old Abe Donzo a pro contract for a laugh more than anything.

Anyhoo, he signed a full time professional contract on £95 per week, a three year contract.

The minimum wage in England as we speak for a 17 year old is £3.64 an hour, but this contract will extend till he is a 20 year old, where the minimum wage would be £4.92. Theoretically I could have offered him a five year deal, meaning he'd be on £95 a week full time when the minimum wage is £5.93 for a 21 year-old or older person.

So unless I'm missing something obvious (like there's a top up wage that's invisible in the game or something), should the game be allowing slave labour wages for professional footballers? ^^

Maybe the leagues in the game need to have these limits imposed on them? I understand the need for the option to offer £5 a week in South Africa etc. but perhaps if you're managing in England a limitation can be applied.

Bit of background reading...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4898392.stm - Survey Reveals Footballer Wages

League Two players earn an average of £50'000 a year in 2006, which is about £1'000 per week!

Yes, but that all assumes he is working a full standard week of 8 hours a day. Footballers don't do that they tend to have half day training sessions and then the academy players goboff and have school work. Therefore he won't be braking them minimum wage as his contracted working hours would be something like 25 a week.

There are some exemptions to minimum wage, apprenticeships and other similar schemes so perhaps 'youth' contracts fall under that. Also you will note that in your wage budget it should show you a 'youth allowance' amount, this could be that invisible top up you mention. I don't know the answer but these 2 could well have some bearing.

Technically you're wrong I'm afraid. There is a clause which allows apprentices to be paid £2.50 an hour, so if they're considered to be apprentices then there's nothing illegal.

I'm still pretty certain that a 21 year old footballer in the Premier League shouldn't be on a full time professional contract of £50 per week, £200 per month, £2'400 per year, as is now the case with my 17 year old youth team goalkeeper Connor Roberts on a five-year deal!!!

There are some exemptions to minimum wage, apprenticeships and other similar schemes so perhaps 'youth' contracts fall under that. Also you will note that in your wage budget it should show you a 'youth allowance' amount, this could be that invisible top up you mention. I don't know the answer but these 2 could well have some bearing.

The Youth Grant is a flat bonus into the clubs coffers. At Everton, that's just £700 per week for the entire squad. So I don't think it's that...

Technically you're wrong I'm afraid. There is a clause which allows apprentices to be paid £2.50 an hour, so if they're considered to be apprentices then there's nothing illegal.

It's a standard, full-time professional footballers contract, identical to one you'd offer Lionel Messi. I'm allowing the possibility of some sort of youth top-up just based on the players age, but that's being generous given that these players can be as old as 22 when the contract ends if offered a five-year deal.

It is a very good point well made. And an interesting one! A response from SI would be good, to see if they can give us a reason!

Yea, sorry - the correct answer is the one I gave in the second post.

I used to work for an estate agent that 'technically' broke EU rules on maximum employment hours. I was working 65+ hour weeks, but my contract said 42 hours. On top of that my basic wage was minimum wage for a 42 hour week, but WAY less than minimum wage for a 65 hour week (obviously as they couldnt actually admit I would be working those hours...)

Basically, the contract he signed will say he works for X hours a week, which would put it into the minimum wage category. Any extra time he spent at the football ground would be considered his own 'personal' time. Basically, football clubs give you X for Y hours work, but then expect you to spend twice as much time in personal training that you arent paid for.

Yea, sorry - the correct answer is the one I gave in the second post.

I used to work for an estate agent that 'technically' broke EU rules on maximum employment hours. I was working 65+ hour weeks, but my contract said 42 hours. On top of that my basic wage was minimum wage for a 42 hour week, but WAY less than minimum wage for a 65 hour week (obviously as they couldnt actually admit I would be working those hours...)

Basically, the contract he signed will say he works for X hours a week, which would put it into the minimum wage category. Any extra time he spent at the football ground would be considered his own 'personal' time. Basically, football clubs give you X for Y hours work, but then expect you to spend twice as much time in personal training that you arent paid for.

I do understand that, but realistically should a professional footballer on a full time professional contract in the top tier of English football, aged 22, be on a contract of £50 per week, regardless of all the above ^^

I do understand that, but realistically should a professional footballer on a full time professional contract in the top tier of English football, aged 22, be on a contract of £50 per week, regardless of all the above ^^

Yes, if they are only 'working' say 10 hours a week, which is not unrealistic as that would be 5, 2 hour training sessions each week with the 'match' being played on his own time as he doesnt actually HAVE to play in the match, thats his choice. Employers can really shaft you if they know they have more power than you. Its only when you are a superstar that you can start demanding.

Maidel, I hear what you are saying but lets be realistic here, and that amount per week is not realistic. Your reasoning is sound, but it just ain't right. Tubey's figure of about a grand a week in league 2 is bang on, thats the average! If there are loads of kids earning £50p/w then there would need to be some huge earners in L2 to bring that average up and that just isn't the case.

Maidel, I hear what you are saying but lets be realistic here, and that amount per week is not realistic. Your reasoning is sound, but it just ain't right. Tubey's figure of about a grand a week in league 2 is bang on, thats the average! If there are loads of kids earning £50p/w then there would need to be some huge earners in L2 to bring that average up and that just isn't the case.

Yea, sorry - no. The BBC article specifically states - (* Average figure takes into account players aged over 20). Therefore it dont matter what the 'kids' are earning because they dont compute in that average.

Yea, sorry - no. The BBC article specifically states - (* Average figure takes into account players aged over 20). Therefore it dont matter what the 'kids' are earning because they dont compute in that average.

ah, didn't see that. I stand corrected on the fine details, still don't agree that this £50pw is right.

Yea, sorry - no. The BBC article specifically states - (* Average figure takes into account players aged over 20). Therefore it dont matter what the 'kids' are earning because they dont compute in that average.

I'm stating a five year contract starting at the age of 17, which would end when the player was 22, meaning at age 22 the player is earning £50 a week. In the Premier League.

You're technically right in that technically a player can be offered that amount of money, but realistically all sane reason suggests that you should not be able to offer a five year contract of £50 a week to a top level professional footballer in England!

ah, didn't see that. I stand corrected.

Thats alright. For me this would be an issue if EVERY young player was on a really low long term contract, but from what ive seen, they arent and thus its, for me, not an issue. If I could sign hot prospect youngsters on £55 a week then there would be an issue with this, as it is, I struggle to sign any player on less than £5500 a week (as arsenal).

Also, from that article the other thing to take into consideration is those sums are 'total earnings'. Thus league 2 players do not average salarys of £1000 a week, more like £800 a week + bonuses, with many of those bonuses paid out at the completion of the season based on team performance, which makes quite a big difference when we are talking about weekly wages.

all sane reason suggests that you should not be able to offer a five year contract of £50 a week to a top level professional footballer in England!

sorry, where did this 'top level proffessional' come from - I thought he was a 17 year old?

If he turns out to be a 'top proffessional' Im pretty certain that by age 19 he will be kicking and screaming for a new contract, but my thoughts on his accepting that contract is that he has absolutely no confidence in his own ability and is thinking himself lucky for whatever he gets.

PS - just a thought, I didnt think you could offer more than 3 year contracts to under 18s?

Thats alright. For me this would be an issue if EVERY young player was on a really low long term contract, but from what ive seen, they arent and thus its, for me, not an issue. If I could sign hot prospect youngsters on £55 a week then there would be an issue with this, as it is, I struggle to sign any player on less than £5500 a week (as arsenal).

Also, from that article the other thing to take into consideration is those sums are 'total earnings'. Thus league 2 players do not average salarys of £1000 a week, more like £800 a week + bonuses, with many of those bonuses paid out at the completion of the season based on team performance, which makes quite a big difference when we are talking about weekly wages.

No, no, no!

I'm not talking about signing players, I'm talking about players that come through your own academy. And I'm not saying they're all on the wage I'm talking about, but I am saying it's possible to offer such a mental contract and have the offer accepted. I'm just saying that the actual ability to offer such an insane contract shouldn't be in the game.

In fact, in theory, it's possible to offer a full time professional footballer a £1 per week contract!

sorry, where did this 'top level proffessional' come from - I thought he was a 17 year old?

If he turns out to be a 'top proffessional' Im pretty certain that by age 19 he will be kicking and screaming for a new contract, but my thoughts on his accepting that contract is that he has absolutely no confidence in his own ability and is thinking himself lucky for whatever he gets.

PS - just a thought, I didnt think you could offer more than 3 year contracts to under 18s?

You're right actually, I can only offer a max of a 3 year contract to a 17 year old. So he'd be 20 when it expired.

Even so, I mean "top level professional" in the sense it's a Premier League club, he's of legal age to be professional employed and is signing an identical contract to any other pro footballer at the club.

I just can't believe that there's any footballer in any of the top three divisions in England that even come close to being on a full-time professional contract of £50 a week, so I don't think the ability to offer that kind of wage should be in the game.

In fact, in theory, it's possible to offer a full time professional footballer a £1 per week contract!

You can offer it - they dont have to accept it...

I will come back to my estate agency example. Foxtons offer people the choice of two contracts. Salaried where the agent takes home £9K a year + 10% of sales OR unsalaried, but they take home 15% of anything that they sell. The second set of people are working for no fixed income, but this does not break employment law (I'm not sure how, but it doesnt).

Therefore you can offer a player £1 a week if you want to - if he takes it, the game is broken.

I just can't believe that there's any footballer in any of the top three divisions in England that even come close to being on a full-time professional contract of £50 a week, so I don't think the ability to offer that kind of wage should be in the game.

Erm. have you looked at most of the under 18 squads at the begining of the game? Most of the 17 year olds are on £55 a month (unless they are one of the rising stars when they are on £1000+)

I've seen a few players ask for deals like that, but they usually have a clause where their wage increases after they have made a certain number of appearances.

It certainly doesn't sound like a typical Premier League contract, is he a Premier League standard player?

I've seen a few players ask for deals like that, but they usually have a clause where their wage increases after they have made a certain number of appearances.

It certainly doesn't sound like a typical Premier League contract, is he a Premier League standard player?

Nah he ain't a Premier League standard player, but he's legitimately in the Everton youth academy in the database.

That ain't the point though - should the ability to even offer that sort of contract be available, never mind have it accepted!

Erm. have you looked at most of the under 18 squads at the begining of the game? Most of the 17 year olds are on £55 a week

Fixed for ya

And yeah, I know. They are youth contracts. I'm talking about full-time professional contracts once the player turns 17.

Nah he ain't a Premier League standard player, but he's legitimately in the Everton youth academy in the database.

That ain't the point though - should the ability to even offer that sort of contract be available, never mind have it accepted!

Like you've said though, there are circumstances where a wage of that size would be appropriate. Would this player fit in better in one of those sorts of leagues?

Fixed for ya

And yeah, I know. They are youth contracts. I'm talking about full-time professional contracts once the player turns 17.

DOH!!

In answer to the second bit, I dont know - im not sure 'legally' what the difference between a 3 year youth contract signed at 16 (which takes you up to 19) and say a 3 your proffesional contract signed at 17. Both end before you are 21 and wages are forced up, both would be earning the same amount aged 17, 18 and 19 (one would have been earning it the year before as well, but the wage would be the same at 17) therefore I cant see why if you can be earning £50 at 17 having signed a contract at 16, you couldnt sign the same contract at 17, so long as you didnt break the 21 year old barrier.

Like you've said though, there are circumstances where a wage of that size would be appropriate. Would this player fit in better in one of those sorts of leagues?

Probably, but this isn't a regen - he's a legitimate Everton footballer who turns 17 in the first season of the game and is eligible for a professional contract.

Similarly, Connor Roberts is a legitimate Everton goalkeeper who is already 17 and is eligible for a professional contract, and accepts £50 a week

I have no stats to back this up, but to be paid £50 per week as a footballer you'd have to be a part timer in the Isthmian league or something, working a second job.

DOH!!

In answer to the second bit, I dont know - im not sure 'legally' what the difference between a 3 year youth contract signed at 16 (which takes you up to 19) and say a 3 your proffesional contract signed at 17. Both end before you are 21 and wages are forced up, both would be earning the same amount aged 17, 18 and 19 (one would have been earning it the year before as well, but the wage would be the same at 17) therefore I cant see why if you can be earning £50 at 17 having signed a contract at 16, you couldnt sign the same contract at 17, so long as you didnt break the 21 year old barrier.

You're technically right - not arguing that. But I'm just talking about realism - in reality, there is no way on earth a footballer would be offered a full time professional contract worth £50 a week by a Premier League club. Scrap that, I'm pretty confident there's no way a League Two club would offer a full-time contract of £50 per week to a footballer.

Regardless of whether it gets accepted or not (which amazingly it does!), should the ability to even offer the contract in the first place be in the game? I'd understand the £1 per week and above feature for when you're managing in the third world but this is England!!!

You're technically right - not arguing that. But I'm just talking about realism - in reality, there is no way on earth a footballer would be offered a full time professional contract worth £50 a week by a Premier League club. Scrap that, I'm pretty confident there's no way a League Two club would offer a full-time contract of £50 per week to a footballer.

Regardless of whether it gets accepted or not (which amazingly it does!), should the ability to even offer the contract in the first place be in the game? I'd understand the £1 per week and above feature for when you're managing in the third world but this is England!!!

Realistically? Realistically 1000s of people would PAY for the chance at 17 to play for Everton. Especially if they KNEW they werent very good. Sure, its crap contract now - but they arent thinking about now - they are thinking about being on a bigger stage and getting a chance at a big break.

Its just like senior pros going to lower teams (EG portsmouth) to entice them to go there you need to offer them big wages, bigger than if for example Man united offered them a job. Why? well because they arent going to win anything and their chances of being noticed for internationals is going to be lower and they wont 'look' as good playing in a bad team.

Equally for young players you are FAR more likely to accept £50 a week to stay at Everton when you can live with your parents still and still have the CHANCE of being a premiership player than taking a contract with say telford united for £200 a week when you would have to move, pay rent and know that it was as good as you were likely to get for the rest of your career.

Realistically? Realistically 1000s of people would PAY for the chance at 17 to play for Everton. Especially if they KNEW they werent very good. Sure, its crap contract now - but they arent thinking about now - they are thinking about being on a bigger stage and getting a chance at a big break.

Its just like senior pros going to lower teams (EG portsmouth) to entice them to go there you need to offer them big wages, bigger than if for example Man united offered them a job. Why? well because they arent going to win anything and their chances of being noticed for internationals is going to be lower and they wont 'look' as good playing in a bad team.

Equally for young players you are FAR more likely to accept £50 a week to stay at Everton when you can live with your parents still and still have the CHANCE of being a premiership player than taking a contract with say telford united for £200 a week when you would have to move, pay rent and know that it was as good as you were likely to get for the rest of your career.

Again, completely agree, but that's not how it plays out in real life when we're talking about a full time contract.

I completely agree that a youth player would take £50 a week over £200 a week working as a shop floor assistant at Iceland.

And yes, a youth player would even accept the offer of a £50 a week full time contract if offered by the club, out of desperation to play for the team.

Indeed, most 17-year-olds WOULD pay to play for Everton if that was an option!

But that's not what I'm talking about!

My point is, the club would never actually offer just £50 a week on a professional full-time contract! It's completely beyond the realms of plausability!

My point is, the club would never actually offer just £50 a week on a professional full-time contract! It's completely beyond the realms of plausability!

Really?

I thought that football clubs were businesses? I thought they were there to make money?

I you owned a business and you KNEW someone was utterly despirate to work for you and would do anything for that privilage (and you were a bit of an evil hearted bastard...) would you not also offer as little as possible?

Really?

I thought that football clubs were businesses? I thought they were there to make money?

I you owned a business and you KNEW someone was utterly despirate to work for you and would do anything for that privilage (and you were a bit of an evil hearted bastard...) would you not also offer as little as possible?

Technically, yes. Realistically, as a Premier League football club offering a full time professional contract to an onfield employee, no.

I'm not disagreeing with you on technical grounds, where you are absolutely right. In theory you're spot on. I'm just saying, in actual practice, there's no way, ever, a Premier League football club would offer a pro contract of £50 a week to a player.

They wouldn't do it mainly because it would cost their rivals peanuts to steal him away.

I'm just saying, in actual practice, there's no way, ever, a Premier League football club would offer a pro contract of £50 a week to a player.

Actually - im calling you on that - proof is required because you cant just throw around absolutes wiithout any form of back up.

Is it likely - no, not very likely.

Is it possible - well, until proven otherwise, yes, its possible.

They wouldn't do it mainly because it would cost their rivals peanuts to steal him away.

I'm just saying, in actual practice, there's no way, ever, a Premier League football club would offer a pro contract of £50 a week to a player.

Probably because the sorts of players that would accept a contract like that wouldn't be good enough for them. Was that the case with your player?

Actually - im calling you on that - proof is required because you cant just throw around absolutes wiithout any form of back up.

Is it likely - no, not very likely.

Is it possible - well, until proven otherwise, yes, its possible.

But how can I possibly provide proof if it'd never actually happen?

It's like I'm saying "naturally occurring rain that tastes of Ben and Jerrys Phish Food Ice Cream will never happen", then asking me for proof that it won't xD

Probably because the sorts of players that would accept a contract like that wouldn't be good enough for them. Was that the case with your player?

I'm not understanding why the quality of the player in question is relevant.

In the instance I'm talking about here, both players aren't regens and in real life are current Everton Football Club youth players, so the club deem them to have the potential to possibly do a job for the club at some point.

If he is on a full time contract, not a youth contract, then the other club is forced to negotiate with you like any other player, so unfortunately that doesnt hold any water.

It's like I'm saying "naturally occurring rain that tastes of Ben and Jerrys Phish Food Ice Cream will never happen", then asking me for proof that it won't xD

Sorry again - because I can prove that cant naturally occur by explaining the physics of evaporation.

Please try again

Sorry again - because I can prove that cant naturally occur by explaining the physics of evaporation.

Please try again

Yep, but then you can't prove the physics of evaporation as it's a man made theory. I could disprove evaporation and claim it's caused by angels crying over spilt milk. Then you'd have to counter-argue that, and I'd come up with another equally ridiculous counter-arguement, and we'd go around the world pedantically arguing about theory after theory until we died of old age (a phenomenon which, depending on who you listen to, is either a natural occurrence that happens when a human life expires, or is caused by an ancient warhorse called Nairobi who kills one person at random every time he stomps his hoof, which is made of aged Edam cheese).

See how ridiculous this can get? xD

Anyway, SI, any chance of limiting the ability to offer £1 a week pro contract? ^^

I'm not understanding why the quality of the player in question is relevant.

The better the player is, the more likely they are to want a bigger contract. I may be wrong here but I'm guessing this kid isn't anywhere near good enough for your team, which is why he accepted such a pathetic contract. I'm guessing in real life this is the sort of player that would be released after his youth contract rather than signed on a pro deal, which I believe happens a lot with youth players at Premier League clubs.

Yep, but then you can't prove the physics of evaporation as it's a man made theory. I could disprove evaporation and claim it's caused by angels crying over spilt milk. Then you'd have to counter-argue that, and I'd come up with another equally ridiculous counter-arguement, and we'd go around the world pedantically arguing about theory after theory until we died of old age (a phenomenon which, depending on who you listen to, is either a natural occurrence that happens when a human life expires, or is caused by an ancient warhorse called Nairobi who kills one person at random every time he stomps his hoof, which is made of aged Edam cheese).

See how ridiculous this can get? xD

Anyway, SI, any chance of limiting the ability to offer £1 a week pro contract? ^^

Sorry - I think by any normal defintion of 'proof' I can prove evaporation exists - if you want to be silly about it then you can, but I was trying to have a reasonable discussion.

There is nothing wrong with being able to offer a £1 a week contract - IF lots of players start accepting it, then thats an issue. Quite a few injury prone senior players in real life have been on £0 a week contracts, its call pay as you play deals. If you can get a player to accept a £1 a week contract with no siging on fee and no bonuses then you will totally win the arguement. But you wont be able to.

Alright, I'll start from scratch.

There's a 17 year old kid in a youth academy in England, at a Premier League club. He's not the best in the world, but he's in the youth academy after passing trials, a club scout has seen him play and he's in the system legitimately.

He's on a real youth contract in the Under 18's. The aim of the Under 18's is to produce players good enough to gain a full time contract with the club.

Now...

The club decides to offer this player a full time contract. A full time contract, remember, indicates the player is good enough to be in and around the actual first team squad (including the reserves).

The club then offers £50 a week for this player to sign a full time contract.

If that has ever happened, I'll eat my house.

All I'm saying here is, given FM2011 is a football simulation that tries to emulate reality, the mere ability for a manager to offer a full-time professional contract of £50 per week whilst managing a top club in one of the worlds top leagues is wildly unrealistic. The player may accept it as he's desperate to simply have any sort of full time contract, but in reality the offer would never have been made in the first place because of the following reasons:

A) If the player warranted a professional contract at the top club in the Premier League, he'd be poached by any number of other clubs who'd be prepared to offer him a lot more than £50 per week! Therefore the club would have to offer competitive terms.

B) If the player WASN'T good enough for the club, then the club would never offer him a pro contract in the first place.

Can't put it clearer than that.

I agree with what you are saying, it is unrealistic for PL clubs to sign on sub standard players on tiny pro contracts. This doesn't happen, instead they join the huge list of players who are released at the end of their youth contract which is why things like the Glenn Hoddle academy have been set up.

If the AI was regularly retaining sub standard players at PL clubs then there might be a problem, but I don't think there is anything wrong with giving us the chance to offer these sorts of contracts as we are able to see that there just isn't much point in signing these players.

Im sorry - im starting to see some inconsistances with your posts that lead me to believe that you are altering the facts to suit your own arguement:

I'm Everton at the moment, and I've just offered 17-year-old Abe Donzo a pro contract for a laugh more than anything.

There you say that YOU offered him the contract, not the club.

The club decides to offer this player a full time contract. A full time contract, remember, indicates the player is good enough to be in and around the actual first team squad (including the reserves).

Here you say the club offer the contract.

as is now the case with my 17 year old youth team goalkeeper Connor Roberts on a five-year deal!!!

There you say the club offer a 5 year deal, which we know isnt possible for an under 18 player.

What I think you need to do is show us some screen shots of BOTH players contract pages, explain whether you, or the assistant manager is responsible for offering contracts to these players.

Then we can see what bonuses (if any) that the players have been given.

Also - if you can, provide the players PA via fmrte - that way we can see once and for all if the player is remotely good enough for everton or not.

I agree with what you are saying, it is unrealistic for PL clubs to sign on sub standard players on tiny pro contracts. This doesn't happen, instead they join the huge list of players who are released at the end of their youth contract which is why things like the Glenn Hoddle academy have been set up.

If the AI was regularly retaining sub standard players at PL clubs then there might be a problem, but I don't think there is anything wrong with giving us the chance to offer these sorts of contracts as we are able to see that there just isn't much point in signing these players.

Connor Roberts, goalkeeper. I managed to get a defender to sign a £40 per week contract too. There's a fair few you can do it with. Obviously, when you start dealing with Ross Barkley or Jose Baxter or whoever, you pay the "proper" wages as they're worth the full-time professional contract.

It's not a gamebreaker in any way of course, I'm just flagging it for the sake of realism. For example, I go to player search, unattached, pick the worst teenage free agent I can find, try to offer him a contract and he's requesting £425 per week, which is what I'd expect. Yet because my current youth players are in my Under 18's and already at the club, they're accepting £40-90 a week despite being generally better than the random player asking for the £425.

Maidel:

In relation to FM, the manager and the club are the same thing. In reality, the manager doesn't deal with contracts. The fact you're trying to score points on that is actually confusing.

And the five/three year contract mistake I made was because I just maxxed out the contract until the arrow went grey and assumed it was five years. Turned out to be three, makes no difference whatsoever to the discussion.

I don't get what you're so upset about. I've said repeatedly you're technically right, but it's clear that in practice it can't happen.

Search the names Abe Donzo and Connor Roberts on your own game if you want to look at the players!!!

Are these players useful signings, or are you just signing them to see how cheap you can get someone?

Connor Roberts, goalkeeper. I managed to get a defender to sign a £40 per week contract too. There's a fair few you can do it with. Obviously, when you start dealing with Ross Barkley or Jose Baxter or whoever, you pay the "proper" wages as they're worth the full-time professional contract.

It's not a gamebreaker in any way of course, I'm just flagging it for the sake of realism. For example, I go to player search, unattached, pick the worst teenage free agent I can find, try to offer him a contract and he's requesting £425 per week, which is what I'd expect. Yet because my current youth players are in my Under 18's and already at the club, they're accepting £40-90 a week despite being generally better than the random player asking for the £425.

SPOILER ALERT!!!

Conner Roberts has a PA of -6 meaning that he has a pa of 90-120 meaning that the chances are in your game hes got a sub 100 PA - therefore this means hes not even remotely good enough for everton and hes utterly grateful for whatever he gets.

As I said above, if YOU offered him the contract there is no issue - you are choosing to give a contract to a player who is not good enough and who is therefore so grateful not to be released that he will take whatever hes given.

If your assistant manager gave him the contract then its an issue of a different nature, either that or your assistant manager has a judging future potential rated in minus figures.

In relation to FM, the manager and the club are the same thing. In reality, the manager doesn't deal with contracts. The fact you're trying to score points on that is actually confusing.

Im not trying to 'score points' im trying to argue my perspective from what I consider to be the correct angle, the fact that you are giving misleading and slightly contradictory information is making it more difficult.

Irrelavent of whether the manager conducts contract negotiations in real life, they do in this game - if you think thats the issue, then raise that. The fact is, when playing FM2011 you do conduct contract negotiations and you CHOSE to give a player with less talent than a league 2 player a new contract for everton - what was your choice and he ripped your arm off for it, no matter how low it was.

Are these players useful signings, or are you just signing them to see how cheap you can get someone?

I'm not signing them. I'm managing Everton, I started a new game, the players are part of the current youth academy on youth contracts, they turn 17 and I offer them a professional contract.

They're certainly nowhere near the first team squad and never will be. The PA according to the scouts is very, very low, but they aren't regens and they are part of the youth academy legitimately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Donzo

http://www.evertonfc.com/player-profile/connor-roberts

So real players.

SPOILER ALERT!!!

Conner Roberts has a PA of -6 meaning that he has a pa of 90-120 meaning that the chances are in your game hes got a sub 100 PA - therefore this means hes not even remotely good enough for everton and hes utterly grateful for whatever he gets.

As I said above, if YOU offered him the contract there is no issue - you are choosing to give a contract to a player who is not good enough and who is therefore so grateful not to be released that he will take whatever hes given.

If your assistant manager gave him the contract then its an issue of a different nature, either that or your assistant manager has a judging future potential rated in minus figures.

You are completely, completely missing the point utterly.

Once more:

A) If the player warranted a professional contract at the top club in the Premier League, he'd be poached by any number of other clubs who'd be prepared to offer him a lot more than £50 per week! Therefore the club would have to offer competitive terms.

B) If the player WASN'T good enough for the club, then the club would never offer him a pro contract in the first place.

I'm talking about realism. You're right (for the tenth time), he's not good enough for the first team squad. At all. Ever. But the very fact I can offer him a professional contract on absolute peanuts is unrealistic, so I'm highlighting it as such. I'm not even saying it's a bug; I'm just saying the feature that allows me as a manager in-game to do it in the first place is unrealistic.

They sound like the sorts of players who would be released at the end of their youth contracts, which is what happened to them on my game. You could argue that common sense is the limitation on offering players like this tiny contracts, most of us wouldn't do it as we know they just aren't worth it. Keeping them at the club on a pro contract does sounds pretty unrealistic, which is why the idea of a £50 p/w contract in the PL sounds so unlikely.

I'm talking about realism. You're right (for the tenth time), he's not good enough for the first team squad. At all. Ever. But the very fact I can offer him a professional contract on absolute peanuts is unrealistic, so I'm highlighting it as such. I'm not even saying it's a bug; I'm just saying the feature that allows me as a manager in-game to do it in the first place is unrealistic.

Ah - and here we find the crux of the problem, and, I have a solution for you:

in game follow these steps:

[TEAM NAME]

Team Settings

[TEAM NAME] First Team (tab)

and tick the box that says 'contract renewals handled by assistant manager'

Do this for the reserve team and the under 18s team and voila, your problem is solved, you will not be able to offer silly contracts to players who arent good enough for your team. (well you still will be able to, but you wont have to as the assistant manager/board will be dealing with all contracts on your behalf.)