Critique of FM08 transfer mechanism - will it ever change?

[Ched]

Originally posted by Ter:

That wasn't a criticism by the way. By all means continue to post suggestions and constructive stuff that is an "ideal world" scenario. It sparks healthy debate and is still useful

Lol well can someone tell nepenthez, he thinks threads like this are a crime against humanity!

[Guest Pilgrimdon]

I completley agree with the offloading of players, why do clubs not want to buy players off for you or even simply take them off your hands for free especially when they are better than they have in their current squad.

Anyone recognise this scenario?

Your a succesful premiership team, and you've outgrown a certain player, he's not bad and you still play him sometimes but could do with some extra funds so a decent amount for him would be a good bit of business for you.

Lets give an example of someone like James McFadden (Probably a bad example now as I've never personally tried to sell him but you'll get the idea.)

It's a few years in and he's not quite good enough for your Everton side anymore as a first teamer, still 27 or though so plenty of years in him.

1. - Transfer list him, make him not needed and put him in the reserves (Because you know there's no chance of selling him otherwise!!)

2. He's worth 5 million so you think if I can get 2.5 it's not bad business. First of all thought just in case you offer him for 4 million.

3. No interest, lets go with 2.5

4. Still no interest, okay well I guess 1.5 wouldn't be too bad.

5. Nobody wants him for 1.5??? Well I guess half a million will help with the transfer funds.

6. What?? Nobody wants James McFadded for half a million? Not even Championship clubs?? Okay this is just annoying me now so lets just get him off the wage bill. I'll offer him for free

7. No thanks!! So nobody wants him for free, by now your annoyed and just want to get rid of the player that ten minutes ago was a half decent backup member of your squad. Offer him mututal termination

8. Nope I won't be forced out of the club boss, okay fine release you on a free.

9. See you later boss, thanks for the £400,000 in advanced wages

10. So a player you were not even overally keen to sell you've just ended up giving away and spending money to do it!

11. He signs for Middlesborough on a free and is worth 4 million or so and is there best player straight into the first team.

12. Alrighty then!!

Agree with all of the above points but the above scenario is my particular bug bear. I have a great example with Plymouth.

In my first season I signed Sherjill MacDonald and Nicky Maynard for about $880k each. Now in the championship these guys banged in goals for fun and got me promoted. In my first season in the premiership Maynard was fringe (still knocked in 7 from about 25 games) but MacDonald was my player of the season scoring 15 goals in the league. Second season in premiership I tried to sell Maynard who had a value of 5mill, no takers. 3rd season in premiership tried to sell MacDonald (who still did the biz in the 2nd season), no takers at 2mill when he had been valued at 14m.

By this stage I was qualifying for Europe and was trying to improve but I didn't get any interest for these players even if I offered them for free (to help with wage pressure). Facking annoying.

Whilst we are at it the other annoying scenario is someone sitting in the ressies and not wanting to move to play first team football. Now I know Plymouth isn't the centre of the football universe but we were in the Champions league and there were players from Fulham ressies not wanting to move because of the perceived backward step. Fulham finsihed 15th! Boro got relegated and some of their first teamers didn't want to move to a permiership team playing in Europe because it was a... backward step! As I said.."facking annoying"!!!!!!!

[Tom Leeburn]

Originally posted by Pilgrimdon:

I completley agree with the offloading of players, why do clubs not want to buy players off for you or even simply take them off your hands for free especially when they are better than they have in their current squad.

Anyone recognise this scenario?

Your a succesful premiership team, and you've outgrown a certain player, he's not bad and you still play him sometimes but could do with some extra funds so a decent amount for him would be a good bit of business for you.

Lets give an example of someone like James McFadden (Probably a bad example now as I've never personally tried to sell him but you'll get the idea.)

It's a few years in and he's not quite good enough for your Everton side anymore as a first teamer, still 27 or though so plenty of years in him.

1. - Transfer list him, make him not needed and put him in the reserves (Because you know there's no chance of selling him otherwise!!)

2. He's worth 5 million so you think if I can get 2.5 it's not bad business. First of all thought just in case you offer him for 4 million.

3. No interest, lets go with 2.5

4. Still no interest, okay well I guess 1.5 wouldn't be too bad.

5. Nobody wants him for 1.5??? Well I guess half a million will help with the transfer funds.

6. What?? Nobody wants James McFadded for half a million? Not even Championship clubs?? Okay this is just annoying me now so lets just get him off the wage bill. I'll offer him for free

7. No thanks!! So nobody wants him for free, by now your annoyed and just want to get rid of the player that ten minutes ago was a half decent backup member of your squad. Offer him mututal termination

8. Nope I won't be forced out of the club boss, okay fine release you on a free.

9. See you later boss, thanks for the £400,000 in advanced wages

10. So a player you were not even overally keen to sell you've just ended up giving away and spending money to do it!

11. He signs for Middlesborough on a free and is worth 4 million or so and is there best player straight into the first team.

12. Alrighty then!!<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Agree with all of the above points but the above scenario is my particular bug bear. I have a great example with Plymouth.

In my first season I signed Sherjill MacDonald and Nicky Maynard for about $880k each. Now in the championship these guys banged in goals for fun and got me promoted. In my first season in the premiership Maynard was fringe (still knocked in 7 from about 25 games) but MacDonald was my player of the season scoring 15 goals in the league. Second season in premiership I tried to sell Maynard who had a value of 5mill, no takers. 3rd season in premiership tried to sell MacDonald (who still did the biz in the 2nd season), no takers at 2mill when he had been valued at 14m.

By this stage I was qualifying for Europe and was trying to improve but I didn't get any interest for these players even if I offered them for free (to help with wage pressure). Facking annoying.

Whilst we are at it the other annoying scenario is someone sitting in the ressies and not wanting to move to play first team football. Now I know Plymouth isn't the centre of the football universe but we were in the Champions league and there were players from Fulham ressies not wanting to move because of the perceived backward step. Fulham finsihed 15th! Boro got relegated and some of their first teamers didn't want to move to a permiership team playing in Europe because it was a... backward step! As I said.."facking annoying"!!!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the problem with selling players is i believe often related to the reputation system not working well. in your macdonald and maynard example, it is likely that the clubs who would in real life be interested in that level of player - championship or prem relegation contenders, are being put off by their reputation - essentially it is out of sync with their actual ability. As an experiment try dropping their rep using the fmm jpee editor (look in editor forum), and i would expect that you will be ale to sell the players more easily.

[Ched]

players is i believe often related to the reputation system not working well. in your macdonald and maynard example, it is likely that the clubs who would in real life be interested in that level of player - championship

I think i've made the point before, but i feel that there should be a long term and short term reputation.

E.g. a long term rep is relative to the clubs history, fan base, long term expectations.

Whilst the short term rep could account for current league/cup preformance, e.g. a club that is usually top 10, but breaks into the CL one season, would have an increase in short term rep - which would lead to higher quality players willing to join...but with get out clauses etc.

Whilst a protracted period of success would lead to the club being recognised as one of the greats.

[x3widRacin]

Originally posted by aenariel:

I disagree. Stating "we've read your opinions and we're working on it" would suffice here. By not replying, it's like "we don't give a damn". And soon people will stop suggesting stuff because there's simply no feedback on what they suggest, be it good or bad.

I, for example, really do not feel the drive to suggest anything anymore, because I know it will fall in this forums' chaotic state ATM and no one will even read it, if most.

Ironic! At least you know what its like from both sides of the issue

I agree though. I used to be a frequent CM player and a frequent poster on the forums. I would post bugs and suggestions for things that are clearly improper to be fixed in one version of the game, and they would drop off the page and the same issues will be present in the next issue. I would post them again a year later and cite the fact that I posted the same thing the season before, still no response.

By then one naturally starts feeling like they are just wasting their time.

[IMT]

I fully agree with the OP, the transfer system has been seriously flawed for many years now, with the most frustrating thing for me being the fact that it is so hard to even give players away, totally unrealistic!

[frogface]

totally agree with all comments relating to the transfer system - it is just annoying to say the least. I have been playing cm/fm from the very first game and I am the first to admit that the game has improved dramatically, however instead of adding fancy things to the game - lets get back to basics and make sure that 2 of the most important parts of the game are fixed before we move on to extra features - thus the transfer market and the problem with the regens not reaching anywhere near PA

[Kazza]

Hi

Excellent thread really enjoyed reading it.

Great analysis from Ched and an interesting couple of replies from Ter.

Tis a pity though that the "eyes" prevent SI from openly talking about what can and cannot be done in a patch or future iteration of the game.

Hopefully your observations will be picked up fixed and implemented in the next version as I cannot see a patch covering this issue.

As I said great read thanks - one of the more constructive and educational threads.

[Dave C]

Coming a little late to the party, but hopefully people will still read my extensive thoughts on this...

I completely agree changes are needed right through the process, and I'm going to try set out how I'd like it!

The Bid

The first approach should be "Can we have permission to negotiate a deal?"

A "Yes" allows you to negotiate with both the club (for a fee) AND the player.

There is nothing more frustrating than spending weeks arranging a fee, only to discover the player isn't interested. In real-life, clubs negotiate both at the same time once they have permission, to the extent sometimes a deal is in place with the player only to fail on the basis no deal is struck between the clubs.

This should be a relatively easy change to make.

Negotiation

When a financial revamp was announced, this is where I hoped it would be seen.

Negotiation in FM is, and always has been, utterly awful, entirely illogical and the most frustrating element of the game.

A major, and surely easily avoidable, irritant is the player wanting a deal, you make an offer, he rejects it. And you have to start over again, even to the extent of having to start negotiating a fee again!

Just shouldn't happen. One party should have to make a definite move to break off negotiations.

The actual negotiations can be vastly improved with a few new features:

Negotiating a Fee/Wage:

In FM, when negotiating a transfer fee or wage, it's often a case of making an opening bid, then creeping up towards their stated asking price. Somewhere between the two there is often a "magic" figure they will accept.

But this is surely an unrealistic way of doing things?

In real life, in any negotiation, there is "give and take" with each party starting at the extreme high/low and moving down/up until a compromise is reached or one party calls off negotiations.

It's annoying when, for instance, you are offering a new contract and the players demands never go down. Somewhere along the line, you hit a "magic" figure they will accept.

We need to be able to see a process where there is clearly genuine negotiation taking place.

Even worse is when they just keep raising the figure during negotiations. This has to end.

Negotiation History:

A "history" should also be visible, so you can see what they asked, what you offered etc and a record of the negotiation process.

The real reason for this is for the benefit of SI in making the AI know what has already happened. The Transfer Centre has moved us a step in the right direction, now the AI just has to use it to avoid stupid repeated bids/enquiries, bidding less than the last bid you rejected etc.

"Leave it on the table":

If you break off contract negotiations, you should have the ability to "leave the offer on the table". If you then resume negotiations in the future, you aren't starting from scratch. The player can also come back at any point and say they are now willing to accept your last offer (an example is Wes Brown at Man Utd who has their last contract offer open if he wants to sign).

"Final Offer":

In transfer fee negotiations, it should be possible to mark a "final offer". This would be the same as the Non-Negotiable deal, but would actually work!

Asking the board for more money:

In all circumstances, whether with your own squad, new players or transfer fees, there should be a button on the negotiation screen to "Ask for Extra Funds".

There are three ways in which this would essentially work:

1.Asking for extra funds for a transfer.

A player that will add a lot becomes available at £10m, you have £5m, you ask the board to find the extra (they refuse/agree/compromise).

2.Asking to Break the Wage Structure

The total wage budget should be largely unbreakable.

However, if you are below your budget, you should be able to ask the board to extend the wages available for a specific player. This is very common, especially lower down the leagues.

3.Asking for more Wages

You are at your wage budget but really need to bring someone in for whatever reason.

Instead of the standard board request, you ask for extra for that one player.

Withdraw Contract Offer:

Cancelling contract negotiations in FM really doesn't work well. Once you've offered a deal to one of your players, you seem to be stuck with it.

At any point, with one of our players or a potential signing, we should be able to right-click and cancel the deal, as long as nothing has yet been signed.

Contract Demands

Contract demands need major work.

The whole thing falls apart on the way player demands are calculated in the first place.

Players show no awareness of their age, career history, your wage structure, their squad status or any other relevant factor.

The fact every 18 year old I try to sign from a bigger club thinks his squad status should be "1st Team" is utterly ridiculous. Surely they can see where they currently are? They are looking to develop, get first-team football. They should be looking at Back-up status as a career progression.

I even get it with my own youth players if they have a high enough CA/PA.

I inevitably have to let these lads go and they never improve their situation, always dropping to part-time football.

A major change needed is to the AI behind wage demands.

IRL, what a player asks for is based on:

-His performances

-The club he is at

-His current wage

-His age

-Whether or not he wants to be there

-His status at the club

But in FM, and CM before it, the calculation seems to be one involving CA and PA.

This leads to players asking for 1000% pay-rises, 18 year olds asking for 1st Team staus and wage etc.

Now, I'm all for CA and PA. But they should NOT be used in this module.

A player at York on £180pw, just breaking into the first team, should never be asking £700pw (which is as much as my best players). He should be asking £250-300, a sensible, modest pay-rise.

It's also important that Squad Status means something more than it does currently, and that players expect to see a progression in their status, not a jump.

The more I think about it, the less happy I am with what the Squad Status on FM actually means.

It seems to relate entirely to the amount of 1st Team football that player should expect (some sort of %age of the total games I would guess).

But that's not really how I see it when I allocate it, not entirely at any rate.

For me the system should be something more like this:

Key Player should mean a player you cannot do without (as opposed to "player who will play in most 1st Team games"). No team should really have more than two or three of them and players should rarely ever ask for that status. They will expect to play in most games (75-80%) but will also expect to be the best-paid players at the club. They'll probably be quite annoyed to turn out in lesser competitions.

Other teams will know they may have to pay over the odds for such players.

Too many players on this status at one club will upset the players as they will feel the status is devalued.

1st Team Regular should mean a player who will, generally, be used in 1st Team games if fit. So their actual attitude to how many games they will play in would be the same as that of a Key Player, they just know (as do other teams) they are not indispensable.

At smaller teams there will be quite a few of these as they will have a smaller squad (One or two key players, 10 or 11 1st Team players then some backup and hot prospect players). A bigger team with a large squad will have less as more players will be viewed as Squad Rotation players.

Squad Rotation players should then be players who are active parts of the 1st Team Squad, but are competing equally with others for a place in the team. These will be more common the larger the squad. They will expect to play in at least 50% of the games.

All players with one of those three statuses will regard themselves as "1st Team Players".

Back-Up Player should be, well, a back-up. They should accept they are not likely to get much 1st Team football and will know they are waiting for injury/suspension. Their attitude to this will be shaped by their professionalism and their age. A youngster may be happy to wait a while, looking for loan opportunities. An older player may want to get out an be playing actively.

Hot Prospect should be an U23 player that is pushing for promotion to the 1st Team, or an U19 player that is regarded as a future "big thing". In terms of their attitude to 1st Team football, they'll be like Back-up players.

These players should be rare with most younger players falling into the category of "Decent Young Player".

The final category, Decent Young Player should cover most U21 players outside of the 1st Team Squad. Pretty much every U18 player will have this status.

The current worst thing in negotiating with your own players though, is when they want to drop their wage/status.

Let's start with the blindingly obvious. No player should be ASKING for a drop in wages. Not at a club under it's wage budget with well over a million in the bank.

It's no wonder some people are getting players to keep taking wage drops when they ask for them themselves anyway.

Players should accept wage drops if the club is in trouble, or has been relegated, or the player is fading/out of the team. But in the first place they should still just ask for their current wage.

Beyond that they should at worst ask for the same, and ideally ask for at least a small rise.

And if they're in the team, and the club finances are okay, they shouldn't accept a wage drop.

Just as annoying, players asking for a drop in status. I see regular members of the first-team asking for Back-up status. This is another example of the game using something beyond the logical for calculations.

Players should consider a drop in status when appropriate, but if you can't get it right, then just have them stick to asking for their extant status instead.

And no player should be asking to drop from a "professional" status (Key/1st/Rot/Back-up) to a "Youth" status (Prospect/Youngster). That should be an unbreachable barrier at the same club.

Another is players asking for a drop in status, but a huge rise in appearance bonus that actually gives them an overall rise in their package.

It's especially annoying as they ask for the big appearance bonus because of their status, which suggests restricted first team duty. But if you put their status and basic wage up, they still want the big bonus!

Anyway, my thoughts there.

[Ched]

Originally posted by Dave C:

Coming a little late to the party, but hopefully people will still read my extensive thoughts on this...

I completely agree changes are needed right through the process, and I'm going to try set out how I'd like it!

The Bid

The first approach should be "Can we have permission to negotiate a deal?"

A "Yes" allows you to negotiate with both the club (for a fee) AND the player.

There is nothing more frustrating than spending weeks arranging a fee, only to discover the player isn't interested. In real-life, clubs negotiate both at the same time once they have permission, to the extent sometimes a deal is in place with the player only to fail on the basis no deal is struck between the clubs.

This should be a relatively easy change to make.

Negotiation

When a financial revamp was announced, this is where I hoped it would be seen.

Negotiation in FM is, and always has been, utterly awful, entirely illogical and the most frustrating element of the game.

A major, and surely easily avoidable, irritant is the player wanting a deal, you make an offer, he rejects it. And you have to start over again, even to the extent of having to start negotiating a fee again!

Just shouldn't happen. One party should have to make a definite move to break off negotiations.

The actual negotiations can be vastly improved with a few new features:

Negotiating a Fee/Wage:

In FM, when negotiating a transfer fee or wage, it's often a case of making an opening bid, then creeping up towards their stated asking price. Somewhere between the two there is often a "magic" figure they will accept.

But this is surely an unrealistic way of doing things?

In real life, in any negotiation, there is "give and take" with each party starting at the extreme high/low and moving down/up until a compromise is reached or one party calls off negotiations.

It's annoying when, for instance, you are offering a new contract and the players demands never go down. Somewhere along the line, you hit a "magic" figure they will accept.

We need to be able to see a process where there is clearly genuine negotiation taking place.

Even worse is when they just keep raising the figure during negotiations. This has to end.

Negotiation History:

A "history" should also be visible, so you can see what they asked, what you offered etc and a record of the negotiation process.

The real reason for this is for the benefit of SI in making the AI know what has already happened. The Transfer Centre has moved us a step in the right direction, now the AI just has to use it to avoid stupid repeated bids/enquiries, bidding less than the last bid you rejected etc.

"Leave it on the table":

If you break off contract negotiations, you should have the ability to "leave the offer on the table". If you then resume negotiations in the future, you aren't starting from scratch. The player can also come back at any point and say they are now willing to accept your last offer (an example is Wes Brown at Man Utd who has their last contract offer open if he wants to sign).

"Final Offer":

In transfer fee negotiations, it should be possible to mark a "final offer". This would be the same as the Non-Negotiable deal, but would actually work!

Asking the board for more money:

In all circumstances, whether with your own squad, new players or transfer fees, there should be a button on the negotiation screen to "Ask for Extra Funds".

There are three ways in which this would essentially work:

1.Asking for extra funds for a transfer.

A player that will add a lot becomes available at £10m, you have £5m, you ask the board to find the extra (they refuse/agree/compromise).

2.Asking to Break the Wage Structure

The total wage budget should be largely unbreakable.

However, if you are below your budget, you should be able to ask the board to extend the wages available for a specific player. This is very common, especially lower down the leagues.

3.Asking for more Wages

You are at your wage budget but really need to bring someone in for whatever reason.

Instead of the standard board request, you ask for extra for that one player.

Withdraw Contract Offer:

Cancelling contract negotiations in FM really doesn't work well. Once you've offered a deal to one of your players, you seem to be stuck with it.

At any point, with one of our players or a potential signing, we should be able to right-click and cancel the deal, as long as nothing has yet been signed.

Contract Demands

Contract demands need major work.

The whole thing falls apart on the way player demands are calculated in the first place.

Players show no awareness of their age, career history, your wage structure, their squad status or any other relevant factor.

The fact every 18 year old I try to sign from a bigger club thinks his squad status should be "1st Team" is utterly ridiculous. Surely they can see where they currently are? They are looking to develop, get first-team football. They should be looking at Back-up status as a career progression.

I even get it with my own youth players if they have a high enough CA/PA.

I inevitably have to let these lads go and they never improve their situation, always dropping to part-time football.

A major change needed is to the AI behind wage demands.

IRL, what a player asks for is based on:

-His performances

-The club he is at

-His current wage

-His age

-Whether or not he wants to be there

-His status at the club

But in FM, and CM before it, the calculation seems to be one involving CA and PA.

This leads to players asking for 1000% pay-rises, 18 year olds asking for 1st Team staus and wage etc.

Now, I'm all for CA and PA. But they should NOT be used in this module.

A player at York on £180pw, just breaking into the first team, should never be asking £700pw (which is as much as my best players). He should be asking £250-300, a sensible, modest pay-rise.

It's also important that Squad Status means something more than it does currently, and that players expect to see a progression in their status, not a jump.

The more I think about it, the less happy I am with what the Squad Status on FM actually means.

It seems to relate entirely to the amount of 1st Team football that player should expect (some sort of %age of the total games I would guess).

But that's not really how I see it when I allocate it, not entirely at any rate.

For me the system should be something more like this:

Key Player should mean a player you cannot do without (as opposed to "player who will play in most 1st Team games"). No team should really have more than two or three of them and players should rarely ever ask for that status. They will expect to play in most games (75-80%) but will also expect to be the best-paid players at the club. They'll probably be quite annoyed to turn out in lesser competitions.

Other teams will know they may have to pay over the odds for such players.

Too many players on this status at one club will upset the players as they will feel the status is devalued.

1st Team Regular should mean a player who will, generally, be used in 1st Team games if fit. So their actual attitude to how many games they will play in would be the same as that of a Key Player, they just know (as do other teams) they are not indispensable.

At smaller teams there will be quite a few of these as they will have a smaller squad (One or two key players, 10 or 11 1st Team players then some backup and hot prospect players). A bigger team with a large squad will have less as more players will be viewed as Squad Rotation players.

Squad Rotation players should then be players who are active parts of the 1st Team Squad, but are competing equally with others for a place in the team. These will be more common the larger the squad. They will expect to play in at least 50% of the games.

All players with one of those three statuses will regard themselves as "1st Team Players".

Back-Up Player should be, well, a back-up. They should accept they are not likely to get much 1st Team football and will know they are waiting for injury/suspension. Their attitude to this will be shaped by their professionalism and their age. A youngster may be happy to wait a while, looking for loan opportunities. An older player may want to get out an be playing actively.

Hot Prospect should be an U23 player that is pushing for promotion to the 1st Team, or an U19 player that is regarded as a future "big thing". In terms of their attitude to 1st Team football, they'll be like Back-up players.

These players should be rare with most younger players falling into the category of "Decent Young Player".

The final category, Decent Young Player should cover most U21 players outside of the 1st Team Squad. Pretty much every U18 player will have this status.

The current worst thing in negotiating with your own players though, is when they want to drop their wage/status.

Let's start with the blindingly obvious. No player should be ASKING for a drop in wages. Not at a club under it's wage budget with well over a million in the bank.

It's no wonder some people are getting players to keep taking wage drops when they ask for them themselves anyway.

Players should accept wage drops if the club is in trouble, or has been relegated, or the player is fading/out of the team. But in the first place they should still just ask for their current wage.

Beyond that they should at worst ask for the same, and ideally ask for at least a small rise.

And if they're in the team, and the club finances are okay, they shouldn't accept a wage drop.

Just as annoying, players asking for a drop in status. I see regular members of the first-team asking for Back-up status. This is another example of the game using something beyond the logical for calculations.

Players should consider a drop in status when appropriate, but if you can't get it right, then just have them stick to asking for their extant status instead.

And no player should be asking to drop from a "professional" status (Key/1st/Rot/Back-up) to a "Youth" status (Prospect/Youngster). That should be an unbreachable barrier at the same club.

Another is players asking for a drop in status, but a huge rise in appearance bonus that actually gives them an overall rise in their package.

It's especially annoying as they ask for the big appearance bonus because of their status, which suggests restricted first team duty. But if you put their status and basic wage up, they still want the big bonus!

Anyway, my thoughts there.

Glad to see you here!

Anyway, with regard to your points:

The bid; good idea, i was under the impression that this is how it's done IRL (you constantly hear on sky sports how the clubs are just waiting to agree a fee) so anything that takes the game in a more realistic direction would be welcomed.

Also, with regard to AI making bids for your players, after being asked "can we have permision to negotiate" and being told a flat "NO" the AI should give up - would stop the irritation of constant enquiries for players listed as "indespensible to club". Obviously there would be associated player fall out and media comment regarding a straight "No".

Negotiations; the main reason for starting this thread was due to the comically flawed way the AI handles these.

"Even worse is when they just keep raising the figure during negotiations" - pretty much sums up how bad the situatoin has gotten.

"final offer" would be an excellent addition - i've used the "non-negot" option for this, but often they just reject it...even when you bid more than the AI, apparently they don't like being forced into anything, oh dear.

Specific Board requests regarding new players - i think this was one of the first things i ever posted on these boards - granted it was probably too late a wishlist addition to be included, but i hope we can see something like this for 09. There's nothing more frustrating than the board limiting you form signing a spectacular player due to his wages being a bit too high.

Contract demands - nothing to add here, you've hit pretty much everything on the head.

Had an amusing case of a 17 year old bojan asking for £77k per week, i'd spent months tapping the bastard up and then he says he'd love to join...if i made him the richest 17 year old in history. At barca he was paid £250p/w. I'm not even going to bother calculating the % increase he wanted lol.

At first glance, the squad status feature Similarly no need to ellaborate on what you've written for "squad status".

Bonuses - i am getting increasingly frustrated with players asking for £250p/w and a signing on bonus of £200k - if SI limit what we can offer as a bonus, then they should bloody well limit what the AI can ask for - how they can let this farce continue is beyond me - i end up having to give a 17year old £3k per week just so i can satisfy his singing on clause!

[chelsea_pumas]

Great points Dave!

[chelsea_pumas]

"final offer" would be an excellent addition - i've used the "non-negot" option for this, but often they just reject it...even when you bid more than the AI, apparently they don't like being forced into anything, oh dear.

I've used it succesfully before to get a bit lower than what the AI wants for a player! But I agree that this should work more often.

[Mister Z]

Great post Dave C, some constructive thinking

The lack of a logical negotiation routine within FM is one thing SI should work on ASAP instead of adding a new Skin or curling the ball in 2D long shots.

Keeping a negation record could also prevent those pesky AI enquiries and annoying bids for you players (AI bids 1K you want 50K, AI drops enquiry to bid 1K a week later, etc).

Asking for more money for specific players is a real life situation, where specific players are funded by sponsors or sugar daddy’s (transfer fees and wages). But the hardcore Football mangers would shoot this down because managing finance is not the name of the game (if finance plays only a very small part in football to day. Maybe there is room for a Total Football (Club) Manager in the future would be nice )

Totally agree with CA/PA and also club reputation playing the larges role in contract demands. But also here there is the discussion that attributes and performance should be more imported than CA. But as long CA/PA are the main criteria with FM, SI wouldn’t move a muscle.

[Ter]

The lack of a logical negotiation routine within FM is one thing SI should work on ASAP instead of adding a new Skin or curling the ball in 2D long shots.

That's bad example as the people involved in creating skins don't work on game AI

[Mister Z]

Originally posted by Ter:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The lack of a logical negotiation routine within FM is one thing SI should work on ASAP instead of adding a new Skin or curling the ball in 2D long shots.

That's bad example as the people involved in creating skins don't work on game AI </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point I want make is setting priorities for a release. The people involved in creating the default skin did a great job . But I had rather seen that there time and effort (budget wise) was put into improving a negation routine for transfers. A new look and feel and adjusting the pitch size for example, are IMO less important in the my FM experience.

[Guest]

i'd agree with mister z to a certain extent. the additions onto this game have been brilliant, as they have been on most of the games since cm's creation, but i feel that they are secondary to fixing and perfecting the more important, key areas of the game such as the negotiation and transfer system. i think, for example, that you should be able to tell a player when offering for him on loan to what extent he's going to be played. it annoys the life out of me that various players reject loans to my club on the basis of the clubs reputation which, to a certain extent the user can have no immediate impact over. equally being able to talk to a player throughout negotiations for transfers and contract re-negotiations would be a great addition. telling the player what your plans for the club are or equally that you will expect a certain level of performance or professionalism from him would add realism to the game. i think it would be a fantastic way of convincing the player to sign, something which currently the user has no control over

[Ter]

Originally posted by Mister Z:

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The lack of a logical negotiation routine within FM is one thing SI should work on ASAP instead of adding a new Skin or curling the ball in 2D long shots.

That's bad example as the people involved in creating skins don't work on game AI </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point I want make is setting priorities for a release. The people involved in creating the default skin did a great job . But I had rather seen that there time and effort (budget wise) was put into improving a negation routine for transfers. A new look and feel and adjusting the pitch size for example, are IMO less important in the my FM experience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That still doesn't make much sense. The person responsible for implementing a new skin (in this case me) wouldn't be able to contribute or take on the task of changing the transfer system of the game apart from doing work on the UI side of things, which isn't the issue here.

[Powermonger]

The point I want make is setting priorities for a release. The people involved in creating the default skin did a great job . But I had rather seen that there time and effort (budget wise) was put into improving a negation routine for transfers. A new look and feel and adjusting the pitch size for example, are IMO less important in the my FM experience.

As Ter has already reiterated, he doesn't work on the code behind the game and while I don't think a new skin a new game makes, I do support the constant evolution of the UI. I think this years UI is the best one to date and has really made the game look like a polished project.

As much as I'd like to see SI put time and effort into revamping certain aspects of FM, the UI is our window to the game world and needs to be constantly enhanced.

All we need now is a real windows UI that lets us have multiple windows open at once for us widescreen users to make good use of.

[Queen of the Stevenage]

I agree with a hack of a lot of the posts that have been made.

However, on the other side of the coin. Do you think that maybe the players that you guys want to buy, who AREN'T transfer-listed.. etc.. etc are only ridiculously inflated because their team does not want to let them go?

Taking the poster who wanted to buy Artur Boruc's example. So he's complaining that, despite being valued at £3.1m, that Celtic want £14.5m?

Take into account the IRL scenario of them having to arrange cover for the departed Boruc and then having to scout for a replacement and I think this is perfectly acceptable for Celtic to ramp up the price in order to put people off. If they're not going to be put off then they should pay through the nose.

The transfer system is flawed, but not as much as people say, just because they can't buy players cheap.

[bordel]

Originally posted by Queen of the Stevenage:

The transfer system is flawed, but not as much as people say, just because they can't buy players cheap.

thing is that AI vs AI transfers seem pretty normal, even the prices seem OK(there are some weird transfers, in my game like G.Pandev Lazio - chelsea for 58M Euros)but otherwise OK

what makes me mad is AI vs Human transfers

I(Spurs) bid for a 3star rated player walued 6,5M eur the AI accepts bid of 14,5M for me. the thing they want 13M cash and 1,5M in 12months. what i change to 4M cash and 11M in 24months what is turned down by AI. later I find out that he was transfered to Boro for 9,5M !!!

opposite : AI(newcastle) want my 3star rated player(huddlestone) valued 4,7M I ask for 6,5M(1,5M cash and 4M in 12months) of course this is too much cause AI withdraws.

now tell me something like TS is not flawed that much.

[brat]

I totally agree with the main idea in this topic:

transfer system is perhaps the most unrealistic feature of the FM series. In other words, it's the feature where my logic is:

- OK, transfer system is dumb, so let's see what is the general approach that works EVERY TIME on this version of the game, no matter what club I'm managing or who I'm buying or selling.

I would focus on improving some features:

1) Player exchange. As someone pointed, I pay 30+Deco for Gattuso, they say no. I pay 35 for Gattuso and get him. They pay me 25 for Deco. Give feedback. More options of interaction. AI team should be able to choose between "I'm willing to sell him, don't give me any players", "I don't want to sell him", "If you want to give me some players, I'm interested in these <List>".

2) The long lasting "AI bids, you negotiate, they give up. You offer him again, and the process restars". Why don't they renegotiate?

3) Meetings: one way to solve most of these issues is the existence of meetings. One (game) hour of intense negotiation, action-reaction that would ultimately decide the transaction. If you lose the transaction and want another try - did you say it was your final offer and are bidding again? - then the other club would surely remember the last negotiation and act accordingly (so you want him again? Oh really? Now I want more).

[Dave C]

Part of the over-inflated transfer fee problem actually comes down to the game ever allowing us to pay those prices in the first place.

IRL, the reason you don't see players moving for £50-60m is because no board would ever sanction it. So a team asks for that, because it's the same as saying "We're not interested".

In FM, if the money is there, you can spend £70-80m on a player.

That needs fixing.

[rinso]

IRL, the reason you don't see players moving for £50-60m is because no board would ever sanction it. So a team asks for that, because it's the same as saying "We're not interested".

In FM, if the money is there, you can spend £70-80m on a player.

just seen it done twice, on the same player... c.ronaldo to roma 60m, and a season later (what an investment that was) 57m to Real madrid

[Dave C]

Originally posted by rinso:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IRL, the reason you don't see players moving for £50-60m is because no board would ever sanction it. So a team asks for that, because it's the same as saying "We're not interested".

In FM, if the money is there, you can spend £70-80m on a player.

just seen it done twice, on the same player... c.ronaldo to roma 60m, and a season later (what an investment that was) 57m to Real madrid </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that's infuriates me immensely.

You don't spend that much on a player just to take a loss the following year, not unless the player has tanked or you are in financial trouble.

[Annuity]

Originally posted by Ched:

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

Well worded OP, not a rant, points well made and I agree that in general, the 'intelligence' of the AI regarding transfers, wages and negociations needs a good kick in the arse.

What I don't agree with is the suggestion that this should be done to the detriment of developing new features.

I want both

And I honestly don't think that the two have an impact on one another. Not to mention necessary: imagine the outrage if FM09 comes and SI say 'no new features, we've spent a year tweaking xyz'. The number of threads saying 'I ain't paying 25 squid for no update that should be free' would be quite large

I remember cm01/02 (i think it was that one) where it was just a data update and and few bug fixes compared to the previous CM, and they released it for 15 or 20 quid, i'd quite happily accept this for fm09 if they just fixed existing issues, and let them work on new features for fm10, but i suspect the potential loss of new customers will cause SI to add half finished new features rather than fix the existing ones. a pity realy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be a new feature. A new transfer system!

The paradox is as much as new features in new versions of FM demonstrate development and attract new custom, the old gremlins way on the mind of existing customers making it feel stagnant.

I agree that both can be achieved. Just like this year we had new features and revamps. I'm sure it will be the transfer systems turn next time around.

We just have to accept only so much can be done in each version and with hindsight maybe the transfer system should have got a look in this time around.

I'm sure we could all make similar lists for other areas of the game. As one area gets fixed another becomes more prominant for it's faults.

Great OP though and something i was pleased to see after along time away from these forums. These are the threads SI will read with interest.

[Ched]

Originally posted by Dave C:

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IRL, the reason you don't see players moving for £50-60m is because no board would ever sanction it. So a team asks for that, because it's the same as saying "We're not interested".

In FM, if the money is there, you can spend £70-80m on a player.

just seen it done twice, on the same player... c.ronaldo to roma 60m, and a season later (what an investment that was) 57m to Real madrid </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that's infuriates me immensely.

You don't spend that much on a player just to take a loss the following year, not unless the player has tanked or you are in financial trouble. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems to have reduced a little since 07 - i remember watching chielini go from chelsea to utd for £60m (for a left back???) then back to chelsea for £40m the following season (despite playing in every game for utd) then went to real the season after for around £50m, then to utd, then to chelsea - it was just silly - at no point did he request a transfer, or under perform, it's just the AI kept bidding silly money and the AI kept accepting bids even if it made a loss.

[llama3]

i do genuinely hate the amounts we are paying for transfers. i am fed up of being short-changed by other clubs and being held to ransom over other players. it has to change. SI need to realise that the customer frustration with this issue has reached a point where they can no longer ignore it.

[tjb2376]

absolutely right mate. i've had loads of these. currently have one player listed for 4.5million and the same club (reading!) keeps making 3.1million offers, and it's like...

no...

no...

no...

NO...

NOOOOOOOO!!!

leave me alone unless you're paying the price i've set!

very irritating!

[Ched]

Originally posted by tjb2376:

absolutely right mate. i've had loads of these. currently have one player listed for 4.5million and the same club (reading!) keeps making 3.1million offers, and it's like...

no...

no...

no...

NO...

NOOOOOOOO!!!

leave me alone unless you're paying the price i've set!

very irritating!

I wouldn't mind if the AI changed the bids, but it just seems like it thinks "another day, another bid, he'll accept one eventually just to shut me up mwhahaha!"

Yet another example of the AI treating a human different from an AI manager - i've seen the AI bid for another AI player and give up everytime the first (or occasionally second) bid is rejected.

Similarly, the AI doesn't bid £12m for cech when grant is in charge, but if a human takes charge of chelsea, the AI seems to think we are incompotent.

[Vymrr]

Originally posted by Ter:

That still doesn't make much sense. The person responsible for implementing a new skin (in this case me) wouldn't be able to contribute or take on the task of changing the transfer system of the game apart from doing work on the UI side of things, which isn't the issue here.

Then SI should allocate more of their resources to better AI programming and bug testing rather than investing for a 'new look' come every release. Yea it looks nice, but 2 days after release, all your bad laundry is going to be aired out either in forum or through word-of-mouth.

Great content should ALWAYS take precedence over appearances and the erhem, look of the skin

[Dave C]

Originally posted by Vymrr:

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

That still doesn't make much sense. The person responsible for implementing a new skin (in this case me) wouldn't be able to contribute or take on the task of changing the transfer system of the game apart from doing work on the UI side of things, which isn't the issue here.

Then SI should allocate more of their resources to better AI programming and bug testing rather than investing for a 'new look' come every release. Yea it looks nice, but 2 days after release, all your bad laundry is going to be aired out either in forum or through word-of-mouth.

Great content should ALWAYS take precedence over appearances and the erhem, look of the skin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're really just not taking it in are you?

Different people, different areas of expertise...

[wonglf]

Originally posted by Dave C:

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

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

That still doesn't make much sense. The person responsible for implementing a new skin (in this case me) wouldn't be able to contribute or take on the task of changing the transfer system of the game apart from doing work on the UI side of things, which isn't the issue here.

Then SI should allocate more of their resources to better AI programming and bug testing rather than investing for a 'new look' come every release. Yea it looks nice, but 2 days after release, all your bad laundry is going to be aired out either in forum or through word-of-mouth.

Great content should ALWAYS take precedence over appearances and the erhem, look of the skin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're really just not taking it in are you?

Different people, different areas of expertise... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think his point is that instead of paying the person who makes the skins £X per year, they would be better off paying somebody who can programme thae game £X per year. The skin doesnt really make that much difference.

(This isnt necessarily my oppinion, i'm just attempting to clarify his)

[chiarse]

Originally posted by Reider84:

I completley agree with the offloading of players, why do clubs not want to buy players off for you or even simply take them off your hands for free especially when they are better than they have in their current squad.

Anyone recognise this scenario?

Your a succesful premiership team, and you've outgrown a certain player, he's not bad and you still play him sometimes but could do with some extra funds so a decent amount for him would be a good bit of business for you.

Lets give an example of someone like James McFadden (Probably a bad example now as I've never personally tried to sell him but you'll get the idea.)

It's a few years in and he's not quite good enough for your Everton side anymore as a first teamer, still 27 or though so plenty of years in him.

1. - Transfer list him, make him not needed and put him in the reserves (Because you know there's no chance of selling him otherwise!!)

2. He's worth 5 million so you think if I can get 2.5 it's not bad business. First of all thought just in case you offer him for 4 million.

3. No interest, lets go with 2.5

4. Still no interest, okay well I guess 1.5 wouldn't be too bad.

5. Nobody wants him for 1.5??? Well I guess half a million will help with the transfer funds.

6. What?? Nobody wants James McFadded for half a million? Not even Championship clubs?? Okay this is just annoying me now so lets just get him off the wage bill. I'll offer him for free

7. No thanks!! So nobody wants him for free, by now your annoyed and just want to get rid of the player that ten minutes ago was a half decent backup member of your squad. Offer him mututal termination

8. Nope I won't be forced out of the club boss, okay fine release you on a free.

9. See you later boss, thanks for the £400,000 in advanced wages

10. So a player you were not even overally keen to sell you've just ended up giving away and spending money to do it!

11. He signs for Middlesborough on a free and is worth 4 million or so and is there best player straight into the first team.

12. Alrighty then!!

I could not agree more wih this. I see this exact thing all the time in my games. And sometimes, the player has even asked to be transferred and there is nothing you can do even if you want to let him go.

It just should not be this hard to move a player along.

[Dave C]

Originally posted by wonglf:

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

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

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

That still doesn't make much sense. The person responsible for implementing a new skin (in this case me) wouldn't be able to contribute or take on the task of changing the transfer system of the game apart from doing work on the UI side of things, which isn't the issue here.

Then SI should allocate more of their resources to better AI programming and bug testing rather than investing for a 'new look' come every release. Yea it looks nice, but 2 days after release, all your bad laundry is going to be aired out either in forum or through word-of-mouth.

Great content should ALWAYS take precedence over appearances and the erhem, look of the skin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're really just not taking it in are you?

Different people, different areas of expertise... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think his point is that instead of paying the person who makes the skins £X per year, they would be better off paying somebody who can programme thae game £X per year. The skin doesnt really make that much difference.

(This isnt necessarily my oppinion, i'm just attempting to clarify his) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand what he's trying to say.

My point is, he just doesn't seem to grasp that you need the skill set for more than just looks.

[Powermonger]

Then SI should allocate more of their resources to better AI programming and bug testing rather than investing for a 'new look' come every release. Yea it looks nice, but 2 days after release, all your bad laundry is going to be aired out either in forum or through word-of-mouth.

Great content should ALWAYS take precedence over appearances and the erhem, look of the skin

What's wrong with the skin? It's the best one ever for the FM/CM series and finally makes the game look like a professional piece of software then a shareware effort.

[Ter]

Then SI should allocate more of their resources to better AI programming and bug testing rather than investing for a 'new look' come every release. Yea it looks nice, but 2 days after release, all your bad laundry is going to be aired out either in forum or through word-of-mouth.

Great content should ALWAYS take precedence over appearances and the erhem, look of the skin Roll Eyes

Not quite as simple as that either as someone (me) has to deal with all the licensing stuff in the game, so it's not just a case of firing people and bringing in others. That isn't going to go down well in any team.

[Dave C]

Also any new features, improved extant features etc need the GUI to make them work. Someone has to do that job, which means working on the skin.

[James Clarke]

Originally posted by Ter:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Then SI should allocate more of their resources to better AI programming and bug testing rather than investing for a 'new look' come every release. Yea it looks nice, but 2 days after release, all your bad laundry is going to be aired out either in forum or through word-of-mouth.

Great content should ALWAYS take precedence over appearances and the erhem, look of the skin Roll Eyes

Not quite as simple as that either as someone (me) has to deal with all the licensing stuff in the game, so it's not just a case of firing people and bringing in others. That isn't going to go down well in any team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would happily pay extra for them to hire staff to develop the transfer market. Even is they hire 50 extra staff, pay them each £50,000 per year, and sell only 1 million copies of the game each customer would still only pay £2.50 extra.

[tpm]

I just had a really odd one.

I'm Aston Villa and want to buy Bentley. They wanted £10million but I see they are interested in Luke Moore who I didn't need so I offer £8million and Moore. They come back wanting £14million and Moore. I cancel and offer £10million again and they accept.

Surely I'm not expected to pay £4million to get rid of my player.

[Ross77]

Innovative new features will attract sales, even if they are badly implemented like the new confidence stuff. We all bought FM2008 didn't we? If you bought it then regardless of how much you moan in the forums about the bugs, the shareholders/owners have achieved their sole aim, they are making money from it.

Now I would definitely pay for FM2009 if it was a bug free version of FM2008. However having done that and got the perfect football management simulation (and I do think it is a brilliant game overall despite the flaws), what would get me to buy FM2010? Not much, I'd say stuff it, FM2009 is perfect, I'm not paying for a load of bug ridden cosmetic new features, and I can get a data update from somebody kind enough to put one up for download on sortitoutsi or some other fan site. So FM2010 flops, and SI goes bust.

Not going to happen. They can't afford to make it perfectly bug free because one of the things that makes us buy the next one is the hope that it will fix all the left over bugs from the final patched version of the last one.

Sorry if I'm being overly critical, I do think it's a great game, I've literally racked up 1000's of hours of game time on it over the 12 years I've been playing it, and there's no question I've had my money's worth and then a hundred times more (come on guys, most people here would spend £30 easily on a night out down the pub, and that's for a few hours enjoyment)

SI's finances are entirely driven by issuing a top selling game every October. Nothing is more important to the company than making sure that happens on schedule and that it sells. I'm not a financial expert, but I'd wager just one failed version of FM would put SI into liquidation. Therefore make it good, but not so good they don't want something better next October.

[DMaster2]

Originally posted by tpm:

I just had a really odd one.

I'm Aston Villa and want to buy Bentley. They wanted £10million but I see they are interested in Luke Moore who I didn't need so I offer £8million and Moore. They come back wanting £14million and Moore. I cancel and offer £10million again and they accept.

Surely I'm not expected to pay £4million to get rid of my player.

Player exchange is really broken...

[Dave C]

Originally posted by James Clarke:

I would happily pay extra for them to hire staff to develop the transfer market. Even is they hire 50 extra staff, pay them each £50,000 per year, and sell only 1 million copies of the game each customer would still only pay £2.50 extra.

Your grasp of the intricacies of finance is truly impressive...

[Ter]

Not going to happen. They can't afford to make it perfectly bug free because one of the things that makes us buy the next one is the hope that it will fix all the left over bugs from the final patched version of the last one.

That is not true at all. You aren't saying that bugs and errors are purposely left in so that we can fix them in the next version? That's just silly. We would love nothing more to have a perfect version of the game (never going to happen) and we would always be able to find something to improve or something new to add.

And I think the game would still sell reasonably well if it was just a data update each season and no new features.

[Ched]

Jesus this has deteriorated quickly, some people suggesting sacking ter, others suggesting that SI add bugs, others suggesting that hiring 50 extra staff is easy....

Can we stop being silly now?

[Jimbokav1971]

To be honest Ched, I'm surprised the quality lasted as long as it did.

[cabello]

Originally posted by Ter:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Then SI should allocate more of their resources to better AI programming and bug testing rather than investing for a 'new look' come every release. Yea it looks nice, but 2 days after release, all your bad laundry is going to be aired out either in forum or through word-of-mouth.

Great content should ALWAYS take precedence over appearances and the erhem, look of the skin Roll Eyes

Not quite as simple as that either as someone (me) has to deal with all the licensing stuff in the game, so it's not just a case of firing people and bringing in others. That isn't going to go down well in any team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ter, nice skins btw.

Do you know under WHOSE expertise/ department the transfer system falls under and why we've not heard a peep from them in this thread yet?

[Ter]

Do you know under WHOSE expertise/ department the transfer system falls under and why we've not heard a peep from them in this thread yet?

Yes, and I've shown them this thread. Not everyone at SI post on the forums nor are they required to do so I'm afraid.

[DaveRH]

I have to say that you dealt very well with the attempts to get you made redundant, Ter!

I'd like to applaud Dave C's post. Pretty much sums up everything I think about the transfer system, especially with regards to the overemphasis on player reputation.

[cabello]

Originally posted by Ter:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you know under WHOSE expertise/ department the transfer system falls under and why we've not heard a peep from them in this thread yet?

Yes, and I've shown them this thread. Not everyone at SI post on the forums nor are they required to do so I'm afraid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough, then. Hopefully when they were shown the thread they did not guffaw horribly and make up and down motions with their fists clenched.

Anyway, thanks for being one of the few in SI who actually respond to their customers.

[diem2007]

quote:

Do you know under WHOSE expertise/ department the transfer system falls under and why we've not heard a peep from them in this thread yet?

Yes, and I've shown them this thread. Not everyone at SI post on the forums nor are they required to do so I'm afraid.

Mind you, given that the only changes we have seen in the transfer system have been the totally unnessary transfer centre, they must be part-time and have not time to come on the forum. This may be harsh, but the transfer system was poor in 2005 and is still poor now. When can this part of the game be upgraded. Less faffing with eye motion detectors and creating a web 2.0 skin and more upgrades to the game please!

D.