board refusing to allow transfer

[phantombandit]

I feel like the board should only block a transfer if the offer is substantially below the amount they would accept. Here the board is blocking a 180k offer when because they want 190k. This is a very small difference, especially since this player is making over 300k a year and isnt playing. I can understand at higher levels when player values are several times their wage, but ultimately we will lose almost 200k waiting for the next transfer window because the board isnt ready to get 10k less than they think is acceptable.

[wazzaflow10]

What's the value on his player page (assuming you haven't put a price tag on him)? Transfermarkt has him as 225k currently.

Selling him at 180k would be a 20% discount so it's not totally outrageous to be blocked imo. It'd be nice if there was a bit more dialogue between the manager and the board before it happened to state why he's being sold so low. But it probably means you can push the negotiation more and up the value either through clauses or outright fees. The best solution is to play him more even if you don't want to so you can demand more money.

 

[wazzaflow10]

What's the value on his player page (assuming you haven't put a price tag on him)? Transfermarkt has him as 225k currently.

Selling him at 180k would be a 20% discount so it's not totally outrageous to be blocked imo. It'd be nice if there was a bit more dialogue between the manager and the board before it happened to state why he's being sold so low. But it probably means you can push the negotiation more and up the value either through clauses or outright fees. The best solution is to play him more even if you don't want to so you can demand more money.

 

[eXistenZ]

5 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

What's the value on his player page (assuming you haven't put a price tag on him)? Transfermarkt has him as 225k currently.

Selling him at 180k would be a 20% discount so it's not totally outrageous to be blocked imo. It'd be nice if there was a bit more dialogue between the manager and the board before it happened to state why he's being sold so low. But it probably means you can push the negotiation more and up the value either through clauses or outright fees. The best solution is to play him more even if you don't want to so you can demand more money.

 

the problem wth this is that the AI rarely puts in decent offers for players.

- a rotation player on a long contract? be happy that the AI will match his value

- your top player on a tear in the league? eh, how about a 10% on top of his value?

- that player who was good in the lower leagues but now promoted he isnt cutting in anymore? although still on league 2 wages? Better give him up for free

 

But my god, dont you ever try to bid below a players value when itbelongs to the AI

[phantombandit]

9 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

What's the value on his player page (assuming you haven't put a price tag on him)? Transfermarkt has him as 225k currently.

Selling him at 180k would be a 20% discount so it's not totally outrageous to be blocked imo. It'd be nice if there was a bit more dialogue between the manager and the board before it happened to state why he's being sold so low. But it probably means you can push the negotiation more and up the value either through clauses or outright fees. The best solution is to play him more even if you don't want to so you can demand more money.

 

 

Even if it is a 20% discount on his value, that value is very low compared to his wage, speaking of which, the board is 'devastated' over my control over wages. So either they need to accept selling a payer for 10k less than he is worth, or they should shut up about my wage budget lol.

[phantombandit]

3 hours ago, eXistenZ said:

 

- that player who was good in the lower leagues but now promoted he isnt cutting in anymore? although still on league 2 wages? Better give him up for free

 

But my god, dont you ever try to bid below a players value when itbelongs to the AI

That is exactly it. He was a player from when my team was in the third tier of germany. When I got promoted all my players wanted me to double their wages. I wasnt able to find a replacement in time for him so I had to give to an unrelastic wage to get him to renew, or have a hole in my team. Now I am stuck with a deadbeat player who I would literally accept a free transfer for just to get him off my books. let alone 80% of his market price

[wazzaflow10]

22 hours ago, eXistenZ said:

the problem wth this is that the AI rarely puts in decent offers for players.

- a rotation player on a long contract? be happy that the AI will match his value

- your top player on a tear in the league? eh, how about a 10% on top of his value?

- that player who was good in the lower leagues but now promoted he isnt cutting in anymore? although still on league 2 wages? Better give him up for free

 

But my god, dont you ever try to bid below a players value when itbelongs to the AI

It depends on what team you are and what you're doing. There's been plenty of examples by people here selling for more than value. If you're playing as a PL team you're not going to get a ton of value shedding players from your team. If you're a newly promoted team from league one to the championship you're not going to get championship money for league one players.

And its entirely possible to get players below value from the AI if they're transfer listed or unhappy. I got John Stones from MC in a 2021 save for 12M and sold him for nearly 40M a few years later to Barca. I've unsettled players who were long term targets and forced a move.

Could the AI do with some work negotiating? absolutely. I've had my share of frustrating negotiations that have gone haywire for no apparent reason. But in regards to the board not allowing a transfer because its below their min valuation doesn't seem wrong even if they're paying for wages on a player you don't plan on using. They could easily turn around and sack a manager and the next guy comes in and makes the guy you wanted to sell a key player.

[eXistenZ]

16 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

It depends on what team you are and what you're doing. There's been plenty of examples by people here selling for more than value. If you're playing as a PL team you're not going to get a ton of value shedding players from your team. If you're a newly promoted team from league one to the championship you're not going to get championship money for league one players.

And its entirely possible to get players below value from the AI if they're transfer listed or unhappy. I got John Stones from MC in a 2021 save for 12M and sold him for nearly 40M a few years later to Barca. I've unsettled players who were long term targets and forced a move.

 

Okay tell me if this assumption is wrong:

as you could afford josh stones on premier league wages, my guess it that at the time you were a midtable premier league team or maybe top 4 bundesliga or the like. Which means you had a decent reputation already going for you (probably close to continental). And as it is a former man city player, his reputation helps as well when selling him.

 

Now try to make a decent sale when you're working up through the leagues. When I got promoted from the Championship to the prem als chelmsford, after my first season it was clear that Nathan Young Coombes couldnt cut it anymore in the prem. He was valued at that time at aorund 20M. I ended up having to sell him for 10% of that. He was a double championship topscorer on not even 10k a week. In that whole 18y career, I had the AI made offers (where they made the first bid) 5 times. Just because reputation hadnt followed through. Likewise, enock asante, 100 goals in 3 vanarama seasons - couldnt even get him loaned out when promoted to league 2....

All because AI let itself be guided by reputation way too much and not by actual stats or results.

 

Not to mention how dumb some board requests/expectations are

Edited May 9 by eXistenZ

[wazzaflow10]

48 minutes ago, eXistenZ said:

Okay tell me if this assumption is wrong:

as you could afford josh stones on premier league wages, my guess it that at the time you were a midtable premier league team or maybe top 4 bundesliga or the like. Which means you had a decent reputation already going for you (probably close to continental). And as it is a former man city player, his reputation helps as well when selling him.

 

Now try to make a decent sale when you're working up through the leagues. When I got promoted from the Championship to the prem als chelmsford, after my first season it was clear that Nathan Young Coombes couldnt cut it anymore in the prem. He was valued at that time at aorund 20M. I ended up having to sell him for 10% of that. He was a double championship topscorer on not even 10k a week. In that whole 18y career, I had the AI made offers (where they made the first bid) 5 times. Just because reputation hadnt followed through. Likewise, enock asante, 100 goals in 3 vanarama seasons - couldnt even get him loaned out when promoted to league 2....

All because AI let itself be guided by reputation way too much and not by actual stats or results.

 

Not to mention how dumb some board requests/expectations are

City transfer listed him for 12M which was well below his actual value. Any team could have bought him for 12M. He was a starter for me when I sold him. Barcelona came in and made a decent bid that I negotiated up. In the same save I sold Martial to Real Madrid for 120M after a few rounds of negotiation. He was also a starter for me. I've had other saves where I've struggled to sell him for value because he's a part time player and doesn't perform.

You've done something highly unrealistic in taking semi-pro team to the premier league. You kind of have to take the good with the bad here. Of course the game isn't going to work the same as a team that's been established for its entire history near the top of the league. Just because Luton Town is in the PL doesn't mean all of their players are going to fetch PL value, certainly not ones that can't quite hack it in the Prem but were just good enough for the Championship. Of course teams are going to be wary of your players who had a meteoric rise through the pyramid and of course reputation will lag behind. Of all leagues the Premier League has the most value bloat due to the league's reputation. It sounds like you want his reputation to outweigh his stats if he isn't cut out for the PL. He shouldn't get premier league value if he's not a premier league player.

Here's the values for the RW's in the Championship.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/marktwerte/wettbewerb/GB2/plus//galerie/0?pos=&detailpos=12&altersklasse=alle&land_id=0

and the list of transfers for each team

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/transfers/wettbewerb/GB2/plus/?saison_id=2023&s_w=&leihe=1&intern=0

Would you pay 20M as a championship team for a winger with average league ability and limited PL potential? Or would you rather buy someone like Fatawu who Leicester just bought as part of a loan deal after securing promotion for 17M?  In my opinion, the game is weighting his ability correctly given he's probably really an average championship winger/striker who benefited from a system. Only the teams recently relegated are spending huge fees, in part based on their surplus from selling players back into the PL. Your market is pretty limited to get even remotely close to 20M. I'm sure the AI would demand 20M if the roles were reversed but you'd probably say the AI was crazy asking for 20M for an average player and move on, if you ever even considered a bid for that player.

The loan market is not great in FM24. However, part of not being able to find loans for players it seems is mainly due to lack of player interest in moving. If I'm a player and I was a top scorer in the National League, got promoted to League 2, I'm not interested in moving back down a division or being sent to another team. Why would anyone want to do that? Do you think Macauly Langstaff or Paul Mullin would go back to the VNL after getting promoted last season? Or join an unfamiliar League 2 team? I find that to be highly unlikely - it might happen but it shouldn't be the norm.

I do think the game can do a better job of communicating that teams are in fact interested but players are not open to a loan move at all. You see it sometimes as a news item where a team thinks a player doesn't have sufficient interest in joining. The AI scouting module is different than the human's but it wouldn't shock me if the AI knew a player had a loan interest of "None" for their squad in some way. So the AI doesn't actually have any interest in negotiating a loan for a player who will not join them at all so it looks like no one actually wants your player when in reality your player doesn't actually want to move.

 

[MichaelNevo]

I think the problem here is that you're not able to explain why the club should accept the sale, for instance pointing out the losses you would make if you had to wait for more offers to come in.

[NineCloudNine]

3 hours ago, eXistenZ said:

When I got promoted from the Championship to the prem als chelmsford, after my first season it was clear that Nathan Young Coombes couldnt cut it anymore in the prem. He was valued at that time at aorund 20M. I ended up having to sell him for 10% of that. He was a double championship topscorer on not even 10k a week.

The challenge here is that you yourself have seen he’s not good enough for the Prem, so no Prem team is going to want him, but on the other hand no Championship team is going to want to pay £20m, which is a notional value based on him being a Premiership player.

It’s definitely true that reputation is overly influential in FM and can lag behind changes in club success. But on the other hand, as pointed out by @wazzaflow10 getting Chelmsford to the Premiership is almost inconceivable IRL so should the game be adapting to a rise of that rapidity? If reputation rose and fell as fast as you are going up and down the leagues, the game world would become extremely volatile. 

Edited May 9 by NineCloudNine

[eXistenZ]

well that you didnt reply to my assumption about which club you were makes me guess its correct.... Im finding you trying to shoehorn your findings just to defend SI and the way you do it makes me think you dont really read my points. So I dont really find it worth discussing anymore. I never said I expected 20m from any club. I said thats what the game valued him at, combined with a good track record, yet there was no interest. All because of the reputation number of him and my club wasnt good enough.  And this is a persistent theme if you play clubs that arent top shelf if you start.  Its unrealistic, frustrating and frankly laziness that they havent touched this archaic system in years

 

No offense, but I find it laughable that you think SI made some hyper realistic transfer market where the AI looks at every little detail, when you have conversations like this in the game:

Me: offers player out for 5M
Player: boss, you are asking too much for me, that value is too high. No club will want me like that
Me: okay, what do you propose as value?
Player: How about you ask 7.5m?

I fully admit im not a programmer or coder, but I doubt its that hard to make a script where X has to recognise value a is higher than value b. If they cant even get that right, how do you expect me to believe the transfer market is working properly?

 

And to circle back to the OP point. Either the board should just sack him, because he is doing a ****** job with transfers in their eyes. Or they should realise that keeping a player on 300k a year is going to cost them a lot more than missing out on 10k....

 

 

Edited May 9 by eXistenZ

[eXistenZ]

1 minute ago, NineCloudNine said:

The challenge here is that you yourself have seen he’s not good enough for the Prem, so no Prem team is going to want him, but on the other hand no Championship team is going to want to pay £20m, which is a notional value based on him being a Premiership player.

It’s definitely true that reputation is overly influential in FM and can lag behind changes in club success. But on the other hand, as pointed out by @wazzaflow10 getting Chelmsford to the Premiership is almost inconceivable IRL so should the game be adapting to a rise of that rapidity? If reputation rose and fell as fast as you are going up and down the leagues, the game world would become extremely volatile. 

Again, I never said I wanted 20m for him, thats the value the game put on him. I just wanted some reasonable offers coming in for a player who has a decent track record. Eventually having to settle to sell him for 10% of his value is ridiculous, and its not that Championship clubs are dirt poor. Likewise that noboy was interested in a player that scored 100 goals in the vanarama is as well. And why? just because the combination of player rep+ club rep is not sufficient in their eyes.

Imagine any human manager going "well yes, he scored every other game in the division where playing in, but the club he plays at isnt really known enough, so I'll pass"

No wonder AI squad management is so terrible 15y in the future when they mainly look at rep....

 

[wazzaflow10]

1 hour ago, eXistenZ said:

well that you didnt reply to my assumption about which club you were makes me guess its correct.... Im finding you trying to shoehorn your findings just to defend SI and the way you do it makes me think you dont really read my points. So I dont really find it worth discussing anymore. I never said I expected 20m from any club. I said thats what the game valued him at, combined with a good track record, yet there was no interest. All because of the reputation number of him and my club wasnt good enough.  And this is a persistent theme if you play clubs that arent top shelf if you start.  Its unrealistic, frustrating and frankly laziness that they havent touched this archaic system in years

What a long winded way of being called a fanboy. Amusing.

I just showed you with real life data why you only got 2M. You clearly expected something close 20M otherwise you wouldn't be whining about it. Its much more than just reputation. If it was, the game would look at the player and go "oh he's a playing in the premier league so we should pay premier league money". But no one did. Why? Because he's clearly not good enough by your own admission to be in that league. I'm going to guess you're not playing him regularly and you've probably offered him out multiple times indicating a willingness to sell. You've destroy any leverage you had to command any decent fee. Its not really a surprise you got an average championship fee because that's the ability of the player. If you had him as the leading goalscorer of the PL for a few seasons and only got 2M then there'd be an issue.

The game should be weighted so that the big clubs retain their status for a long period of time. Man Utd hasn't won anything and been in disarray for over a decade and yet they're still considered a top club. Liverpool went 30+ years between titles and were still a top team. It should take more than 18 seasons to upset the natural balance of the world thats been set over the past 150 years. Who is Chelmsford compared to them?

1 hour ago, eXistenZ said:

And this is a persistent theme if you play clubs that arent top shelf if you start.  Its unrealistic, frustrating and frankly laziness that they havent touched this archaic system in years

I fully admit im not a programmer or coder, but I doubt its that hard to make a script where X has to recognise value a is higher than value b. If they cant even get that right, how do you expect me to believe the transfer market is working properly?

LOL I don't know anything about this job but I'm going to call the people working on it lazy and say its not hard to just do X. Just write a script! Oh you can't? Everything must be broken then. Sheer ignorance.

If you see something that doesn't make sense raise a bug with what happened. Its not hard. It might not make it to the top of the priority list especially if it is a one off but at least they're aware.

 

1 hour ago, eXistenZ said:

And to circle back to the OP point. Either the board should just sack him, because he is doing a ****** job with transfers in their eyes. Or they should realise that keeping a player on 300k a year is going to cost them a lot more than missing out on 10k....

Accusing me of not reading when I clearly said this to you as to why they would keep a player on the team.

21 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

But in regards to the board not allowing a transfer because its below their min valuation doesn't seem wrong even if they're paying for wages on a player you don't plan on using. They could easily turn around and sack a manager and the next guy comes in and makes the guy you wanted to sell a key player.

Maybe to spell it out a bit more for you managers get sacked all the time and players who found themselves out of favor suddenly are first teamers with the new manager. So when it comes to transfer policies, yes a board might block a transfer even if it "costs" them money in the long run. In their mind they're losing out on a potential bigger fee than just 10k at that point. And if you can somehow manage to get the additional 10k, you're free to sell him albeit to the disappointment of the board.

[eXistenZ]

I litterally said I didnt expect 20m for him 3 times already. I did want more than just 10% of that yes. I know, incredibly unreasonable from me...  Or are you now gonna tell me you got josh stones for 12m when he was worth 120? I have a vague idea whats the answer is gonna be. And we still not know whcih club it was... guess why.. And my final point: real life data has zero bearings on this situation. Not only was it 15y into the future but I have also said that worse players went for higher fees in that division during the save

So whatever cardiff or huddersfield or bumtown clarinets FC or whoever spent in real life last summer is completly irrelevant to what happens in the FM simulation. its just a strawman argument

Again im done, you obviously refuse to read, If you quote people, quote them completly instead of cherrypicking what you're gonna answer and ignore the stuff that doesnt fit your view. Thats just malicious intent (again). The OP also said the board isnt happy with his wage budget handling, but want to lose 300k a  year in an effort to get 10k more... Which conveniently you also ignored.....It makes zero logical sense and he has a right to raise this complain

 

Also the last time i opened a bug report i saw the same bug the year after so... forgive me for not having high hopes

Edited May 9 by eXistenZ

[wazzaflow10]

On 09/05/2024 at 16:03, eXistenZ said:

I litterally said I didnt expect 20m for him 3 times already. I did want more than just 10% of that yes. I know, incredibly unreasonable from me...  Or are you now gonna tell me you got josh stones for 12m when he was worth 120? I have a vague idea whats the answer is gonna be. And we still not know whcih club it was... guess why.. And my final point: real life data has zero bearings on this situation. Not only was it 15y into the future but I have also said that worse players went for higher fees in that division during the save

So whatever cardiff or huddersfield or bumtown clarinets FC or whoever spent in real life last summer is completly irrelevant to what happens in the FM simulation. its just a strawman argument

Again im done, you obviously refuse to read, If you quote people, quote them completly instead of cherrypicking what you're gonna answer and ignore the stuff that doesnt fit your view. Thats just malicious intent (again). The OP also said the board isnt happy with his wage budget handling, but want to lose 300k a  year in an effort to get 10k more... Which conveniently you also ignored.....It makes zero logical sense and he has a right to raise this complain

 

Also the last time i opened a bug report i saw the same bug the year after so... forgive me for not having high hopes

Yes totally a strawman argument to use real life data that the game is modeled after.  

What team I was doesn't matter. He was transfer listed for 12m by Man City. Any team could have bought him for that amount.

If you're just having a whine about how broken the game is, just say so. Most people at least have the dignity to put the words "RANT" in their posts.

[eXistenZ]

Yes, its absolutly perfectly modelled after real life. Thats why stuff like this happens:

 

[wazzaflow10]

2 hours ago, eXistenZ said:

Yes, its absolutly perfectly modelled after real life. Thats why stuff like this happens:

Stuff like what? You'll have to be more explicit.

[NineCloudNine]

11 hours ago, eXistenZ said:

Yes, its absolutly perfectly modelled after real life.

Strawman. No-one has come anywhere near suggesting this.

If the game makes you this angry, just walk away. It’s not worth it.

[eXistenZ]

11 hours ago, NineCloudNine said:

Strawman. No-one has come anywhere near suggesting this.

If the game makes you this angry, just walk away. It’s not worth it.

In case you werent paying attention, I wasnt the one who brought up real life examples....

I simply said that my player have values and the AI will rarely match those values even closely. Yet on the flipside, its borderline impossible to buy an AI player for under his listed value. Very simple observation, for which I still have heard a counter example, 20 posts far

Likewise, I still dont see a good explanation of the original OP where a board is willing to make a potential 300k loss to squeeze out 10k. While, as the OP mentioned, wages arealready an issue

 

So the only thing frustrating here is the avoiding of legit questions and non-answers that are posted here, like "just dont play", or "i dont have that issue, therefore it doesnt exist"

So if you cant provide usefull feedback, just walk away

Edited May 14 by eXistenZ

[wazzaflow10]

On 14/05/2024 at 13:29, eXistenZ said:

So if you cant provide usefull feedback, just walk away

Sounds like you want more of an echo chamber than feedback

[eXistenZ]

Imagine talking about an echo chamber when you still havent provided a decent answer the the OP's question, or any followup question for that matter, and flatout refused to do any effort of reading so other people have to put it in bold.

 

I would ask if you see the irony in that, but you'll probably ignore that question as well.....

[wazzaflow10]

19 minutes ago, eXistenZ said:

Imagine talking about an echo chamber when you still havent provided a decent answer the the OP's question, or any followup question for that matter, and flatout refused to do any effort of reading so other people have to put it in bold

Imagine that! The third post on the page. Even expanded on why a board might not sell a player:

On 07/05/2024 at 10:56, wazzaflow10 said:

What's the value on his player page (assuming you haven't put a price tag on him)? Transfermarkt has him as 225k currently.

Selling him at 180k would be a 20% discount so it's not totally outrageous to be blocked imo. It'd be nice if there was a bit more dialogue between the manager and the board before it happened to state why he's being sold so low. But it probably means you can push the negotiation more and up the value either through clauses or outright fees. The best solution is to play him more even if you don't want to so you can demand more money.

On 08/05/2024 at 16:20, wazzaflow10 said:

Could the AI do with some work negotiating? absolutely. I've had my share of frustrating negotiations that have gone haywire for no apparent reason. But in regards to the board not allowing a transfer because its below their min valuation doesn't seem wrong even if they're paying for wages on a player you don't plan on using. They could easily turn around and sack a manager and the next guy comes in and makes the guy you wanted to sell a key player.

Seems you just don't like the response? So you devolve the conversation into ad hominen attacks and hilarious inaccurately accusations of strawmen and cherry picking all while doing the things you accuse other of yourself? Yes let's talk about irony.

The fact of the matter is the manager answers to the board. What they say goes. You don't have to like it, you're free to resign or get sacked as you wish if you think the board is being unreasonable. Managers are expendable, especially ones where players are worth 200k (which by the way the OP never stated what the listed value in game was so for all we know it could be a 50% discount).

And under the hood from a programmer's perspective if I had to write this module it'd start with something like this conceptually:

Every board has a tolerance of how much they're willing to take a loss on a player based on their fiscal/financial profile and bank balance: some might be 0%, others 30%, and others still might have 100%. They don't view it as oh its only X difference and we'll lose Y waiting (which shouldn't matter in this scenario because OP even said he doesn't have sufficient cover without that player. So they're even less likely to accept because either it'll result in a panic buy with worse financial outcomes or they'll be short of players. In otherwords player wages are a cost of business and the board views it partially as a sunk cost so it likely doesn't have huge weight in determining if they'll accept a transfer). It's a logical statement. If selling price is not greater than or equal to the minimum set value then they block the transfer.

Now you can add modifiers to both willingness to take a loss and to the function to give it some flavor and turn it into less of a yes/no binary statement. It can be a probability clause where approving a transfer is when value returned from the function is >X%. The inputs into the function can be things like manager security. A manager with very stable security might get more leeway in selling a player whereas a manager with very insecure status would get less. You can also modify it by how long a player has left on a contract. A long or recently renewed contract would equate in less willing to take a loss whereas a player 6 months from expiry might be sold just to get something.

At the end of the day only SI knows what goes into it, and I'm sure if you asked politely instead of ranting half the time they might actually answer with high level feedback of what determines the value a board sets and if they're willing to accept a transfer fee. Or not and you can just play the game and enjoy it and create a narrative of the world to add your own immersion to get around what you believe are limitations of the game.

[XaW]

Ok, this thread has ran its course, I think.