[Suggestion] Changes to instalment transfer fees & linked consequences

[Guest]

One are of transfer that I think could do with an update is how the game handles deals where the core transfer fee is paid over a period of instalments, for me the current system of monthly payments does not seem to be in keeping with real life deals & as many have found it is easy to exploit the system without having much risk attached.

The key change is to replace monthly payments with set interval payments & to reduce the timescale from 4 to 2 years, with the new system a deal will be structure based on a set number of payments ranging from 1-5 with payments made on Jan 1st & June, the various options would be as follows;

1 payment - Nice & easy, all the fee is paid in cash when the deal is confirmed.

Paid in 6 months - half up front & half on Jan 1st or June 1st whichever falls first.

Paid in 12 months - as above or as 3 payments with a third paid on Jan 1st & the remainder on June 1st, only available for summer transfer deals.

Paid in 18 months - any combination so long as the final payment is made on the second June 1st after the deal completes.

Paid in 24 months - Same as 18 month terms.

For leagues outside Europe that operate a Jan-Dec season the June 1st cutoff would switched to Jan 1st.

 

The key benefit with this new system is that rather than a club slowing leaking money from their account as they continue to pay much more unmanageable monthly payments they will have to have a decent amount of cash available to meet the larger payments, it's also more in keeping with how modern football finances operate.

[Guest]

Next post is will deal with the consequence of not having enough cash to pay the bills, not a problem if you & your club has been sensible but for those that aren't there needs to be consequences.

Options to the club if they are struggling to meet any future transfer payment, this includes the other event based transfer clauses such as fee after x games, goals, after promotion etc.

1. Take out a short term loan, no more getting further overdrawn, mainly because these limitless overdrafts do not exist in real life. The cost of that loan would vary based on the amount borrowed, the current debt ratio of the club & value of future earnings. The term of the loan would also be limited to 12 months so it could simply be delaying the inevitable.

2. The board force the sale of a player to generate income to meet the payment.

3. Wealthy chairman stumps up the cash, no more miraculous sponsor deals to circumvent FFP & there should be a limit to how much a chairman has or is willing to drop based on their attributes so that eventually even they run out of money to bail you out.

4. The board make the payment but because they have run out of cash they fail to pay wages or other payments & the subsequent sanctions that entails.

5. They do not make the payment & are now in default to another clubs.

[Guest]

Next is what happens if options 4 or 5 are taken.

For European FFP it's simple, if a club has a defaulted payment to another club or has outstanding wages to players they fail the FFP checks & are excluded from European.

Domestically & in nations where this applies any club with outstanding debts to another club are subject to relegation, with the level they drop to being set by the researcher based on actual league rules or recent real life examples.

The final consequence is in how other clubs deal with you or your club, if the club has a history of default then until there is a change of ownership or a clear increase in profitability other clubs will start to refuse transfer offers unless they are deals that have thefee paid all in one go, the same logic would apply to a manager who has a history of defaulting, do it too often & clubs wil stop dealing with you unless it's cash up front.

[Maaka]

Yes, seems logical. The world of transfers have evolved, and the FM counterparts are not always up to date. Especially the part about defaulting and consequenses feels like it would add more realism to the game. (I have other issues with transfers etc. in game, but that's for another discussion).

[Guest]

Feel free to stat a thread if you have a any ideas on how to address the issue that you perceive exist.

[GriffiN94]

How would you feel about having different payment amounts when paying in installments. Like you buy a player for £15m but you pay £10m in the first installment and the remaining 5 in another , or spread out other longer periods.

[santy001]

I haven't read this in full yet, but regarding negative balances, I think overdrafts need to be something more prevalent in the game. Right now you effectively can keep going negative with no consequence.

During research I've noticed that some clubs do have overdrafts, Everton are a prime example in recent years, and there have been issues extending their overdraft or refinancing it at various times. Stoke on the other hand, have had a chairman set-up where the liabilities are increased to the chairman, yet the club balance still is quite healthy. 

I think this is a huge change which could have a dramatic impact upon players who have been effectively gaming the financial limitations a bit. A lot of overdrafts can cost a couple of million a year to service for clubs, so if transfer instalments are going to likely push a club into a negative balance perhaps that could be a consideration/factor in transfers.

I think some sharper issues flagging up once clubs hit £0 or their overdraft limit such as "the club has had to arrange an overdraft to meet the clubs transfer commitments, this will cost the club an additional X million over the next 12 months" with instalments going out in larger lump sums as you're suggesting. 

[Neil Brock]

Reviewed so locked.