Arsy

So does this influence player performance during a game or not? Because I don't understand.

Hello?:) No input? I think this board interference thing should be adjusted slightly, maybe loosen the reins a bit, so to speak. Another time this happened was a lot worse than the above example: we had just lost our no. 1 left fullback, I managed to find a decent replacement in time but the board rejected the transfer because he was injured for two weeks. A couple of days later the transfer window closed and that was that, I was left without a proper LB on that side for half a season (it was during the winter transfer period). We should be allowed to sign these players, these are not long-term injuries, no six months, no nothing.

About the potential thing, I posted in case it's not a known bug, even if it's something minor. As for the contract expiry thing, I know it happens to players all the time in real life too, it's just that a player of this caliber never actually becomes a free agent like Bellingham here, he is basically unemployed right now. If you can tighten up this for next year's game it's great. Thanks!

Can we please have the board not interfere when trying to transfer a player with a short-term injury, one that has no impact on his future development? Maybe the game could take into account other factors when judging this stuff, not just that he is currently injured? Like the fact that the player is 17 years old with maximum potential, valued at 3.4 millions and we had the possibility of buying him for only 1.3 millions but mainly the fact that his injury is basically meaningless! I had similar transfers rejected in the past as well, for even shorter injuries (two weeks). And sometimes that transfer is actually critical for the team and not just a future prospect like the current example.

1. A player like this can never become a free agent. To enter the last six months in such a player's contract and despite many top teams being continually interested in him no one ever offering him anything is quite ridiculous. If he remains a free agent a couple more weeks/months even I might be able to sign him, as a newly promoted team to the Bundesliga... He just needs to become desperate enough... 2. We have here "potential to improve a lot", "global superstar", "could improve immensely" followed up by "unlikely to improve significantly ". He does look like a potential world class keeper BTW.

Yes, this thing has been bugging me for years. Any semi-famous player retires, he is instantly a world class coach, with zero experience. Like your said, the game needs to replace the retiring coaches with someone equally good but a better progression system needs to be created for them because the current one is totally unrealistic. New coaches shouldn't necessarily start with "unknown" reputiation, but getting instant top reputation isn't ok either. For every real-life Arteta or Guardiola you have a dozen other retired players never making it as coaches. At least not at top level.

Over on fmmvibe someone pointed out this article from three years ago and according to him this shows that the rankings in my group are actually correct.... Now I am confused... I am not sure that the situation in the article is identical to mine but if it is then I think the game had it right and it's not a mistake/bug. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/euro-2020-group-stages-points-24250173?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target Edit: after reading the article again on how the criteria are applied I think the rankings in the game were correct. If someone can confirm this then this whole thread can be ignored/deleted.

I have uploaded the save from immediately after the game. I renamed the file "Greece.fms". Is it too late to have this bug fixed for this edition of the game?

See the images. Unless I am mistaken Sweden should have finished in last place, not 2nd and qualify, while Greece (myself) should have been 2nd. First criteria is results between teams. The results were Sweden - Greece 1-1, Sweden - Scotland 1-1 and Greece - Scotland 0-0. Second criteria is goal difference. Sweden has -3 while both Greece and Scotland have -1. According to these rules both Greece and Scotland should have finished above Sweden. Or have I somehow completely misinterpreted things?! Greece finishing above Scotland is correct as they have more goals scored. But Sweden should have finished in last place, thanks to the 0-3 drubbing they received from Croatia in the last match.

Ok, thanks! What about the "insecure" finances? This is the current situation. I wouldn't call this "insecure".

So, we were relegated from the Bundesliga, around 2027, playing as VfB Oldenburg. When this happened both the training and youth facilities got somehow degraded. They were both "superb", four and a half stars. We lost half a star for the training facilities and a full star for the youth ones. How did that happen? And for some reason our finances appeared as "insecure" even though we were comfortably under the wage budget and had some money for transfers, slightly over 3 millions. During the summer transfer window I sold a bunch of players, now we are 200k under the wage budget and have almost 10 millions for transfers. Our finances are still insecure. What gives?