Inflated Transfer Fees

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phnompenhandy:

Also, comparing Torres and SWP is weak because that latter was purchased in the heady early daus of the Roman/Jose empire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg to differ, the comparison is wholly relevant to FM because so many clubs experience "heady early days of the Roman/Jose empire"esque windfalls, and find themselves in a position to spend that sort of money on players.

If we were to take a more recent high transfer fee example to compare with Torres then perhaps Malouda at £18m would be more reasonable. Can anyone actually say in honesty that there is only £6m difference in player between Malouda and Torres?

[Stemlfc65]

I didn't really think it was an issue until Arsenal signed Joaquin from Valencia for 36 Million.

1. Arsenal would never buy a player for so much

2. Joaquin is not worth 36 million of the queens English pounds!

[phnompenhandy]

That's a valid point - as fantasy newbie managers of the top clubs in the world, we do tend to act Mourinhoesque. It's really up to the boards to curb our spending.

The main 2 points summarising the points made in this thread (by you included) still stand though.

[phnompenhandy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phnompenhandy:

That's a valid point - as fantasy newbie managers of the top clubs in the world, we do tend to act Mourinhoesque. It's really up to the boards to curb our spending.

The main 2 points summarising the points made in this thread (by you included) still stand though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should have quoted Nomis07 there.

[glamdring]

I accept that a lot of these fees being reported are in the 1st season, but putting that aside, we don't know what transfer fees will be like 10 years down the line in real life. Maybe they will be at this insane level or maybe the transfer market will have bombed completely.

Basically my point is that I really couldn't give a flying fig about absolute transfer fees. Trying to rationalise what a player is worth is impossible given the ludicrous market place that is football. Relative transfer fees are more of an issue, i.e. players relative to each other moving to or from the same club (different clubs in different financial situations, either buying or selling, will always value players of similar ability very differently) and transfer fees relative to how much money a club has available to spend - i.e. clearly if you only have £25 million in the bank blowing £20 million on a single player who is not world class is stupid. If you have £250 million in the bank then it is less stupid.

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phnompenhandy:

That's a valid point - as fantasy newbie managers of the top clubs in the world, we do tend to act Mourinhoesque. It's really up to the boards to curb our spending.

The main 2 points summarising the points made in this thread (by you included) still stand though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That leads me to a suggestion, which I don't think will get a good response but IMO would be a good addition to the game.

Should wage and transfer structures be set by the board att he start of each season along with budgets? E.g. Man Utd have £20m to spend and have the ability to spend every penny of that on one player, Derby have £20m to spend but the board set a limit of £7.5m as the highest amount allowed to be spent on one player. This could rise as reputation and earnings rise and eventually players would have the ability to spend £20m on one player, no matter what club they are. IMO that seems realisitc as to how RL clubs would be run.

Personally I set myself a target of highest transfer fee I can pay as the clubs record purchase, i.e. at Bayern Munich I can't spend more than the £17m spent on ribery. Likewise I set a wage structure and limit myself to £46k pw per player at the most, if anyone asks for more then they move.

IMO the unrealistic element is that clubs such as Derby can spend £40m in one season and have players earning £60k a week after only 2 seasons.

I doubt this will get a good response but it's just a suggestion.

[Yakubu22]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glamdring:

I accept that a lot of these fees being reported are in the 1st season, but putting that aside, we don't know what transfer fees will be like 10 years down the line in real life. Maybe they will be at this insane level or maybe the transfer market will have bombed completely.

Basically my point is that I really couldn't give a flying fig about absolute transfer fees. Trying to rationalise what a player is worth is impossible given the ludicrous market place that is football. Relative transfer fees are more of an issue, i.e. players relative to each other moving to or from the same club (different clubs in different financial situations, either buying or selling, will always value players of similar ability very differently) and transfer fees relative to how much money a club has available to spend - i.e. clearly if you only have £25 million in the bank blowing £20 million on a single player who is not world class is stupid. If you have £250 million in the bank then it is less stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the whole point of this thread. These examples are in Seasons 1 and 2 i.e. 2007,2008 and 2009.

Obviously we can't predict the market in 10 years time (but at a guess it will be higher prices). However this debate is about above-average players transfering among above average size clubs for astronomical fees.

Since FM is a simulation, is it realistic that clubs like Arsenal or Roma will have between £120M and £200M in the bank to spend on players in 2 years time? I very much doubt it.

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yakubu22:

Since FM is a simulation, is it realistic that clubs like Arsenal or Roma will have between £120M and £200M in the bank to spend on players in 2 years time? I very much doubt it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see why it isn't realisitc, if Arsenal sell Fabregas, Hleb and Adebayor, as is being reported, then I would sugegst they would have the guts of £120m to spend including non spent fees left over from this year.

IMO the issue is not teams like Arsenal and Roma having that amount to spend, because they are massive teams with massive money potential, the issue is teams like Man City and Portsmouth having £120m to spend.

[phnompenhandy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phnompenhandy:

That's a valid point - as fantasy newbie managers of the top clubs in the world, we do tend to act Mourinhoesque. It's really up to the boards to curb our spending.

The main 2 points summarising the points made in this thread (by you included) still stand though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That leads me to a suggestion, which I don't think will get a good response but IMO would be a good addition to the game.

Should wage and transfer structures be set by the board att he start of each season along with budgets? E.g. Man Utd have £20m to spend and have the ability to spend every penny of that on one player, Derby have £20m to spend but the board set a limit of £7.5m as the highest amount allowed to be spent on one player. This could rise as reputation and earnings rise and eventually players would have the ability to spend £20m on one player, no matter what club they are. IMO that seems realisitc as to how RL clubs would be run.

Personally I set myself a target of highest transfer fee I can pay as the clubs record purchase, i.e. at Bayern Munich I can't spend more than the £17m spent on ribery. Likewise I set a wage structure and limit myself to £46k pw per player at the most, if anyone asks for more then they move.

IMO the unrealistic element is that clubs such as Derby can spend £40m in one season and have players earning £60k a week after only 2 seasons.

I doubt this will get a good response but it's just a suggestion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seriously, I think that it's a damned good idea and should be part of the chairman and board's make-up (i.e. their attributes in business, interfering etc.)

As to projecting financial prospects into the future, that's not a n issue. FM always bases future financial models on the current situation, so that TV money won't zoom up or take a dive; the global situation will be consistent - the only variable is you, the human manager!

[glamdring]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yakubu22:

Since FM is a simulation, is it realistic that clubs like Arsenal or Roma will have between £120M and £200M in the bank to spend on players in 2 years time? I very much doubt it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see why it isn't realisitc, if Arsenal sell Fabregas, Hleb and Adebayor, as is being reported, then I would sugegst they would have the guts of £120m to spend including non spent fees left over from this year.

IMO the issue is not teams like Arsenal and Roma having that amount to spend, because they are massive teams with massive money potential, the issue is teams like Man City and Portsmouth having £120m to spend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Teams like Man City and Portsmouth have ultra-rich owners. You can't expect a game to predict exactly how much of that they will choose to plough into those clubs come next season.

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glamdring:

Teams like Man City and Portsmouth have ultra-rich owners. You can't expect a game to predict exactly how much of that they will choose to plough into those clubs come next season. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely that's exactly what is expected of the game considering it predicts the amount a Chairman would accept for a player without the managers approval etc.

[Mitja]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yakubu22:

Since FM is a simulation, is it realistic that clubs like Arsenal or Roma will have between £120M and £200M in the bank to spend on players in 2 years time? I very much doubt it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see why it isn't realisitc, if Arsenal sell Fabregas, Hleb and Adebayor, as is being reported, then I would sugegst they would have the guts of £120m to spend including non spent fees left over from this year.

IMO the issue is not teams like Arsenal and Roma having that amount to spend, because they are massive teams with massive money potential, the issue is teams like Man City and Portsmouth having £120m to spend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no, the issue is about any club splashing totally unrealistic amounts of money for avarage or good players. (we're not talking about Cristiano, Messi or Kaka.) the resoult of it is too much money in flow. it's enough that 4 or 5 players are sold for huge amount. that's what people involved in football know (and that's why it doesn't happen). if club is rich that doesn't meen that board or chairman are idiots.

[Mitja]

for how much is Dani Alves gonna be sold, who's targetet from Man U? he's one of the hottest players in next transfer window. no more than £20m (25 max). and even that's insane for the full back. Man U could bought him last year but Sevilla wanted too much for him, probably. what heppened? he stayed in Sevilla and he's unhappy there. now they need to sell him, or he'll move for free in next year or year after, after his contract expires.

you want £30m for Richards? OK, I won't buy him. I'll unsettle him and I'll force you to sell him for £15m in next couple of years or even get him for free. and that's how things go IRE.

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mitja:

you want £30m for Richards? OK, I won't buy him. I'll unsettle him and I'll force you to sell him for £15m in next couple of years or even get him for free. and that's how things go IRE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree more, but IMO the issue is that whilst IRL Man Utd only have say £40m to spend on players each season rather than £120m. It isn't unrealistic to think that Utd could spend £120m in one season because Chelsea have done it but at the same time it is very unlikely. Unfortunately in FM it is very likely due to the amount of money earned by every club.

In my two saves I have Bayern Munich with a balance of £189m and transfer budget of £109m, Roma with budget £300m and transfer budget £201m. Yes it's totally unrealistic, but it is also unrelaistic to assume that a club with a player i'm interested in won't ask for £40m considering I have it to spend and then some.

The amount of money earnt is the issue IMO and how easily it is earnt. The issue with smaller teams having such huge budgets is that by 2012 we see the top 10 in England spending £40m a year on players, whereas if the money situation was more realistic we would still only be seeing the top four do it and we wouldn't take as much notice.

[Mitja]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mitja:

you want £30m for Richards? OK, I won't buy him. I'll unsettle him and I'll force you to sell him for £15m in next couple of years or even get him for free. and that's how things go IRE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree more, but IMO the issue is that whilst IRL Man Utd only have say £40m to spend on players each season rather than £120m. It isn't unrealistic to think that Utd could spend £120m in one season because Chelsea have done it but at the same time it is very unlikely. Unfortunately in FM it is very likely due to the amount of money earned by every club.

In my two saves I have Bayern Munich with a balance of £189m and transfer budget of £109m, Roma with budget £300m and transfer budget £201m. Yes it's totally unrealistic, but it is also unrelaistic to assume that a club with a player i'm interested in won't ask for £40m considering I have it to spend and then some.

The amount of money earnt is the issue IMO and how easily it is earnt. The issue with smaller teams having such huge budgets is that by 2012 we see the top 10 in England spending £40m a year on players, whereas if the money situation was more realistic we would still only be seeing the top four do it and we wouldn't take as much notice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes and Chelsea have done it with 1 injection of money and it seems like things do normalise even there. but I consider Chelsea as as exception not a rule. I realy don't know how SI managed to put these amount of transfer money even for for richest clubs.

since you were mentioning Roma and Bayern... Bayern is rich club but they are known for their stinginess and they bought Ribery and Toni becouse of the fan pressure on board, after bad resoults last season...

Roma is in debt IRE if I'm not wrong. it's a question if Sensi family can retain their club becouse of the financial situation, they didn't buy a player for high amount for years now...

some clubs have money but mostly they don't. small clubs will need to sell their best players for realistic amounts. IMO the problem in the game is in EPL. it's got the money...but I'm not sure if financial situation isn't 'a little' exaggerated. also transfer budgets and prize money are insane in EPL.

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mitja:

yes and Chelsea have done it with 1 injection of money and it seems like things do normalise even there. but I consider Chelsea as as exception not a rule. I realy don't know how SI managed to put these amount of transfer money even for for richest clubs.

since you were mentioning Roma and Bayern... Bayern is rich club but they are known for their stinginess and they bought Ribery and Toni becouse of the fan pressure on board, after bad resoults last season...

Roma is in debt IRE if I'm not wrong. it's a question if Sensi family can retain their club becouse of the financial situation, they didn't buy a player for high amount for years now...

some clubs have money but mostly they don't. small clubs will need to sell their best players for realistic amounts. IMO the problem in the game is in EPL. it's got the money...but I'm not sure if financial situation isn't 'a little' exaggerated. also transfer budgets and prize money are insane in EPL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this not back up my earlier suggestion then?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That leads me to a suggestion, which I don't think will get a good response but IMO would be a good addition to the game.

Should wage and transfer structures be set by the board at the start of each season along with budgets? E.g. Man Utd have £20m to spend and have the ability to spend every penny of that on one player, Derby have £20m to spend but the board set a limit of £7.5m as the highest amount allowed to be spent on one player. This could rise as reputation and earnings rise and eventually players would have the ability to spend £20m on one player, no matter what club they are. IMO that seems realisitc as to how RL clubs would be run.

Personally I set myself a target of highest transfer fee I can pay as the clubs record purchase, i.e. at Bayern Munich I can't spend more than the £17m spent on ribery. Likewise I set a wage structure and limit myself to £46k pw per player at the most, if anyone asks for more then they move.

IMO the unrealistic element is that clubs such as Derby can spend £40m in one season and have players earning £60k a week after only 2 seasons.

I doubt this will get a good response but it's just a suggestion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Yakubu22]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mitja:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yakubu22:

Since FM is a simulation, is it realistic that clubs like Arsenal or Roma will have between £120M and £200M in the bank to spend on players in 2 years time? I very much doubt it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see why it isn't realisitc, if Arsenal sell Fabregas, Hleb and Adebayor, as is being reported, then I would sugegst they would have the guts of £120m to spend including non spent fees left over from this year.

IMO the issue is not teams like Arsenal and Roma having that amount to spend, because they are massive teams with massive money potential, the issue is teams like Man City and Portsmouth having £120m to spend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no, the issue is about any club splashing totally unrealistic amounts of money for avarage or good players. (we're not talking about Cristiano, Messi or Kaka.) the resoult of it is too much money in flow. it's enough that 4 or 5 players are sold for huge amount. that's what people involved in football know (and that's why it doesn't happen). if club is rich that doesn't meen that board or chairman are idiots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we are referring to the original examples (from my game) which I stated then actually you are wrong!

Arsenal have not sold anyone except Rosicky in the first year. Yet within 18 months have accrued over £100M in transfer cash. Adebayour, RVP, Hleb etc are all still there! How do you explain that?

[llama3]

arsenal do actually irl have that kind of money to spend, wenger doesnt like to, so thats fair enough, but we do genuinely have up to £100m to spend before player sales, cos the emirates earns us so much cash!

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yakubu22:

Arsenal have not sold anyone except Rosicky in the first year. Yet within 18 months have accrued over £100M in transfer cash. Adebayour, RVP, Hleb etc are all still there! How do you explain that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We need more info than just who they have or haven't sold. Have they won anything? Where did they finish in the PL, CL etc etc? Each of these bring with them massive amounts of prize money and huge amounts even for finishing 2nd or 3rd.

[Mitja]

yes I agree, some clubs do have that policy (max. amount for a player) but mostly they don't (as far as I know). much easier restriction would be that board limits any transfer which is more than 2x of his true value, especially for those those transfers over 10m. I know this can't be set as a defenitve rule, but IMO it's much more realistic than having 30m transfers for 'avarage players' all the time.

I realy wouldn't like to comment your Derby example.

[Mitja]

I was commenting this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mitja:

yes and Chelsea have done it with 1 injection of money and it seems like things do normalise even there. but I consider Chelsea as as exception not a rule. I realy don't know how SI managed to put these amount of transfer money even for for richest clubs.

since you were mentioning Roma and Bayern... Bayern is rich club but they are known for their stinginess and they bought Ribery and Toni becouse of the fan pressure on board, after bad resoults last season...

Roma is in debt IRE if I'm not wrong. it's a question if Sensi family can retain their club becouse of the financial situation, they didn't buy a player for high amount for years now...

some clubs have money but mostly they don't. small clubs will need to sell their best players for realistic amounts. IMO the problem in the game is in EPL. it's got the money...but I'm not sure if financial situation isn't 'a little' exaggerated. also transfer budgets and prize money are insane in EPL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this not back up my earlier suggestion then?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That leads me to a suggestion, which I don't think will get a good response but IMO would be a good addition to the game.

Should wage and transfer structures be set by the board at the start of each season along with budgets? E.g. Man Utd have £20m to spend and have the ability to spend every penny of that on one player, Derby have £20m to spend but the board set a limit of £7.5m as the highest amount allowed to be spent on one player. This could rise as reputation and earnings rise and eventually players would have the ability to spend £20m on one player, no matter what club they are. IMO that seems realisitc as to how RL clubs would be run.

Personally I set myself a target of highest transfer fee I can pay as the clubs record purchase, i.e. at Bayern Munich I can't spend more than the £17m spent on ribery. Likewise I set a wage structure and limit myself to £46k pw per player at the most, if anyone asks for more then they move.

IMO the unrealistic element is that clubs such as Derby can spend £40m in one season and have players earning £60k a week after only 2 seasons.

I doubt this will get a good response but it's just a suggestion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mitja:

much easier restriction would be that board limits any transfer which is more than 2x of his true value, especially for those those transfers over 10m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apologies on the Derby front i'll say Forest instead

On your point, as I remember back when CM01/02 was out I was a young whippersnapper who cheated and created super teams, on occasion the board would terminate a transfer because they thought the amount I was buying for was too high or selling for was too low.

Is it just me or was that a feature back then. Could that not be brought back?

[glamdring]

That's an issue of general financial simulation and is totally separate from transfer fees. The giant transfer fees are an effect of that rather than a problem in themselves.

FM is a football sim and whilst the transfer market and finances are a key part of football there is no way a football sim can model a hugely complex financial situation with total accuracy. Clearly though basic things like Arsenal having hundreds of millions to spend after 1 season without selling anyone is a situation that should be easy enough to stop happening.

As for the chairman setting strict limits on what proportion of budget you can spend on one player at different clubs I don't like that. I do think though that chairmen should interfere as much on buying players as they do on selling them. Insisting on you selling someone for £10 million and then giving you the fill £10 million to spend on whoever you want with no constraints is just silly. In that case the chairman would step in based on judging each signing on its merits.

[Yakubu22]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yakubu22:

Arsenal have not sold anyone except Rosicky in the first year. Yet within 18 months have accrued over £100M in transfer cash. Adebayour, RVP, Hleb etc are all still there! How do you explain that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We need more info than just who they have or haven't sold. Have they won anything? Where did they finish in the PL, CL etc etc? Each of these bring with them massive amounts of prize money and huge amounts even for finishing 2nd or 3rd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arsenal in my game won the Premierhsip in 1st season -but didnt do very well in the CL. They sold Rosicky for £22M and paid £26M for Mutu.

It is definitely two issues at play. One is the huge amounts of cash certain clubs can accrue in a short amount of time. As someone mentioned in a previous post. Roma finished mid table (in season 3) with £200M in the bank.

Two is the transfer fees which far from word class players go for. As per my opening post -Diarra, Corluka etc

llama3 - Arsenal do not have £100M to spend. The reason why is the Emirates Stadium. they are still paying the mortgage on that. Despite what Wenger may say - he would've love to have bought a top centre half and def Midfielder this year. But Arsenal dont have enough cash to buy anyone better than what they have already have. If Wenger had stupid money sat in a bank account do you honestly think he wouldnt have bought as opposed to watching their season fozzle out?

[Mitja]

arsenal's got a lot of transfer budget money IRE. maybe not 100m... but how would players feel if he bought 3 players for 100m? there's probably no manager who's willing to take such risk with unsetling his dressing room (except Chelsea a few years ago). most managers do pay atention who they buy, they follow players for years. he should have bought some, I'm sure...but Arsenal had a lot of bad luck with injuries.

and like you said they need to pay for the stadium...

[Klimowicz]

yeah, i finished 2nd in my first season at Arsenal, sold Gilberto to Inter for £11.5M, bought Van der Vaart for £12M, and that was all my big spending. i got so much money for doing nowt else but winning the fa cup that year that i splashed out much more than i usually would.

i've not really sold anyone apart from eduardo, but i got aguero for £21M + clauses, sergio ramos for £27.5M release fee, steven taylor for £10M & daniel alves for a stupid £45M. yet i still have £30M+ weighing my pockets down.

whenever i manage abroad, its always arsenal who are interested in my players. for example, i created a juve game with fake players. i had a bid from the gunners for my £5.75M amc. i didn't want to upset the player, so i set an asking price of £31M + 50% next transfer fee clause. to my astonishment, the submitted the bid

and on another note, i have never read posts about arsenal going bankrupt compared to liverpool (in my game they were relegated with the same squad who won the prem in 07/08), man utd and chelsea. it's all an "overimprovement" from finance issues in past games, but there is so much more money generated in england, arsenal especially.

we're not that great irl

[wally13]

its not the prices teams pay for players for me (even vo yes some are stupid)its when teams buy some medioca player or even a good player for a daft price then you check is stats from previous season and hes bassicly done nowt to justify the fee

example from my game inter milan bought gussepi rossi from villareal for 28 million in second season of my game eye raised an eyebrow but thought to myself he must of had a great season so i check is stats and he only scored 12 goals in about 30 game with an average rating of 7 which is great really not bad i know but far from justifing 28m,this is wot i dont like about transfer system in fm08,it would't happen IRL,yes maybe if he'd had a great season

[llama3]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yakubu22:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yakubu22:

Arsenal have not sold anyone except Rosicky in the first year. Yet within 18 months have accrued over £100M in transfer cash. Adebayour, RVP, Hleb etc are all still there! How do you explain that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We need more info than just who they have or haven't sold. Have they won anything? Where did they finish in the PL, CL etc etc? Each of these bring with them massive amounts of prize money and huge amounts even for finishing 2nd or 3rd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arsenal in my game won the Premierhsip in 1st season -but didnt do very well in the CL. They sold Rosicky for £22M and paid £26M for Mutu.

It is definitely two issues at play. One is the huge amounts of cash certain clubs can accrue in a short amount of time. As someone mentioned in a previous post. Roma finished mid table (in season 3) with £200M in the bank.

Two is the transfer fees which far from word class players go for. As per my opening post -Diarra, Corluka etc

llama3 - Arsenal do not have £100M to spend. The reason why is the Emirates Stadium. they are still paying the mortgage on that. Despite what Wenger may say - he would've love to have bought a top centre half and def Midfielder this year. But Arsenal dont have enough cash to buy anyone better than what they have already have. If Wenger had stupid money sat in a bank account do you honestly think he wouldnt have bought as opposed to watching their season fozzle out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the mortgage is well structed, we dont have any problems from it. if it had affected our ability to be competitive we wouldnt have moved. i suggest you read the financial reports rather than the tabloids

[Rohan The Barbarian]

I agree, they tend to be completely unrealistic. In my game, Arsenal have just splashed out £56m on Joaquin

[adamku]

I'm not sure whether any of you experienced this too, but there is also a problem with the demand of wages by the players. There were several times when i offered a contract to a player and he demanded like 100K a week but he only earned 10K a week at his current club.

[lam]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">glamdring

Semi Pro

Location: Newcastle

Registered: 22 January 2004 Posted 22 April 2008 10:35 My biggest irritation with the transfer market is with the way bids are accepted/rejected differently for AI-controlled clubs or human clubs.

I was trying to sign Elano for Fiorentina from Man City and was getting quoted all manner of ridiculous transfer fees. Then City accepted £12 million from Lyon and were still quoting £29 million to me if I wanted to sign him (funnily enough I didn't want to sign him after that and signed Berbatov instead!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

G, you need to be carefull when buying players at the end of a season or at the begining.

Near the end of the season a players value is based on their performance. if they have performed well then their value is high. When the new season starts, many players values seem to reset.

An example of this would Rossi, in my game at the end of last season he hadnt played well and i could have picked him up for £11mill. At that point i didnt as i didnt need him. About 1 month later in the new season i got a silly bid for my no.1 striker and sold him, i then turned to Rossi and he was now valued at £30mill.

The same applies for players that have played well in the season. Value at end is high, value at beginging of new season is low. I think that this is related to their PA and CA,

YOu can examine this by using mini-scout.

Lee

[Liverpool24]

In my Liverpool game recently Real Madrid spent £66 million on Silva taking him from Man u, i think thats a bit over the top.

[Scott1990]

It's crazy in mine too. I think the issue is with the good but not world class players. I can see huge transfer fees for guys like Silva, Fabregas etc.

But in my game:

Joao Moutinho for $53 million

Reo Coker for $40 million

Scott Brown for $35 million

some Spanish DM I've never heard of for $30 million

[Mister Z]

The current transfer market “on steroids!†is a result of the overall crappy finance system of FM. Clubs are generating to much money and operating expenses (wages, staff, stadium maintenance, loans) are far from reality, therefore the AI can create unrealistic transfer funds. Without TV or sponsor ships income most clubs will go belly up in no time. In FM there is only a “happy camper†finance scenario, where overrated transfer funds go directly to the P&L of the club (no transfers / agent costs, no third party finance). This issue can only be resolved by implementing a more realistic finance system or some kind of transfer CAP.

[LSS]

But aren't the high transfer fees just a 'cosmetic' issue?

I mean, if the teams have too much money to spend then surely it's a good thing that the players cost too much? Otherwise the big teams could by everyone.

Just divide every fee you see by two or three in your mind and imagine everything is alright.

The real problem is that there are too many transfers made, IMO.

[glamdring]

A realistic finance system would be a life'#s work to implement. Every country has a different situation and club in even just one country operate differently even when in the same league.

I notice almost every figure quoted on here has been for transfers between top (ish) clubs. What about lower down the leagues? Are there insane amounts of money being spent on transfers there too?

[Yakubu22]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glamdring:

A realistic finance system would be a life'#s work to implement. Every country has a different situation and club in even just one country operate differently even when in the same league.

I notice almost every figure quoted on here has been for transfers between top (ish) clubs. What about lower down the leagues? Are there insane amounts of money being spent on transfers there too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think anyone expects a world wide Financial model implemented. But playing a few season of FM is enough to see the point here.

I haven't noticed an inflation of lower league player fees.

However my original point in the opening thread was that this price inflation seems to effect good top flight players (who are far from world class). Prices for genuine World Class players and lower league players seem to be ok. As per my example Corluka and Lassana Diarra costing a combined £50M in season 1.

Why would a club offer so much for these players?

....and why would their selling club seriously hold out for these values?

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LSS:

But aren't the high transfer fees just a 'cosmetic' issue?

I mean, if the teams have too much money to spend then surely it's a good thing that the players cost too much? Otherwise the big teams could by everyone.

Just divide every fee you see by two or three in your mind and imagine everything is alright.

The real problem is that there are too many transfers made, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a way you're right, they are just cosmetic and don't really affect me as i've never spent over £9m on a player. However, the problem is that if a AI team buys Adrian Mutu for £30m, and two years later I want to buy him his value will still be incredibly high and I will have to fork out crazy money for him.

For me that isn't an issue because I know I can find better players for far far far less, but there are people who may only want to make big money signings or recreate the galacticos and they are being hidnered by the current setup.

[glamdring]

Why?

Presumably their clubs also have these insane amounts of money to spend too otherwise they shouldn't be buying such expensive players.

If the problem is simply that there is too much money sloshing around then high transfer fees really don't matter because everyone who should has the money to pay them.

[LSS]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

In a way you're right, they are just cosmetic and don't really affect me as i've never spent over £9m on a player. However, the problem is that if a AI team buys Adrian Mutu for £30m, and two years later I want to buy him his value will still be incredibly high and I will have to fork out crazy money for him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But as the teams, including you, have too much money to spend, you could actually have a chance to pay crazy money for him.

Think it like this... if the fees would be lower, then everyone would have less money and the fees would still be high compared to what you could pay.

The fees aren't actually high, it's the money's value that is low.

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LSS:

But as the teams, including you, have too much money to spend, you could actually have a chance to pay crazy money for him.

Think it like this... if the fees would be lower, then everyone would have less money and the fees would still be high compared to what you could pay.

The fees aren't actually high, it's the money's value that is low. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree and it really doesn't bother me at all. It works both ways, in another save I have I spend lots of money and recently bought Marica for £30m, but I sold De Rossi for £37m, so it was no big deal to me.

What you're basically saying is, that it evens out if you look at the big picture. You have too much money in the bank so players cost a lot more than expected. That's no different to you having £30m in the bank and Corluka costing £5m. It's all in balance in a way.

That's fair enough and i'd be inclined to agree, however it certainly isn't realistic and it's understanable why people find it irritating.

[Yakubu22]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LSS:

But as the teams, including you, have too much money to spend, you could actually have a chance to pay crazy money for him.

Think it like this... if the fees would be lower, then everyone would have less money and the fees would still be high compared to what you could pay.

The fees aren't actually high, it's the money's value that is low. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree and it really doesn't bother me at all. It works both ways, in another save I have I spend lots of money and recently bought Marica for £30m, but I sold De Rossi for £37m, so it was no big deal to me.

What you're basically saying is, that it evens out if you look at the big picture. You have too much money in the bank so players cost a lot more than expected. That's no different to you having £30m in the bank and Corluka costing £5m. It's all in balance in a way.

That's fair enough and i'd be inclined to agree, however it certainly isn't realistic and it's understanable why people find it irritating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly right....yes high fees are balanced out by inflated budgets. But since this game is supposed to be the most realistic "Football Management game" - then its something which needs addressing IMHO.

[Pricey85]

I believe there is another side to this issue. Some people have suggested that we cannot know what inflation and other influences will do to the price of players in the near future. We could very well see these kinds of prices being paid in the near future. However there are two other topics that have cropped up recently that, to me, imply a major problem with clubs spending habits.

One of the threads if i remember correctly stated that a major club, Valencia i think, Paid 100mil for one player, they promptly went into administration and the poster was able to buy the player back for 10mil within two weeks.

The second example shows Barcelona making a bid of 20mil plus three well known hot prospects probably bringing the transfer up to the 80 mil mark.

Surely these two examples must act as some kind of definitive evidence that top clubs are willing to pay far too much in order to secure players who, as mentioned in this thread, are often not all that. In my opinion it is not feasible that a club would exchange three top rated youngsters or indeed buy itself into administration in order to sign one player, especially since the aforementioned clubs probably have players of a similar quality already.

In my opinion this is something that does need to be looked into for the next incarnation of FM.

[LSS]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pricey85:

Surely these two examples must act as some kind of definitive evidence that top clubs are willing to pay far too much in order to secure players who, as mentioned in this thread, are often not all that. In my opinion it is not feasible that a club would exchange three top rated youngsters or indeed buy itself into administration in order to sign one player, especially since the aforementioned clubs probably have players of a similar quality already. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also the top clubs (especially Spanish) tend to buy quite expensive players that end up not getting any games in the team.

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pricey85:

One of the threads if i remember correctly stated that a major club, Valencia i think, Paid 100mil for one player, they promptly went into administration and the poster was able to buy the player back for 10mil within two weeks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was Sociedad and was in FM06 if I remember rightly, so isn't an issue anymore.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The second example shows Barcelona making a bid of 20mil plus three well known hot prospects probably bringing the transfer up to the 80 mil mark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The initial fee was £15.5 and the adding players to transfers thing takes them at their value rather than asking price. The three players offered were still young and not first team regulars so their value would still have been quite low and the actual transfer fee would have been £30m at a stretch rather than £80m.

[llama3]

i simply do not pay an inflated price, i will not do it. i would much prefer to buy promising youngsters and train them up. I mean this summer i have spent £2.1m on 2 quality kids, whereas on my game newcastle have spent some £57m and frankly dont look like getting near the kind of level i am at. I have recouped £13.75m in fees for 2 of my players, and have a remainder budget of £118m

[Pricey85]

Wasn't aware that the first example was 06 so i withdraw that. However regardless of whether the players in the second example were young it still has to be taken into account that all three offered were among the hottest new talent at the club. I just don't think it's realistic that the club would be willing to part with all three just to sign one player.

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pricey85:

Wasn't aware that the first example was 06 so i withdraw that. However regardless of whether the players in the second example were young it still has to be taken into account that all three offered were among the hottest new talent at the club. I just don't think it's realistic that the club would be willing to part with all three just to sign one player. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're definately right, but I think it's a similar issue to Dos Santos and Bojan ending up on a free at the end of the first season, which is equally unrealistic.

[Eoin_jg]

in season 2 of my watford game, real madrid paid 37.5m for giuseppe rossi.

Wtf!

[Nomis07]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eoin_jg:

in season 2 of my watford game, real madrid paid 37.5m for giuseppe rossi.

Wtf! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're basing this as unrealistic because of your opinion or him IRL. In game he is excellent and probably worth that sort of money, I had him at AC Milan and he scored 37 in 42 for me.