Board’s Transfer Reaction

[lcutini]

When managing a team with an active B team like in Portugal or Germany, I like to use my B team to evaluate potential prospects. This involves signing a wide array of U-23 players to see if any grow into potential first teamers. However this leads to board’s ratings of my transfers to be red and I consistently get messages like “fans regard your singing of Player X as an aberration,” even though 1. These players aren’t signed with the first team in mind and are purely brought in to cast a wide net when searching for prospects and 2. I also make good first team transfers. Is there any way for the board/fans to rate first team transfers separately or to have a better understanding of what these players are for? I know this is more of a future editions issue but I just wanted to raise it 

[Marc Vaughan]

How much are you paying for these speculative players? - if they're cheap then they shouldn't get a hugely negative reaction, if you're paying a fair chunk of change then that will be why they're upset ..

[lcutini]

@Marc Vaughan typically they’re free transfers as I generally scan the players with no club looking for potential. If they’re not free they’re always cheap (~100k max out of a 10 million budget). Just for some context I made the original post after I signed 3 free players who all ended up having at least “some potential to improve” per the training report and the board’s transfer rating of me went from green to red

Edited April 1, 2021 by lcutini

[MatiasDFS]

yeah happens the same to me, when i bring to the club free 15 or 16yo players to make the b team better the board complains like they are bad first team signings

[Marc Vaughan]

Ok I'll look into it today and will make sure its rectified for next years game - to confirm what I hope you realize, it won't have enough effect to get you sacked if its that sort of player, it is just that there isn't a larger 'effect' from a transfer to comment upon (as far as I can tell at present).

[StephenCronin]

This happens a lot to me as well, and I sort of understand it - everyone wants you to splash the cash on big signings. If you do, then they won't complain about you buying youngsters - at least they don't for me. If I have that message and go out and spend a lot on a big name, it disappears and will likely be replaced with a message saying the new signing is a great one. Note: "Good first team signings" might not be enough, you need a big name.

That reflects real life and makes sense to a point, but it doesn't take things like results and the quality of your squad into account. You can have the best squad in the world and legitimately all you need is some youngsters for the future, but it will still want you to buy a big name. Maybe that's fair enough, but when you've won the UCL 5 times in a row, your board should probably give you the benefit of the doubt. 

@Marc Vaughan - this also affects Transfer Acumen in the manager profile. I've had careers where I've won the UCL 10 times and I've sold £2B worth of players and only bought £500M worth, and I've been given a Transfer Acument rating of 2. Transfer Acumen goes up when you buy big names for big $, but goes down when you buy the next Thierry Henry. If you buy 30 of the next Thierry Henry's then you're rubbish at transfers! 😄

It should probably be the other way around - achieved massive success and clever enough to make £1.5B profit on the transfer market - sounds like that's pretty good acumen to me. 🙂

[passenger58]

On 02/04/2021 at 16:49, StephenCronin said:

This happens a lot to me as well, and I sort of understand it - everyone wants you to splash the cash on big signings. If you do, then they won't complain about you buying youngsters - at least they don't for me. If I have that message and go out and spend a lot on a big name, it disappears and will likely be replaced with a message saying the new signing is a great one. Note: "Good first team signings" might not be enough, you need a big name.

That reflects real life and makes sense to a point, but it doesn't take things like results and the quality of your squad into account. You can have the best squad in the world and legitimately all you need is some youngsters for the future, but it will still want you to buy a big name. Maybe that's fair enough, but when you've won the UCL 5 times in a row, your board should probably give you the benefit of the doubt. 

@Marc Vaughan - this also affects Transfer Acumen in the manager profile. I've had careers where I've won the UCL 10 times and I've sold £2B worth of players and only bought £500M worth, and I've been given a Transfer Acument rating of 2. Transfer Acumen goes up when you buy big names for big $, but goes down when you buy the next Thierry Henry. If you buy 30 of the next Thierry Henry's then you're rubbish at transfers! 😄

It should probably be the other way around - achieved massive success and clever enough to make £1.5B profit on the transfer market - sounds like that's pretty good acumen to me. 🙂

I've gone through careers where I haven't spent a penny in transfer fees and sold hundreds of millions of pounds of talent, while winning competitions on a regular basis, and still had a transfer acumen rating of 10 and an average Transfers bar on the Board Confidence screen.

So basically the fact the game is geared towards rewarding extravagant signings doesn't surprise me, but doesn't feel entirely right to me. 

Edited April 4, 2021 by passenger58

[DW19]

On 04/04/2021 at 12:10, passenger58 said:

I've gone through careers where I haven't spent a penny in transfer fees and sold hundreds of millions of pounds of talent, while winning competitions on a regular basis, and still had a transfer acumen rating of 10 and an average Transfers bar on the Board Confidence screen.

So basically the fact the game is geared towards rewarding extravagant signings doesn't surprise me, but doesn't feel entirely right to me. 

Wow! I have never seen that. I think I have the typical FM experience where I make a big profit on transfers and eventually end up with a transfer acumen that hovers around 18-20.

[passenger58]

8 minutes ago, DW19 said:

Wow! I have never seen that. I think I have the typical FM experience where I make a big profit on transfers and eventually end up with a transfer acumen that hovers around 18-20.

Yeah it's basically because I never buy any players with money (just frees, loans and swaps), so the game probably  sees me as not having proved I have transfer acumen as I haven't spent anything. 

[DW19]

18 hours ago, passenger58 said:

Yeah it's basically because I never buy any players with money (just frees, loans and swaps), so the game probably  sees me as not having proved I have transfer acumen as I haven't spent anything. 

Interesting point. So if you buy players cheaply then you are astute, if you get them for free then it gets ignored. That seems to be what you are seeing?

[passenger58]

On 07/04/2021 at 17:17, DW19 said:

Interesting point. So if you buy players cheaply then you are astute, if you get them for free then it gets ignored. That seems to be what you are seeing?

Yes, pretty much. As I haven't spend any money, I guess the game has nothing to measure the quality of the signings against, so it doesn't move. That's how I've seen it to work in my experiences anyway. Unfortunately I don't have any save games to demonstrate this with. Maybe SI can confirm if this is how the logic works anyway. 

[MatiasDFS]

following this, i have an eight in domestic player bias having a 100% national team and only one foreign player in my reserves, so i think the own manager stats are measured differently than we think.