Transfers - discussion on the mechanics and issues .

[Cougar2010]

I personally have seen enough instances where its just plain broke and there can be no explanation no matter how hard you desperately try to find one.

But you haven't, you don't even own the game

[Guest]

High asking prices were not added to make the game more challenging, it's common knowledge on the forums & has been mentioned in some of the threads that you posted earlier that club asking for sums considerably higher that the players listed value was introduced after user feedback.

I'm not saying they had, I was just using that as an example of how willing I am to accept a lot of reasons for why some prices may be unrealistic. The AI simply has this 'hands off price' tag on far too many players in too many leagues that many that you are left scratching your head wondering why. With the only explanation that hands off is the rule not the exception.

This is how it was last year. The year before that, the year before that, the year before that.

And This is the conclusion to how all these threads end. It might have been a problem last year, but not this year. Theres an explanation for that. Its user error.

And this year is no different, and next year we can do it all again.

Yes, for a lot I accept it is user error, but not for them all. Explanations can explain many but not them all.

But you haven't, you don't even own the game

Yes and consistently broken transfer market year in year out is the reason I didnt buy 15 to put up with it for another year. I wasnt going to go through it all again. I just popped in to see if it was fixed, no surprise its not.

If it hasnt worked for years you and I have seen it over and over, and people are still complaining about it this year then you dont need to be sherlock holmes or have to see it yourself another year to figure out its still a problem. Obviously its still a problem because its copy and pasted from all the other years it wasnt deemed a problem. But to me it is so thats why my FM career came to an end.

[Cougar2010]

We've been through this already

For the most part it does work, the user complaints are often influenced by the user behaviour and there are some issues which SI continue to try to iron out/improve.

Aside from that though this is a discussion about the FM15 transfer market and as you don't own the game you cannot give an informed opinion on the subject.

[Guest]

You cannot offer too much feedback on FM15 as you've already stated that you've not played the game, at least no farther than the demo allows you to progress.

I know. But if every FM in the last 5 years has been effected by this and its still being brought up this year and it sounds like you ignored it another year I think its not unreasonable to assume its still a problem.

My feedback was ignored the years I had the game and complained about it, so my feedback is no less useless now.

Its the reason I didnt buy it. Because of previous years. My feedback was last year. This is the reason I checked to see if you had finally sorted it out. Evidence shows its no better. Which is no surprise as its been an issue for as long as I can remember.

Ive been given no reason to believe its fixed. The reverse is true. This is why I'm not getting fm16 either, unless I check the forums and theres evidence it finally has been fixed. But I doubt it due to the unwillingness to fix it each year. But I guess thats because the belief is its not broke.

[Cougar2010]

Its the reason I didnt buy it. Because of previous years. My feedback was last year. This is the reason I checked to see if you had finally sorted it out. Evidence shows its no better. Which is no surprise as its been an issue for as long as I can remember.

Ive been given no reason to believe its fixed. The reverse is true. This is why I'm not getting fm16 either, unless I check the forums and theres evidence it finally has been fixed. But I doubt it due to the unwillingness to fix it each year. But I guess thats because the belief is its not broke.

According to one of your previous posts you didn't play FM14 either and your last experience was FM12.

You also started a thread at a similar time last year banging the same drum as you have been the last few hours, should we mark it on the calendars for same time next year?

[Guest]

I would argue that you're inferring too much from a small sample of threads, HuddersfieldOwl is the main contributor in 4 of those threads (5 when accouting for the duplication) & his problems are of his own making. The transfer AI is improved upon for each iteration of FM & the updates that go with each version.

You are right. But I'm on the side of caution. It takes 10s of seasons of instances to see the pattern. The last thing I want to do is invest many hours into a save to see its again still an issue, and any reasonably person would have to assume from the evidence its still an issue. Ive seen this exact same thread too many times over the years to believe that this year is different especially when its the same conclusions of it being considered a non issue.

Maybe that guys are his own making, I know alot of mine havent been. Ive played the game long enough with my saves in 100s of hours to see there is a problem somewhere. I dont believe from my experiences that everyone could be argued away as user error. I'm experienced at the game and open minded to explanations but to me to me the transfer market is consistently unconvincing year in year, Or should I say has been. Obviously its fixed this year.

Maybe it is user error, then in that case I shouldnt buy the game anyway because I dont know how to play.

Maybe it is fixed this year, maybe I'll try again FM16.

[Guest]

According to one of your previous posts you didn't play FM14 either and your last experience was FM12.

You also started a thread at a similar time last year banging the same drum as you have been the last few hours, should we mark it on the calendars for same time next year?

Have you been trolling through my posts looking for a defence?

Yes I did buy 14. Yes I did complain about the transfer market being broken yet again. I've complained about it for years. Thats why this years I decided enoughs enough. If I bought 15 and complained about the same thing you would have been calling me for that too.

Ive bought every FM for years except this one solely because of this reason.

[Guest]

If Cougar2010 is correct & FM12 was the last verion that you owned then you've missed out on a lot of improvements & new elements that have been added to keep up with the real world transfer market, might be time to keep an eye out for flash sales on Steam or at other retailers & get a copy of 15 the next time it is availbale at less than a third of RRP.

[Guest]

If Cougar2010 is correct & FM12 was the last verion that you owned then you've missed out on a lot of improvements & new elements that have been added to keep up with the real world transfer market, might be time to keep an eye out for flash sales on Steam or at other retailers & get a copy of 15 the next time it is availbale at less than a third of RRP.

He is incorrect. I played 101 hours of FM14 according to steam. It would have been more but the transfer market killed it for me.

For me FM14 runs a hell of a lot better than FM13. I would say you should be able to do at least as many as you did on 13.

I'm running 125,000 players

30 something nations, not sure how many leagues

all playable.

And its taking no more than 10 seconds on a busy day.

I could have really ran a few less to speed it up abit, but its not 2 bad.

That was a post from me last year.

Impressed with the great job you did on FM14 performance.

I dont always complain. Just about the transfer market

[HUNT3R]

The transfer market was fine certainly last year too, so your complaints are way out of date. Play the game yourself and see, ffs!

[Cougar2010]

Just to give a complete picture this was also part of a post from you on 01.03.14

I have FM2014, I have not played it

Aside from that though the point still stands, you have around 100hrs according to Steam on FM14 which will probably be far less in terms of experience given we all leave it running to some degree whilst you don't own FM15.

Therefore you are adding nothing constructive to the discussion.

[Georgik]

The most obvious example of real life transfers and FM ones was Fabregas signing for Barcelona for around 40 mil euros if i remember correctly, while in the game you couldnt get him for under 90 millions.

[Guest]

Just to give a complete picture this was also part of a post from you on 01.03.14

Aside from that though the point still stands, you have around 100hrs according to Steam on FM14 which will probably be far less in terms of experience given we all leave it running to some degree whilst you don't own FM15.

Therefore you are adding nothing constructive to the discussion.

Fair enough when I had the game you guys came to the exact same conclusion anyway so its a pointless argument anyway.

Last year I wasnt going to buy it either because I was sick of the transfer market from previous. I made a thread asking if it was fixed. I was reassured it was, obviously, I probably commented in some of the threads that said it was still broke. I bought the game despite my better judgement. I waited until the 3rd patch to play cos the last few years ME and game changes have caused problems. And after starting at bromley and climbing up the leagues soon realised the same problems as previous FM with buying and selling. Wasnt going to repeat that mistake yet again for fm15.

Double checked forums, still not convinced.

I'll just leave it there. I'm big fan of the series. I dont like a feature. Ive decided not to play because of it. No big deal. I have nothing against anyone who likes the feature. Maybe I'll pop back next year to see how its shaped up. But I definitely need at least a year break from it.

And I see SI devs are still probably the greatest out there at communicating with the fans. Sunday afternoon too.

[Some Guy!]

The most obvious example of real life transfers and FM ones was Fabregas signing for Barcelona for around 40 mil euros if i remember correctly, while in the game you couldnt get him for under 90 millions.

Could sign Odegaard for less than £500k in the game, cost Real £4 million in the real world. The game isn't going to predict the future.

[CaptainPlanet]

Such a souting system would be impossible due to official & unoffical tools that allow the user to see too much information, to a degree it is knowing a players actually PA & hidden attributes that causes people t get angry about what they percieve as unrealistic behaviour from the AI club whil3e ignoring their own unrealistric behaviour be that looking under the hood or offering mutli-millin pound deals fro youngsters.

I've not needed to look under the hood as my scouts are pretty good at finding talent for me.

Random example where I've just opened my game now and scouted for all known players 18 and under and sorted them by value, then scouted the top 10 results.

A 17 year old winger at Schalke comes up, pretty average youth stats, valued at £1.3m on £4.9k a week and listed as available to loan. He's made 6 league appearances (4 as sub) with an average rating of 6.6. Scout report says his current ability is league one standard, but has the potential to be a star premiership player in the future. I bid £7.5m for him, Schalke respond saying they want £50m.

It's not a huge issue for me, there are other targets, I'm enjoying the game in general and can put together a decent team at decent prices.

But a few things from that example stand out to me as being a bit off kilter.

- Value = £1.3m - Surely we're past the days of having player values listed against players in the game that aren't remotely relevant to the actual worth of player?

- There is nothing in the player's current attributes or form to suggest he has the potential to be a star, yet both my scout and the selling club are convinced he will be

- I understand the £50m is in there because feedback from players was that flat out refusal wasn't realistic, but Schalke demanding £50m for an unproven 17 year old is just as unrealistic to me

- He has a 19 year old teammate with better stats, particularly better mental stats, and better form, who is available for £10m

- I've not had to look hard to find top future talent, literally one filter on the scouting menu and I've identified several future stars, confirmed by the club's unwillingness to sell

[HUNT3R]

So you'd be happier if they said "he's not for sale at any price"? Because they aren't demanding 50m.

[CaptainPlanet]

No, that's why I said "just as unrealistic"

I agree that everyone has a price.

I don't think an unproven 17 year old with no form or current physical, technical, or mental abilities to demonstrate high future potential's price would be that high.

[HUNT3R]

So you don't want them to give you a stupidly high figure and you don't want them to tell you he's not for sale. What do you want then? :confused:

Saw the edit, their price isn't "that high". They gave you a stupid figure to tell you to bugger off.

[CaptainPlanet]

And the fact that they gave a stupid figure to tell me to bugger off is part of what the issue is.

[Cougar2010]

- I understand the £50m is in there because feedback from players was that flat out refusal wasn't realistic, but Schalke demanding £50m for an unproven 17 year old is just as unrealistic to me

The point is that Schalke are not "demanding" £50m. They simply don't want to sell and by quoting you £50m they expect you to go away.

You also don't seem to have made any effort to sign the player beyond an initial bid. No media interaction to shake up the situation, no pressure applied to Schalke which may or may not be achievable depending on which club you are and no negotiation.

Its also worth noting that you aren't attempting to buy from some backwater club but from a top team in one of the top leagues in the world. One that are regulars in European competition and are unlikely to have major financial issues.

[CaptainPlanet]

The point is that Schalke are not "demanding" £50m. They simply don't want to sell and by quoting you £50m they expect you to go away.

You also don't seem to have made any effort to sign the player beyond an initial bid. No media interaction to shake up the situation, no pressure applied to Schalke which may or may not be achievable depending on which club you are and no negotiation.

Its also worth noting that you aren't attempting to buy from some backwater club but from a top team in one of the top leagues in the world. One that are regulars in European competition and are unlikely to have major financial issues.

The Point is that in real life Schalke (or any club) would not ask for £50m for an unproven 17 year old who's current ability, and form, do not indicate he will become the next big thing. They also wouldn't flat out refuse any bid.

And that my scout also wouldn't know that the player would be a star player for the future either.

[Georgik]

The Point is that in real life Schalke (or any club) would not ask for £50m for an unproven 17 year old who's current ability, and form, do not indicate he will become the next big thing. They also wouldn't flat out refuse any bid.

And that my scout also wouldn't know that the player would be a star player for the future either.

Exactly, it's like Chelsea refusing a 35 mil pounds offer for Feruz.

[cleaner475]

The Point is that in real life Schalke (or any club) would not ask for £50m for an unproven 17 year old who's current ability, and form, do not indicate he will become the next big thing. They also wouldn't flat out refuse any bid.

And that my scout also wouldn't know that the player would be a star player for the future either.

You're still missing the point. In real life I can't imagine any club would pay more than £5M for a U-18 player. Schalke have no intention of selling their youngster for £5M because they realise he could become a quality player in the future, therefore they tell you they'll only accept silly money for a player they want to keep (they quote you £50M and it's intended to tell you to p*ss off), since no club would realistically spend more than £5M on a U-18 player Schalke have effectively told you he's not for sale and no one would realistically bid any higher than £5M for that player.

Would you rather you weren't allowed to bid on players that were listed as 'not for sale'? Otherwise I can't really see what the problem is. It's the classic 'unrealistic input = unrealistic output', no club would go around offering money for the youngsters of top European clubs, it just doesn't happen IRL.

[cleaner475]

Exactly, it's like Chelsea refusing a 35 mil pounds offer for Feruz.

But on one would ever bid £35M for Feruz, that's the point.

[CaptainPlanet]

You're still missing the point. In real life I can't imagine any club would pay more than £5M for a U-18 player. Schalke have no intention of selling their youngster for £5M because they realise he could become a quality player in the future, therefore they tell you they'll only accept silly money for a player they want to keep (they quote you £50M and it's intended to tell you to p*ss off), since no club would realistically spend more than £5M on a U-18 player Schalke have effectively told you he's not for sale and no one would realistically bid any higher than £5M for that player.

Would you rather you weren't allowed to bid on players that were listed as 'not for sale'? Otherwise I can't really see what the problem is. It's the classic 'unrealistic input = unrealistic output', no club would go around offering money for the youngsters of top European clubs, it just doesn't happen IRL.

So that's an additional thing that's wrong with the scenario. That you are allowed to bid such a high amount on the player.

That doesn't detract from the rest of the issues with the scenario. The scout knowing he's a future world class talent without any reason to, the selling club knowing it too, the £50m still being an unrealistic response.

Also several 17-19 year old players have gone for more than £5m in the past decade.

[Cougar2010]

So that's an additional thing that's wrong with the scenario. That you are allowed to bid such a high amount on the player.

Round & round we go and oh look we are back to SI having to write additional code so that boards block bids because some users don't have any self control and can't play in a realistic manner

That doesn't detract from the rest of the issues with the scenario. The scout knowing he's a future world class talent without any reason to, the selling club knowing it too, the £50m still being an unrealistic response.

How good the scouting is & how easy it is to spot talent is a different discussion and one which has a wide range of opinions atm. Some say its too easy, SI say less than 10%? of players reach their potential in tests while others that have done some investigation seem to fall somewhere inbetween.

The £50m is not an unrealistic response though and its one that has a foundation in the real world when it comes to buying/selling/negotiation.

[cleaner475]

So that's an additional thing that's wrong with the scenario. That you are allowed to bid such a high amount on the player.

You're also allowed to conduct contract negotiations with your players despite this not being the managers responsibility at the majority of clubs in the world. Person we should remove that feature too?

Why shouldn't you be allowed to spend crazy money on a teenager if you want to?

That doesn't detract from the rest of the issues with the scenario. The scout knowing he's a future world class talent without any reason to, the selling club knowing it too, the £50m still being an unrealistic response.

Top-class scouts can spot player with good potential, that's kind of the point of having them.....

Also several 17-19 year old players have gone for more than £5m in the past decade.

Okay so now it's 17-19 year-olds, previously you said U-18's, but fine, I'll play.

Luke Shaw is the most recent, which is always a good place to start especially with the amount of money in football increasing each year. How much did Luke Shaw go for? Hmmmm.... It wasn't £2M was it? Was it £4M? No.... oh yeah £33M, pretty crazy money there. By your logic though on FM Southampton should have only asked for £10M right?.....

[cleaner475]

There's a reason buying teenagers for a lot of money is a risky, and somewhat rare occurence;

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/luke-shaw-transfer-10-most-3776397

Not all of those made it.

[CaptainPlanet]

Round & round we go and oh look we are back to SI having to write additional code so that boards block bids because some users don't have any self control and can't play in a realistic manner

That's probably the only solution to enforce in game reality yes.

Although taking random clubs like Staines to the top of the Premiership for 10 years is unrealistic too, so hopefully they don't put code in to stop that as well.

How good the scouting is & how easy it is to spot talent is a different discussion and one which has a wide range of opinions atm. Some say its too easy, SI say less than 10%? of players reach their potential in tests while others that have done some investigation seem to fall somewhere inbetween.

It's linked to this issue though, as that's why people are finding good talent and why clubs ask for silly amounts for bids for those talents.

The £50m is not an unrealistic response though and its one that has a foundation in the real world when it comes to buying/selling/negotiation.

I disagree. If it was a hugely promising talent who was showing noticeable skill, then there's more weight to it. But the player's current attributes and form are that of a very average young lad, there is no chance at all that my scout would know he's going to be a star, that my board would let me spend £50m on him, that the selling club would ask for £50m for him. He's played literally 6 games and been poor in them, and his attributes are bog standard.

[CaptainPlanet]

There's a reason buying teenagers for a lot of money is a risky, and somewhat rare occurence;

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/luke-shaw-transfer-10-most-3776397

Not all of those made it.

Exactly, and it should be a gamble in FM too. A possible and realistic gamble, but a gamble all the same.

[Cougar2010]

That's probably the only solution to enforce in game reality yes.

Although taking random clubs like Staines to the top of the Premiership for 10 years is unrealistic too, so hopefully they don't put code in to stop that as well.

Thats a different discussion again and one that I don't want to get dragged into atm.

It's linked to this issue though, as that's why people are finding good talent and why clubs ask for silly amounts for bids for those talents.

It is linked but the scouting hasn't been proven one way or another at the moment.

You have some users saying its too easy and yet you have others like "Some Guy" who has done some tests and found its not as easy as those users suggest. SI have also stated that scouting is usually less accurate than the community as a whole thinks.

Where does that leave us? and who is right? Either there are other factors at play which means a human user still finds it easy or the perception from users is wrong.

I disagree. If it was a hugely promising talent who was showing noticeable skill, then there's more weight to it. But the player's current attributes and form are that of a very average young lad, there is no chance at all that my scout would know he's going to be a star, that my board would let me spend £50m on him, that the selling club would ask for £50m for him. He's played literally 6 games and been poor in them, and his attributes are bog standard.

You are still clinging to the idea that Schalke want you to pay £50m

You need to shift your mindset away from seeing just the figures and learn to identify what the game is telling you.

[CaptainPlanet]

Thankfully I'm not here to convince you though. I've explained the issue, provided examples. I'm not saying there's an obvious and easy solution, but there are definite issues. Up to SI what they do with it, I'm just trying to help by giving feedback

I don't need to read more into what the game is telling me. The scout is telling me he's a future star, he shouldn't be. The club will let me pay £50m for a 17 year old, it shouldn't be. The selling club want £50m they shouldn't be.

And this isn't a one off example.

[Ylt]

To make scouting even resemble reality I suggest star rating is removed and attributes be masked completely at all times for all players. Managers would then have to pick based on game performances/statistics and training performances (which is something that could be expanded on considerably) exactly as in real life and not on perfect knowledge that one player has better attributes than another.

Scouts could then provide written reports with hints as to how good attributes a scouted player has, what part of his game is strong/weak, how he is likely to improve/worsen over the years. They could also calculate shapley values for you and compile an overview of detailed match stats (similar to the reports-->stats/form tab) so that the manager doesn't need to search through all this information himself. Let the scouts do the scouting, and instead of them coming up with some covenient magical golden stars they could actually use the plethora of statistical data already available in their reports and complement these with some comments on the players general ability of which they have garnered knowledge through watching their training and games.

I realise this might make the game infuriatingly hard and a complete revamp of the scouting system would probably be needed for the game to even be playable, but if realism is strived for something of that sort is definitely needed. The current playing experience is fun, but not very realistic. It's enjoyable to take a team from the sixth tier (or lower with custom databases) of English football to UCL glory, but I don't pretend to be able to do it in real life.

My involvement in this thread is not to criticise the ludicrous valuations of youngsters as the game would be tediously easy if you could pick up every future world beater for realistic amounts, but rather to direct the discussion towards scouting and player identification, the main reason for such valuations, and in the process educate the seemingly abundant flock of illusory people obstinately maintaining the irrationally imagined realism of this aspect of the game. Do you feel so attached to the game that anything perceived as criticism must be categorically rejected? The game being unrealistic is not necessarily bad, I'd argue it's good thing since it makes managing much easier, less complicated and consequently more fun than in real life. The game isn't realistic; 15-16 year-olds don't have these exorbitant valuations in real life, and Whitehawk doesn't win the Champions League. It's good fun though.

[Some Guy!]

To make scouting even resemble reality I suggest star rating is removed and attributes be masked completely at all times for all players. Managers would then have to pick based on game performances/statistics and training performances (which is something that could be expanded on considerably) exactly as in real life and not on perfect knowledge that one player has better attributes than another.

Scouts could then provide written reports with hints as to how good attributes a scouted player has, what part of his game is strong/weak, how he is likely to improve/worsen over the years. They could also calculate shapley values for you and compile an overview of detailed match stats (similar to the reports-->stats/form tab) so that the manager doesn't need to search through all this information himself. Let the scouts do the scouting, and instead of them coming up with some covenient magical golden stars they could actually use the plethora of statistical data already available in their reports and complement these with some comments on the players general ability of which they have garnered knowledge through watching their training and games.

I realise this might make the game infuriatingly hard and a complete revamp of the scouting system would probably be needed for the game to even be playable, but if realism is strived for something of that sort is definitely needed. The current playing experience is fun, but not very realistic. It's enjoyable to take a team from the sixth tier (or lower with custom databases) of English football to UCL glory, but I don't pretend to be able to do it in real life.

My involvement in this thread is not to criticise the ludicrous valuations of youngsters as the game would be tediously easy if you could pick up every future world beater for realistic amounts, but rather to direct the discussion towards scouting and player identification, the main reason for such valuations, and in the process educate the seemingly abundant flock of illusory people obstinately maintaining the irrationally imagined realism of this aspect of the game. Do you feel so attached to the game that anything perceived as criticism must be categorically rejected? The game being unrealistic is not necessarily bad, I'd argue it's good thing since it makes managing much easier, less complicated and consequently more fun than in real life. The game isn't realistic; 15-16 year-olds don't have these exorbitant valuations in real life, and Whitehawk doesn't win the Champions League. It's good fun though.

2/10, simplistic, misunderstanding how the game works currently and overly obsessed with stars, which you equally don't seem to understand. If you made a football manager game, on reading that, I would not buy. But let's actually look at how football manager works as an abstraction of the real world:

So here I am, the manager of AFC Genericton. I see a set of players, Michael Rogers, Roger Michaels and Lucky Sithole. It's clear to me that Rogers is far quicker than Michaels or Sithole, while Sithole is an impressive passer, but lethargic. My coaches and I having watched this lot train every day (for literally hours a day) have a very good grasp of how good the players look on the training paddock. The biggest issue we as a group have is knowing what they'll be like on a football pitch, as we can know all of their obvious attributes through training and drills, we can know their personality a bit dealing with them daily, but it's hard to really see how they'll do until we put them out there in front of crowd with a match on the line.

Now this is the thing, for the player you don't have hours a day in training with your players, you can't set up drills and such, so ultimately you simply can't get all that information. You could create a game system where it would be available through watching training, but the devastating this would have on the world paper and pen markets as players would need to keep even more handwritten notes on players would be staggering. In stead the idea of being the someone running training and having all the information at the club is abstracted to the idea of rating players' attributes (the ones you could figure out from watching them regularly) and having them available. The thing is though that players' attributes are, just like in the real world, not the be all and end all of the player. There are two very important under the hood values, which whilst the game might suggest if they're at one extreme or the other, doesn't give you a complete idea of, it's something you largely have to figure out by how well they play on a regularly basis. These are 'consistency' and 'important matches', and they are arguably two of the most important attributes a player can have. You can have the most talented player in the world, but if his consistency is terrible, he won't be setting the league alight often. The same goes for important matches, your super consistent centreback isn't a big match player? Good luck in the Champions League mate!

Ultimately though there is another few dimensions in the "scouting game" though. One is these stars, which are only there as a guide to help judge how much better your coaches/scouts think a player could get. These are often wrong of course, as in real life, and unless you're using third party tools this adds one of the largest parts of the fog of war to young players. The equivalent in real life of course is obvious, people talk potential and how much better a player can get based on how good they are now, age and other factors, but ultimately it's always hard to tell, hence the Francis Jeffers of the world.

As for defending the game, if you'd read the feedback thread, you'd know for a fact that I don't blindly defend the game, this just happens to be an area that I feel the game actually excels at, but seems to get the occasional flak based on what seems to be two opposing ideas, that being those who feel you should get to see nothing (which is completely ridiculous for such a game, as if you got to see it "realistically" a week in game would take as long as seasons do now) and those who feel that clubs are too keen on keeping there players. Ultimately though it's always a balancing act for SI, and one they do remarkably well. It's been great to see the discussion in recent years move away from imbalances in the regens, which are now balanced remarkably well for such a complex system, and towards how scouting actually works in the game, but ultimately attribute fuzzying along side the black stars has helped this area in both clarity of what is actually being hidden and realism. Ultimately though some won't be happy until they're in a virtual reality world taking full training sessions, watching other players at different clubs and taking down physical notes on players.

But on one would ever bid £35M for Feruz, that's the point.

That's always been my favourite bit of circular logic from people discussing it:

Against: "But nobody would ever pay that much for a player!"

For: "Exactly, that's why you don't see it in real life."

The problem is that those complaining don't have the full picture. They assume that because they haven't seen young stars move between clubs regularly that it must mean that it's just not a reasonable response from a club, but people don't see the number of enquiries that are just answered with "nah". What they see is the moments where the selling club and the buying club reach an agreement (i.e. Luke Shaw), not the myriad of times that they don't.

[forameuss]

You are still clinging to the idea that Schalke want you to pay £50m

You need to shift your mindset away from seeing just the figures and learn to identify what the game is telling you.

This is a point that people just need to get, and I'd go further than that. If you put in a big for a player, and they quote you 100 million, it seems as though a lot of the people complaining just scoff, load up their browser and wail about how unrealistic it all is. First up - try negotiating.

Take an example - young player "valued" at £5 million. You bid that, and they say they want £80 million. Wow, looks like they don't want to sell. But given you're a decent manager, you've already sounded him out through the media and your scouts, and he's willing to join. So you negotiate to 7.5. Lo and behold, their demands lower to around 70. No way are you paying that, but they're negotiating, may as well play the game. Have 12. Their values are tumbling now, so go in for the kill. Pop it up to 20 with a future sale clause. Boom. They accept. And you've just saved yourself 60 million.

Now that's a made up example, but it follows roughly the same steps as every purchase - and indeed sale, I've managed to get many times a buyers initial bid for most of my players I've sold - I've had of this type. You'll find out very early on if the club are just high-balling you - they'll rebuff any attempt to negotiate and either demand the same high amount of not negotiate back at all. If they lower their demands even slightly, take that as a sign that you can drive them down further. But I can't make this clear enough - if you look at the first number they quote you and not beyond, then you are fundamentally misunderstanding how the game works.

[brawla123]

This is a point that people just need to get, and I'd go further than that. If you put in a big for a player, and they quote you 100 million, it seems as though a lot of the people complaining just scoff, load up their browser and wail about how unrealistic it all is. First up - try negotiating.

Take an example - young player "valued" at £5 million. You bid that, and they say they want £80 million. Wow, looks like they don't want to sell. But given you're a decent manager, you've already sounded him out through the media and your scouts, and he's willing to join. So you negotiate to 7.5. Lo and behold, their demands lower to around 70. No way are you paying that, but they're negotiating, may as well play the game. Have 12. Their values are tumbling now, so go in for the kill. Pop it up to 20 with a future sale clause. Boom. They accept. And you've just saved yourself 60 million.

Negotiating is the best part of signing players. People need to stop giving up so soon.

[dsouthy]

Put yourself in the selling teams position. Would you accept the bid?

[Ylt]

I'm not a game developer, and neither am I saying that the changes I suggested are any good, I am merely claiming that they would make in game scouting more in line with reality. Obviously a realistic game isn't desirable as 99.99... % (naturally including myself) of people in here wouldn't stand a chance in real life management. Millions would like to manage in the BPL, but only the very best get the job. I am convinced that if I or most other FM players were to take over Real Madrid in real life they would like be relegated from La Liga within 10 years given that the club and players actually followed my instructions and not just acted as if I weren't there as they'd indisputably be better off without a manager than with me in charge. Yet in FM I'd be disappointed if I didn't lead them to 10 straight La Liga titles.

That's always been my favourite bit of circular logic from people discussing it:

Against: "But nobody would ever pay that much for a player!"

For: "Exactly, that's why you don't see it in real life."

The problem is that those complaining don't have the full picture. They assume that because they haven't seen young stars move between clubs regularly that it must mean that it's just not a reasonable response from a club, but people don't see the number of enquiries that are just answered with "nah". What they see is the moments where the selling club and the buying club reach an agreement (i.e. Luke Shaw), not the myriad of times that they don't.

I recommend you read my previous post. In addition a rudimentary study of demand and supply might enlighten you. The thread has basically not moved on from my posts in the middle of page 1. Nothing in that post has been refuted by anything but irrational dribble, no evidence whatsoever:

"Call it what you want, these cases simply don't exist irl. Everybody is for sale for the right price, and for a 15 year old in real life that price is not over £15 mill. and that is even being extremely conservative. Anyone arguing such cases to be realistic seem to be completely oblivious to the real life uncertainty surrounding a 15 year old's future ability and just how much £15 mill. is.

As an example Lionel Messi (arguably the best ever footballer) in 2003 (age 15-16) was close to being released on a free due to Barcelona's financial instability just so that they did not have to finance his family's stay in Catalunya (http://www.givemesport.com/369519-ba...leave-for-free). Who thinks they would not have sold if a bid of £5 mill. came in? Now, why did no teams come in then for the future best player in the world when they could snap him up for very "little"? Obviously because very few had seen him play or even knew about him and no outsiders could possibly foresee that he would reach a level even close to what he did. At the time he simply wasn't worth that kind of money.

In Football Manager Barcelona would know (or at least be aware of his huge potential) his 199 PA right after the youth intake and would probably not let him go for less than his +£30 mill buy-out clause.

Edit:

Actually Shaw is an interesting example for this discussion (from Wikipedia):

"During the January 2012 transfer window, it was reported that Premier League clubs Arsenal, Chelsea, and Manchester City had shown interest in signing 16-year-old Shaw, with the then-Championship club reportedly valuing the defender at £4 million.[10] Southampton quickly responded to such claims though, with then-manager Nigel Adkins assuring the media that "Luke Shaw is a big part of our future plans", and claiming that the club had "no intention ... of letting any of [their] young players move on""

From the Independent: "An asking price of £4m is extremely high for a teenager who has not even played senior football but the market value for the best young players, and in particular, the best young English players, is rising all the time." (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...n-6287747.html).

From that we can gather that the Premier League sides were scared of by the announcement that £4 mill. wouldn't be enough although no such bids were actually made in the first place. £4 mill. was already considered "extremely high", so I wonder if a bid of £10 (2.5 the alleged valuation) would have been enough? It seems very unlikely that it wouldn't have been, but on a more factual note it appears that the threshold valuation scaring off potential suitors in real life was around £4mill and not +£50 mill.

It's really quite clear that there is blatant discrepancy between game and reality in this regard, but as previously stated it is sort of necessary to prevent the game from being too easy and I don't really mind it. I'm just not under the illusion that it's realistic.

[Some Guy!]

I'm not a game developer, and neither am I saying that the changes I suggested are any good, I am merely claiming that they would make in game scouting more in line with reality. Obviously a realistic game isn't desirable as 99.99... % (naturally including myself) of people in here wouldn't stand a chance in real life management. Millions would like to manage in the BPL, but only the very best get the job. I am convinced that if I or most other FM players were to take over Real Madrid in real life they would like be relegated from La Liga within 10 years given that the club and players actually followed my instructions and not just acted as if I weren't there as they'd indisputably be better off without a manager than with me in charge. Yet in FM I'd be disappointed if I didn't lead them to 10 straight La Liga titles.

I recommend you read my previous post. In addition a rudimentary study of demand and supply might enlighten you. The thread has basically not moved on from my posts in the middle of page 1. Nothing in that post has been refuted by anything but irrational dribble, no evidence whatsoever:

"Call it what you want, these cases simply don't exist irl. Everybody is for sale for the right price, and for a 15 year old in real life that price is not over £15 mill. and that is even being extremely conservative. Anyone arguing such cases to be realistic seem to be completely oblivious to the real life uncertainty surrounding a 15 year old's future ability and just how much £15 mill. is.

As an example Lionel Messi (arguably the best ever footballer) in 2003 (age 15-16) was close to being released on a free due to Barcelona's financial instability just so that they did not have to finance his family's stay in Catalunya (http://www.givemesport.com/369519-ba...leave-for-free). Who thinks they would not have sold if a bid of £5 mill. came in? Now, why did no teams come in then for the future best player in the world when they could snap him up for very "little"? Obviously because very few had seen him play or even knew about him and no outsiders could possibly foresee that he would reach a level even close to what he did. At the time he simply wasn't worth that kind of money.

In Football Manager Barcelona would know (or at least be aware of his huge potential) his 199 PA right after the youth intake and would probably not let him go for less than his +£30 mill buy-out clause.

Edit:

Actually Shaw is an interesting example for this discussion (from Wikipedia):

"During the January 2012 transfer window, it was reported that Premier League clubs Arsenal, Chelsea, and Manchester City had shown interest in signing 16-year-old Shaw, with the then-Championship club reportedly valuing the defender at £4 million.[10] Southampton quickly responded to such claims though, with then-manager Nigel Adkins assuring the media that "Luke Shaw is a big part of our future plans", and claiming that the club had "no intention ... of letting any of [their] young players move on""

From the Independent: "An asking price of £4m is extremely high for a teenager who has not even played senior football but the market value for the best young players, and in particular, the best young English players, is rising all the time." (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...n-6287747.html).

From that we can gather that the Premier League sides were scared of by the announcement that £4 mill. wouldn't be enough although no such bids were actually made in the first place. £4 mill. was already considered "extremely high", so I wonder if a bid of £10 (2.5 the alleged valuation) would have been enough? It seems very unlikely that it wouldn't have been, but on a more factual note it appears that the threshold valuation scaring off potential suitors in real life was around £4mill and not +£50 mill.

It's really quite clear that there is blatant discrepancy between game and reality in this regard, but as previously stated it is sort of necessary to prevent the game from being too easy and I don't really mind it. I'm just not under the illusion that it's realistic.

The word you were looking for is "drivel", not dribble by the way.

Your posts rely heavily on discussing PA, which suggests you've been looking at it while playing, which might explain your frustrations. You use your chosen cheat method, find the player, and in this version the clubs decide to tell you to suck lemons, so you're a tad mad.

Let's discuss circular logic though. You claim there are no such examples of playing going for such high prices, but have never dealt with the argument that the reason you don't see it is that clubs actually get the point when they're told "no", hence not signing players for stupidly inflated prices (except United, they love signing young Englishmen for ridiculous prices).

As for the Shaw "bids" you're talking about was just about media hype, but the fact that he didn't go at the time suggests that we have no idea the money they were talking. For all we know clubs may have offered £4 million, but Soton asked for far far more than that. Rumour has it Derby were offered a fee in excess of £10 million for Will Hughes when he was 16/17, but equally told clubs that he wasn't for sale, and that was supposedly not the first. We know that clubs when they value their talent with give clubs silly tagets to go after, and from the few that have been matched we can get a picture for the amounts seen. £30 million for an 18 year old leftback, £35 million for a 21 year old striker for only have a top flight season under his belt. The numbers have been seen before. Wayne Rooney went for the modern equivalent of £47 million having 15 league goals to his name.

Ultimately though the lack of lots of these stupid transfers only suggests that clubs get the point, not that the responses exist.

As for Messi though, you yet again mixing up how pricing is determined in the game, and how the AI set prices. A club in financial trouble will let players go cheaper. My 18 month long transfer saga for an 18 year old forward from Schalke finally came to an end when they missed the Champions League spots and had some money woes (not massive, but they had some issues to sort). The asking price dropped from £45 million (not happening for an unproven forward) to £7-8 million, which still expensive for a kid, but an amount I was willing to part with after losing my star forward. £7-8 mil for an 18 year old who's already Bundesliga standard was actually quite a steal it seems a year on.

As for the main point about Messi there though, the simple point is that they probably didn't know much about him as you say, but as you've already revealed in your posts, you're quite happy to take a peak under the game's hood so to speak, so I wouldn't really trust your appraisal on the scouting system. I would however note that it's been shown on here before that AI clubs to misjudge potential quite readily, often valuing players of 140 PA the same as players around 190 PA. So no, your assertion that "they'd have known his 199 PA straight away" is false from the off, invalidating the entire point.

Let's read a fun quote though:

In game, however, a 15 year old 181 PA GK who will be nowhere near Courtouis' ability when fully developed (according to Genie Scout) cannot be bought for less than £30 mill. after more than a year of negotiating (came in as a 14 year old regen for Leverkusen).

Your entire whinge here seems to stem from wanting to sign high PA players (as found with a third party tool) on the cheap.

[cleaner475]

As an example Lionel Messi (arguably the best ever footballer) in 2003 (age 15-16) was close to being released on a free due to Barcelona's financial instability just so that they did not have to finance his family's stay in Catalunya (http://www.givemesport.com/369519-ba...leave-for-free). Who thinks they would not have sold if a bid of £5 mill. came in? Now, why did no teams come in then for the future best player in the world when they could snap him up for very "little"? Obviously because very few had seen him play or even knew about him and no outsiders could possibly foresee that he would reach a level even close to what he did. At the time he simply wasn't worth that kind of money.

You keep posting this example, but this was a Barcelona team in financial trouble, in FM if a club is in financial trouble you can pick off their youth team players for peanuts as well so I'm not really sure what your point is.

From that we can gather that the Premier League sides were scared of by the announcement that £4 mill. wouldn't be enough although no such bids were actually made in the first place. £4 mill. was already considered "extremely high", so I wonder if a bid of £10 (2.5 the alleged valuation) would have been enough? It seems very unlikely that it wouldn't have been, but on a more factual note it appears that the threshold valuation scaring off potential suitors in real life was around £4mill and not +£50 mill.

This example is with a Championship club, on FM I can sometimes buy good teenage youngsters for reasonable prices at Championship clubs because they need the money more, but top clubs want a lot more. Once again it's a poor example, a Championship club will sell their top talent for a lot cheaper than a top European club.

I don't really understand the points of these two examples, they certainly don't back-up your argument.

[Some Guy!]

This example is with a Championship club, on FM I can sometimes buy good teenage youngsters for reasonable prices at Championship clubs because they need the money more, but top clubs want a lot more. Once again it's a poor example, a Championship club will sell their top talent for a lot cheaper than a top European club.

I don't really understand the points of these two examples, they certainly don't back-up your argument.

It's not even a proper example for Shaw either, as all he has is media talk of "£4 million", then the club stating that he's not for sale, and no official bids ever becoming apparent. For all we know, the clubs could have come in with £4 million and they may have asked for that silly money, which Man United have in the end paid for him.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Man Utd paid huge money for a 19 year old with two full seasons of first team football in the Premier League for a successful team under his belt (Shaw). Wayne Rooney had just scored 4 goals for England in a major tournament at the age of 18 before moving from Everton. Even then Utd were not really willing to pay that money before other clubs started bidding which forced their hand. Makes me laugh that anyone can bring up either of those as examples which should somehow confirm that clubs slapping huge valuations on 16 year olds with zero first team exposure in FM is comparable to reality. There are zero 15/16 year old players in the world who are not for sale. There's zero certainty about a player that young. One of the most hyped up youngsters ever just went for 3/4 million euros and that was after making three appearances for the Norwegian national team before turning 16. Even his club couldn't feel certain enough about the future value to say 'not for sale'.

[Ylt]

Too clearly state my line of reasoning:

+£15m transfers for 15-16 year-olds happen in game

+£15m transfers for 15-16 year-olds doesn't happen in reality

The game doesn't match reality in this aspect. A simple logical syllogism.

Now the question is whether it is the people playing the game who are forcing these unrealistic transfers (for whatever reason) or if it is the game environment that facilitates such a market. First the real life market for youngster (15-16) must be estimated. The latter is best done by examining both successful transfers of such youngsters and unsuccessful ones. Furthermore one could investigate databases such as transfermarkt.co.uk who specialises in player valuations, but obviously there is no better indicator of the market than the market itself, so actual transactions and negotiations are best for this exercise.

I have already given a few examples of either and looked at some of the current best players in the world when they were at that age. I previously argued that the real life market for 15-16 year-olds were £5m at max, which generally seem to be the case, but I have just found an exception that does justify some of the extreme valuations a little (hardly a surprise that I'm the only one to put up any counter-evidence ): http://talksport.com/magazine/features/2011-10-04/green-walcott-sterling-bostock-rajkovic-and-more-expensive-teenagers

Although Walcotts £12.5m transfer has later been settled at £9.1m and included various clauses and only a £5m immediate outlay it was nonetheless a +£10m transfer for a 16 year-old (less than two months to his 17th birthday).

Walcott is record breaking though and in game +£15m direct outlays are regularly rejected (even for 14-15 year-olds). Another interesting case: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2049367/Chelsea-pay-2m-14-year-old-Oluwaseyi-Ojo.html, clearly suggesting that the in-game market isn't in line with reality.

From all this we can estimate that the market for 15-16 year-olds is generally sub £7.5m with a few (or as far as I know 1) exceptions. Thus it would be unreasonable to assume that any +£15m bid for such a youngster wouldn't be immediately accepted as the bid is hugely above the general market price.

Next question is these transfer don't happen in real life? In order to answer that the factors determining player valuations must be found. Not surprisingly these are mainly a players perceived current ability and perceived potential ability as well as his importance for his current team and suitability for the buying team. For a youngster the latter two are almost irrelevant as he is unlikely to be playing for the first team, whilst current ability for the same reasons is not the deciding factor. Hence perceived potential ability is the factor that will push up the price for a youngsters.

Based on that and the fact that no +£15m transfers for 15-16 year-olds has occurred it can be concluded that either the knowledge of a youngsters future potential isn't clear enough to warrant such transfers or that +£15m simply is too much even if the future potential can be estimated with great accuracy. The latter is very unlikely though as we see deals of +£75m for more developed players, and it would seem irrational for a club to wait a few years and pay 5 times the amount that they could have paid when the player was 16, if they already had a strong idea of his potential.

Why do we see +£15m valuations and transfers in game then? Even if the occurrence of these transfers are merely shrugged off as people being careless with the in-game money and taking unwarranted gambles, it doesn't describe the selling clubs initially imposing extremely high valuations that are way above market price. Why do they start demanding +£30m when +£15m should be more than enough to scare of buying clubs as it is in real life?

Firstly I do not accept the first assumption, as more often than not your scouted youngsters turn out to have fantastic potential and then +£15m is not reckless. The scouting is just so accurate that you can hardly go completely wrong. If you want to test: start a save with Real Madrid, hire the best possible scouts (ask the board for more every time you can), send them to scout the top 15-20 talent producing countries and maybe have a few roaming scouts to maybe pick up the unlikely Haitian wonderkid and scout nations excessively on regen dates/exploit the regen overview and scout all big clubs regens. After 5-10 seasons use the editor or Genie Scout and check how many +185 PA regens you have in your club and compare to how many are in the game. Regarding players that are excessively expensive and therefore can't be bought consider them yours since their valuations are unrealistic.

I didn't do the test myself, but I played as Real Madrid on my first ever save on FM14 and by the time I started to get bored (around 2020) I became familiar with Genie Scout and tried it out. I happened to have almost every 185+ PA player in the game including a couple of 200 PA regens. The few I hadn't found never reached their potential, which all of mine did. My scouting network was controlled by the Director of Football throughout the save. Granted, I could have been lucky, but with all my later saves I have experienced the same thing. Looking at the attributes and mentality of a youngster and several 20/20 JPA/JPP reports gives you a very clear overview of the players potential ability.

Although people understandably don't care as much for in-game money as real clubs do for theirs, it's still evident that people have too much knowledge of player potentials and the ability to make them reach it to be deterred by a realistic valuation. So basically the in-game market for these players is hugely inflated due to too great certainty of a players potential. If it was much more of a risk surely there would be no such market as £5m valuations of/demand for a 15 year-old would suddenly seem steep rather than a bargain. Much like real life.

[Cougar2010]

One of the most hyped up youngsters ever just went for 3/4 million euros and that was after making three appearances for the Norwegian national team before turning 16. Even his club couldn't feel certain enough about the future value to say 'not for sale'.

A couple of points here:

A) You don't know how many & which clubs made enquiries or if they made any bids.

B) You don't know how many enquiries or bids were turned down by Stromgodset before they agreed on the final terms with Real.

You are essentially arguing over something that IRL never makes it into the public domain.

[Cougar2010]

Too clearly state my line of reasoning:

+£15m transfers for 15-16 year-olds happen in game

Not in my saves they don't so my saves match reality.

If your saves differ to mine what is the reason?

[Ylt]

Your entire whinge here seems to stem from wanting to sign high PA players (as found with a third party tool) on the cheap.

That was done purely to show a test (albeit a little unfair one) of the claim that you could negotiate a reasonable price. I started a random save with Man. City, holidayed to to the end of march. Used Genie Scout to find the highest potential players instantly. Started negotiations with various players and picked out that goalkeeper as the best example. The I holidayed to the beginning of the next month declared interest again and continued negotiations. I continued with that for over a year with little progress.

I'd advice you to be a little more thoughtful before judging people.

Edit:

Not in my saves they don't so my saves match reality.

If your saves differ to mine what is the reason?

It was meant as in general. They happen in various peoples saves. Rarely in mine as I seldom manage clubs with that kind of money.Anyway, your logic is flawed. Just because you don't take part in the market doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't buy a watch for £5,000, but there definitely exists a market for them. Furthermore regardless of you do the transfer if you enquire for a player you will still be met with unrealistically high valuations.

[Some Guy!]

That was done purely to show a test (albeit a little unfair one) of the claim that you could negotiate a reasonable price. I started a random save with Man. City, holidayed to to the end of march. Used Genie Scout to find the highest potential players instantly. Started negotiations with various players and picked out that goalkeeper as the best example. The I holidayed to the beginning of the next month declared interest again and continued negotiations. I continued with that for over a year with little progress.

So wait, you took one example and mentioned it. That's not a test. In fact, you even mentioned that you cherry picked data. Nice going.

Also, I'm not buying your excuse.

Man Utd paid huge money for a 19 year old with two full seasons of first team football in the Premier League for a successful team under his belt (Shaw). Wayne Rooney had just scored 4 goals for England in a major tournament at the age of 18 before moving from Everton. Even then Utd were not really willing to pay that money before other clubs started bidding which forced their hand. Makes me laugh that anyone can bring up either of those as examples which should somehow confirm that clubs slapping huge valuations on 16 year olds with zero first team exposure in FM is comparable to reality. There are zero 15/16 year old players in the world who are not for sale. There's zero certainty about a player that young. One of the most hyped up youngsters ever just went for 3/4 million euros and that was after making three appearances for the Norwegian national team before turning 16. Even his club couldn't feel certain enough about the future value to say 'not for sale'.

What they are is examples of external pressures forcing a club's hand into the realm of clubs that well and truly don't want to sell, exactly the same thing as when United's hand was "forced" with Rooney and with Shaw. The difference here is that many who are complaining are having their hands "forced" by seeing that they've got 190+ potential when using either the IGE or third party tools, and others are inappropriately trusting of scouting stars. The thing is, when you get Joseph James McCheatipants finding that 190+ PA wonderkid from a smaller club, and he gets him for a few mil, he doesn't come on and complain. However, when JJ McCheatipants is suddenly met with a "got suck lemons" response of £50/60/ even £90+ million as a response, they get annoyed and frustrated. The tendency to cheat is correlated enough with already suggests a sense of entitlement, and this largely shows in the kind of responses you get (i.e. Ylt starting in this thread directly complaining about not being able to sign a 180+ PA keeper). You then get this muddled mess of people who are genuinely convinced that scouting stars are super duper zatrooper accurate and cheaters trying to hide behind "I'm just super talented at reading player attributes bro!" when asked why they have target fixation on a player that Bayern/Real/Juve/Man U are convinced is a superstar of the future worth hanging on to.

This all then goes into a lovely feedback loop. The people already willing to cheat want this to be changed so they can get who they want. The people who think that it's a genuine problem because they're still convinced that their scouts are superhuman see this and assume that this must be a bigger problem and get more defensive, and so we get thread like this. But the simple point is that it simply isn't like that.

As already shown, clubs can get it terribly, terribly wrong when it comes to judging player ability, and even big clubs can decide that a player with far lower potential is the good one, and tell others to "shove it", while letting the other go for a far more modest price. You get clubs in financial trouble, not even major financial trouble, cashing in on interest in young players for far less than they would have only months earlier. Your scouts will get things entirely wrong and convince you that Giovanni McNotsus is the next Messi, and that Barca were just naive in letting you get him for £6 mil, for him to end up at best a high end Championship player/ low end Premier League player. In a number of these cases, you'll get a couple where it was actually your coaches who were foolish and he ends up being quite decent at Premier League level, and you letting him go for free to Spain turns out to be a terrible decision.

That's the thing though, these sorts of discussions just end up as a mess, but ultimately the game works quite well in this area.

[Äktsjon Männ]

A couple of points here:

A) You don't know how many & which clubs made enquiries or if they made any bids.

B) You don't know how many enquiries or bids were turned down by Stromgodset before they agreed on the final terms with Real.

You are essentially arguing over something that IRL never makes it into the public domain.

What did make it into public domain is the actual transfer fee. It's irrelevant how many enquiries preceded the actual transfer if any. This is an example of actual 16 year old far ahead of pretty much any 16 year old in FM in terms of public exposure and evaluation going for measly 4 million euros (3 million if you believe different sources). Are you telling me there are higher rated 16 year olds in world football at the moment that we haven't heard about? If there aren't, why wouldn't the Norwegian club just say 'not for sale' and cash in for that surefire profit in a few years if that's what you claim frequently happens in other cases despite the general public never hearing about it?

[Cougar2010]

What did make it into public domain is the actual transfer fee. It's irrelevant how many enquiries preceded the actual transfer if any. This is an example of actual 16 year old far ahead of pretty much any 16 year old in FM in terms of public exposure and evaluation going for measly 4 million euros (3 million if you believe different sources). Are you telling me there are higher rated 16 year olds in world football at the moment that we haven't heard about? If there aren't, why wouldn't the Norwegian club just say 'not for sale' and cash in for that surefire profit in a few years if that's what you claim frequently happens in other cases despite the general public never hearing about it?

Of course its relevant, its key to the argument. I would really expect you of all people to understand that given your post history.

The large prices quoted by the selling clubs are NOT final transfer prices and were never designed to be. They are simply the first response to an enquiry/bid and the possible start of negotiations which IRL is private discussion which is very rarely/if ever made public.

[Some Guy!]

Too clearly state my line of reasoning:

+£15m transfers for 15-16 year-olds happen in game

+£15m transfers for 15-16 year-olds doesn't happen in reality

The game doesn't match reality in this aspect. A simple logical syllogism.

You don't understand what a syllogism is.

Also, I have never seen a 15-16 year old go for £15+ million in game, and I doubt anyone has without a human being involved.

Now the question is whether it is the people playing the game who are forcing these unrealistic transfers (for whatever reason) or if it is the game environment that facilitates such a market. First the real life market for youngster (15-16) must be estimated. The latter is best done by examining both successful transfers of such youngsters and unsuccessful ones. Furthermore one could investigate databases such as transfermarkt.co.uk who specialises in player valuations, but obviously there is no better indicator of the market than the market itself, so actual transactions and negotiations are best for this exercise.

If the AI aren't doing it, it's by definition the human player who would be forcing it, either by unrealistic expectations of their predictive ability, or by cheating. It is the sort of thing that is not beyond reason in the real world, and so shouldn't have any artificial block in game, but so unlikely, and something beyond what any AI would do, that you can't blame the game for it happening.

A lack of expensive 15-16 year old transfers more strongly suggests that clubs aren't willing to let their best go cheap

I have already given a few examples of either and looked at some of the current best players in the world when they were at that age. I previously argued that the real life market for 15-16 year-olds were £5m at max, which generally seem to be the case, but I have just found an exception that does justify some of the extreme valuations a little (hardly a surprise that I'm the only one to put up any counter-evidence ): http://talksport.com/magazine/features/2011-10-04/green-walcott-sterling-bostock-rajkovic-and-more-expensive-teenagers

Although Walcotts £12.5m transfer has later been settled at £9.1m and included various clauses and only a £5m immediate outlay it was nonetheless a +£10m transfer for a 16 year-old (less than two months to his 17th birthday).

Walcott is record breaking though and in game +£15m direct outlays are regularly rejected (even for 14-15 year-olds). Another interesting case: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2049367/Chelsea-pay-2m-14-year-old-Oluwaseyi-Ojo.html, clearly suggesting that the in-game market isn't in line with reality.

From all this we can estimate that the market for 15-16 year-olds is generally sub £7.5m with a few (or as far as I know 1) exceptions. Thus it would be unreasonable to assume that any +£15m bid for such a youngster wouldn't be immediately accepted as the bid is hugely above the general market price.

The world transfer record when Arsenal signed Walcott: £47 million

The world transfer record today: £85 million

By percentage of highest ever transfer, Walcott's tranfer, rated at only the £9.1 figure would come to £16-17 million today.

Next question is these transfer don't happen in real life? In order to answer that the factors determining player valuations must be found. Not surprisingly these are mainly a players perceived current ability and perceived potential ability as well as his importance for his current team and suitability for the buying team. For a youngster the latter two are almost irrelevant as he is unlikely to be playing for the first team, whilst current ability for the same reasons is not the deciding factor. Hence perceived potential ability is the factor that will push up the price for a youngsters.

Based on that and the fact that no +£15m transfers for 15-16 year-olds has occurred it can be concluded that either the knowledge of a youngsters future potential isn't clear enough to warrant such transfers or that +£15m simply is too much even if the future potential can be estimated with great accuracy. The latter is very unlikely though as we see deals of +£75m for more developed players, and it would seem irrational for a club to wait a few years and pay 5 times the amount that they could have paid when the player was 16, if they already had a strong idea of his potential.

To point this out clearly at this point, you've taken a value, have made no effort to put it into context of it's time, and used for now. You have then stated you are right. That's it, not discussion, you've just outright stated it.

Funnily enough though, you've hit the nail on the head here:

either the knowledge of a youngsters future potential isn't clear enough to warrant such transfers or that +£15m simply is too much even if the future potential can be estimated with great accuracy

That is, the reason you don't see the AI make such transfer is that future potential isn't that clear. Unless you know, you're a cheat...

Why do we see +£15m valuations and transfers in game then? Even if the occurrence of these transfers are merely shrugged off as people being careless with the in-game money and taking unwarranted gambles, it doesn't describe the selling clubs initially imposing extremely high valuations that are way above market price. Why do they start demanding +£30m when +£15m should be more than enough to scare of buying clubs as it is in real life?

Again, are you seeing the AI do this? As for the Walcott example, £15 million+ deals for 16 year olds do happen in real world (adjusted for modern transfers).

Firstly I do not accept the first assumption, as more often than not your scouted youngsters turn out to have fantastic potential and then +£15m is not reckless. The scouting is just so accurate that you can hardly go completely wrong. If you want to test: start a save with Real Madrid, hire the best possible scouts (ask the board for more every time you can), send them to scout the top 15-20 talent producing countries and maybe have a few roaming scouts to maybe pick up the unlikely Haitian wonderkid and scout nations excessively on regen dates/exploit the regen overview and scout all big clubs regens. After 5-10 seasons use the editor or Genie Scout and check how many +185 PA regens you have in your club and compare to how many are in the game. Regarding players that are excessively expensive and therefore can't be bought consider them yours since their valuations are unrealistic.

Yes, your scouting is that accurate when you use third party tools or the IGE.

I didn't do the test myself, but I played as Real Madrid on my first ever save on FM14 and by the time I started to get bored (around 2020) I became familiar with Genie Scout and tried it out. I happened to have almost every 185+ PA player in the game including a couple of 200 PA regens. The few I hadn't found never reached their potential, which all of mine did. My scouting network was controlled by the Director of Football throughout the save. Granted, I could have been lucky, but with all my later saves I have experienced the same thing. Looking at the attributes and mentality of a youngster and several 20/20 JPA/JPP reports gives you a very clear overview of the players potential ability.

That bolded part...

Although people understandably don't care as much for in-game money as real clubs do for theirs, it's still evident that people have too much knowledge of player potentials and the ability to make them reach it to be deterred by a realistic valuation. So basically the in-game market for these players is hugely inflated due to too great certainty of a players potential. If it was much more of a risk surely there would be no such market as £5m valuations of/demand for a 15 year-old would suddenly seem steep rather than a bargain. Much like real life.

Says the man who admits to using third party tools, and started posting in this thread directly referencing his use of it and frustration at not being able to sign a player with high potential.