Really? What the hell is going on here.

[HUNT3R]

HUNT3R and milnerpoint.

I'm not making these suggestions, I'm really just passing through taking a read. It does seem quite apparent though, given this isn't the first thread of this nature, that there may be an issue. I've never offered 150 million (or 60 million for that matter) for any player, so I have no personal experience of massive discrepancies between AI and human when it comes to purchasing top class players.

I know you were just summing up what others said.

We haven't had a single example of an AI team being able to bid less than the human player and get the offer accepted while the user gets his offer rejected. Nobody has given evidence of even one case like this. In fact, if they have, it's bug forum material because it shouldn't happen and in my experience, it doesn't happen in FM.

[Jimbokav1971]

There is no way to defend a £150 million straight cash bid being rejected, it honestly astounds me that people continue to do so. Obviously the £150 million bid being made is also unrealistic, but given the option exists it is entirely predictable that this will happen, therefore imo not having a realistic response to this is just lazy.

I have a number of players who are valued at significantly less than £150M but if I was to receive a bid of £150M for them I would turn it down. If it is a decision that I would make, why is it so unreasonable for it to be a decision that the AI would make?

My San Marino are by no means the richest club in the World, but when you start talking about them, (Real Madrid and Juve were used in the initial example and are both "big rich" clubs, then why isn't it reasonable for them to turn any bid down?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying for 1 moment that everything is perfect, but I really think this is a mountain of molehill proportions. We haven't been told how long these players had left on their contract so my thinking is that they had no need to sell at that time because (A) They didn't need the money, (B) The player was under contract so there was no rush to off-load him, and © They would prefer not to sell him to a rival anyway.

That the player had become unsettled and then instigated a move in the next window, seems fair enough, (even possibly at a slightly lower price as it was the seller initiating the deal rather than a buyer led deal), and the main issue here is that the human manager in question was not on the ball enough to take advantage of the situation and gazzump the deal.

I have never really had a problem selling players, but it is a buyers market, (as in real life). If you ask me I think it's "unrealistic" that both Albrighton and Delfouneso have been released by Villa rather than sold by a profit. It doesn't make it any less true though. Now I know these players are not World stars, but you would have thought that Villa would have been able to sell them for a few quid wouldn't you?

Last season I sold players to the value of £104M.

I currently have a transfer budget of £189M. Why on Earth would I sell one of my better players to anyone, (never mind about a rival?)

I currently have about 5-6 different players who if I received a bid of £150M for, I WOULD TURN IT DOWN.

Now turn that around. Why would a club, in a similar position to mine, sell a player who is contracted for another season, and who has shown no interest in leaving and is unhappy and under contract for the next season, (at least)? They wouldn't. I don't get why this is that hard to understand.

You use the Spurs and Bale transfer as an example so let's look at that? How did Spurs get £80M for a Bale? Why didn't they just accept an earlier £50M deal? It's pretty simple really. They were in no rush to sell. Levy is a smart cookie and he knew that Spurs didn't need to sell, (Bale was under contract), and it was Real who needed to force the deal. If Spurs only got £20M up front, it's a wonder they were able to sign all these replacement players by the way.

[Loki679]

£150m would buy virtually any player in the world irl.

[ndebergerac]

£150m would buy virtually any player in the world irl.

This is very true, though I'm not sure many first attempts are accepted irl. Usually it takes negotiation over weeks or months. That said, if Real were offered a take it or leave it 150 million offer for Benzema, I have a hard time believing they'd leave it. However, no board would sanction such a fee for any player that isn't Messi, which is a feature I'd like to see implemented more. Flat out vetoing an offer or at least calling you in for a meeting before a contract can even be offered.

[Overmars]

This is very true, though I'm not sure many first attempts are accepted irl. Usually it takes negotiation over weeks or months. That said, if Real were offered a take it or leave it 150 million offer for Benzema, I have a hard time believing they'd leave it. However, no board would sanction such a fee for any player that isn't Messi, which is a feature I'd like to see implemented more. Flat out vetoing an offer or at least calling you in for a meeting before a contract can even be offered.

I remember having a couple of my transfer offers vetoed in CM3 because the board felt the price was "unrealistic." I liked that.

[x42bn6]

Now turn that around. Why would a club, in a similar position to mine, sell a player who is contracted for another season, and who has shown no interest in leaving and is unhappy and under contract for the next season, (at least)? They wouldn't. I don't get why this is that hard to understand.

Most clubs don't have £189m in the bank. Even Manchester United don't. Real Madrid don't either. PSG and City probably don't, either, although that's not a problem as they can always add equity. Maybe this is part of the problem, but let's assume it's not for now (it's more interesting that way).

If a player is happy to stay, but you receive a stupid offer for that player, what do you do? Well, if you believe Andy Carroll, youforce them out. After all, Llambias clearly didn't think he was worth that muych money. They were asked to pick between Andy Carroll and £35m, and they clearly wanted the latter. So yes, if you (or the AI) get a stupid offer for a player, and the club overall can become overall healthier by selling them (i.e. by replacing them plus money in the bank), they should accept. Maybe do a little Daniel Levy negotiation of sorts, but the overall idea is to accept. The game needs the ability to force the player out, too.

There's also the flip-side of ownership. If you receive an obscene bid for a player clearly not worth that much money, and your shareholders are profit-oriented (i.e. pretty much every single club barring German clubs, Real Madrid and Barcelona), they would probably be unhappy, maybe even a derivative lawsuit at the club (because you aren't looking after the club financially).

Another tangent is that if you don't want to sell a player, it shouldn't be your obligation to name a price. You should be able to say "not for sale". It is the bidder's role to pique their interest (and it should not go as far as £150m). So the old FM solution was arguably correct - it is just that you should have had a hint to bid higher. Maybe via agent hints.

[ndebergerac]

I remember having a couple of my transfer offers vetoed in CM3 because the board felt the price was "unrealistic." I liked that.

Yes, it did happen back in the day after the contract was agreed. I guess I'd have to test on FM to see if that would happen.

[Jimbokav1971]

Most clubs don't have £189m in the bank. Even Manchester United don't. Real Madrid don't either. PSG and City probably don't, either, although that's not a problem as they can always add equity. Maybe this is part of the problem, but let's assume it's not for now (it's more interesting that way).

I think you are confusing real life with the game.

I only manage San Marino in the game. Not in real life. None of us manage these clubs in real life. As a result I was comparing my clubs finances with the finances at those clubs who turned down these offers.

I completely agree that it isn't the same in real life. I was simply giving reasons why these offers were declined in the game.

With the exception of a few elite players, I don't think there are any players on the planet who wouldn't be sold for a cash offer of £150M. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure that the likes of Barca or Real would turn down £150M cash up front for Messi or Ronaldo.

[YKW]

I have a number of players who are valued at significantly less than £150M but if I was to receive a bid of £150M for them I would turn it down. If it is a decision that I would make, why is it so unreasonable for it to be a decision that the AI would make?

It isn't unreasonable. As I said in my post regarding a human manager making an unrealistic bid it is understandable as the option is there. I have no problem with you or anybody rejecting a £150 million pound bid, my point is that the board should be preventing this. No board would reject £150 million up front. Plenty of managers would. No board would make a £150 million pound bid. Plenty of managers would want to.

My San Marino are by no means the richest club in the World, but when you start talking about them, (Real Madrid and Juve were used in the initial example and are both "big rich" clubs, then why isn't it reasonable for them to turn any bid down?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying for 1 moment that everything is perfect, but I really think this is a mountain of molehill proportions. We haven't been told how long these players had left on their contract so my thinking is that they had no need to sell at that time because (A) They didn't need the money, (B) The player was under contract so there was no rush to off-load him, and © They would prefer not to sell him to a rival anyway.

That the player had become unsettled and then instigated a move in the next window, seems fair enough, (even possibly at a slightly lower price as it was the seller initiating the deal rather than a buyer led deal), and the main issue here is that the human manager in question was not on the ball enough to take advantage of the situation and gazzump the deal.

I have never really had a problem selling players, but it is a buyers market, (as in real life). If you ask me I think it's "unrealistic" that both Albrighton and Delfouneso have been released by Villa rather than sold by a profit. It doesn't make it any less true though. Now I know these players are not World stars, but you would have thought that Villa would have been able to sell them for a few quid wouldn't you?

Last season I sold players to the value of £104M.

I currently have a transfer budget of £189M. Why on Earth would I sell one of my better players to anyone, (never mind about a rival?)

I currently have about 5-6 different players who if I received a bid of £150M for, I WOULD TURN IT DOWN.

Now turn that around. Why would a club, in a similar position to mine, sell a player who is contracted for another season, and who has shown no interest in leaving and is unhappy and under contract for the next season, (at least)? They wouldn't. I don't get why this is that hard to understand.

You are speaking from the perspective of a manager, which is fair enough. Many managers would keep their players even for £500 million. However, the point remains that no board would reject a £150 million pound offer, which is where I think the improvements should be made. I agree with your post and conclusions, but we are not talking about things from the same POV. I understand that managers will be motivated to both make and reject £150 million bids, however boards will be motivated heavily against both these two things. Whether you would accept or reject the bid is immaterial because in most cases it shouldn't be your choice. I don't think I was clear enough in the part you bolded, so fair enough. However I maintain that there is no way to defend a straight cash £150 million offer being rejected by the board. It is an unthinkable situation.

You use the Spurs and Bale transfer as an example so let's look at that? How did Spurs get £80M for a Bale? Why didn't they just accept an earlier £50M deal? It's pretty simple really. They were in no rush to sell. Levy is a smart cookie and he knew that Spurs didn't need to sell, (Bale was under contract), and it was Real who needed to force the deal.

What is your point here?

If Spurs only got £20M up front, it's a wonder they were able to sign all these replacement players by the way.

No it isn't. Joe Lewis wrote the club a loan of £50 million IIRC at the beginning of the summer which enabled the players to come in before the Bale money did. In addition to that, Spurs have the same ability to structure deals as Real Madrid. Do you think they paid £26 million and £30 million straight cash for Soldado and Lamela? I would guess at a maximum of £30 million for the two, with the rest payable in future.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

This can't be a universal thing. I'm in 2034 and I sold 186m worth of players by offering them out (without transfer listing) and getting some respectable prices. Players weren't unhappy or anything, I'm the best team in the world.

Hence, moderately true.

Some games, bids come in immediately; I got 20 or 30 million from Spurs for Hernandez, something like 50-60million for Rooney off Chelsea. But usually that's when they're sniffing around and have them as a target.

I struggle to get rid of youth players for any reasonable sum of money. And I struggle to get rid of some players (like the two above) when they want away. For whatever reason, no club in the world cares. Both have two or three years on the contract, so it's not like I'm in any rush to push them for anything below value, and I'm not over-valuing them either. So for no one to pop up as 'interested' or to even submit a bid seems completely out of sync.

[Xinxin]

Hence, moderately true.

Some games, bids come in immediately; I got 20 or 30 million from Spurs for Hernandez, something like 50-60million for Rooney off Chelsea. But usually that's when they're sniffing around and have them as a target.

I struggle to get rid of youth players for any reasonable sum of money. And I struggle to get rid of some players (like the two above) when they want away. For whatever reason, no club in the world cares. Both have two or three years on the contract, so it's not like I'm in any rush to push them for anything below value, and I'm not over-valuing them either. So for no one to pop up as 'interested' or to even submit a bid seems completely out of sync.

I'm experiencing much the same actually. Often I try to unload deadwood for a "reasonable price", but none seems to be interested. Granted, those players aren't world beaters, but they are players I would be drooling over when I was lower down in the divisions for the price they are offered out for. A lot of times I'll let them go for free and with a future sale percentage clause, just to clear up the wage budget a little bit, but still none is even remotely interested.

[HUNT3R]

I'm experiencing much the same actually. Often I try to unload deadwood for a "reasonable price", but none seems to be interested. Granted, those players aren't world beaters, but they are players I would be drooling over when I was lower down in the divisions for the price they are offered out for. A lot of times I'll let them go for free and with a future sale percentage clause, just to clear up the wage budget a little bit, but still none is even remotely interested.

It's a very simplistic view to have though. Transfer fee isn't the only thing that matters here. There's also wage demands and reputation, ie player's interest in joining the target club.

[themadsheep2001]

Yes, it did happen back in the day after the contract was agreed. I guess I'd have to test on FM to see if that would happen.

That needs to come back. Its a double edged sword here. More of these crazy bids should be accepted, but then most of these should never even be allowed to happen. I'd like to see vetos and even angry board reactions in relation to this

[x42bn6]

I think you are confusing real life with the game.

In the context of realism, the balances of the clubs in reality should roughly be in line with those of comparative "ability" as those in-game. What I'm trying to get at is that there could potentially be a problem with the fact that clubs make too much money in general (which allows you to make the argument you did).

Now that I think about it, no club in reality has a bank balance of a billion pounds, yet on several occasions, we see threads about "investment" to avoid the overflow bug at £2b.

[HUNT3R]

That needs to come back. Its a double edged sword here. More of these crazy bids should be accepted, but then most of these should never even be allowed to happen. I'd like to see vetos and even angry board reactions in relation to this

Agreed on both points. Whether the restrictions will be accepted by the majority is another potential issue, but I would like to see that happen in FM. Some boards could be really strict with their concept of a realistic bid and others a bit more lenient.

[themadsheep2001]

Agreed on both points. Whether the restrictions will be accepted by the majority is another potential issue, but I would like to see that happen in FM. Some boards could be really strict with their concept of a realistic bid and others a bit more lenient.

I'd say they cant have it both ways in truth. They cant argue that such offers should be accepted, and then ignore the point that most would be vetoed before they even got off the ground.

[Loki679]

I'd say they cant have it both ways in truth. They cant argue that such offers should be accepted, and then ignore the point that most would be vetoed before they even got off the ground.

Yeah, spot on. I don't think many managers in real life have the final say on how much a club bids for a player. They'll have input, i'm sure, but ultimately the clubs valuation of the player and the level of investment they're prepared to make to get the player will be decided by the board.

[milnerpoint]

I'd say they cant have it both ways in truth. They cant argue that such offers should be accepted, and then ignore the point that most would be vetoed before they even got off the ground.

Yeah id agree with this, problem is it would lead to the inevitable posts of "i have £300M in the bank its ridiculous that the board wont let me spend £150M of it on ........"

You know how the boards work

[Loki679]

Make it a bit harder to accumulate 300M then.

[milnerpoint]

How would you propose they do that?

[vishers]

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I'm simply repeating what someone else has said but I think it's a bit churlish to do something completely unrealistic in the game and then complain the game doesn't act as it should do in real life

Benzema and Pogba are both very good players but neither are worth half the amount the OP put a bid in for and IRL, no club would even consider making a bid anywhere near that size for either player so it seems a bit silly to do just that, and then complain the game - and that's what it is, a game - doesn't simply accept the offer

I remember in CM3 having a wonderful time taking over Arsenal, putting all their players on huge wages and long contracts, then releasing them and resigning, thus bankrupting their sorry asses and watching them slide down the leagues while my Spurs side dominated Europe. It would be slightly unfair for me to then go on a forum and complain that the game wasn't acting realistically

[Jimmious7]

Actually from my experience, I can tell you that the number of active leagues influences heavily the realism and activity of the transfer market.

In my "huge" game, with many leagues loaded, I rarely have a problem to sell anyone and get very good offers for the players that are indeed good

[Dalimyr]

It would be great if the game dealt with this as follows:

You make a bid of 80 million. They reject it. Time passes...They now want to sell the player, but instead of accepting 24 million for him from someone else, they first offer him to you for somewhere between 24 and 80 million.

That type of intelligence from the opposition would be very welcome in the transfer market. If the AI teams could remember prior attempts to purchase players and act accordingly, that would eliminate a lot of the dissonance.

In truth, that'd probably be more annoying than anything else. If you had £80m rejected for one player, in all likelihood you took your £80m elsewhere and tried to buy someone else to fill the gap. A year or two down the line when they decide they want to sell the player, would you necessarily still be interested in signing him and wanting the club to tell you he's available? Probably not.

My point is not about the human user. It is about the AI teams getting fair prices for their players. If they can act demanding with humans then they should act demanding with each other. If they receive an 80 million offer from a human then they shouldn't turn that down and accept a 20 million offer from an AI team. It's common sense, and I hope to see more of it coded into the AI transfers.

You're phrasing that like the AI is rejecting £80m from you then accepting £20m from another team the following day. As you alluded to in the other post I quoted, the bids are happening over an extended period of time. It's common sense that over time the situation can and will change, and this situation can very easily crop up in a realistic fashion. If you offer £80m while he's still got a couple of years on his contract, he's had an amazing season and he's a key player for them, they might as well keep him. When he's coming down to a year or six months left on his contract, perhaps they can't agree on terms for a new contract or he wants to move away for a new challenge or something of that ilk - getting £20m is better than them just waiting for the six months to come up and lose him for nothing once his contract ends. The team's leverage in negotiations isn't so strong when the player's contract is running out and he's not interested in signing a new one.

[Loki679]

How would you propose they do that?

Well, how are they generating these huge cash piles in the first place? I suspect that a large slice of the income is from buying very young players from around the world and selling them on for huge profits. I just had a quick look at the Man Utd academy / youth team and they have very few foreign players (about 90% home nations). Possibly the scouting in game is too effective for young players from far flung countries. It's the same thing with Arsenal having had a quick look.

edit： And thinking about it, if a manager went to his board and said he wants to splash £5m on some 17 year old from Botswana who's never played a senior game and hasn't been scouted they may have more than a few questions. It'd be nice for a manager to need to justify to the board some of the more outlandish purchases before they approve the funding for them.

[MichaelBrown]

I think you are confusing real life with the game.

I only manage San Marino in the game. Not in real life. None of us manage these clubs in real life. As a result I was comparing my clubs finances with the finances at those clubs who turned down these offers.

I completely agree that it isn't the same in real life. I was simply giving reasons why these offers were declined in the game.

With the exception of a few elite players, I don't think there are any players on the planet who wouldn't be sold for a cash offer of £150M. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure that the likes of Barca or Real would turn down £150M cash up front for Messi or Ronaldo.

Your refusal to sell for £150m is definitely the odd thing here. You could sign virtually anybody with that money.

If we were debating injuries, then some people would use statistics from real life in order to prove that the amount of injuries per team isn't over the top, or too little perhaps. So, it seems silly that we are prepared to use the notion of real life to evidence one feature of the game, yet it's dismissed as incomparable with another debate.

[forameuss]

Your refusal to sell for £150m is definitely the odd thing here. You could sign virtually anybody with that money.

Actually, not entirely true. I've managed Barcelona and Real Madrid in the past, and along with their huge transfer budgets, came sides who knew about our huge transfer budgets. Given the pool of players worth buying is already very narrow, those players price then gets massively jacked up, because the other team knows that...

a) we want him

b) we can afford him

So I usually had to pay massively over the odds. I could maybe have negotiated more aggressively, but there is definitely the mindset in these cases that the players will go for ridiculous sums.

It's even happened with nouveau riche Lincoln of Gibraltar that I'm managing. You're having to pay over the odds to land players.

[BoxToBox]

With the exception of a few elite players, I don't think there are any players on the planet who wouldn't be sold for a cash offer of £150M. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure that the likes of Barca or Real would turn down £150M cash up front for Messi or Ronaldo.

Didn't some moneybags Russian club activate Messi's £205m release clause, which Barca were unhappy that it was triggered?

[forameuss]

Plus I'm sure I read that release clauses in Spain are slightly different to how they would be anywhere else in the World. They're compulsory in everyone's contracts, but don't represent the true cost of a player.

[themadsheep2001]

Plus I'm sure I read that release clauses in Spain are slightly different to how they would be anywhere else in the World. They're compulsory in everyone's contracts, but don't represent the true cost of a player.

They are compulsory. sometimes they reflect the "market price" , sometimes they don't. They work slightly differently when activated by a club outside Spain, gets a little messy really. Short version: if you're going to activate a release clause, make sure you are on good terms with the selling club/have already made informal approaches, as it can end up being very costly.

[forameuss]

They are compulsory. sometimes they reflect the "market price" , sometimes they don't. They work slightly differently when activated by a club outside Spain, gets a little messy really. Short version: if you're going to activate a release clause, make sure you are on good terms with the selling club/have already made informal approaches, as it can end up being very costly.

That's pretty much it.

[jere_d]

i bought bale and neymar in chelsea for 200m pound each with instalments of 4 years

your bid wont be rejected if its 200m pounds for indispensable player

best way to sell a player is offer him on loan and when clubs come in with loan offer negotiate them as transfer offer

chelsea bought bale for 37.5 mil in my save lol

[BoxToBox]

iirc there were media rumours about an attempt to activate Messi's contract release clause but as it requires the player to activate it the deal was dead in the water because he never had any intention of leaving Barcelona.

Plus I'm sure I read that release clauses in Spain are slightly different to how they would be anywhere else in the World. They're compulsory in everyone's contracts, but don't represent the true cost of a player.

They are compulsory. sometimes they reflect the "market price" , sometimes they don't. They work slightly differently when activated by a club outside Spain, gets a little messy really. Short version: if you're going to activate a release clause, make sure you are on good terms with the selling club/have already made informal approaches, as it can end up being very costly.

Aye, they're complicated, but the lad said Barca wouldn't turn down 150m for Messi, if this was true surely their reply to the Russian clubs attempt to buy him for over 50m more would have been, "Alright Lionel lad, good luck in in Russia, we bought you a nice coat for over there, thanks for all the goals....." Rather than shock and dismay.

[Loki679]

I'd imagine that for the next few years Messi will be priceless, letting him go would guarantee that the president who signed off on the transfer would have to leave the city & never return.

Aye, it'd be a messi situation.

[aderow]

Aye, it'd be a messi situation.

Go away

Tbh, I can understand the reason why the game is the way it is. The whole idea of throwing out a ridiculous number to scare off potential suitors makes sense in theory as it does in real life. The biggest difference here though, is that this isn't real life; where in reality any old club wouldn't throw around anywhere near some of the crazy figures I've heard people spend in FM14, a good amount of people who play this game (or sim or what have you) see those numbers are fictional, as fantasy. And well, because they are.

In reality a club would stop making bids because it would no longer be financially viable. Because there are very real consequences with continuing and completing that transfer. In this reality, FM's reality, that simply is not the case because at any point we can turn off FM. Club goes belly up because we overspent? Start a new save, resign and go to a different club, or use an editor to fix the club's finances. There are no true consequences for the player.

That said though, if a club were to bid stupid money for almost any player on the planet (barring the obvious ones) most clubs (again barring the obvious ones) receiving the bid would likely and gladly accept. And the game should reflect that. I understand SI wants to keep transfers in FM within the realm of realism but that means that all forms of the AI should behave and react realistically.

Stupid bids should be accepted. Does it mean that every player you bid stupid money for should be willing to negotiate? No. You could bid a billion pounds but it shouldn't mean that you should get your man. It would come down to loyalty, happiness at the club, personality traits etc.

Now on the flip side, if you wanted to put in a ridiculous bid you should have to get permission from the board. While there really aren't great consequences for the player, there are real in game consequences for their board in game. For instance in the OP he bid 150M for Benzema and 120M for Pogba. In both these cases the board should have stepped in and told him they would not allow him to even attempt to spend that kind of money on one player. Maybe in future games SI could implement this and then give you a chance to try and convince the board to let the bid go through. Of course it would vary depending on the chairman's/the board's characteristics.

The way the game currently goes about trying to stop massively unrealistic behavior from the player is frustrating. I understand that. Hopefully things change in the future for the better.

Oh and I fully understand that not everyone can be pleased. I imagine, if these changes were made and implemented into the game, there'd be threads about people complaining that the world's best players aren't willing to join their club despite their 100M pound/euro bids being accepted

[BoxToBox]

I'd imagine that for the next few years Messi will be priceless, letting him go would guarantee that the president who signed off on the transfer would have to leave the city & never return.

Exactly my point.

[MichaelBrown]

Actually, not entirely true. I've managed Barcelona and Real Madrid in the past, and along with their huge transfer budgets, came sides who knew about our huge transfer budgets. Given the pool of players worth buying is already very narrow, those players price then gets massively jacked up, because the other team knows that...

a) we want him

b) we can afford him

So I usually had to pay massively over the odds. I could maybe have negotiated more aggressively, but there is definitely the mindset in these cases that the players will go for ridiculous sums.

It's even happened with nouveau riche Lincoln of Gibraltar that I'm managing. You're having to pay over the odds to land players.

Do clubs in real life have an idea about other teams playing budgets? For example, if PSG/City were after a player, it's fair to say you could extort more money from them than the likes of Inter Milan?

I'm not saying you could sign every player (I realise Messi is that one extreme example) but somebody earlier in the debate said Pogba. Lets be honest, Pogba would definitely leave for 70m, never mind 200m.

[forameuss]

Do clubs in real life have an idea about other teams playing budgets? For example, if PSG/City were after a player, it's fair to say you could extort more money from them than the likes of Inter Milan?

I'm not saying you could sign every player (I realise Messi is that one extreme example) but somebody earlier in the debate said Pogba. Lets be honest, Pogba would definitely leave for 70m, never mind 200m.

If a team has a lot of money, then yeah, they would have a good idea about it. We as fans know that City/PSG are loaded, and clubs will be far better connected than us.

But again it's into the "would this happen in real life?". In this case, it doesn't matter whether it does or not, I was talking about the game itself. In my experience, if you're a rich club, you will have to pay a lot of money to attract the top talent. Whether that does happen in real life (I think it does) is irrelevant.

[milnerpoint]

At the same time, lets be honest and say no one would ever bid £200M for Pogba, or rather no manger/director of football would be allowed to bid £200M for Pogba. Until the game sorts out both ends of the problem it wont really go away.

[MichaelBrown]

At the same time, lets be honest and say no one would ever bid £200M for Pogba, or rather no manger/director of football would be allowed to bid £200M for Pogba. Until the game sorts out both ends of the problem it wont really go away.

Change the 200m to 80m then.

[milnerpoint]

Change the 200m to 80m then.

Again, its a crazy sum of money to be talking about for a player with one year of first team experience under his belt, no club would sanction that. Until the unrealistic bids are stopped from happening, i dont really see the issue with them being rejected.

[x42bn6]

Again, its a crazy sum of money to be talking about for a player with one year of first team experience under his belt, no club would sanction that. Until the unrealistic bids are stopped from happening, i dont really see the issue with them being rejected.

Juventus in reality would sell for less than half of that, so it's a bug with them rejecting it. Why don't you see the problem with this?

Juventus are not cash-rich, and are not amongst the absolute-biggest clubs in the world today. Juventus have about €1m in the bank and have total assets of €443m - so a £200m bid would basically increase the value of the club by about 50%. This is an absolute no-brainer - Juventus should sell and run away with the money. In fact, Juventus have been extremely prudent post-Calciopoli and in line with the relatively-austere conditions in Italian football - buying low, occasionally selling high, with prudent net-spends. Selling Pogba would be a blow, but the money they would get would improve the squad overall easily.

In fact, Juventus have said that they're unlikely to be able to keep Pogba if a good bid came in. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/10/juventus-arsenal-paul-pogba-bid-manchester-united The main reason why that's unlikely right now is because of PSG and FFP, and that Pogba is happy. And as I've suggested before (with Carroll leaving Newcastle), if Juventus still get a good bid, they may try to force Pogba out - because even Pogba has his price, and if were asked to pick, they would pick the money over Pogba.

If the reasoning is "garbage-in, garbage-out", this is incorrect because this phrase is about code preconditions, where the input doesn't conform to the assumptions of the code, often technical, not "business logic-like" in nature (i.e. bid amounts are strings, or some processing limits like beyond the size of the word, a bit like the £2b overflow bug). It would also imply that there was a range in which bids could be sensible, and beyond that undefined - but it's fairly obvious that the higher the bid, the higher the chance of accepting - so why do you need this range? Why not just extend it forever? If, for example, the sensible limit is £60m for Pogba, the decision should basically be the same for £60m+1, and they would be increasingly-likely to accept bids like £70m, £80m, £100m, £1b, etc. The sensible limit is a needless complication and would make for an awful precondition.

I don't understand the obsession with limiting bids by the board. The game already lets you shoot yourself in the foot by playing no defenders in your fancy new formation. If someone wants to blow £200m on a rubbish player, let them. Give them a bit more scrutiny perhaps via the board; maybe chuck a few more newspaper headlines about how he's worse value-for-money than Torres and Carroll combined. But if you are limiting bids because the game can't deal with an absolute no-brainer, that's the worst sort of limit. It's a band-aid that fails to address the root cause.

[Cougar2010]

Juventus in reality would sell for less than half of that, so it's a bug with them rejecting it. Why don't you see the problem with this?

It is not a bug FFS and has been discussed to death in various threads this year.

If people approached the transfer market in a logical manner that the coding understands and accepted they don't have a divine right to sign anyone they want rather than throwing their toys out of the pram there wouldn't be an issue.

[x42bn6]

It is not a bug FFS and has been discussed to death in various threads this year.

If people approached the transfer market in a logical manner that the coding understands and accepted they don't have a divine right to sign anyone they want rather than throwing their toys out of the pram there wouldn't be an issue.

Rejecting £200m for Pogba is a bug. Like I said in the rest of the post that you didn't quote, Juventus have little money in the bank, are in no real position (financially and in terms of prestige) to reject the bid, and have already admitted they would consider good bids for Pogba in the past.

I don't see why users have to approach the transfer market as the code understands. Since the game is billed as a realistic simulation, they will bid and expect it to react like real-life would. If the code doesn't match real-life, that's a bug.

As a software developer, I find it unacceptable that users need to factor in how the code works to make their decisions in using the software. I can't hide behind the excuse that my code doesn't do what they expect because "it just doesn't". It's the sort of thing that reeks of people trying hard to avoid calling it a "bug" so they don't get grilled by management.

Sure, a user will most likely get the best results if he or she spends time scouting the player, and unsettling them over time. But this doesn't mean that the game should go completely bonkers if they fail to do so. If they fail to do so, they should just become more inefficient, value-wise, at buying and selling players; indeed, a good AI should be able to take advantage of them. If the AI sees the player likes starting with £50m bids, they know they shouldn't accept the first £50m bid. If the AI sees the player doesn't unsettle the players before bidding, they know they don't have to spend as much money tying players down to long-term contracts.

[Cougar2010]

Who in their right mind makes an offer of six times an assets value off the cuff in real life?

It simply doesn't happen because its illogical, how can you not see that?

[x42bn6]

As Cougar has said it's not a bug because the rejected bid is intentional.

The way I see it is that SI think it's intentional to reject any bid up to an absolutely crazy point if they don't want to sell. Which I think is wrong, because the game should be able to realise that they can improve the squad overall by selling. For clubs like Roma and Juventus, this is very important - for Roma, this is probably how they survive.

In other words, the intent is wrong.

Who in their right mind makes an offer of six times an assets value off the cuff in real life?

Sir Alex and Bebé.

It simply doesn't happen because its illogical, how can you not see that?

Even if the bid is illogical, why should the selling club care? The selling club's mind shouldn't regress to a baby's when it effectively wins the lottery. It should see the money, and it should take it.

In reality, bids like this are probably very unlikely. However, you have access to two editors in FM - both of which could simulate this scenario pretty easily. Who bids? The user, who is feeling in a silly mood. However, if the bid is silly, it doesn't mean the reaction has to be silly. A good AI would react sensibly, by accepting, or if they are feeling lucky, copying Daniel Levy.

[HUNT3R]

I've just checked my save which is at the end of the 2014/15 season & the most it will cost to buy a player from Roma is £32m, Pogba will cost £100m but that is largely due to Juventus raking in a huge sum as the only Italian club to make any kind of impact in the Champions League. My game has 234,096 active players & of those only 9 will cost in excess of £100m.

Based on this, it seems clear that if a team really doesn't want to sell for any amount of money, just move on to another target. There are plenty of other options available. I realise it's only one example of a save, so the sample size is small, but I'm sure we'll all have similar situations in our saves too.

[HUNT3R]

Target fixation is a common problem in many walks of life & I have found that it is a human trait which is easily amplified in gaming, if target A cannot be secured then the best advice is always to move on to target B.

I think in FM it's a problem because we "know" these players from real life. We all know Pogba and Messi. When we can't buy them specifically, there's a problem. There should still be a limit (set by the board) on how much a player can offer. It's been mentioned in other threads and I think it's a reasonable request.

I don't have any such issues in my game, because I started in a league where I didn't know any players and in 2029, even in the top divisions, I know no-one. I rely on the scouts and if they tell me a player is unavailable, I have a whole shortlist of other targets.

[themadsheep2001]

Real life is a problem as we all have opinions & I'd imagine nearly everyone playing FM will have played football, heck, that's a key reason why this genre exists & creates a very passionate fanbase, compare that to a 'realistic' FPS & nobody ever complains about the fact that real world physics do not apply because many gamers have no real life comparison to call upon but I wouldn't want to be on the forums when a popular gun gets even the slightest downgrade.

The fall out on things like that is spectacular, and in some rare cases, actually really disturbing.

[x42bn6]

I've just checked my save which is at the end of the 2014/15 season & the most it will cost to buy a player from Roma is £32m, Pogba will cost £100m but that is largely due to Juventus raking in a huge sum as the only Italian club to make any kind of impact in the Champions League. My game has 234,096 active players & of those only 9 will cost in excess of £100m.

The OP's scenario is from the start of the 2014 season.

Pogba might be correct as long as Juventus are willing to budge from that value in terms of negotiations at the end of the first season. As good as Pogba is, if someone like PSG comes in with a £60m bid or something, Juventus would bite.

I'm still interested in your experience with the FM14 transfer system.

The number of hours sank into the game is irrelevant to my perspective on why Juventus rejecting £120m for Pogba is ridiculous. A club with about €1m in the bank, already admitting it's unlikely to be able to retain Pogba if a good deal comes in, that made a financial loss last year, and is in the middle of an austere league, are the key points; not some person's opinion on the Internet of some game.

[x42bn6]

Personally I think context of the game being played is very important as each game evolves in its own way, it's why I try not to make absolute statements about why a bid is or is not accepted until I get a chance to look at the save.

The theory behind your thinking is reasonable & you're already providing an opinion which is why I'm interested in including your experience of FM14 to provide that additional context.

It's irrelevant because raw numbers like Juventus's finances scream "sell! (at £120m)" without any sort of additional context whatsoever. I find it hard to imagine why an extra few hours in the game would change my opinion on the fact that Juventus are a financial basket case in reality (just less of a financial basket case than a few years ago).