Transfer Market too easy with premiums

[German_Rabbit]

The transfer and financing market is way too easy. Main reason is that it is no problem to buy players with very little cash and add very high premiums, but those premiums never have to be paid:

Example: Player costs 80million (transfer value)

Purchase: 30million cash + premiums for: 50 games played: 50mil  and 50 goals:  50mil (and maybe 20 games for national team another 10mil). 

Sell this guy after 49 games (which is basically 2 seasons minimum, as only league games count) for lets say 80mil; and never pay the 100mil. --> made 50mil profit (on younger players this obviously usually increases)

Do that with 10-15 players on a rotating basis on various level to increase the budgets to insane level.

What needs to be changed is that in case such premiums are added, e.g. based on number of games played or goals scored, those premiums would have to be payable if the player is sold. On goals, it could be done pro-rata, i.e. if the premium is 40mil for 50 goals, if the player has scored 40 goals and is sold, 32mill are payble (40/50 x 40mil). On games played it would have to be the lump sum that was agreed to when bought.

There is no way this would work in real life, i.e. let's say ManCity buys Mbappe for 300mil for e.g. 150 upfront and a clause that says they pay 150mil after 50 games, but PSG would not receive the 150 if the guy is onsold after 49 games.

[MaskedReferee]

There will always be loopholes that can be exploited in the game. The problem with closing a loophole is you often create another elsewhere.

While what you have said it right, I think the easiest fix is for the player not to exploit it to begin with (although it's a single player game that people are entitled to play how they want). Personally, I have come across several ways to exploit the AI logic but try play within the 'spirit' of the game to keep the realism as high as possible.

Again, not saying your suggestion is wrong or that you are wrong to raise it.

 

[German_Rabbit]

Well, actually there are many people playing multi-player mode. It is difficult not not exploit it, since where do you draw the line? Generally, such clauses are good and necessary to allow for some negotiation room. If a club purchases a good player and then e.g. qualifies for CL and then has the money to aford the premiums that is exactly what should be possible.

Since such future premiums make sense as such, I do not think it is a difficult fix. Easiest fix is, if a player is sold, all premiums become immediatly due and are deducted from the transfer budget (first instance), or future budget (if transfer budget is zero and having accounted for room in the salary budget) and will be a hit on the cash position of the club.

[jim5000]

But this happens to a degree in real life.

Season before last, Leicester loaned a player from Birmingham with a clause to buy him if he played 10 league matches. He didn't play for the last few games of the season because Leicester didn't want him and he was on 9 games.

[German_Rabbit]

I get that, but the way it is designed in FM is completely ridiculous. With any mediocre team - as long as you have a small budget to get thinks rolling - one can end up with 20 world class superstarts after 3-5 years.  And your example is very different  to the issue I describe, because then Birmingham gets the player back. In FM, Birmingham would have bought the player for a small amount, agreed to a very high premium if played more than 10 games.  Then simply bench him after 9 games and sell him for a lot of money, never paying that premium. Very different outcome for Leicester (and in real life they would never agree to that).

But to buy e.g. Bellingham for 25 in cash and 130 in premiums and then just sell him for 80mil (cash) after 40 games and not pay any premiums is nothing that would ever happen in real life. One way to fix it is also to limit the premiums, to e.g. the equivalent of the amount that is paid cash.  

[Freakiie]

But it does happen in real life. There's frequently young players that are sold with massive bonuses as part of the transfer of which barely any get paid because the player never develops.

Dele Alli was sold for nothing with only appearance fee related bonuses and I highly doubt Everton will ever pay most of those as he is just wasting away on the bench.

Also in real life Real would never sell Bellingham to save a couple millions because, well it's Bellingham and how the hell would you replace him?

If you want to game the system there are tons of ways to do it and SI will (and should) not implement unrealistic stopgaps because players cheese the game. The AI already values future clauses less than just hard cash and you can argue whether that valuation should be lowered or whether the AI should want a minimum fee in straight cash, but limiting stuff like buying youngsters with heavy future bonuses, which is a completely normal thing, because some people abuse the system should not be how things work.

[Spallo]

And - if you are goin in with the mindset of selling a player after x appearances or whatever, then your proposition is based on unrealistic behavior. So while you are claiming unrealistic transfer behavior you are also doin it yourself, which makes the whole point senseless. Nobody would do such thing in rl because there are way to much risks involved. So just play that way or game the game - either is fine as is the transfer behavior of the AI for the most part.

[turnip]

There isn't a single video game around that is adequately balanced for single-player and multi-player at the same time without the two modes being markedly different. So SI shouldn't bother.

And @German_Rabbit if your multiplayer buddies can't agree to play by a set of rules, then either attempt to beat them at their own game or just ignore them, dude. Asking SI to change the game because your friends are morons is kinda lame.

[German_Rabbit]

@Freakiie: That is completely fine and a different problem. If a player does not develop, well nothing is paid. But to pay little to no cash and only get the player because of offering crazy premiums which can easily be avoided to be paid by an onsale, just does not make sense. If he really develops nicely and you then cash in on higher market value. And that is the biggest difference to the game when compared to real life, as it is pretty clear in the game who will develop well. Therefore, it should be made more difficult to buy players with adding premiums (as future risk is limited in the game).

@turnip/spallo: My post was meant to be as an idea to improve the game and to make it more realistic. It's great how many options and premiums are possible in the transfer market and why not make it a little more realistic? Could be simple maximum limits in the background on premiums related to cash amounts, which is really not hard to add. Or, as I mentioned, one could leave the premiums as is and only add that those are paid if the player is sold within e.g. 2 or 3 years or a certain percentage of that. That way, you align the game to what's happening in reality, which will further enhance the game. 

For me the point is, since it is a game and players have a certain outcome regarding their ability (and hence future transfer price), the transfer market should be made much harder, as the game - naturally - misses out on the risk of future development of players.

Also, I don't quite understand the single player/multi-player argument. It's the same game experience and if it is too easy to buy top players by creating revenue through trading, it's no fun to play - single or multi player. 

[Costav]

To be fair, based on my experience, premiums are not weighted in the same way as the initial amount of cash. The same is when you pay in instalments.
So probably you would have bought the player for 50/60M cash but you include all those premiums the made the price increase.

Then you can always find the loophole in the game, yes, but I would not exaggerate with the critics in this case.

[SergeiG]

I agree to some extent, It's very easy to manipulate the transfer market with certain add-ons or installments or even go as far as bankrupting your club and wait for the board to inject some cash and do it over again.

But some of the stuff is very realistic, especially about add-ons. I remember how Atlético Madrid tried to maneuver around some add-on to pay less to Barcelona for Antoine Griezmann and Barcelona tried to do the same with Coutinho so they would not have to pay 20 mil to Liverpool.

 

I just ignore all that and buy all my players straight up with cash upfront, no add-ons, no installments. The only "crutch" I use from time to time to manipulate my budget is loan with an optional or mandatory buy fee despite it being a very common practice IRL I use it rarely.

[phnompenhandy]

There are a number of threads here complaining about 'exploits' in the game making success come too easily. We can argue about whether that are "realistic" or not until the cows come home. The bottom line is this is a one-player game, and if YOU feel something is spoiling your game, there is an easy out: don't do it. A lot of us here set our own restrictions or self-imposed limits to make the game more enjoyable as a challenge.

[German_Rabbit]

Ok, duly noted. You seem to have a different opinion. But I will say, I have only played FM in multiplayer mode, as I think it is more fun to compete with real friends. and it's obviously easier (with any game) if you can just play it without having to discuss and monitor any special private rules. 

We played German Bundesliga, Frankfurt and Cologne. Until 2029, we won the league each year; my buddy playing Cologne won the CL 3 times in a row.  While it should be the ultimate goal and possible, I think it should be tougher to reach it, i.e. take longer because in real life - especially these kind of clubs - dont have the means to buy all these players in such a short time. 

But enough said, interesting to learn that you do not feel that way and I guess we agree to disagree. All good. Enjoy FM.

[phnompenhandy]

3 minutes ago, German_Rabbit said:

Ok, duly noted. You seem to have a different opinion. But I will say, I have only played FM in multiplayer mode, as I think it is more fun to compete with real friends. and it's obviously easier (with any game) if you can just play it without having to discuss and monitor any special private rules. 

We played German Bundesliga, Frankfurt and Cologne. Until 2029, we won the league each year; my buddy playing Cologne won the CL 3 times in a row.  While it should be the ultimate goal and possible, I think it should be tougher to reach it, i.e. take longer because in real life - especially these kind of clubs - dont have the means to buy all these players in such a short time. 

But enough said, interesting to learn that you do not feel that way and I guess we agree to disagree. All good. Enjoy FM.

I'd say I don't have a different opinion about the problem. I'm just taking a realist position in that I know SI are unlikely to solve the problems we encounter to our satisfaction, so I find ways to compensate, so I can still enjoy the game.

But my stance only works in single-player mode. You're right, it's not a solution in multi-player mode unless all are truly on board with agreeing rules.

[German_Rabbit]

Do you think it is really so difficult to solve (programme)? I would have thought, the premiums that are most unrealistic are:

1. Games played (in particular 50 games, as this allows you to play the guy 2-3 seasons)

2. Goals scored (in partiuclar 40 or 50 goals)

If SI would programme it the way that if you sell the player within 3 years, you have to pay ( pro-rata or all) on the premiums (goes against current and future budget), it would significantly hurt the budget if players are simply bought to generate short term trading revenue. That way, making money on trading players is much more difficult.

[Dagenham_Dave]

Or better still, don't 'game' the system by exploiting it in the first place. 

Radical, I know. 

[German_Rabbit]

I am just trying to find solutions to a problem, which this chat shows we all agree exits. For the years to come, FM25, 26, 27... they will improve the game. And part of any improvement alongside to the tactic, strategy gameplay should also be the transfer market. 

 

 

[kopfan1977]

8 hours ago, German_Rabbit said:

I am just trying to find solutions to a problem, which this chat shows we all agree exits. For the years to come, FM25, 26, 27... they will improve the game. And part of any improvement alongside to the tactic, strategy gameplay should also be the transfer market. 

 

 

 

This is a management simulation and they try to make it as close to real life as possible. 

All those addons you mentioned, they are readily used across Football. Therefore they are not going to leave the game anytime soon unless FIFA/UEFA outlaw them. You'll just have to live with the fact that there is an exploit within the game as such.

[priority76]

11 hours ago, German_Rabbit said:

I am just trying to find solutions to a problem

There is no problem, leave it alone.

[-Jef-]

I give out bonuses for younger players mostly. I've just purchased a 19yr old winger from Slovenia for 225k up front, 1m after 50 apps and arrange a friendly. If he develops into a beast I hope he will then I have no problem paying out that 1m to Radomlje. It's all about you and your buds and how you lot are trustworthy of each other.

 

Also, are people really gonna forget Coutinho, Griezmann and many more instances where this exact thing happened?

 

So many teams have appearance bonuses payouts if players is subbed on before 60th minute and they get subbed on 61st minute to avoid that.

 

It's waaay too common practice irl.

[trviggo]

On 11/12/2023 at 13:45, MaskedReferee said:

The problem with closing a loophole is you often create another elsewhere

Or you get features like the agents which only provides the game with a downside for a full game cycle until they're expanded on

[northernmonkey]

That’s assuming you can sell your players!!

[kentonizking]

Just don't cheat.

 

You are only cheating yourself

[Dotsworthy]

I think the actual solution to this would be improving the transfer logic of the AI so that add ons are relative to the price tag so you can't just offer 50mil add on for games played (i.e. if you offered 30mil up front the AI would only accept 10-15% of that amount for an add-on, and want close to the players value in guaranteed payment).

[Cometdude]

It is an exploit that in the real world would see significant damage done to a club and managers reputation. The effect would most likely be that after the first couple of times clubs would probably cease to do business with you unless it was a cash upfront deal. I'd have no problem if that kind of logic was built into the game. Then again I wouldn't do it in the first place, I enjoy exploiting the ME to win trophies for financial gain too much.

[AurioDK]

Have seen this, have used it to get a player I wanted but didnt have the cash in hand, thus I made various fees which weren´t included in the transfer sum. Never actually occurred to me to "abuse" it except for a single left back whom I was furious with in 2034.

All games have their exploits, some more realistic than others, it´s up to you in a single player game to exert a bit of restraint, it isn´t that hard.

[German_Rabbit]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Dotsworthy:

I think the actual solution to this would be improving the transfer logic of the AI so that add ons are relative to the price tag so you can't just offer 50mil add on for games played (i.e. if you offered 30mil up front the AI would only accept 10-15% of that amount for an add-on, and want close to the players value in guaranteed payment).

Yes, I think that would make sense. In the real world, clubs would not accept premiums which are much higher than the actual cash value. Maybe 10-15% for all added premiums would be too strict, but for any of such premiums it could be good limit. Or you limit the sum of all premiums to e.g. 50% of cash value and then one could divide it however it suits best. 

[trviggo]

Y'all realise the AI "abuses" this more than the average player right? That's how we constantly get complaints about the AI getting players cheaper than the manager. The deals are filled with conditional fees. 

3 hours ago, German_Rabbit said:

In the real world, clubs would not accept premiums which are much higher than the actual cash value.

Manchester United famously bought Amad Diallo for 20m + 20m in conditionals. In the real world, most clubs won't risk losing out on a huge amount of money by keeping a 16 year old.

SI should stick to the laws of the game.  Make your own rules within those. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by trviggo

[MontyOnTheRun]

OP is spot on. But this will never change because SI needs to sell games and a big part of that is to allow the average gamer to buy any player they want. IRL only a handful clubs can afford to buy Mbappe, but in FM there is a loophole.

 

I apply my own rules when playing, to make the game more challenging (AI is already bad enough at competing in the transfer market): every fee I pay is all upfront, with no sell-on clasuses. For outgoing transfers, I never sell a player for more than his current transfer value… and I try to get as much of it upfront as I can so that I can re-enter the transfer market. Easiest way to make the AI go along with this in negotiations is to remove innstallment payments and clauses, and make this non-negotiable. Try playing this way and see how much more enjoyment you get out of finding bargain signings and making big player sales, while at the same time not drowning the transfer market with your cash and thereby allowing the AI clubs to make good signings that you normally would have reserved for your own team.