Smurf Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 This ^^ Do people not have any will-power? That's not the point of the thread, to be honest. It's just silly how you are able to do it if you want to. You can create a world class team out of Sunderland in 5 seasons. Ganso going to Swansea for 27.5m? Joke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
x42bn6 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 The initial payment & first year's payments are accounted for, but only the initial payment goes from your account. With no interest being charged, all subsequent payments will progressively 'cost' less. (unless there is deflation)Had a bit of a thought - the time value of money is related to inflation, and inflation isn't modelled in-game (nor do I want it to, in all honesty, as it is going to be very confusing). I'm not sure it should cost less necessarily due to the time value of money.However, risks are definitely present as the future is not necessarily as bright as the present and that is an argument for "discounting" your future budget. ---- A better example I've thought of - in the summer of 2007, Manchester United signed Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves and Tévez (loan) for what was widely reported as somewhere in the range of £50m (£17m each for the first three, give or take). However, Manchester United did not spend £50m immediately - the Nani and Anderson deals were staggered over many years and were laden with clauses. However, we readily assume that United's budget that season was around £50m when it wasn't - I think it was more like £50m over 3 years. Ignoring discounting, this is a yearly transfer budget of £17m (it's probably more as I believe we paid more for Hargreaves up front and Caveman's loan isn't taken into account here). However, this is still considered fairly extravagant by Premier League standards. I would therefore imagine that an extravagant budget would be £30m up front/£90m over 3 years or something similar. To me, this is a lot more sensible and is miles away from the Sunderland and £200m scenario. Of course, seeing Manchester United with a transfer budget of £17m in-game would upset a lot of users, and putting a figure of £68m over 4 years alongside £17m today would confuse users a lot, but that's where SI need to start thinking. But what is clear is that the game allows users to spend too much (even if you don't take into account the 48 months exploit) and that since someone writes the debt off anyway, there is insufficient punishment for heavily going into debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 That's not the point of the thread, to be honest. It's just silly how you are able to do it if you want to. You can create a world class team out of Sunderland in 5 seasons. Ganso going to Swansea for 27.5m? Joke. I'll remember to add a safety wink next time. I've actually made use of the 48 month deals for a couple of my current signings, the values are nowhere near what is being talked about here plus I do not use it as an exploit to build an entire team. I'm currently spending £30k pcm on transfer fees with the largest payment being £5k There is a dual issue at work & should these players even be considering signing for mid/low Premier League sides? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 Barside - no harm intended, I put it at the start of the thread, as I knew that would be the reaction from some. And it really isn't about will power or not doing it. I'll remember to add the smilies myself too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
santy001 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 The way a lot of teams looking to get into the premiership and survive in the premiership is doing deals this way. Almost every player Stoke signed in their first year had a portion of the payment based upon us staying up. The board do let you perhaps push it too far and put too much on the line, but then people would complain at what is an unrealistic amount for what chairman would allow you to do. An overly ambitious chairman could let you ruin the club, whereas a safety first thinking chairman might not even agree to a 4/5m over 48 months for a newly promoted side. If you have a sugardaddy its irrelevent, they're going to cover you no matter how you blow the money. On FM11 I tried this, Neymar was going fairly cheap (£35m) and I bought him over 48 months. Things were fine initially, but I had bought a lot of players on 48 month deals, Neymar got a 6 month injury and despite having brought in hugely talented players, little niggles and wrong choices at the wrong times saw me finish 13th. The club lost £30m that season, next season it improved but in the summer I was still over £20m in debt. I had to sell numerous key players and rely on loans and a free transfers, it was hard to balance the books. After 6 seasons of being hamstrung by financial difficulties I finally was able to properly start pushing on again. If it works then it works great, you don't notice the payments coming out as the prize money covers over it, you get bigger attendances, more merchandising the revenues are covering it. Struggle for a bit and then it becomes a huge fight to stave off having to sell more and more key players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron_Burginndy Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 thats what i said 13 posts ago? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
x42bn6 Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 The way a lot of teams looking to get into the premiership and survive in the premiership is doing deals this way. Almost every player Stoke signed in their first year had a portion of the payment based upon us staying up. The board do let you perhaps push it too far and put too much on the line, but then people would complain at what is an unrealistic amount for what chairman would allow you to do. An overly ambitious chairman could let you ruin the club, whereas a safety first thinking chairman might not even agree to a 4/5m over 48 months for a newly promoted side. If you have a sugardaddy its irrelevent, they're going to cover you no matter how you blow the money. On FM11 I tried this, Neymar was going fairly cheap (£35m) and I bought him over 48 months. Things were fine initially, but I had bought a lot of players on 48 month deals, Neymar got a 6 month injury and despite having brought in hugely talented players, little niggles and wrong choices at the wrong times saw me finish 13th. The club lost £30m that season, next season it improved but in the summer I was still over £20m in debt. I had to sell numerous key players and rely on loans and a free transfers, it was hard to balance the books. After 6 seasons of being hamstrung by financial difficulties I finally was able to properly start pushing on again. If it works then it works great, you don't notice the payments coming out as the prize money covers over it, you get bigger attendances, more merchandising the revenues are covering it. Struggle for a bit and then it becomes a huge fight to stave off having to sell more and more key players. Should Stoke be spending £35m in one window, though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 they spent £26m in the summer, but your right £35m is prob a bit high for a club like Stoke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reflection22 Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Should Swansea be allowed to spend £75m in their first season in the Prem? Bit unrealistic that the chairman doesn't step in at all and say 'enough is enough'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.