CTxCB

This is still an issue with the recent update. I've attached a database file, highlighting where the General Draft is selected, and set up correctly, something which is "general" and should NOT be hardcoded to only work with the Canadian Premier League. I've also uploaded a save file through the ownCloud, "Seati Seaby - Draft Test A.fm", as Bournemouth, which highlights the issue wherein, the "Draft" appears on the schedule, but the schedule progresses past it, as if it isn't even there. Draft Test.fmf

According to the Pre-Game Editor... Name: Jesper Kallsen Unique ID: 27110277 Incorrect Birthday: 29/11/1911 Correct Birthday: 29/11/1991 Sources: https://www.transfermarkt.com/jesper-kallsen/profil/spieler/283256 https://int.soccerway.com/players/jesper-kallsen/854452/ Pretty funny that a 31 year old player is, according to the PGE, listed as aged 100 (as that's the cap for ages), if this were real, he'd be playing football currently aged 111.

@Zachary WhyteI have a question about this. You say that: "The board objectives are all now generated from the board person as the board club vision is set by the current board. The ones stored on the club are the supporter objectives as they are the ones who remain at the club no matter what." -- This sounds very damaging to situations wherein something has to be fixed in place long term. An example from FM22 (they're extinct in FM23) would be Akropolis IF, they were a team in Sweden that were formed by Greek Immigrants, so they had a policy of bringing in a healthy number of Greek Players. In FM22, they had Sign Players of Nationality (Greek) as an ongoing board objective. How does that work if the club itself doesn't have its own Club Vision? If you were to put that on the Owner or Chairperson, couldn't it end up being lost when somebody replaces them? Having individual staff members having their own Club Vision set, things they tend to have done in the past, for when they go into ownership positions, is a good idea, but there also needs to be a Club Vision view in the IGE for the club itself, so that things ongoing are not lost when a club has a change of ownership.

As an update, this is also the case when Silver Goal is selected, instead of Golden Goal.

Simply stating that everything that is "not possible to do in the editor at the moment" is a Feature Request is not really a good practice. The issue is that the Process Results Into Stage and Take Results Into Other Stage features of the Pre-Game Editor (and FM) don't act as expected. The ability to process results into a league table from two teams that are part of the same club (e.g: Reserves and First Team, Under 18s and First Team, etc) should've been possible when the feature(s) were originally conceived. I see that as a bug. If I were to ask for something substantially new to be ADDED (e.g: the ability to edit the breakdown of nationalities given to newgens in a nation), I see that as a Feature Request.

I've been experimenting with this functionality more, and I still cannot get it to work in this way. I do not know why the 'matching' for Process Results Into Stage and Take Results Into Other Stage is so strict. Personally, I feel that level of strictness is unnecessarily preventative.

I meant to say joining a club, not creating.

File is uploaded as DoF Suggestion Issue - Wrexham.fm, and below is a GIFV of the issue that I encounter. https://imgur.com/a/jNLCZP2

Where should this be then? Because "[Wales] (Official) League Specific Issues" sounds like it'd be specific to issues with the actual structure of the league; Sub rules, fixture issues, etc?

Another example of this is, as Liverpool, trying to ask the Agent about Mykhaylo Mudryk. He's on £5K p/w, and wants between £54K p/w and £75K p/w:

At both clubs in the aforementioned game world, I've tried to ask the agent to lower the player's wage demands and at both clubs, I've got this message above the dialogue:

I've started a brand new save, and in the same game world have managed Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. Liverpool gets a slight reduction in wages of around £10K p/w (but that's as an Emergency Backup, which makes it even more obscene). But they're both pretty high wages compared to what he's already on. The saves uploaded are: Seati Seaby - Nottingham Forest A.fm Seati Seaby - Liverpool.fm

I don't, however I will try to replicate it tonight, either on the same save or another and upload it. I can understand what you're saying, but I think it needs to be toned town a bit overall. I've had this happen multiple times during the beta just on that network save, I can't remember players names, but most of which were on similar wages to Ben Brereton Diaz at Blackburn Rovers, and wanted in the region of £40-60K each. It just feels like the wage pricing is only taking into consideration the wage structure of Nottingham Forest (which is massively inflated by the wages of Lingard and Henderson), and not the wage at his current club. I could understand that if he was a Free Agent, but not if he's already at a club and on a wage. I feel the best practice would be to take a players current wage, and the wage where he'd fit in at the club, and set his wage demands at the average, the mid-way point, between both.