Is the Tranfer system abit of Joke in FM 2010?

[Badass_]

Yes its just one example but this is what I experience ALL the time.

What are you doing different?

What am I doing different? Me and thousands of other users mind you.

You must be a better player then all of us then...

btw what's the longest save you had in fm2010?

[Cougar2010]

I'm not having a go, I'm simply trying to understand why you experience something different to me.

[Badass_]

I'm not having a go, I'm simply trying to understand why you experience something different to me.

but it's not ME cougar, it's a lot of people. That's why this is about the 3rd thread on this subject.

Just to give you an example, I remember buying a russian 19 year old from a russian club many many many seasons ago, and he went to became the best player I have ever had.

And the club would only sell him to me for 69mil.

Now, even if a player has the potential to become the next c.ronaldo, should the price being asked for him be close to what c ronaldo was sold for at his peak!?!?!?

And no, the russian club wasn't rich for sure.

[Rista]

Well the example of vdV in game for me is one of Real constantly selling him for around £7.5m in the first season as he starts unwanted and on the transfer list. I've never seen him go for £10m never mind the £30m you're quoting. Inreal life he's just moved to Tottenham for the ver similar figure of £8m. And as regards him being top class or not because he wasn't getting games at Real, that is more a case of Real having too many attacking players and using their shiny new toys than vdV not being top class (personally I wish Man Utd went in for him, we really need a midlfielder of his calibre). A more convincing arguement would be seeing proof that an AI to AI transfer of a 130 CA player went through for the £30m you're talking about.

Why does it have to be an AI to AI transfer for it to be a convincing argument though? The fact that you see VDV go for around his actual value is not surprising at all if he is transfer listed. Transfer listed players in FM are much, very often 4+ times cheaper. Inter wanted 57m from me for Balotelli. I got him for 15m the next season when he was transfer listed by request.

As for:

I've never seen him go for £10m never mind the £30m you're quoting

First offer 15m

20m. Now they want 38m PLUS Nani

After some negotiating, this is what they will settle for:

Again, I am not saying this actually proves the transfer system is broken, it's just an example.

[Brian Shanahan]

Why does it have to be an AI to AI transfer for it to be a convincing argument though? The fact that you see VDV go for around his actual value is not surprising at all if he is transfer listed. Transfer listed players in FM are much, very often 4+ times cheaper. Inter wanted 57m from me for Balotelli. I got him for 15m the next season when he was transfer listed by request.

Because any AI/human interaction is going to be a lot different than AI to AI interaction, an AI run club told a price of £80m in a working system for an average player would just go out and buy someone a lot cheaper. I would be very suprised if this were not the case. While Ai purchasing can be very stupid at times, e.g. going out and buying 4 top AMCs when you only play DMs, or splashing the cash on a top prospect and then letting him go on a free 3 years later, I have never seen a club pay over the odds for an average player (well according to the game, seen a lot of what I'd consider averge players move to top clubs) in any of the saves I've started in FM09 or FM10.

On the vdV issue, I'd forgotten his status was changed from not needed to important first team player in the 10.3 patch (due to his real life importance to Real last season). It's an example of you paying for a player who's well regarded by his club and is in the top 1% of midfielders in the game (going by stats), personally I would want £30m if I were the selling club.

[grade]

Been looking through this thread and some interesting discussions going on. However from an SI perspective, essentially teams asking for what can be classed as 'silly money' is basically the AI telling the user or other AI club they don't want to sell. If they really really don't want to sell then they'll put up some ridiculous asking price which only a fool would state as being financially viable. Should it really be easy for both other AI clubs and users to build their teams that easily? Should the AI not have the opportunity to say 'no' even if he could take the money to do something else with it? I saw someone earlier mention Pique for around £40m - do Barcelona really need money? Or would they rather keep one of the best CB's in the world who's settled at their club and has no desire to move?

Occasionally when a team really really doesn't want to sell, a team with more money than sense will pay a crazy amount to sign him - ie Cristiano Ronaldo. It does occasionally happen, if a team has that much money then if they're THAT desperate they'll spend it. But then, if a team has valued a player at a extortionate amount and you still pay it, then surely you can see why they valued him that high right? I mean, you did pay the money yourself to sign him, so to you his is worth that.

If this is so, then can you explain to me, what is the point of having price on the players?

[GIBURROWS]

Does anyone else's players seem to be undervalued, I just won the Premiership with Sheff Utd and my two main midfielders are still worth £6 and £5.5 million yet other teams players are worth tons more, do wages come into it at all or club stature as it is only my third or fourth season in the Premiership, I keep getting bids for the player value off of the big boys and it is killing me.

[philly_flyer10]

Been looking through this thread and some interesting discussions going on. However from an SI perspective, essentially teams asking for what can be classed as 'silly money' is basically the AI telling the user or other AI club they don't want to sell. If they really really don't want to sell then they'll put up some ridiculous asking price which only a fool would state as being financially viable. Should it really be easy for both other AI clubs and users to build their teams that easily? Should the AI not have the opportunity to say 'no' even if he could take the money to do something else with it? I saw someone earlier mention Pique for around £40m - do Barcelona really need money? Or would they rather keep one of the best CB's in the world who's settled at their club and has no desire to move?

Occasionally when a team really really doesn't want to sell, a team with more money than sense will pay a crazy amount to sign him - ie Cristiano Ronaldo. It does occasionally happen, if a team has that much money then if they're THAT desperate they'll spend it. But then, if a team has valued a player at a extortionate amount and you still pay it, then surely you can see why they valued him that high right? I mean, you did pay the money yourself to sign him, so to you his is worth that.

Its worth it with players like Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney, Aguero etc but there are 40-50 players worth over 80m in my games including a 36 year old goalie.

I bought Aguero for 59m, Gallas is worth more according to the game, something is wrong. Good but not great players need their asking prices toned down especially when theyre at a top 10 club in the world.

[Rista]

Because any AI/human interaction is going to be a lot different than AI to AI interaction, an AI run club told a price of £80m in a working system for an average player would just go out and buy someone a lot cheaper. I would be very suprised if this were not the case. While Ai purchasing can be very stupid at times, e.g. going out and buying 4 top AMCs when you only play DMs, or splashing the cash on a top prospect and then letting him go on a free 3 years later, I have never seen a club pay over the odds for an average player (well according to the game, seen a lot of what I'd consider averge players move to top clubs) in any of the saves I've started in FM09 or FM10.

That's all true, but FM is (mostly) a singleplayer game so the human/AI interaction is quite important. I haven't seen many huge fee AI to AI transfers in my game but then again, I don't actually see many big name transfers either.

I'm on 10.3 and VDV's squad status is 'used in a squad rotation system'. If he was a key player for them, I could understand them not wanting to sell or asking big money. Even those 30m are not that bad compared to some other examples where a mid table club want 50-60m for their good but not a world beater fullback. The fact that he is an important player to them should drive the price up but not up to that point imo.

[TSH]

That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm suggesting that a lot of human FM players (including myself) will carry on increasing their bids beyond the point that a real life manager would. We are happy to pay way over the odds for a player but the AI tends not to, they are more than happy to pull out of a deal.

I'm not trying to deny that these values exist or that they are realistic, I'm just suggesting that we should accept them as a 'hands off' rather than a realistic transfer proposition and consider looking elsewhere or waiting and trying a new approach.

I am sorry but I really don't get this. Why should I accept as "hands off" a negotiation that is taking place?

I want a player, his team comes back with an unrealistic offer and then I pull out. Why would that be considered the fault of the player (for failing to realize that the player is in a hands off state) and not the fault of the game (for failing to react in a realistic manner?)

If a team has decided to keep a player no matter what, then I should be informed with a message "this player is not for sale at any price. He is our leader, our flag and we need him", or something along these lines.

In reality though, how many players bring to their team as much as Messi does, football and commercial wise? Very, very few. That is why the Messis, the Ronaldos, the Kakas, the Ronaldinhos and the Rooneys of this world are so rare.

In FM this isn't reflected. Every good and well known player in the FM world can be bought only by spending ridiculous amounts of money. This has been like this for many years in the series and people who defend this are, quite frankly, completely ignorant.

If an FM team doesn't want to sell the player, simply state it. "HE IS NOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE". How difficult is that? Why come back with unrealistic amounts of money? Why initiate a false and completely unrealistic negotiation?

Then if a player counters with 80m for an 20m player, have the board block his offer. The board should tell the player that they are not prepared to pay such an overprice. It's bad business and, of course, unrealistic. Also, make it more difficult to acquire money. Very -VERY- few teams in the world spend vast amounts of money to buy players. In FM it's very easy to acquire money, while at the same time the board is very easy to give them to you. Wrong, false and unrealistic.

On the other hand, as I said before, very few players are NOT for sale. Most of them are. So if a player costs 10m and you offer 20m you should be quite close in buying him. Other factors should play a part in the deal, too. Not so much though that they could rise the fee to 40m, maybe 25m.

There are many solutions -MANY- solutions to fix the idiotic transfer system, practical and aesthetic ones. SI has never bothered to think this properly though, in my opinion of course.

[dafuge]

I am sorry but I really don't get this. Why should I accept as "hands off" a negotiation that is taking place?

I want a player, his team comes back with an unrealistic offer and then I pull out. Why would that be considered the fault of the player (for failing to realize that the player is in a hands off state) and not the fault of the game (for failing to react in a realistic manner?)

If a team has decided to keep a player no matter what, then I should be informed with a message "this player is not for sale at any price. He is our leader, our flag and we need him", or something along these lines.

Because the amount they have come back with is totally unacceptable, making it pretty clear that you are unlikely to be able to sign that player without spending an insane amount of money. Obviously if you are happy to pay that amount then it isn't a 'hands off'.

I was referring to the type of offer described in the OP, where he bid £50m 'just to see what happened'. I may be wrong but this seems to be the time when the clubs come back with the silly amounts, obviously if clubs are requesting silly amounts in response to sensible bids then this isn't so relevant.

That was actually what the game used to do, but changed with the 'every player has his price' attitude that seems to be in football now. I actually prefer the old method but it was criticised, just like this one has been.

[ashbag]

The only thing I see wrong with the argument that "They don't want to sell him but if your crazy enough for big money bids then you can have him. Or they keep the player. Win - win situation." is that amounts like 25 million is big money. Not many teams are willing to part with that kind of money for a good top level player. But teams will ask for 50 million for a good top level play. 30 - 40 million is good for top class player. Anything above that should only be reserved for the very best.

[john.sprehe]

The only thing I see wrong with the argument that "They don't want to sell him but if your crazy enough for big money bids then you can have him. Or they keep the player. Win - win situation." is that amounts like 25 million is big money. Not many teams are willing to part with that kind of money for a good top level player. But teams will ask for 50 million for a good top level play. 30 - 40 million is good for top class player. Anything above that should only be reserved for the very best.

Yeah that's my problem with the transfer system. Don't disagree that the best players on the richest clubs should be super expensive. There just seem to be way too many players priced over $20m.

[CaptainPlanet]

Been looking through this thread and some interesting discussions going on. However from an SI perspective, essentially teams asking for what can be classed as 'silly money' is basically the AI telling the user or other AI club they don't want to sell. If they really really don't want to sell then they'll put up some ridiculous asking price which only a fool would state as being financially viable. Should it really be easy for both other AI clubs and users to build their teams that easily? Should the AI not have the opportunity to say 'no' even if he could take the money to do something else with it? I saw someone earlier mention Pique for around £40m - do Barcelona really need money? Or would they rather keep one of the best CB's in the world who's settled at their club and has no desire to move?

Occasionally when a team really really doesn't want to sell, a team with more money than sense will pay a crazy amount to sign him - ie Cristiano Ronaldo. It does occasionally happen, if a team has that much money then if they're THAT desperate they'll spend it. But then, if a team has valued a player at a extortionate amount and you still pay it, then surely you can see why they valued him that high right? I mean, you did pay the money yourself to sign him, so to you his is worth that.

There are far too many examples of transfers that would happen in real life that wouldn't happen in FM for the current system to be justified. If the club isn't selling no matter the price, then just say no, if they are willing to accept a stupidly high bid have it a realistic stupidly high one.

Another example of the listing price against realistic asking price - Ronaldo was bought for £90m, therefore he is worth £90m, yet after one awesome season in game he is now only worth £35m because of the game's "capped" maximum player value.

To suggest that Messi is worth £35m in any sense of realism is just wrong, wrong wrong wrong.

[Badass_]

I was referring to the type of offer described in the OP, where he bid £50m 'just to see what happened'. I may be wrong but this seems to be the time when the clubs come back with the silly amounts, obviously if clubs are requesting silly amounts in response to sensible bids then this isn't so relevant.

You are wrong indeed. I'm actually quite surprised that you say something like having played for so long. It's a very common occurrence for clubs to come back with silly amounts after you bid the exat value of the player or a bit more then that...you don't need to initially bid a crazy amount for them to come back with an even crazier amount.

[AcidBurn]

You are wrong indeed. I'm actually quite surprised that you say something like having played for so long. It's a very common occurrence for clubs to come back with silly amounts after you bid the exat value of the player or a bit more then that...you don't need to initially bid a crazy amount for them to come back with an even crazier amount.

Just wondering do you reject out right or tell the AI a huge fee when they bid for your players?

[RichN987]

Yeah the system is annoying, but flawed? I'm not so sure. If I'm going for a good player then I expect a big transfer payment to secure his services. After all, most of the players I sign come from mid-table clubs or similar reputation clubs (good prospects). They need the money from the sale to buy a replacement as much as I would need the money if I sold a star. It's this motive, focusing purely on football anyway, that drive the prices up.

[celebritykiller]

The problem on the whole is the actual player value more than the asking price (although I agree some asking prices are too high)

e.g. IIRC Milner can be bough for around 25 million at game start, but is valued at 6 million. His value in game then should be 25 million not 6 million (when do we here "club X bid 25 million for 6 million rated player Y" IRL?).

All these arbitrary reputation/ability based player values should be removed completely, with a value attached and updated only after one of the 4 scenarios:

a) you scout the player

b) the club negotiates a price (or offers the player out)

c) via transfer rumours/public bids made by other clubs

d) via agents

So in a sense it will work like the fog of war on stats, but be much closer to the sale value.

[charlo116]

Why should he have to take a screenshot? Do you think he's lying? Do you think there are three pages worth of discussion because other people are making this problem up too?

Poor form.

i have never seen the ai ask for 50m for an average player, he has so i just want to see it so i know it happens. I'm not accusing him of lieing and its a bit different to people making up the problem. If you'd read any of this thread you would realise its not about people claiming the ai doesn't ask for a lot but instead I'm arguing that people don't know how to deal with th AI asking for a lot. Once you read the majority of the thread then come back and post.

[CaptainPlanet]

All these arbitrary reputation/ability based player values should be removed completely, with a value attached and updated only after one of the 4 scenarios:

a) you scout the player

b) the club negotiates a price (or offers the player out)

c) via transfer rumours/public bids made by other clubs

d) via agents

So in a sense it will work like the fog of war on stats, but be much closer to the sale value.

100% agree.

[charlo116]

The problem on the whole is the actual player value more than the asking price (although I agree some asking prices are too high)

e.g. IIRC Milner can be bough for around 25 million at game start, but is valued at 6 million. His value in game then should be 25 million not 6 million (when do we here "club X bid 25 million for 6 million rated player Y" IRL?).

All these arbitrary reputation/ability based player values should be removed completely, with a value attached and updated only after one of the 4 scenarios:

a) you scout the player

b) the club negotiates a price (or offers the player out)

c) via transfer rumours/public bids made by other clubs

d) via agents

So in a sense it will work like the fog of war on stats, but be much closer to the sale value.

I agree with this as well, i think the player values are confusing a few people as its not actually meant to be a sale value or have anything to do with a sale value so it should be changed/removed.

[dafuge]

You are wrong indeed. I'm actually quite surprised that you say something like having played for so long. It's a very common occurrence for clubs to come back with silly amounts after you bid the exat value of the player or a bit more then that...you don't need to initially bid a crazy amount for them to come back with an even crazier amount.

I was just going on the example in the OP, fair enough if it is also happening when bidding the value of the player. I've only seen it a few times in my game and it has always happened when I have been putting in really big bids that are way over their 'value'.

Is there an example of a player on the 10.3 database where I could look at this?

[dafuge]

Just run a little experiment with my game to test out these asking prices. I've picked out the ten most valuable players in the world and the top ten under 25s with a value of less that £10m, which I hoped would represent the sorts of players that are being discussed. I should add that all my players are regens now.

Firtsly, I bid the 'value' on every player. Every bid was rejected with the exception of one which was accepted due to a minimum release clause.

I then tried bidding exactly double the 'value'. Two minimum release clauses were activated, two chairman accepted and one came back with an asking price of around three times his value, the others were all rejected. The negotiation came from the most valuable player at Juventus.

Then I tried three times the 'value'. I got six rejections, three straight accepts, two minimum release fees, four chairman accepting and five negotiations, one of which was only slightly more taking it close to a minimum release fee. Of the four negotiations left, the values ranged from between four and six times their value, but they were all top class players from top clubs.

Obviously this was just a quick experiment and it probably says more about the 'values' and what we consider to be a realistic bid, but are there any alterations I could make to see these negotiations happening nearer to the value as has been suggested?

[TSH]

Obviously this was just a quick experiment and it probably says more about the 'values' and what we consider to be a realistic bid, but are there any alterations I could make to see these negotiations happening nearer to the value as has been suggested?

Alterations? Yeah, I can think of one actually.

How about dropping a line to SI and ask them to fix the system?

[Badass_]

Just run a little experiment with my game to test out these asking prices. I've picked out the ten most valuable players in the world and the top ten under 25s with a value of less that £10m, which I hoped would represent the sorts of players that are being discussed. I should add that all my players are regens now.

Firtsly, I bid the 'value' on every player. Every bid was rejected with the exception of one which was accepted due to a minimum release clause.

I then tried bidding exactly double the 'value'. Two minimum release clauses were activated, two chairman accepted and one came back with an asking price of around three times his value, the others were all rejected. The negotiation came from the most valuable player at Juventus.

Then I tried three times the 'value'. I got six rejections, three straight accepts, two minimum release fees, four chairman accepting and five negotiations, one of which was only slightly more taking it close to a minimum release fee. Of the four negotiations left, the values ranged from between four and six times their value, but they were all top class players from top clubs.

Obviously this was just a quick experiment and it probably says more about the 'values' and what we consider to be a realistic bid, but are there any alterations I could make to see these negotiations happening nearer to the value as has been suggested?

This guy, he's amazing and he's a wonderkid. I don't now what was his value initially but he was bought for 17mil by ac milan as you can see in the pic. Fast foward to one year later and I had to pay 83 mil for him. I started by bidding his value. Then double. Then 3 times his value....I had to settle for 83 mil , they woudn't accept anything below that. I know, he was just bought my ac milan but 83 mil for a player "valued" at 17mil? And as you can see, I didn't start with a huge bid.

[Cougar2010]

This guy, he's amazing and he's a wonderkid. I don't now what was his value initially but he was bought for 17mil by ac milan as you can see in the pic. Fast foward to one year later and I had to pay 83 mil for him. I started by bidding his value. Then double. Then 3 times his value....I had to settle for 83 mil , they woudn't accept anything below that. I know, he was just bought my ac milan but 83 mil for a player "valued" at 17mil? And as you can see, I didn't start with a huge bid.

You need to ask yourself why should they sell you that player.

I presume AC Milan are still a top Italian club challenging for the title in Serie A & regular European contenders.

Do they need the money?

Was the player on a long contract?

Was he happy at AC Milan?

Why do you feel you have the right to buy that player and what can you offer him that AC Milan can't?

[charlo116]

This guy, he's amazing and he's a wonderkid. I don't now what was his value initially but he was bought for 17mil by ac milan as you can see in the pic. Fast foward to one year later and I had to pay 83 mil for him. I started by bidding his value. Then double. Then 3 times his value....I had to settle for 83 mil , they woudn't accept anything below that. I know, he was just bought my ac milan but 83 mil for a player "valued" at 17mil? And as you can see, I didn't start with a huge bid.

But as has been stated a few times already, value has nothing to do with sale value so to compare the two is pointless.

[Badass_]

But as has been stated a few times already, value has nothing to do with sale value so to compare the two is pointless.

Regardless of that, 83 mil for a wonderkid?

Do I need to remind you that c ronaldo was sold for 80 mil at his peak?

[Badass_]

You need to ask yourself why should they sell you that player.

I presume AC Milan are still a top Italian club challenging for the title in Serie A & regular European contenders.

Do they need the money?

Was the player on a long contract?

Was he happy at AC Milan?

Why do you feel you have the right to buy that player and what can you offer him that AC Milan can't?

If they need to sell the player or not is not the point. The point is they sold a wonderkid for 83 million and would not sell him for less when in real life, milan would sell a so called wonderkid at best by 40mil. And that's a stretch.

Look at Balotelli for instance. He's a wonderkid and inter sold him for £24 million. Not 40, not 50, not 60, not 70 and certainly not for 83 mil.

[dafuge]

This guy, he's amazing and he's a wonderkid. I don't now what was his value initially but he was bought for 17mil by ac milan as you can see in the pic. Fast foward to one year later and I had to pay 83 mil for him. I started by bidding his value. Then double. Then 3 times his value....I had to settle for 83 mil , they woudn't accept anything below that. I know, he was just bought my ac milan but 83 mil for a player "valued" at 17mil? And as you can see, I didn't start with a huge bid.

What was the value that you bid that made them change from rejecting it to asking for a huge sum like £83m? Was it a realistic bid to be making for a youngster who had just transferred for £17.25m?

[Badass_]

What was the value that you bid that made them change from rejecting it to asking for a huge sum like £83m? Was it a realistic bid to be making for a youngster who had just transferred for £17.25m?

they were constantly asking for more then 100mil and as I went up they went down...This was just to show you that you don't need to make a huge bid for the club to come up with a huge counter-offer

[dafuge]

they were constantly asking for more then 100mil and as I went up they went down...This was just to show you that you don't need to make a huge bid for the club to come up with a huge counter-offer

So they asked for £100m+ when you bid £17m, they didn't ever reject it?

[Badass_]

So they asked for £100m+ when you bid £17m, they didn't ever reject it?

They probably started asking for 100 mil after I bid twice the player's value..

[THE RATED X SUPERSTAR]

OMG I had to buy Toni Kroos for 92M

I know Reckless Spending

[dafuge]

They probably started asking for 100 mil after I bid twice the player's value..

Is that probably or definitely?

Either way it opens up the debate over whether £34.5m is a realistic bid to be making for a youngster with just 24 league appearances, especially since Rooney had made 67.

Sorry if it seems like I'm hassling you, but I'm keen to test out my theory as the quick test I did earlier didn't really show me it happening. I'd be keen to hear of any examples that I can try for myself, even if it is to just open up a debate on what should be considered realistic bids. It could explain why some people are seeing this as a big problem and some aren't.

[Badass_]

Is that probably or definitely?

Either way it opens up the debate over whether £34.5m is a realistic bid to be making for a youngster with just 24 league appearances, especially since Rooney had made 67.

Sorry if it seems like I'm hassling you, but I'm keen to test out my theory as the quick test I did earlier didn't really show me it happening. I'd be keen to hear of any examples that I can try for myself, even if it is to just open up a debate on what should be considered realistic bids. It could explain why some people are seeing this as a big problem and some aren't.

This is fm, not real life, so I obviously coudn't care less how many games he had played when he looks like this.

I don't understand what's the point in determining if 34.5m is a realistic bid for a youngster with 24 league appearances. the fact of the matter is they would only settle for 83mil regardless of what kind of bid I made.

[dafuge]

My theory was that the unrealistic asking prices only occurred when humans made unrealistic bids, it makes complaining about the lack of realism a little hypocritical.

My whole argument has been based on us playing this as a game (not realistically) but expecting it to react realistically, I'm just suggesting that it is our actions that are causing these asking prices.

Of course, I'm still open to this theory being blown out of the water

[Cougar2010]

If they need to sell the player or not is not the point. The point is they sold a wonderkid for 83 million and would not sell him for less when in real life, milan would sell a so called wonderkid at best by 40mil. And that's a stretch.

Look at Balotelli for instance. He's a wonderkid and inter sold him for £24 million. Not 40, not 50, not 60, not 70 and certainly not for 83 mil.

I understand your point and agree that wouldn't happen in the real world but the reason it wouldn't is because your approach to transfers is different to a manger in RL. I also believe from reading your posts that you are failing to understand and communicate effectively with the AI when it comes to transfers.

I'll deal with the Balotelli comment now so I don't forget. His price was £24m + £5m in clauses if you believe the media but if Balotelli hadn't expressed a desire to leave/join Man City would the transfer had happened at all?

Anyway back to your transfer, I'll apologise in advance if my comments come across a bit blunt but I want them to be clear.

A) Once you found the player you should recognise that he is already at a top European club with a high rep so signing him is far from guaranteed. The level of football you are offering and the wages you can pay will be very similar to what he already has at AC Milan. You also have to consider his personality, in particular his loyalty & ambition. The higher his ambition and lower his loyalty the more likely he is to be interested in a move - remember he has only been there one year.

B) This is where your scouts come in, did they say he was available? if so at what price? If the scouts are saying not available this is the point you need to either look at other players or make more effort to sign him so he has a reason to move. Try to unsettle him, talk to the media, praise the player.

C) The area I suspect you have the most trouble with - Money doesn't talk in the game the same way it does in RL. The AI isn't human and can only follow the instructions set out in the code. It doesn't see £ signs and can't be tempted like a manager/board can in RL by waving money at them. You need to tempt the AI in other ways so that the price drops.

D) When the AI quotes £83m it doesn't expect you paying it, it expects you to go away. The reason it quotes a figure is because people like yourself have complained in the past that the AI shouldn't say "Not for sale at any price".

E) Before you sign any player you should be able to give a reason why the transfer should happen and money shouldn't be an answer. eg Higher level of football (Better league, bigger club, continental football), player is unhappy where he is (lack of football, wants a new challenge, fallen out with manager/teammates, wants to play at a higher level), his contract only has a short time left on it (less than two years). If you can't give any of those reasons then expect to be quoted a high price when you ask.

[Cougar2010]

My theory was that the unrealistic asking prices only occurred when humans made unrealistic bids, it makes complaining about the lack of realism a little hypocritical.

My whole argument has been based on us playing this as a game (not realistically) but expecting it to react realistically, I'm just suggesting that it is our actions that are causing these asking prices.

Of course, I'm still open to this theory being blown out of the water

I suspect you might be right dafuge which would explain why I never see clubs come back with high asking prices.

[Badass_]

My theory was that the unrealistic asking prices only occurred when humans made unrealistic bids, it makes complaining about the lack of realism a little hypocritical.

My whole argument has been based on us playing this as a game (not realistically) but expecting it to react realistically, I'm just suggesting that it is our actions that are causing these asking prices.

Of course, I'm still open to this theory being blown out of the water

I understand that but if a club rejects realistic offers, you only have two choices, to either give up or to make a huge bid, right?

I guess my biggest thing is not clubs asking for 30/40/50 million but clubs rejecting those kinds of figures (when in rl they would accept it no matter how rich they are, unless they're barcelona or real madrid) and settling only for 80/90/100 millions which is the price of the best players in the world. Not good, average or promising players.

[Fall Ark]

Just to throw in my two cents. I'll base my reply on dafuge's this post:

Because the amount they have come back with is totally unacceptable, making it pretty clear that you are unlikely to be able to sign that player without spending an insane amount of money. Obviously if you are happy to pay that amount then it isn't a 'hands off'.

I was referring to the type of offer described in the OP, where he bid £50m 'just to see what happened'. I may be wrong but this seems to be the time when the clubs come back with the silly amounts, obviously if clubs are requesting silly amounts in response to sensible bids then this isn't so relevant.

That was actually what the game used to do, but changed with the 'every player has his price' attitude that seems to be in football now. I actually prefer the old method but it was criticised, just like this one has been.

Why not just say so, then?

"The XXX board downright rejected your £10M euro bid for Player A, suggesting that he is an important part of their first team and your bid is far from persuasive. The player's agent contacted you afterwards saying that the club will probably be tempted if a £22M bid can be made."

or

"The XXX board is not going to consider your bid for Player A, stating that no amount of money can pry him from their club. The statement ends with a defiant, almost joking tone: ' ...Unless we see 30 million pounds in cash'. "

or let the newspapers do the work:

"Reports emerging from XXX camp suggest that the club has just turned down a £3.5M bid for Player A. An anonymous source reveals that the board will fend off all bids lower than a £15M price tags. Such is how high they value the promising youngster, even though he hasn't featured a lot in the first team."

And of course, the prices shown in the news items should not always be the same as the final "asking price". It can vary a bit now and then, sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little bit lower. After all, they are not "serious" with this statement, right?

Even if the transfer system remains the same, adding all these "flavour texts" will drastically improve the player's experience. The same goes for other "boring" parts of the game like press conferences or post-match descriptions, but I digress.

[Badass_]

Just to throw in my two cents. I'll base my reply on dafuge's this post:

Why not just say so, then?

"The XXX board downright rejected your £10M euro bid for Player A, suggesting that he is an important part of their first team and your bid is far from persuasive. The player's agent contacted you afterwards saying that the club will probably be tempted if a £22M bid can be made."

or

"The XXX board is not going to consider your bid for Player A, stating that no amount of money can pry him from their club. The statement ends with a defiant, almost joking tone: ' ...Unless we see 30 million pounds in cash'. "

or let the newspapers do the work:

"Reports emerging from XXX camp suggest that the club has just turned down a £3.5M bid for Player A. An anonymous source reveals that the board will fend off all bids lower than a £15M price tags. Such is how high they value the promising youngster, even though he hasn't featured a lot in the first team."

And of course, the prices shown in the news items should not always be the same as the final "asking price". It can vary a bit now and then, sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little bit lower. After all, they are not "serious" with this statement, right?

Even if the transfer system remains the same, adding all these "flavour texts" will drastically improve the player's experience. The same goes for other "boring" parts of the game like press conferences or post-match descriptions, but I digress.

Agreed.

[Fall Ark]

I understand that but if a club rejects realistic offers, you only have two choices, to either give up or to make a huge bid, right?

I guess my biggest thing is not clubs asking for 30/40/50 million but clubs rejecting those kinds of figures (when in rl they would accept it no matter how rich they are, unless they're barcelona or real madrid) and settling only for 80/90/100 millions which is the price of the best players in the world. Not good, average or promising players.

So...would it frustrate you more if your board intervenes at this point, saying that a higher bid would be unrealistic and ridiculous considering the club's situation?

Some of dafuge's points are that the human player bid ridiculous amount of money to incite AI's ridiculous asking price. Would it be better if the game doesn't allow you to make such bids?

[Badass_]

So...would it frustrate you more if your board intervenes at this point, saying that a higher bid would be unrealistic and ridiculous considering the club's situation?

Some of dafuge's points are that the human player bid ridiculous amount of money to incite AI's ridiculous asking price. Would it be better if the game doesn't allow you to make such bids?

Well, you see, that's where I disagree with dafuge, I think the game incites the human player to make huge bids and not the other way around.

My board should never intervene unless I'm paying loads for a player that isn't that great. On the other hand, the other club's board should intervene and accept the offer if they feel they're getting twice or 3 times the value of their player.

[AcidBurn]

The board already intervene in some cases but probably not enough.

[private pyle]

I think we should have a poll about the transfer market and see what the majority of people think

[pelicanstuff]

The problem on the whole is the actual player value more than the asking price (although I agree some asking prices are too high)

e.g. IIRC Milner can be bough for around 25 million at game start, but is valued at 6 million. His value in game then should be 25 million not 6 million (when do we here "club X bid 25 million for 6 million rated player Y" IRL?).

All these arbitrary reputation/ability based player values should be removed completely, with a value attached and updated only after one of the 4 scenarios:

a) you scout the player

b) the club negotiates a price (or offers the player out)

c) via transfer rumours/public bids made by other clubs

d) via agents

So in a sense it will work like the fog of war on stats, but be much closer to the sale value.

I agree with this, the value field is pretty useless.

Of course, what you should end up seeing would not be one exact value, but more of a spread of different values. For example:

-"A number of teams including qq, rr, and ss are reported to be interested in club zz's player yy. It is thought that club zz are likely ask for at least £10m for the centre-back, who has been an integral part of their first team over the last two seasons."

-"xx scout recommends putting in an initial bid of around £5m for player yy. However, he feels that club zz are likely to eventually let him go for a figure in the region of £8.75m-£10m"

-When you put in a bid, this may be reported in the news as "qq club have stepped up their interest in player yy, having made a bid that is reported to be around £5m. It is speculated that club zz are likely to want a sizeable amount more for the player and that this is simply expected to be the first step in a long round of negotiations"

[pelicanstuff]

Just to throw in my two cents. I'll base my reply on dafuge's this post:

Why not just say so, then?

"The XXX board downright rejected your £10M euro bid for Player A, suggesting that he is an important part of their first team and your bid is far from persuasive. The player's agent contacted you afterwards saying that the club will probably be tempted if a £22M bid can be made."

or

"The XXX board is not going to consider your bid for Player A, stating that no amount of money can pry him from their club. The statement ends with a defiant, almost joking tone: ' ...Unless we see 30 million pounds in cash'. "

or let the newspapers do the work:

"Reports emerging from XXX camp suggest that the club has just turned down a £3.5M bid for Player A. An anonymous source reveals that the board will fend off all bids lower than a £15M price tags. Such is how high they value the promising youngster, even though he hasn't featured a lot in the first team."

And of course, the prices shown in the news items should not always be the same as the final "asking price". It can vary a bit now and then, sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little bit lower. After all, they are not "serious" with this statement, right?

Even if the transfer system remains the same, adding all these "flavour texts" will drastically improve the player's experience. The same goes for other "boring" parts of the game like press conferences or post-match descriptions, but I digress.

These are nice and do provide a bit of flavour. Coupled with the kind of items I've just suggested in the post above, and the removal of the pointless value field, they would go a long way to improving the transfer experience without actually having to change the way it works.

[dafuge]

I understand that but if a club rejects realistic offers, you only have two choices, to either give up or to make a huge bid, right?

Yes. But one of those options involves acting unrealistically, which is where I'm suggesting the unrealistic asking prices come in. I'm saying that by acting unrealistically yourself you should forgo the right to complain about the AI acting unrealistically in response.

It is probably an unpopular view, but I think the transfer system works quite well, provided you act like a real life football manager.

[ANDEHLSON]

Yes. But one of those options involves acting unrealistically, which is where I'm suggesting the unrealistic asking prices come in. I'm saying that by acting unrealistically yourself you should forgo the right to complain about the AI acting unrealistically in response.

It is probably an unpopular view, but I think the transfer system works quite well, provided you act like a real life football manager.

I really fail to understand what you're trying to say with this. :S

Why is the club asking for unrealistic values in the first place? I'm not talking about buying Agueros, Messis and such.. Also I'm talking about the first 2-3 seasons.. Before the regens start appearing (lots of them)..

Most people here are only used to the Super Rich English reality, probably the same happens with the testers... There are many inconsistencies in the transfer system mostly outside the top 3 leagues in FM especially in 10.0/10.1.. Especially as things like buying only a % of the players sporting rights aren't represented in FM, probably making it harder to buy players in some other countries..

Stuff like Argentinian clubs loaning out their top players to pretty much anyone (whether it's their rivals or some brazilian/european club), some clubs sell their stars for 1-2m yet they ask 4-5m for their worst players, some youngsters in some countries are sold for 50-100k (very good ones), and then you see a crap player from a very small nation being valued in 2.5m...