Man United's Max Transfer Budget set to £150 million??!?! Help please..........

[Braundjoh]

I'm pretty sure, as people have said, that when you sell the players, that money goes into your bank balance. Therefore, when you run out of money, you can either ask for more, or will be given more, as happens fairly often at Man City. The fact they start with £150 million is deceptive, because they just top it up through the season anyway.

[Krald]

I believe what's happened is, you sold those players *before* the new-seasons transfer budget, so it's auto-set itself down to the default £150m maximum. I have actually had it say "season transfer budget £150m" and "transfer budget remaining: £179m" So you can get it more than that, yet if you sell them before the new seasons budget it *will* reset to £150m

[SnakeXe]

I understand where the OP is coming from, but you have to think that £150m+ worth of turnover in the playing squad in one season would not be allowed to occur by the board at a continuously successful club - which, from reading his posts, his Man Utd are. Even Man City have not exceeded that figure in one season yet as far as I know, and they're a club with effectively unlimited funds trying to make a quick transition between mid-table and title-winners, not a club at the top staying at the top.

Therefore, I think if you went to the board and said "Hey chaps, so I have £150m to spend this season? Well I'm going to sell off £71m worth of players so I can spend £221m", they'd be very unlikely to sanction such activities when your playing squad is already highly successful. So my point is, although it is annoying for you in your situation, your situation is not realistic, and therefore you can't really expect a realistic simulator to deal with it well.

Edit: Or the guy above me is right.

[crafty bison]

Most of this thread is extremely silly. But if transfer budgets are always capped at £150m, it would make sense for Daemon_Rising's screen to display that 0% of further transfer revenue will be added to his budget, rather than the false 100% displayed.

[CMdan44]

I'm sure i've had a higher budget than £150M before (?)

but anyway i'm with the OP, this is ridiculous. yes, it's true that there is no real need for such a high budget but if you've got £150M and someone gives you a further £30M then you have £180M, not £150M, right? I'm pretty sure even my GCSE maths qualifies me to work that out. even if the budget is limited at £150M then any extra funds made from selling players should be added when the budget drops below that limit, rather than the manager never seeing the money when it has been promised to him.

[Herter]

I'm sure i've had a higher budget than £150M before (?)

but anyway i'm with the OP, this is ridiculous. yes, it's true that there is no real need for such a high budget but if you've got £150M and someone gives you a further £30M then you have £180M, not £150M, right? I'm pretty sure even my GCSE maths qualifies me to work that out. even if the budget is limited at £150M then any extra funds made from selling players should be added when the budget drops below that limit, rather than the manager never seeing the money when it has been promised to him.

The money doesnt dissappear.. it is added to the balance. It has nothing to do with math.. it is a simple bug which has probably the lowest possible priority for SI and rightly so. Hopefully SI will fix this, but do not expect it.. other things are much more important.

[Jason24]

If budgets are artificially capped, then it is a really bad thing imo. Nowadays we do see teams spending that kind of money, why should FM decide that you shouldn't have more? And do some people just defend S.I no matter what? How is it justifiable? Also I'm sure i've had a situation in the past where i've had 200 million to spend on the 30th june, then july and it's back to the capped limit, where did the extra money go?

It's like when you couldn't offer more than 100million when the A.I teams could demand more, it's just silly. Why also can't you ask to spend a larger portion of your massive wage budget on an world class individual, if you've got a million in wages left why can't you offer Maradona a million for example.

And it's not a question of if it makes you a bad manager to spend big, it's just a different way. Tycoons want big players, sponsors, friendlies should pay massively more when you have them etc. It adds to the variety of the game and god know, it could use it.

[Daemon_Rising]

It is perspective. If you dont feel £150m is enough to spend in a single window your crazy

Sorry, £150 is indeed enough, but thats not the issue. The issue is that the game shouldnt be providing false information. If I had known the 71m was going into the club and not into the kitty, then I would have prolongued selling the players by a few days.

If you are having to spend £150M on two players then you are massively overspending. By the sounds of it you don't need to improve the team that much, given the success you say that you have had. Although it does sound strange why it's capped at £150M even after selling players, in previous saves my record budget was £180M after off-loading a few players.

I don't have to spend 150m on 2 players. However, if my budget says 100% is going into my kitty, I would like this to be accurate, instead of false.

[Herter]

If budgets are artificially capped, then it is a really bad thing imo. Nowadays we do see teams spending that kind of money, why should FM decide that you shouldn't have more? And do some people just defend S.I no matter what? How is it justifiable? Also I'm sure i've had a situation in the past where i've had 200 million to spend on the 30th june, then july and it's back to the capped limit, where did the extra money go?

What money? - its a transfer budget.. when the budget is reset in june the balance stays intact.. so the money is still there. And what defending of SI? - no one has defended SI.. just answered back to some overreacting people. This is a MINOR issue and should be treated as such

It's like when you couldn't offer more than 100million when the A.I teams could demand more, it's just silly. Why also can't you ask to spend a larger portion of your massive wage budget on an world class individual, if you've got a million in wages left why can't you offer Maradona a million for example.

You can transfer your transfer budget to wage budget and vice versa.

And it's not a question of if it makes you a bad manager to spend big, it's just a different way. Tycoons want big players, sponsors, friendlies should pay massively more when you have them etc. It adds to the variety of the game and god know, it could use it.

I agree that this is a issue that should be fixed, however it is such a small issue that is has a low priority so might take a while to get fixed.

[AcidBurn]

You can transfer your transfer budget to wage budget and vice versa.

I think he means weekly wages, Liverpool got taken over by a tycoon on my missus save so I copied her game and had a go with Liverpool. I got a huge offer accepted for Leo Messi but he wanted 270k a week I was £1.1 million under my wage budget but could offer no more than 225k a week no matter how much I transferred into wages.

The OP is right it does seem very strange if he gets no money from selling the players then surely the percentage of transfer fees kept should show as 0 percent and not 100.

[Herter]

I think he means weekly wages, Liverpool got taken over by a tycoon on my missus save so I copied her game and had a go with Liverpool. I got a huge offer accepted for Leo Messi but he wanted 270k a week I was £1.1 million under my wage budget but could offer no more than 225k a week no matter how much I transferred into wages.

The OP is right it does seem very strange if he gets no money from selling the players then surely the percentage of transfer fees kept should show as 0 percent and not 100.

I see.. misunderstood him then..

As several others have said it is possible to have a bigger transfer budget than 150m. As some has suggested the transfer budget was probably just reset after the "update-day".. But I think the limit should either be removed or set crazy high.. to avoid upset users (although I really cant see the big problem here..)

[Krald]

Can I just repeat, there is no injustice, there is no inflexible "cap" wasting your sales. The only way the OP's situation can happen is if he sold the players *before* the transfer budgets got re-assessed for the new season and it set it to the £150m maximum when it does *new* budgets. I have plenty of times sold players and had more than £150m to spend, it's just about timing, if I sell loads of players in december I will get those added to my budget and I will have until part way through next july to spend them. If I sell loads of players in june or july, when already capped, I will probably "waste" that as when I get the new budgets for the new season, I will lose whatever was added on top of that £150m.

So if your game is working correctly, it's purely down to you selling at the wrong time.

[Jason24]

I mean both wages and transfer. I haven't played the game in a while so I cant remember if you can bid more than 100 million in cash initially for a player but there was a time when that was the max even if you had a 2 trillion pound transfer kitty, which seemed daft, though not as nutty as the fact that A.I could respond to your bid by demanding say 114 million, which you could then bid. In other words they were able to go over the 100 million limit and you weren't.

As for wages, yes if are prudent and have a million in wages left and you think one player would make all the difference why couldn't you offer him a million? The money's there and could be taken up by offering wages to 20 left backs if you so wished. So it's crazy really and you cant even ask the chairmen to allow you to spend more of it on one player. Daft.

[Jason24]

Yes Krald that is how it is, but that's really crap. Sorry I cant sell you him now Mr Perez, becuase the money will disappear at Midnight on the first of july down a magical black hole, but if you hold on for a week then we can talk. It's not even an April tax year thing.

So crap.

[AcidBurn]

On my Sunderland save Real Madrid are stupidly rich so I saved it and retired and added another user as manager of Real, the transfer budget was £150 million so I sold Ronaldo for £5 million and my transfer budget went to £155 million. All it said was that the transfer budget was £150 million(£155 million remaining)

I doubt someone would miss that so it must be something in just his game.

[afced7]

It doesn't disappear, the transfer budget is made up from the money from the balance. Even if the transfer revenue isn't added to the transfer budget, it sti;ll goes into the clubs overall balance. There is no black hole, the tranfer budget and clubs balance are not two seperate pots of money.

[hrbfcrule]

On my Hampton & Richmond save I was given a budget of £148M. I sold a few players and it went up to £165M so I don't think £150M is a cap

[dafuge]

On my Sunderland save Real Madrid are stupidly rich so I saved it and retired and added another user as manager of Real, the transfer budget was £150 million so I sold Ronaldo for £5 million and my transfer budget went to £155 million. All it said was that the transfer budget was £150 million(£155 million remaining)

I doubt someone would miss that so it must be something in just his game.

My game at the moment has a budget of £150m with £151m remaining, either this cap is specific to Man Utd/his save game or he has mis-read it.

The transfer budget is the amount that the board originally allocated you to spend, the amount remaining may be above that if you have raised funds through transfers.

[Daemon_Rising]

Can I just repeat, there is no injustice, there is no inflexible "cap" wasting your sales. The only way the OP's situation can happen is if he sold the players *before* the transfer budgets got re-assessed for the new season and it set it to the £150m maximum when it does *new* budgets. I have plenty of times sold players and had more than £150m to spend, it's just about timing, if I sell loads of players in december I will get those added to my budget and I will have until part way through next july to spend them. If I sell loads of players in june or july, when already capped, I will probably "waste" that as when I get the new budgets for the new season, I will lose whatever was added on top of that £150m.

So if your game is working correctly, it's purely down to you selling at the wrong time.

I agree with this assessment the most. It does seem to be down to selling at "the wrong time". However, I would call it a major issue and not a minor issue.. Why? Because I was not informed of this by my board.

But the over-defending of SI becomes apparent in the accusatory tone of your post when you say "So if your game is working correctly, it's purely down to you selling at the wrong time"

No, it is not purely down to me selling at the wrong time. The game has given me no such information on what the right and wrong times are. My board has not told me how my finances work. Thus it is partly, not purely down to me selling at the wrong time. A huge proportion of blame rests squarely on the poor game dynamics simply not telling me that the above financial situation was in place.

I take issue with your use of the word purely, because it is not simply down to me selling at the wrong time. Had I known there was "wrong time" and a "right time", I surely wouldn't have done my transfers this way around.

However, your explanation remains a good one... just don't be so quick to say "all your fault" when there is a huge issue you ignore, which is the fact that my board havn't told me a thing.

Although I consider this financial model to be inaccurate on SI's part, personally, I would defend them so far as to say I could accept the current unrealistic financial model, if only it were explained in the game.

[Daemon_Rising]

I would just like to say that I am quite capable of playing the game with a 150m budget, or a 0 budget. Anyone who retorts along the lines of "You don't need 150 to be successful" is simply missing the point.

The point is that at the very top of the game, money and finances play a huge part. For these dynamics to be mis-represented by the game represent a huge flaw in SI's logic. A £70m+ misplacement of funds in any business, or mechanical representation of a business model (FM2010), is a major issue and not a minor issue, and should be treated as such.

[Krald]

Well it happens at the same time every year, the same time you set the budgets for a new season typically, which, admitedly if your only option is "win the title" then you are not given much of a warning of this time. You know about it now anyway, perhaps it could use being a bit more obvious for people who manage big teams, but for smaller teams it is indeed quite obvious about what time budgets both wage and transfer are assessed and re-done. Although admitedly, perhaps not obvious that it'd set it to a lower value than what you had. Yet, now you know, hence, it makes it fairly minor, you can account for it, it may annoy you, but you will get over it really.

[Daemon_Rising]

Well it happens at the same time every year, the same time you set the budgets for a new season typically, which, admitedly if your only option is "win the title" then you are not given much of a warning of this time. You know about it now anyway, perhaps it could use being a bit more obvious for people who manage big teams, but for smaller teams it is indeed quite obvious about what time budgets both wage and transfer are assessed and re-done. Although admitedly, perhaps not obvious that it'd set it to a lower value than what you had. Yet, now you know, hence, it makes it fairly minor, you can account for it, it may annoy you, but you will get over it really.

I do now know, indeed, and I won't be timing my transfers like this again

Also, I may never get over it! Been playing since 99-00 and this is probably the most annoyed I've ever been, apart from when I accidentally deleted my Farsley Celtic game save

[jackripper]

oh how i would love to a transfer budget of £1500!

times are hard with recession and all that...some people just simply dont understand..pfft

[aderow]

Its probably because united are in more debt than there is water in the channel....

[james170288]

Sounds like an over reaction to me...

Sounds like you wanted to play the game how it was never intended.. Get Man U sell all the players and buy your own 'dream team'.

Try starting another game and doing it, if it does the same thing then there is an issue of some kind.

But not many people are going to care if there is an issue with it. 150M is massive. I could make 3 good solid fun teams with that.

Who are you to see ay the game was never intended to be played this way. The beauty of the CM/FM series is that it gives the player freedom to play however they want. If I opted to play the way the OP wishes to play I would too be very annoyed.

[dafuge]

Who are you to see ay the game was never intended to be played this way. The beauty of the CM/FM series is that it gives the player freedom to play however they want. If I opted to play the way the OP wishes to play I would too be very annoyed.

There really is no argument here. The OP just needs to learn when to sell and buy players to make the most out of his transfer budgets, which I'm sure he's aware of now this topic has been discussed.

[AndyRich]

The problem here is that managers that want to make a difference in the game (such as yourself) by setting up a big club and then raising the profile of several smaller affiliated clubs cannot receive over £150million in the transfer budget.

There may be a way to edit the setting to take off this limit... im not sure, and i dont know how, although someone out there might know.

If not, then SI will need to look at this so that they can cater for a manager with bigger aspirations than one club, but the development of many. This is a great idea for an FM save and its a shame their is a limited amount.

Although, things in the game for normal fm players may seem terribly un-realistic if teams begin to make massive signings when they have only been in the premiership for a year or two. The limit is there to stop the budgets getting out of hand and becoming silly.

SI should find a way of programming the game so that there is no limit, and things dont get un-realistic with your club or the AI.

Simple, so stop arguing, and contact a member of the SI team, there are many of them on here

Andy

[nev147]

I have read through the posts....I must be missing something! lol Daemon had £150m in terms of the transfer budget....the % of trasfer revenue made available was 100% and he has sold players to the value of £71m....so from my experiences the budget should now be £221m. I don't know why people are questionning the OP and how he play's his game and everything else that has been said, becasue that is irrelevant. The OP believes his transfer budget should be increased accordingly and for me he is correct. In all my experiences in similar situations then my budget has been increased - so the OP is asking the question why would this happen? And all he gets is a load of abuse? This seems to happen in alot of threads!

[Daemon_Rising]

There really is no argument here. The OP just needs to learn when to sell and buy players to make the most out of his transfer budgets, which I'm sure he's aware of now this topic has been discussed.

The whole tone here is quite sad. "The OP just needs to learn"

What happened to FM being in depth, and actually letting you aware of the information beforehand instead of the situation only becoming apparent after a mistake. The fact remains that the information given to me in game was WRONG. This cannot be disputed. You say "needs to learn" as if its actually possible to learn this "right" and "wrong" information somewhere in the game? As far as I can tell the only way to "learn" it, is to first make a mistake, which then makes you realise the games information is wrong.

Please dafuge, tell me any other way it is possible to learn that there are "right times" and "wrong times" to sell... without coming in the forums. The game itself doesnt have this capacity for learning that you speak of. No, first you have to make a huge mistake. The fact also remains that IRL, a manager would have his clubs financial situation adequately explained to him beforehand.. this situation has arisen due to the casual information given by the game to the player. The figures of 0% and 100% couldn't be more different, and I was given the opposite information to that which is true.

You do however make one excellent point, which is that

I'm sure he's aware of now this topic has been discussed.

See, this is the only way to find this information out, isn't it.. by discussing the topic on a forum. The game simply isn't giving the correct information on the screen, and there is no way to become aware of this info in the game without making a mistake first.

The last person I would want to clash with here is you Dafuge... but come on. The game isn't perfect so why are so many people trying to pretend it is... the game got it wrong in this one tiny instance, and all I have done is point that out.

Please do not try and make out it is possible to do this learning in the game, because it isn't possible without first making a huge financial error, brought about by incorrect in-game info.

[BurakUeda]

Entertaining thread

In my current save, board built a new stadium and went 200+M debt.

In start of the season, board decided the season expectation to "Winning the title" and capped the transfer budget to 49M unilaterally, without asking me.

Maybe the reason is a large debt?

[Gandy]

If this ruins your game then I dont hope you've experienced any REAL bugs.

Back on track.. make a post about this in the bugs forums and keep playing the game and remember.. have fun with it instead of this I'm-a-10-year-old-spoiled-girl behaviour.

My words exactly. Grow up mate. People have offered help, use it. Or just invest in £150M of youth, instead of £221M.

[Daemon_Rising]

My words exactly. Grow up mate. People have offered help, use it. Or just invest in £150M of youth, instead of £221M.

People have offered abuse, without acknowledging the games error. There is much immaturity being banded about in this page, and I have simply pointed this out.

If you can't see this, then I do sympathise with you. But Instead of telling me to grow up, I would first take a look at the other abusive posts that have been directed my way.

Take a look.. go see. If you still can't see, then I would suggest that it is you he needs to "Grow up mate".

Its funny how you decide to contribute... without saying anything useful at all, other than another attack on my person. This is the very definition of immaturity. Can't you people help yourselves.. must you just hurl abuse around to make yourselves feel better? That is really quite sad, Gandy, if that is the case for you too.

Have a good day.

[Gandy]

Something useful? Go and use genie scout (which I know you do, and I’m not having a go about it either) and find out exactly how much you need to spend. People would have been more than happy to help you if you hadn’t been so defiant that you should have gotten £221M instead of £150M. Someone then told you that the limit is £150M (which I am not entirely sure about), so you decided to complain about this. I can see how you would be peeved after selling £71M worth of players and not being able to spend the money, but I agree with the majority of people here, that £150M is enough to fill a team of world-class-ish players, and enough to fill three youth teams, as you stated you wanted to invest in.

I can see where you’re coming and from, and perhaps telling you to ‘grow up mate’ (something I’ve been raised on aha) was a bit harsh, but it is only a game, it is only a minor problem, that you have said doesn’t even effect you, isn’t it just more ‘mature’ to leave it, as there is no explanation? Perhaps as one poster suggested, put it in the bugs forum and get SI to have a look at it.

Oh, and by the way, my biggest post yet ^^

[Daemon_Rising]

The point has never been whether 150m is enough, and some people just can't seem to grasp that concept.

The point is that the game is giving incorrect information, which it is.

I can't understand what is so difficult about this concept. I rarely play Premier League game saves... and now that I am 9 seasons into this game save, I come accross the glaring error which is a mis-representation of facts within the game. I bring this up, and all I get is people telling me to "stop playing the game the wrong way" and that "150m is enough".

I would agree, 150m is enough but thats not the point.... some people need to be spoon-fed everything.. some people can't read between the lines. I'm not saying this is you Gandy, but others. The point remains that the game has mis-represented the facts and figures.

I have 150m, and I have no doubt I will continue to win trophies, as playing as Man Utd is easy, as we all know. So the point isn't whether I need this money. The point is that the game should offer its information to you in a clearer way. ALso, as explained way above in this thread, I was simply asking the question "Is this a design of the game, or is it a bug?" before I posted in the bugs forum.

Since many people are telling me that there is supposed to be a 150m cap, it may be a bug but it just seems like a poorly implemented feature to me. Frankly, noody seems to know.

Yes, I also do use genie scout to look at my own players CA's and PA's once I have purchased them, not for anything else, I don't really like to know how much I have to pay for a player by looking at the genie scout info. But I guess the way I use it would still be frowned upon by many.. I just like to know what my players true potential are.

[BurakUeda]

Since there are other people exceeding 150M by selling players, I don't think there is a 150M hard-coded cap on transfer budget.

There must be something related to your board and finances.

If the game(your board) didn't tell you why, I say it falls to "needs improvement" group rather than a bug.

Game has many places like that. Gives you a problem, but no option to solve it(i.e. Player having personal problems, not settled, bad relations with other players etc.)

[Ryknow]

Is this just a first season issue? Cause atm my transfer budget is £166mil and I had it up to £212mil before.

If you are first season I doubt Man Utd would give a transfer kitty of £221mil to a new manager.

[Daemon_Rising]

Since there are other people exceeding 150M by selling players, I don't think there is a 150M hard-coded cap on transfer budget.

There must be something related to your board and finances.

If the game (your board) didn't tell you why, I say it falls to "needs improvement" group rather than a bug.

I agree with this... avoiding the bugs forum because I don't necessarily think its a bug, just a feature that needs to be better managed in the game.

[dafuge]

Please do not try and make out it is possible to do this learning in the game, because it isn't possible without first making a huge financial error, brought about by incorrect in-game info.

I see your point, but I've always thought that the recalculating of the transfer budgets for the new season is something that people will pick up once they have played more than one season. Perhaps it isn't clear enough that those budgets and revenue percentages only apply within the season you are playing and making transfers either side of this new budget can cause the sorts of problems you are experiencing.

The information you were given was correct, but only for the current season. Things change as soon as you start a new one.

[Daemon_Rising]

I see your point, but I've always thought that the recalculating of the transfer budgets for the new season is something that people will pick up once they have played more than one season. Perhaps it isn't clear enough that those budgets and revenue percentages only apply within the season you are playing and making transfers either side of this new budget can cause the sorts of problems you are experiencing.

The information you were given was correct, but only for the current season. Things change as soon as you start a new one.

I see your point. The point in the season where it becomes the next season, and ceases to be the old season seem to have been what has caused the confusion for me.

[dafuge]

I see your point. The point in the season where it becomes the next season, and ceases to be the old season seem to have been what has caused the confusion for me.

Yes, that is it. The £150m cap only applies to new transfer budgets, once this has been set you can add to it by selling players.

I'm guessing you just got a bit unlucky with the timing of your transfers and the new budget being set, which left you with a lot less than you thought you had. Just like in real life, you really need to get all your business done before new budgets are announced.

[MUFC95]

just use fmrte if ur that bothered!! ffs

[Daemon_Rising]

just use fmrte if ur that bothered!! ffs

some people don't use fmrte!! ffs

[Krald]

The thing is, most people will actually - you know, use that budget up in the season prior, and the problem of going over would be near impossible for them. You hoarded, you sold more, and now you're whining about something that's a minor issue, do you now think people will take offence?. Also a lot of people will just play the game, realise they get a new budget each season, and realise that could be adjusted either up or down, hence try to buy in advance if they want to "use it up". So It is a minor issue, it is one that'll come up rarely, it is also not a big deal at all as no club really needs to spend that much anyway. It's just logical to assume that when the new budget comes in it can go either up or down depending upon your finances and your success-level. It might not be logical perhaps to assume it'd be capped, so you are right to feel somewhat wronged, yet you argue so vehemently for reasons I do not understand.

Or is that your game? trolling a reaction out of people.

[Neji]

I've closed this now as I think dafuge has tied it up pretty neatly.