• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About McDoul

  • Rank
  1. ooo, my name popped up. i only ever read these days, seldom contribute, but i do remember mentioning this about 2 years ago, round the time the oopb demo was out as an example, if i was looking at signing a striker, i can compare 2 side by side, but the ability to open the profile of 3 or 4 srtikers in separate windows and quickly flick between them would be brilliant. So much easier than into profile, back to shortlist, into profile, back to shortlist, into profile, back to shortlist... makes you wanna die. also cool in windows 7 for snapping a window to either side of the screen to look at 2 profiles side by side, or even 4. yes, i like the idea, amazed you spotted such an old thread lol
  2. Based on the blistering RC.... Windows 7.
  3. I think many people here are missing the OP's point - his thread title looks like might have tried to change to "Player Values - a realistic approach?" if you look at the opening post title. It's his first post, and frankly a bllody good for a first post even if he not nailed his argument. I'm not sure he's saying get rid of them. If you cast minds back to the endless barrage of threads last year about not being able to buy players for anything like their listed value you'll recall a few people popping veins in their forehead. What he's saying is that a players value should be scouted and acquired rather than simply labeled, and even then we should not be given an exact sale price, merely an estimate as you moght get from scouts, enquiries, media and pundits in real life. Further, the approach above eliminates the current values system which has caused a fuss here in GQ for every release I can remember. Too many people are focusing on the seemingly unchangeable thread title and not seeing the discussion taking place - perhaps a mod could assist? I, for one, have voted in favour because I'd like to see realistic values in thre game that have been scouted rather than these current values with have little bearing on any aspect of the game other than filtering by price.
  4. Yes, and to be honest I'm not sure that in 8 years of FM I've ever really sorted by value, and certainly not since CM0304. Not sure how everyone else buys players, but I go on stats, attributes, and scouting - breaking out Genie Scout or somesuch once I've flogged the game to death and am waiting for next version. Notably still playing properly this year.
  5. Sounds an interesting idea. The current values have little meaning which is why 'sell value' seems to be a key part of the scouting tools. Frequently the scouting tools show no correlation between value and selling price. player worth 26m sell value of about 88m....
  6. No 'cos there's no guarantee he'll stay on form (Shevchenko/Ronaldo) and as such the turnover made from the sale vastly outweighs the chance of a bigger profit later. That said, FM's finances should be better in FM09, and we should have the chance to have a say prior to a baord decision.
  7. But there was financial gain and herein your repeated argument is fundamentally flawed. The clubs finances ARE the boards. Zarate is bought for £4-5m - you have made an investment. The investment rapidly becomes a valued commodity having performed well. You are offered £22m for your commodity in lieu of such performance and increased potential value. The Board [read: club] sells for £22m as this is a £17m profit and the players form is neither here nore there since the bid is too good to refuse. The whole idea of the board interfering is that the club is a business and all businesses exist to turn a profit - this has been achieved spectacularly through the sale of Zarate. The £22m is received by the club and reinvested - whether it should all be made available is neither here nor there in the business decision it is merely a potential oversight of the game, but since the board is the club they've made £22m, £17m of which is profit, with which to invest into the business via the medium of the transfer market. Whether Zarate can be replaced is of course not the chairmans concern. If Zaki scores 23 goals by Christmas and Inter Milan bid £22m for him he's gone regardless of performance since the club will make a profit and be able to reinvest £22m into the club. I'm not sure why this simple process in causing such a fuss beyound the fact we don;t like clubs selling our players as realistic as it in point of fact is.
  8. ....and was next to useless on account of not being visible via the extravagant medium of text commentary.
  9. I'd agree that the spread payment stings, and that such a payment should not immediately be in your transfer fund as an extra £22m... this is something SI needs to review. Worth noting that EPL transfers it was revealed during the Barry saga are paid 50% immediately and the other 50% within 12 months. SI need to look at that too in relation to EPL transfers. I appreciate you are in France and therefore not affected by the latter.
  10. I agree, not to mention there's a lot of players who'll have learned from the number of careers ruined at Chelsea by sitting on a bench and may not want to go to Man City whatever the salary. Not to mention that none of that money will ever sit in City bank accounts, same as Chelsea. Owner pays for players he wants to pay for and the game is not modelled for this yet.
  11. whs.... any player in the chamionship scores 32 goals in 20 games by Christmas this season would be snapped up by a club making any sort of a large bid because it's turning a profit. It matters not whether there's a replacement the point will come down to what they paid for him, if anything, and what they can sell him for. Robinho is exactly the same. Madrid bought him. Large bid comes in and they can make £20m profit on the original purchase. He wants to go so that's a good profit. Had he wanted to stay Man City would have bid £40-£50 and he'd still have gone as Real would be making a 'profit'. Business decision - Schuster politely told to get stuffed despite spending all week threatening to quit if Robinho was sold.
  12. How exactly. Profit is made when player is sold for more than he weas purchased for. This has been achieved. The poster makes no point whatsoever other than demonstrating how spectacularly he's mmissed the point. Of course the funds are available... a profit has already been made, it's not a question of going to the chairmans pocket it's a question of accepting £22m for a relatively low valued player who you didn't pay much for and reinvesting for the benefit of the team. Of course, £22m doesn;t guarantee you another lucky cheap catch like Zarate, but that's all part of the challenge.
  13. It was two years ago... pipe down.
  14. Is C. Ronaldo's injury in this one?