Criticism on FM12

[Andy H]

Transfers need improvement, never ever used this 48 month thing as I know it's unrealistic and hope SI address it somehow. AI needs to be more agressive in the transfer market when bidding for top stars and top youngsters and also if a lesser team has a top top player the top teams should be hassling that team to sell. Would love to see more of that. Especially a few seasons into the game when aging squads start to take effect.

Never had an issue with the one shot one goal scenario.

Never really had any trouble with team talks either.

[Smurf]

Regarding the underdogs scoring from their first shot, I noticed that, too. Sometimes I'm so dominant there's no way I can lose, but they still score from their first shot, just for the sake of it. It's very common for me to win 3-1, 4-1 and such, I always concede that first shot when I'm dominating the game.

Huzzah! I knew I wasn't imaging it!!!

[Smurf]

Transfers need improvement, never ever used this 48 month thing as I know it's unrealistic and hope SI address it somehow. AI needs to be more agressive in the transfer market when bidding for top stars and top youngsters and also if a lesser team has a top top player the top teams should be hassling that team to sell. Would love to see more of that. Especially a few seasons into the game when aging squads start to take effect.

It's a disease called "greed" that I have. I scout so many 4* or higher players and I just have to have them. So I buy. I spend 4 or 5 times more than my budget without even thinking about it.

I really would like it if SI did actually make it harder to sign players or get the board more involved in the signings. Like if I sign 1 player for €50m the board restrict me on 48 month transfers and say I can only do 12 months transfers for now or something.

[themadsheep2001]

Transfers need improvement, never ever used this 48 month thing as I know it's unrealistic and hope SI address it somehow. AI needs to be more agressive in the transfer market when bidding for top stars and top youngsters and also if a lesser team has a top top player the top teams should be hassling that team to sell. Would love to see more of that. Especially a few seasons into the game when aging squads start to take effect.

Never had an issue with the one shot one goal scenario.

Never really had any trouble with team talks either.

agree with all of this, especially the AI, the big boys should be practically bullying your lower table team for your top youngster.

[Andy H]

It's a disease called "greed" that I have. I scout so many 4* or higher players and I just have to have them. So I buy. I spend 4 or 5 times more than my budget without even thinking about it.

I really would like it if SI did actually make it harder to sign players or get the board more involved in the signings. Like if I sign 1 player for €50m the board restrict me on 48 month transfers and say I can only do 12 months transfers for now or something.

Yeah if something like that was implemented would make it more realistic as I am sure irl some deals are done in this way but not to the extent in FM where you can spend millions and millions over budget and accumulate the best youngsters in the game easily.

[Rakennusmestari]

Yeah if something like that was implemented would make it more realistic as I am sure irl some deals are done in this way but not to the extent in FM where you can spend millions and millions over budget and accumulate the best youngsters in the game easily.

You honestly believe that teams have cash reserves of tens of millions which they can just hand out whenever they feel like buying a new player?

[Andy H]

but it's not crippling enough.

Example:

Budget = €60

Bought = €238m

Sold = €60m

Total = -€118m

Here's the response from the Board after only a few weeks !

You honestly believe that teams have cash reserves of tens of millions which they can just hand out whenever they feel like buying a new player?

I'll refer you to the above post.

[Smurf]

If anything after my spending spree the Board should have reduced my transfer budget! LOL

[Rakennusmestari]

I'll refer you to the above post.

Fair point, but that seems a very extreme example. People are complaining that using monthly installments is unrealistic, when that is indeed the system used in real life.

[Guest]

I don't use it myself, but I understand why the 48 month payment option is in the game. However, it's far too easy to abuse it and get a ridiculously large transfer budget without visible ramifications. If you choose to buy a bunch of players over 48 months and spend way over your initial budget, the board don't seem to put more limits on budgets in future transfer windows.

[Andy H]

As I have never ever used montly installments to pay for players I do not know the real ins and outs of it. My general idea of it was that teams can buy player after player for a small initial fees and pay the rest over 48 months so technically staying under your transfer budget but putting all the fees together over the 48 months it ends up at an astronomical amount that the board should never allow.

Hope that makes sense and correct me if I'm wrong.

[Smurf]

Fair point, but that seems a very extreme example. People are complaining that using monthly installments is unrealistic, when that is indeed the system used in real life.

Don't see any ramifacations of using this system. I spent €238m in one transfer window!

C'mon. That's ridiculous. Then the Arsenal board increased my transfer kitty!

It's not the first time it's happened. It happens all the time. I really want SI to take notice and do something about it.

As teams would in real life would utilise a 48 month deal. But in reality - say for United it was a special occasion when they signed Veron and Nistleroy. It was practically unheard of to spend that much in a transfer window.

Man City and Chelsea have done it since. But that's a different kettle of fish with billionaire owners etc.

For example, at Sunderland I spent €135m in one transfer window. Then had a cash injection of €40m by the chairman.

It just keeps happening. It makes the game too easy.

If this was the way deals were done in real life, we'd see Sunderland, Man Utd, Arsenal, and any other team buying all the players the way.

I signed 14 players in one transfer window for Sunderland.

Took over Arsenal and signed 12 players (I think).

All of them cost a lot of money. In fact taking me to €135m and €238m respectively in the transfer window.

That is not real life.

[hveiga]

but it's not crippling enough.

Example:

Budget = €60

Bought = €238m

Sold = €60m

Total = -€118m

Here's the response from the Board after only a few weeks !

Hi Eugene,

Can you please re-share that screenshot?

Thank you!

[imaiden]

I don't visit this forum that frequently, just came here for FM13 info, so I'm not sure if this has been adressed, but like the OP adressed it's easy buy, it's just as easy to exploit the CPU with selling... Clubs are often wanting to get your players for loan with an option to buy, well you can change the loan fee to full amount and the option to buy to 0 and clubs still go for it. Fix it, please!

[Harper]

One thing I've noticed is that when you do an monthly transfer fee, your budget decreases by the amount of one month's payment, but doesn't decrease again in the following months.

When you sell a player on a monthly transfer fee, your budget rises by the full amount.

And in both cases, the Net Transfer Spend/Players Bought/Players Sold sections of the finance page show your monthly income and expenditures.

The finances need to be tweaked regarding this.

If you make a monthly transfer payment, the transfer budget should increase or decrease by the amount of net transfer outlay.

Example: I buy one player with a payment of £250k for 24 months (£6M). I sell two players with payments of £500k (two payments of £250k) for 24 months. Each month, I should see my transfer budget rise by 250k. And I'll leave it up to SI to figure out how to handle interest.

The main point, if I sell a player for £24M over the course of 48 months. My budget shouldn't immediately increase by £24M, it should increase by £500k each month for four years. Or if I buy a player for £24M over 48 months (with no other transfers), my transfer budget should decrease by £500k each month for four years. And if I were prudent, I'd make a sell or two that either brought in sum of £500k per month to balance the net monthly transfer outlay

The longer you go with a negative outlay, the quicker your transfer budget goes and then any revenue gets shoveled into the transfer fire pit, rather than becoming profit.

The board should monitor this number (net monthly transfer outlay) in a number of ways.

They can cap how much you can spend per month on transfer fees.

They can approach you if they are uneasy about how much is being spent on transfers per month. And you have possible responses like, "I will sell players to balance the budget" or "These transfers will be paid for by prize money won over the course of the season." etc.