Jump to content

FM17: My Free Transfer top-performer is a poor financial deal, says the board


Recommended Posts

I am managing Bath City in the first season in the VNL South. I signed a free transfer 19-year old striker, who so far have the highest Avg. Rating (7.54), the highest scorer in the league (24 goals) and has the team's most assists (8 assists). He is making the king's ransom of £210/week (not even close to being highest salary).

So why does the board tell me that "However, the board feels the decision to sign Jonathan-Pierre jones appears to be a poor financial deal for the club"?

I have a sneaky feeling, that since I just got over my wage budget (a key defender wanted a raise mid-season), that they just pick a player that costs more than my wage deficit (£120/week) and blame him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, StormenDK said:

I am managing Bath City in the first season in the VNL South. I signed a free transfer 19-year old striker, who so far have the highest Avg. Rating (7.54), the highest scorer in the league (24 goals) and has the team's most assists (8 assists). He is making the king's ransom of £210/week (not even close to being highest salary).

So why does the board tell me that "However, the board feels the decision to sign Jonathan-Pierre jones appears to be a poor financial deal for the club"?

I have a sneaky feeling, that since I just got over my wage budget (a key defender wanted a raise mid-season), that they just pick a player that costs more than my wage deficit (£120/week) and blame him.

Wages aren't the same as "wage budget cost", its possible that he has the highest wage budget cost on the team due to bonus payments etc.

Also was any money taken out of the transfer budget when signing him? agent fees, signing on fee etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember about the fees, but they were definitely within the transfer budget.

He of course has bonuses:

- Appearance fee: £75

- Goal bonus: £45

- Unused Sub Fee: £45

He uses 4% of the wage budget.

Not anything wild.

My second choice striker Has the following contract:

Wages: £400/week

- Appearance Fee: £50

- Goal Bonus: £50

- Unused Sub gee: £20

He uses 9% of the budget. But I see no complaints about him.

Does the squad status come in play too? .... my youngster is only a Hot Prospect, while the second choice is First Team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StormenDK said:

Does the squad status come in play too? .... my youngster is only a Hot Prospect, while the second choice is First Team.

Yes squad status on the contract signing makes a difference as does perceived ability by the board/staff.

It seems to set an expectation level for wages etc for the board.

I signed four players last night (Frees) all on very similar wages.  Two were 4* players signed on key player status and the board response on the confidence screen is something like "Pleased due to paying less wages than we would expect for his ability".  One was a 22yo 2.5* player with potential, board resonse was fairly neutral, I don't think they referenced the cost.  Last player was a 20yo hot propect (1.5* with 4*PA), board response was same as your OP.  TBH I actually agree with them, he isn't quite as good as my scouts suggested and if I had other options I probably wouldn't have signed him.  Compared to the rest of the squad for his role he I have significantly overpaid on wages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But does it make sense to only look at CA/PA?

I mean, the youngster is currently considered to be better than my second choice, and even if he was judged to be a 1*, wouldn't his contribution to my season with great ratings and lots og goals and assist weigh more? .. I mean, he is on a one year contract, so it is not like the club has to pay him for 5 years.

I imagine they would complain about my second choice striker, if he hadn't been at the club when I started :)

 

I could try to change his squad status, and see if that will get them off my back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...