Percentage Of Next Sale Issue

[corn_onthecurb]

Hey everyone,

I've come across what seems like a potential issue, though I'm not entirely sure if it's a bug, an oversight, or intended application of the clause. It appears that players can avoid paying the "percentage of next sale" clause when selling a player by structuring the deal in a specific way. If you arrange the transfer so that no money is paid upfront or in monthly installments, and instead, the entire cost of the transfer is paid after a certain number of league games (even just one), or if you spread out the fee per league appearances, the clause isn't enforced and all the money is added to your budget.

[andrew]

Sounds like it’s working as intended. Those clauses may never be fulfilled & makes sense they are not included in the ‘sale price’. 
 

if the AI are influenced to accept an offer with this structure, which includes 50% sell on clause, i guess thats the question.

[Costav]

13 hours ago, corn_onthecurb said:

Hey everyone,

I've come across what seems like a potential issue, though I'm not entirely sure if it's a bug, an oversight, or intended application of the clause. It appears that players can avoid paying the "percentage of next sale" clause when selling a player by structuring the deal in a specific way. If you arrange the transfer so that no money is paid upfront or in monthly installments, and instead, the entire cost of the transfer is paid after a certain number of league games (even just one), or if you spread out the fee per league appearances, the clause isn't enforced and all the money is added to your budget.

As far as I know, every money transfer are included in the percentage of next sale established in the original acquisition of the player. When the player is sold again and there is a new % of next sale clause, this ends in the original transfer too.
If this does not work for league games or league appearances, I am pretty sure it should be reported as a bug.  

Edited March 19 by Costav

[Brother Ben]

Yeah it's clearly a bug.  Needs reporting

[NineCloudNine]

IRL do sell-on clauses apply to conditional fees? I bet they don’t.

The sell-on fee would apply to anything unconditional, so upfront and installments.

The quirk is that it is possible in FM to structure bids with very little upfront and huge amounts in conditional fees. I doubt that such structures would be accepted IRL - I certainly haven’t heard of one.

So it seems to me that the sell-on clause is working as intended, but the ability to negate it by excessive conditional fees should be adjusted.

[corn_onthecurb]

3 hours ago, NineCloudNine said:

IRL do sell-on clauses apply to conditional fees? I bet they don’t.

The sell-on fee would apply to anything unconditional, so upfront and installments.

The quirk is that it is possible in FM to structure bids with very little upfront and huge amounts in conditional fees. I doubt that such structures would be accepted IRL - I certainly haven’t heard of one.

So it seems to me that the sell-on clause is working as intended, but the ability to negate it by excessive conditional fees should be adjusted.

I think that's a sensible conclusion. It seems that the AI is adept at handling offers for their players with excessively conditional fees, prioritizing the transfer fee over uncertain conditional payments. However, if a human player opts for no upfront payment and prefers all payments to be conditional, the AI will readily accept. It appears that the AI clubs making offers aren't overly concerned about potential sell-on fees from other AI clubs.

We can probably consider this more of an exploit rather than a bug, as it's a loophole that only human players can exploit.

[Costav]

18 hours ago, NineCloudNine said:

IRL do sell-on clauses apply to conditional fees? I bet they don’t.

The sell-on fee would apply to anything unconditional, so upfront and installments.

The quirk is that it is possible in FM to structure bids with very little upfront and huge amounts in conditional fees. I doubt that such structures would be accepted IRL - I certainly haven’t heard of one.

So it seems to me that the sell-on clause is working as intended, but the ability to negate it by excessive conditional fees should be adjusted.

I don't agree. If you have a % sell clause you should be able to retrieve every single money the second team get after the sale. IRL too.

Think about it: it would be very easy for each team no to receive any fixed amount and sell a player obtaining al; money after the first match or after the first conditional event, in order to avoid paying the %.

[NineCloudNine]

33 minutes ago, Costav said:

Think about it: it would be very easy for each team no to receive any fixed amount and sell a player obtaining al; money after the first match or after the first conditional event, in order to avoid paying the %.

That is the risk. Which is why deals structured that way (low/no fee with high conditional clauses) are very rare or non-existent in real life. Nor do AI teams ever structure a deal that way. So the problem/risk you describe only exists when a human FM player chooses to structure a deal that way, knowing that the AI won’t laugh them out if the room in the way a real life club would.

Edited March 20 by NineCloudNine

[Costav]

1 minute ago, NineCloudNine said:

That is the risk. Which is why deals structured that way (low/no fee with high conditional clauses) are very rare or non-existent in real life. Nor do AI teams ever structure a deal that way. So the problem/risk you describe only exists when a human FM player chooses to structure a deal that way, knowing that the AI won’t laugh them out if the room in the way a real life club would.

I agree! That's why I see it as a bug more than an exploit 

[corn_onthecurb]

10 hours ago, Costav said:

I agree! That's why I see it as a bug more than an exploit 

A bug that can only be exploited by human players might be a good description 

[corn_onthecurb]

I'll raise it in the bug forum and see what the devs think

[NineCloudNine]

21 hours ago, Costav said:

I agree! That's why I see it as a bug more than an exploit 

Either description is fine. To me the solution is for AI teams not to accept deals structured this way, because they would not do so IRL. Changing the way sell-on clauses work to include percentages of conditional fees is not the answer, because that’s not how such clauses work IRL.

[Costav]

1 hour ago, NineCloudNine said:

Changing the way sell-on clauses work to include percentages of conditional fees is not the answer, because that’s not how such clauses work IRL

Why do you think so?

It does not make sense to have the sell-on clause applicable only to a part of the deal.
 

Usually sell-on clause are defined as in the example of Brighton and Malaga...

2.2 Should the Player’s registration be transferred on a permanent basis by Malaga at any time in the future then Malaga will pay to Brighton 12.5% (twelve and a half per cent) of any transfer fee received by Malaga (deducting the amount corresponding to solidarity contribution) up to a maximum sum of €750,000 (seven hundred and fifty thousand euros)

see https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/whats-the-meaning-of-a-football-transfer#:~:text=“The Sell-On Clause contains,services%3B therefore%2C the old club

Edited March 21 by Costav

[Costav]

2 minutes ago, Costav said:

see https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/whats-the-meaning-of-a-football-transfer#:~:text=“The Sell-On Clause contains,services%3B therefore%2C the old club

Both FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) declared that every fee in a second transfer must be included in the sell-on amount. So in real life every cent counts.

[NineCloudNine]

2 hours ago, Costav said:

Why do you think so?

It does not make sense to have the sell-on clause applicable only to a part of the deal.
 

Usually sell-on clause are defined as in the example of Brighton and Malaga...

2.2 Should the Player’s registration be transferred on a permanent basis by Malaga at any time in the future then Malaga will pay to Brighton 12.5% (twelve and a half per cent) of any transfer fee received by Malaga (deducting the amount corresponding to solidarity contribution) up to a maximum sum of €750,000 (seven hundred and fifty thousand euros)

see https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/whats-the-meaning-of-a-football-transfer#:~:text=“The Sell-On Clause contains,services%3B therefore%2C the old club

Great info! Thanks, that was an interesting read.

I don’t think anything in that case obviously covers conditional fees. However, this did catch my eye:

 

Quote

”Equally, selling clubs should take care to ensure that the applicability of the sell-on clause is not limited in any way especially in order to avoid situations where clubs may attempt to use creative methods to avoid their obligations under a sell-on clause.

 

That seems to clearly cover the sort of deal structure the OP describes.

However we each got there, we all agree that a deal structured like that should absolutely not be used to avoid sell-on fee obligations. 

 

Edited March 21 by NineCloudNine

[Gangor]

Of more concern I'd have thought is the readiness of the AI to accept sell on clauses being added in on players the human sells. They hardly seem to value them at all