48 month payments, what do you think?

[y2k1]

I just signed with Arsenal:


Rossi
Robert Huth
Yann Sommer
Willian
Hamsik
Andreas Beck
Christian Molinaro
Walter Montillo


all for 120m in the first summer of the season without having to do the add manager cheat.

All you have to do is maximize your wage budget by putting the slider all the way to the left and then bidding on players using long monthly fees of 4 years. Then when it comes to the signing the board compromises the wage structure so you are always successful.

[Ackter]

It's a well known AI exploit.

a) You have to go out of your way to cheat it, so it's hardly a priority fix
b) Unless you're successful as hell, you've just crippled your club financially for the next four years and beyond.

[englandmanager]

yep ruined

or you could try not glitching? it is a kind of glitch afterall

if i can shoot through walls in call of duty i might take the decent option of not doing it?

[AcidBurn]

Some people disagree but I have always thought that the board should give two budgets one for upfront payments and one for monthly ones. As it is now it's too easy to over spend I know people can control their own budgets but I would like a more realistic system for monthly spending.

[Ackter]

Oh and c) you signed Robert Huth? Are you nuts?

[Kain]

There definitely needs to be more financial restraints shown by the board in game, as things like this risking the entire future of the club just wouldn't happen. We can all point to the likes of Leeds, but we can equally point to teams like Tottenham, where they only spend what they can realistically afford to.

Oh, and £120m to spend and you go for Robert Huth?

[Ackter]

The board really needs to learn when to say "ahaha, there's no way we're letting you do that, you fool".

[Aaron Armstrong]

Some people disagree but I have always thought that the board should give two budgets one for upfront payments and one for monthly ones. As it is now it's too easy to over spend I know people can control their own budgets but I would like a more realistic system for monthly spending.

Yeah, there should be a board-imposed limit on how much a club can owe in monthly payments at any time.

[Ackter]

Yeah, there should be a board-imposed limit on how much a club can owe in monthly payments at any time.

The hack fix would be to introduce a second budget, but the proper fix would be to have the clubs budgeting over many years, rather than just every season.

[Aaron Armstrong]

The hack fix would be to introduce a second budget, but the proper fix would be to have the clubs budgeting over many years, rather than just every season.

Easier said than done though - ask Portsmouth.

[Piratesarecool]

^^ that one

Also i don't think there is enough financial instability in the game so clubs struggling after overstretching themselves is part of football.

So i say go ahead and do it but be prepared to pay for it later

[BiggusD]

^^ that one

Also i don't think there is enough financial instability in the game so clubs struggling after overstretching themselves is part of football.

So i say go ahead and do it but be prepared to pay for it later

There isn't any overstretching in FM. If his finances are red enough his board will just clear the debt, add some giant heaps of cash and he's good to go again. You can easily spend all the transfer budget each year signing superstars on 4-year downpayment deals, losing 5, 10, 60 millions a month regardless of which club you are.

Because SI is too afraid of lawsuits to add actual financial problems. I think the solution is to let us delete a file like we do with a certain other feature...

[pigfacemonkeyman]

The hack fix would be to introduce a second budget, but the proper fix would be to have the clubs budgeting over many years, rather than just every season.

xxx

EDIT: They need to project as far into the future as the longest monthly payment option. (4 years?)

[pigfacemonkeyman]

There isn't any overstretching in FM. If his finances are red enough his board will just clear the debt, add some giant heaps of cash and he's good to go again. You can easily spend all the transfer budget each year signing superstars on 4-year downpayment deals, losing 5, 10, 60 millions a month regardless of which club you are.

Because SI is too afraid of lawsuits to add actual financial problems. I think the solution is to let us delete a file like we do with a certain other feature...

I've seen clubs go into administrationin FM10.

[bolulu]

I always pay cash up front for my transfers to keep properly within a reasonable budget.
I think perhaps it would be good to have a min. of say, 75% down-payment on all transfers. This would keep budgets in some sort of order.

[dsqd]

If you're going to cheat you might at least have bought some better players.

[robertcornell68]

Yeah, there should be a board-imposed limit on how much a club can owe in monthly payments at any time.

I think this would be the most sensible option.

In theory it's a risky strategy but in practice a human player can easily make the money back.

[Eugene Tyson]

The 48 month exploit is a pretty bad. I hope SI fix this for next edition. It's far too easy. I'm in 2030 now and kinda finished with the game, so for a laugh I'm taking any job offer that comes my way and building the team up with the best players in the world, and seeing where they go after I leave etc.

At Atletico Madrid now, I sold players for €72m and I bought players for €195m in one transfer window - basically a whole new team. Low and behold I'm top of the league and soaring to Champions League success.

I do win everything, but I'm rarely at a club for 4 seasons. So I don't care about their finances. I am just signing the best players. I have one rule, don't sign anyone that I've signed before.

I could just start over, but I'm fairly bored with FM at the moment. It's not realistic enough, and the 48month exploit is one of the many reasons.

I've gone from Sabadell, to Liverpool, to Roma. That's where I started messing around after about 2 seasons of winning the leauge, cup, champions league etc. I wasn't having fun. So I bought all the best players for Roma and won everything again. Then At Madrid came in, and now I'm just buying whatever player that I want.

[dafuge]

The 48 month exploit is a pretty bad. I hope SI fix this for next edition. It's far too easy.

The exploit itself isn't the problem (as we can avoid using it), the problem is that it is far too easy to guarantee success while doing it. It needs to be harder to take a club to 'the next level' in order to get situations like Pompey/Leeds in FM.

Splashing out and spreading the cost over four years should be a massive risk, but it just isn't.

[jayahr]

The hack fix would be to introduce a second budget, but the proper fix would be to have the clubs budgeting over many years, rather than just every season.

Any later season's budget should defo take into account what has been arranged as due instalments already. This could be made transparent by giving an initial number and immediately deducting the instalments due during that season. Also in the season expectations vs. budget choice news item that should then be mentioned.

If finances are bad that should also be able to lead to a reduced budget, i.e. a transfer budget of 0 and a wage budget below the current payroll.

Boards should imho not step in and prevent the 48 months schedule, but they should step in later and restrict further spending if the instalments could otherwise become a financial danger.

[milnerpoint]

Its the age old arugment on this, you complain about the exploit yet constantly use it, its like being able to see through walls in COD and complain its too easy to win.
The game is far more fun when you have to actually think about who your going to sign. Not just throwing money around like that.

[Eugene Tyson]

The exploit itself isn't the problem (as we can avoid using it), the problem is that it is far too easy to guarantee success while doing it. It needs to be harder to take a club to 'the next level' in order to get situations like Pompey/Leeds in FM.

Splashing out and spreading the cost over four years should be a massive risk, but it just isn't.

That's completely true. I have suggested in the past that the Board should only allow 1 or 2 48 month deals. If you tried to sign too many on 48 month deals the Board could cancel the transaction.

However, I wanted to sign a player and Man City bid for him as well. I had to bid 40m for the player, and then he signed for Man City - and the fee was only €22m for them and no strings either, I checked.

It's pretty annoying that the AI can buy the same player for cheaper but not want to sell to me for that price? So I feel kinda justified in using the 48month when I have to spend twice what the AI has to.

Its the age old arugment on this, you complain about the exploit yet constantly use it, its like being able to see through walls in COD and complain its too easy to win.
The game is far more fun when you have to actually think about who your going to sign. Not just throwing money around like that.

Oh I definitely didn't use it for the first 12 seasons I was playing. I was building teams gradually, I spent 8 seasons at Sabadell and 4 seasons at Liverpool - playing properly. It's just when I won the quadruple with Liverpool twice, and then went to Roma and won the Tripple there twice, the game was just too easy. So I made Roma a superteam and now I'm doing the same at At Madrid.

The only difference is one way takes longer and the exploit takes a shorter amount of time.

[Sikker]

As mentioned the problem is not the 48 month transfer. They are often used in real life.
The problem is that the board (in game) has the same sense of economic management as many a bank director. As long it's not their money why care?
As I've also mentioned in the bug forum the board (mine anyways) almost every year pay out dividends so the yearly balance ends up with a deficit.
SI should take a good look at the financial aspects of the board as the board is too lenient in my opinion (in my game I have a bank balance of ~90M Euro but a transfer budget of ~400M Euro (before selling players) and a weekly wage budget of ~1M Euro)

[jayahr]

SI should take a good look at the financial aspects of the board as the board is too lenient in my opinion (in my game I have a bank balance of ~90M Euro but a transfer budget of ~400M Euro (before selling players) and a weekly wage budget of ~1M Euro)

These figures appear very sensible to me. The entire allowed expense can be covered by what already lies at the bank. So nothing whatsoever can happen to the club as the club will keep generating income throughout the year.

The real comparison should be made to the yearly turnover.

[Sikker]

These figures appear very sensible to me. The entire allowed expense can be covered by what already lies at the bank. So nothing whatsoever can happen to the club as the club will keep generating income throughout the year.

The real comparison should be made to the yearly turnover.

My club is no where near to generate that amount in a year (400-90 = 310M Euros). Most of my income come from Champions League and that's it. I'm managing Brøndby IF so I am not earning much from sponsorships and league winnings.

[jayahr]

My club is no where near to generate that amount in a year (400-90 = 310M Euros). Most of my income come from Champions League and that's it. I'm managing Brøndby IF so I am not earning much from sponsorships and league winnings.

Sorry, missed a zero there. My count was 40+52.

Have to stand corrected and agree with you

[Eugene Tyson]

The finances in the game are a complete mess. I never look at them. The board never says anything about finances or anything. I don't even payattention to that side of the game.

Just spend what I want on who I want and nobody bats and eyelid.

[dafuge]

The finances in the game are a complete mess. I never look at them. The board never says anything about finances or anything. I don't even payattention to that side of the game.

Just spend what I want on who I want and nobody bats and eyelid.

Harry, is that you?

[Eugene Tyson]

I don't get that reference lol

Anyway, point is it is possible to spend €250m in a single transfer window, on a €40m budget. And nobody says anything. It's kinda ridiculous.

[Ackter]

You can also transfer list and sell off your entire first team without anyone saying anything, when the first bit alone should be leading to mass supporter protests and a very stern word (or possible straight out firing) from the board.

Wonder how it works in real life? Surely the manager has to go through the board in order to transfer list a player in the first place?

[milnerpoint]

I think he is meaning Redknap had a knack for overspending
I agree getting to spend that kinda money is crazy.

[Eugene Tyson]

There definitely needs to be ramifications for overspending on budgets, from the board and from the supporters. Like boycotting games or staging rallys - putting pressure on the board.

That's exactly what I did at At Madrid, I identified the targets I wanted, and I bought a whole new team. I only kept 3 of the current squad.

Sold €72m and bought €195m - my transfer budget was €40m.

I spent €83m over-budget.

Just because I could.

[Ackter]

You went more overbudget than that, as only a percentage of your transfer income actually gets put into the transfer kitty.

[Eugene Tyson]

That's true, not sure what percentage of transfer fees I was getting.

[Sikker]

You went more overbudget than that, as only a percentage of your transfer income actually gets put into the transfer kitty.

Depends on the clubs finances and the board I guess. I have 100% of my transfer income put into the transfer budget.

[Ackter]

Depends on the clubs finances and the board I guess. I have 100% of my transfer income put into the transfer budget.

It tends to go that way once you're a proven boss, but usually at the start you're limited to about 90% at most.

[Sikker]

It tends to go that way once you're a proven boss, but usually at the start you're limited to about 90% at most.

Yeah, I guess that's right. When I started at the club it was 5% as far as I remember But the economy of the club was also rubbish...

[haunted1234]

i sometime ago started a thread about this, i won the champions league with a polish club after buying lots of players on 48month payments, it really is kinda random, and as long as you keep winning the league and participating in the champions league + performing good, i dont see a problem covering the monthly expenses tbh

makes the game really easy though

[marty78]

The ability to pay in installments has to be made to work as many transfers are paid in installments and I'd guess most are. I stay at clubs a long time so I wouldn't use this as I like to improve facilities as much as I can and also it would feel a bit cheap being successful like this.

[Eugene Tyson]

As I said, I was already very successful in winning everything with Sabadell, Liverpool and Roma - so I decided to start messing around and using the exploit to sign the best players possible.

I definitely wouldn't do it at the start of the game.

[Ackter]

Personally I believe you should approach the chairman with your transfer, stating what you think should be paid, and then the chairman does the deal based on your suggestion if he can.

[vasilli07]

Just impose your own rule by setting it to 24 months installment as your max, then it won't be that easy to buy players.

[BiggusD]

I agree that the board needs to have tools available to make sure that the overall spending of the club month by month and year by year does not go haywire. The reason RL clubs pay transfers in monthly fees is that if they paid everything at once the club's bank balance might take a dip into the red, which is not a good idea. A transfer budget is a transfer budget regardless of how the transfer fee is paid, so the 4x feature should just be removed. If the club does not have enough money in the bank to pay for the transfer straight up, the option to pay straight up should simply be removed, leaving only the monthly fee option. Even that should be restricted to what the club has budgeted with, so if the club is losing more money per month than they can expect to recoup in the course of a year, the amount of money paid in transfer fees each month would have to be spread over more and more months, until the 48 month limit has been reached. If the club needs more months than that to pay for the transfer, you shouldn't be allowed to complete it.

[Eugene Tyson]

If I've made 2 buys of say €30m over 48 months and try to do another one a message should come up in the news feed

"The board have intervened in the transfer and suggest that all cash</75%/50%/25% or something> be paid up front or the deal will be cancelled

Accept Cancel"


If I am selling an unusual amount of players (like 18 players like I did at At Madrid) the Board should be coming down hard on me and demanding a higher league position and put pressure on me.

And if I sign 20 players for stupid amounts of money like going nearly 100% over my budget, they should be warning me to be top of the table or face the sack

etc.


It would be great if the Board were more involved. Or the Chairman might decide he's taking over the buying and selling of players (like Abramovich does) and doesn't give me back control until I've proved myself as a manager to the team - who should all hate me for a while after trying to offload them.

[Stephanie McMahon\'s Secret Lover]

There should be an option in the game to "allow the chairman to take on transfer dealings". After all thats the way it's done in real life. Not by the manager.

[ivandrago]

Let's say you want to buy a new television. You go to the store and find out that it costs $480.
You have 2 options, paying $10 each month for 4 years or paying $480 up front. What do you prefer?
Why would the board want to spend all that cash when they can pay over installments?
If you have no discount on paying up front, pay it over 48 months... It's kind of obvious to me.
If clubs negotiate for discounts there can be some advantage.. let's say 5% to 15% discount on paying upfront. It's better to spend the money than earn interest from banks (to say only one example of investiments)
On the other hand, if I as a seller have enough cash, i always choose bigger offers over 48 months instead of smaller offers up front. I don't need the money now, I can earn more on waiting, just as a bank

[SLDavies]

Just wondered people's thought on the fact you can spread your transfer fees out? It happens in real life but some people on here deam it cheating, do whats your thoughts on it

[BenArsenal]

Why is it cheating?

[MeesterCat]

I try not to use them if possible. If I do use them, I set myself a limit of not allowing the 48 month payment part of the transfer to total more than 50% of the total transfer fee. E.g. If I'm paying £5mil for a player, a maximum of £2.5mil of that could be spread over 48 months.

I don't see it as cheating per se, but I think it definitely tips the game into giving you an advantage. Obviously people can play the game how they see fit so I wouldn't chastise anyone for using excessive 48 month payments, but too much usage doesn't fit in with my preferred play style.

[SLDavies]

Why is it cheating?

I said some people see it as that as you can spend more, was just wondering people's thoughts

[robertcornell68]

It's not cheating, it's just one of many advantages human managers have over the AI.

As humans usually over-achieve by a long way, you can pay the money back. In real life, you'd do a Rangers or Portsmouth. The club would implode.

Like the near post corner thing, if you're happy using it then go for it.

(At the start of the game I paid all fees up front, now I do 50% down and 50% over two years. It's a compromise.)

[dafuge]

I usually buy with money up front and sell with fees spread over 48 months. I can usually make more money that way.

[TeeWee]

I usually restrict my spending, but if I feel I need a player that much, I might go for the 48 months if that's what it takes. I will not, however, allow consecutive seasons of heavy spending, to balance things out. Since I'm more of a "feeder"-type club for the real big fish, I usually buy younger with an aim to sell them for a slight profit after I get several years' worth of matches or sign an old hand to boost experience, preferably on a free.

Currently though, I'm trying to cement my place as the big fish in my smallish pond, so I may have to hold on to my top players a tad longer than usual. This might change my transfer policy as well.

[Krald]

I usually buy with money up front and sell with fees spread over 48 months. I can usually make more money that way.

It certainly makes for a more consistent income, which can sometimes keep dividends down.

[dafuge]

It certainly makes for a more consistent income, which can sometimes keep dividends down.

That's the other big bonus, it avoids the quick profits that can result in one-off crippling tax bills the following year.

[Eugene Tyson]

That's not the issue at all. It's not about what you prefer to do.

You completely left out that you only have a $50 budget to buy your television.

That's the problem with the 48 month transfers. I can have a €40m transfer budget and spend €195m in one transfer window - and nobody bats an eyelid.

[Camb0dia]

the issue isn't so much whether 48months is cheating but rather the way that budgets are calculated are too high if you use 48 months as transfers. In real life the Hazard deal is done over 48months (or the life of the contract) rather than immediately. So for instance 40mil that barcelona have reported as their transfer budget is actually over 48months.

[soccer.joel]

Not cheating, I only use them when required and I try to stick to budget and not overspend anyway

[vlobben]

It's only cheating when you use installments actively as a way to circumvent the transfer budget.

[Ryknow]

Maximum of 24months if needed, but thats only for large transfers and around 20%of the fee. It's mainly to avoid going below a bank balance figure I set myself.
I like to make a profit each month so most of my sales are over 24-48months. A steady stream of income is always handy to cover costs at the club.

[bigdaddydave]

Nothing is cheating in FM,with the exception of editing stats in one way or another, all you are doing is exploiting a weakness in the system. Human managers in the real world would do exactly the same. Which means those who get all bent out of shape of "cheating" would probably be poor managers in real life.

[endtime]

I like it when people go out of their way to convince others they're not "cheating", but merely "exploiting the system", as if anyone cared how they play their single player game.

[Widzew]

I've never done it, just personal preference to get the fee done and over with but I have sold many players to the AI over an X amount of months. (their offers)

[haunted1234]

http://community.sigames.com/showthr...nthly+cheating

[Robert the Spud]

Fact is no team IRL will pay a fee upfront, or atleast it would be rare and for smaller transfers. We're still paying Dinamo for Modric. Now as for the game, people do exploit it too much imo. Depends how you use it though. I'm not going to buy Neymar, Ganso, Cavano, Damiao etc on 48-month payment plans. I prefer tighter budgets and cutting my cloth accordingly. For the challenge.

[ivandrago]

Most of people here in Brazil does not have $480 to buy a tv
as they earn their wages they pay for their things
That's why credit card was invented, so you can buy stuff without all the working capital
Do you really think Chelsea is going to pay for Oscar up front?
If you do a simple balance sheet analysis you will learn that every company in the world has debts (short, medium, long term)

The problem here is that to have credit, you must give some warranty. As a buyer you must offer some warranty that you will pay all the money, as a seller you must trust you will receive all the money. To compensate that risk, and not having the full amount of money, sellers earn interests over installments

In FM, transactions are automatically made while you having or not having the funds. That's the problem. The economic system is broken

[TioPatinhax]

with this "hack" of managing to spend 120M in one season, will his club effectively go bankrupt or at least face severe problems in the future? If not, if there isnt any penalty, it is REALLY cheating

[Ackter]

with this "hack" of managing to spend 120M in one season, will his club effectively go bankrupt or at least face severe problems in the future? If not, if there isnt any penalty, it is REALLY cheating

It will be in financial trouble if he can't maintain success over the four seasons it'll take to pay those back.

[Eugene Tyson]

Yeh it is cheating, that's why I only do it when I'm bored of my save.

[ivandrago]

there's no debt default or inflation
at least I haven't noticed none of it

[TacticalGenius]

The exploit of 48 months transfers is only an exploit if you exploit it. Therefore the game is only broken if you break it.

You cannot complain the game is boring if you are buying superstars and winning everything in season one as you are the one who chose to use the exploit. Play it normally and there are no problems.

[Ackter]

The exploit of 48 months transfers is only an exploit if you exploit it. Therefore the game is only broken if you break it.

You cannot complain the game is boring if you are buying superstars and winning everything in season one as you are the one who chose to use the exploit. Play it normally and there are no problems.

It still, ideally, shouldn't be present and is symptomatic of another, much larger, problem (ie that you have far too much control over finances).

[ivandrago]

I'm happy to know most of people here bought their houses up front
Wait, if that is the real situation, why are we facing Global Crisis?

[rancer890]

I mostly spread out payments over 30 months now. I think I broke that for my biggest signing ever at $60 million ($20 million up front + $40 million over 48 months) for a newgen striker. I think I spent $100+ million on a $30 million budget at Bayern, but now I reined back my spending to mostly even transfers in and out now.

[dafuge]

I'm happy to know most of people here bought their houses up front
Wait, if that is the real situation, why are we facing Global Crisis?

Taking out a mortgage on a house shouldn't really be a risk though, as it is when you quadruple your budget by spreading transfer fees over four years on FM. The problem is that the risk is far too small because it is too easy to guarantee success.

[TacticalGenius]

It still, ideally, shouldn't be present and is symptomatic of another, much larger, problem (ie that you have far too much control over finances).

I agree that it shouldn't be exploitable in the first place, but people saying it breaks the game are wrong. As I said before, it is only a game-breaker if you make it so. When I'm playing, I get given a budget and as far as I'm concerned, once it is spent, I'll then sell players if I require more funds.

The same can be said for 3 central striker ME exploit tactics too, but that is another can of worms. I'd rather lose constantly than resort to that. As with the payments exploit - just because it is there, it doesn't mean it has to be used.

[ivandrago]

Taking out a mortgage on a house shouldn't really be a risk though, as it is when you quadruple your budget by spreading transfer fees over four years on FM. The problem is that the risk is far too small because it is too easy to guarantee success.

That's what I'm trying o say
Credit is a useful tool for most of people and companies, and must be used on FM
The problem is how is being done and it's consequences

[ivandrago]

I wanted to start a company but only had 1/4 of the money. I took my project to the bank and they lent me money for it
With this money I could buy a farm and some machines. Now I'm selling the cassava I have planted and paying interests to bank
I would have never started this if I didn't have credit
And the bank would not earn money on interests

[Äktsjon Männ]

I wanted to start a company but only had 1/4 of the money. I took my project to the bank and they lent me money for it
With this money I could buy a farm and some machines. Now I'm selling the cassava I have planted and paying interests to bank
I would have never started this if I didn't have credit
And the bank would not earn money on interests

No-one's saying you shouldn't be able to use monthly payments. It should just not be allowed to quadruple your transfer budget by doing this. No board would ever sanction it. Like no bank would give you a £1m loan if you only have £250k worth of assets to secure it against.

[ivandrago]

No-one's saying you shouldn't be able to use monthly payments. It should just not be allowed to quadruple your transfer budget by doing this. No board would ever sanction it. Like no bank would give you a £1m loan if you only have £250k worth of assets to secure it against.

I agree with you
I'm not saying everyone should get credit
But some clubs, sometimes should be able do it
I put my apartment in warranty for the farm. If I fail to pay the bills, bank will take my apartment
Clubs have tv revenue. They can take in advance next year's income to spend this year
Brazilian clubs does that all the time

IE: You are managing Manchester United, what's the chance on your club facing relegation this year? very little, right? why can't you spend tv revenue from next year in advance as you would receive it next year anyway?
Maybe you could receive not the whole package, but some money in advance.. If you fail to pay your debts, you can have deducted points next season, or more serious sanctions

On Fm12 I have managed Wakehurst from Northern Ireland for 20 years
after 15 years in charge, there was absolutely no competition at all for the championship and, therefore, for CL spot
My board cannot understand that i have enormous chance of qualifying for CL and spend 6 million pounds I would receive from UEFA in advance?

Football clubs are companies like others.. in a way
I'm only saying that are many financial tools avaiable not implemented on the game.

[BenArsenal]

I said some people see it as that as you can spend more, was just wondering people's thoughts

But that happens in real life as well. It's like buying a house. You seldom splunk hundreds of thousands in cash at one go (unless you're a gazillionaire). You take a loan and spread out the payments to your own needs and requirements.

[BenArsenal]

I agree with you
I'm not saying everyone should get credit
But some clubs, sometimes should be able do it
I put my apartment in warranty for the farm. If I fail to pay the bills, bank will take my apartment
Clubs have tv revenue. They can take in advance next year's income to spend this year
Brazilian clubs does that all the time

IE: You are managing Manchester United, what's the chance on your club facing relegation this year? very little, right? why can't you spend tv revenue from next year in advance as you would receive it next year anyway?
Maybe you could receive not the whole package, but some money in advance.. If you fail to pay your debts, you can have deducted points next season, or more serious sanctions

On Fm12 I have managed Wakehurst from Northern Ireland for 20 years
after 15 years in charge, there was absolutely no competition at all for the championship and, therefore, for CL spot
My board cannot understand that i have enormous chance of qualifying for CL and spend 6 million pounds I would receive from UEFA in advance?

Football clubs are companies like others.. in a way
I'm only saying that are many financial tools avaiable not implemented on the game.

Yeah but that's a huge risk. Nothing's guaranteed in life.

Just look at Leeds.

[ivandrago]

Yeah but that's a huge risk. Nothing's guaranteed in life.

Just look at Leeds.

I agree with you
Living is risky itself

[scott MUFC]

if the budgets and player prices matched up more we wouldn't need this.
Real madrid offered me 40 mill for vidic.. 30 million of which is over months
my transfer budget for january... 7 million. and it says you don't have the funds if you can not afford the monthly payments?

[POMPEY657]

But even if you're not succesful and not getting stupid amounts of prize money to pay off the transfers in the following 4 seasons, the board will always pay off the debts anyways once you are in the red. This money doesn't come out of the following transfer budget, it's also very rarely that the board will take out a loan to make the payments. They just magically put aload of cash into the club over and over. So whatever people want to call it 'exploiting or cheating', it's the same result. You're benifiting from something that shouldn't be in the game IMO.
This really needs to be looked at and changed for future releases.

[TioPatinhax]

So you never go bankrupt or something like that even if you use too many 48 month payments?

[dafuge]

So you never go bankrupt or something like that even if you use too many 48 month payments?

You probably would if you weren't successful enough to cover the payments (like Pompey/Leeds), but that is unlikely to happen if you make decent signings.

[Äktsjon Männ]

You probably would if you weren't successful enough to cover the payments (like Pompey/Leeds)

It's near impossible to go bust in the latest versions. As said above, the board will just keep pumping cash in if there's any hint of financial trouble.

[ivandrago]

It's near impossible to go bust in the latest versions. As said above, the board will just keep pumping cash in if there's any hint of financial trouble.

And that's the main problem IMO.

[TioPatinhax]

No one here ever went bust?

[Harper]

Depends. I usually start with Arsenal so, if I start with a transfer budget of £43M and make sales/loans that total £94M, my expenses on players bought, £128M, is still less than my transfer budget + player sales.

(Budget + Player Sales/Loan Fees) - Players Bought
(£43M + £94M) - £128M

£137M - £128M = £9M

To me, I didn't cheat. Mainly because, the amount I spent was covered by the amount made from player sales plus my original budget.

Looking at my Players Bought section of expenditures, it looks like 36 month payment plans were what I used, but over that period, between 6/12 and 5/15, I had about £3M, rising to £4.5 million going out per month outside of the transfer windows. After 8/15, outside of the transfer windows, my expenditures on players bought, was at zero.

Over the same period of time, it looks like my profit per month, outside of the transfer windows, was around -£10M/month, but more than made up for by TV revenue, prize money, and future net transfer spending (-£22.5M in 2014/15).

Did the math and for transfer fees greater than £10M, the sum (transfer fees / 36) falls right were the graph seems to indicate. It looks like I did a some 24 month payments in 6/13 when my monthly players bought graph rose from £3 to five

So, would you all consider that exploiting the game? Or just the benefit of playing a rich club with big revenue streams?

My main rule for using the monthly payments is that I don't make payments longer than I plan on keeping the player. If I do a 36 month payment, the player will be a key figure in my squad.

Month Purchased	  Total Value	   Duration	 Monthly Amt    Total Monthly Payment
Jun-2012	 £22,500,000.00 	36	 £625,000.00 	
Jun-2012	 £15,000,000.00 	36	 £416,666.67 	
Jun-2012	 £16,000,000.00 	36	 £444,444.44 	
Jun-2012	 £11,500,000.00 	36	 £319,444.44 	
Jun-2012	 £12,500,000.00 	36	 £347,222.22 	
Jun-2012	 £12,500,000.00 	36	 £347,222.22 	
Aug-2012	 £10,000,000.00 	36	 £277,777.78 	 £2,777,777.78 
Jun-2013	 £15,000,000.00 	24	 £625,000.00 	
Aug-2012	 £17,500,000.00 	24	 £729,166.67 	 £4,131,944.44

[Loki679]

Not all of the transfer fees you receive would go back into the transfer budget though. What's your % of transfer revenue made available?

[Harper]

Not all of the transfer fees you receive would go back into the transfer budget though. What's your % of transfer revenue made available?

It was/is 100%. That's the first thing I check when I start a game and the first request I make to the board.

[upthetoon]

it's impossible to go bust in this game as you are better than the AI in every single way. You can sign all the best players and your intelligence is far far better than the AI. So you will definately win titles.

and the board do pump in money.

the only way to stop this exploit is make it realistic and make the chairman intervene when you have ridiculous amount of 48 months transfers.

[DeadlyBren]

How do these such payments actually work?
Say I wanted to pay £10 million for a player, how would that work out over 24, 36 and 48 months?

[pigfacemonkeyman]

How do these such payments actually work?
Say I wanted to pay £10 million for a player, how would that work out over 24, 36 and 48 months?

You offer an initial payment - let's say £2m - leaving £8m balance to be payed over - let's say 48 months - you must have enough money available in your budget to cover the initial payment + the first year's installments - £2m + £2m = £4m. Hence a £10m player for a layout of £4m.

[Herter]

How do these such payments actually work?
Say I wanted to pay £10 million for a player, how would that work out over 24, 36 and 48 months?

10m divided by 24 = monthly payment (+ interests of course)

[DaveDaveDave]

I don't really get why this is even a debate. If you use it, use it. If not, fine. I use my transfer budgets as and how I need to. If I have a 25yo DM and a 17yo DM, and a transfer budget of £1.5m, I might sign another senior DM on loan for a season and hope that the young kid is ready next time round, I might bring a guy in on a free if there is anyone good enough, or if I'm offered a top quality (3.5* plus) DM for £6m, I might decide to use the 48-month option. I would never use it to spend £70m on Neymar or Cavani because, let's face it, there are other options. Apart from the teams that can afford those fees upfront, everyone would be improved by a Neymar but would probably also be improved with someone who has a PA of 10 less than Neymar but might cost £40m less.

Ultimately, you need success to sustain this kind of spending. I'll use it every so often at the start of a game if I feel like I have one particularly weak position and not enough money to bring it up to standard. I always prefer to accept transfer offers that include monthly payments though, because it's a nice way of keeping finances at a steady position over a period of time.