Renyy

Not seeing any effect. Is that a bug then or an oversight? Should obviously be a thing.

Anyone know this?

Is there a way to disable/enable whether a country can offer players a contract with a sell on fee? Some nations can, others can't, but I can't find the option anywhere.

Here you go buddy

I have posted this in suggestions already. It would be great for registration rules and scheduling in particular as those things change very frequently in real life specifically to accommodate for teams in Europe, but for finances there would still need to be adjustments behind the scenes or it would be an endless balancing game impossible to keep consistent. As long as it's static it's just impractical. I'd like to know though why a Raheem Sterling at 0 bias is worth 100 pounds and David Alaba with 4 months left on his contract at 0 bias is worth 20 million. I would assume it's a bug, but I don't know how it's supposed to work?

There's no sincere reason why these things should be as effective as they are, and even without them you can and I have won CL with nothing clubs before. The feature I wish for the most behind proper financials is proper attribute masking, because the game is so unrealistic currently and memes aside, truly like a spreadsheet manager. But why should that be a reason to not make the best of what we have? It's literally a feature in the game to remove these biases, so why doesn't it work? FM's biggest potential is its editor, but for some reason they refuse to allow us to do meaningful edits or edits mid save. What is a good bid for a 190 CA player then? Bidding 3 million on a talent valued at 5 million with almost guarantee of rising to 10-15 million in the next few years would fall under that. I know, because I can see it happen in-game. It's pretty noticeable compared to someone from the World IX receiving the same offer. Good comment about how a game should play to the players' fantasy. I can assure you that spending 400 hours on a save only for the game to push me out by giving me the choice between getting fired for bankruptcy or getting fired for failing to meet sporting expectations isn't exactly my fantasy. But that is the great reward for succeeding at continental growth.

adjective 1 having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected Unless I'm reading you wrong, we both agree the game isn't realistic. You're arguing for two wrongs make a right, I'm saying it doesn't and make the game more of a chore manager than a football manager. Who exactly would this hurt? I've never seen anyone complain about a 5th tier English side making it to Premier League over the course of 20 years. What's the difference? Yeah that's my bad. Got Ødegaard and Haaland mixed up, then revised it and remembered Ødegaard was actually 15 and didn't catch the Haaland mistake. It's not, but it's impossible to make sense of why. If there was any logic or reasoning behind what makes a player suddenly ignore the bias or worth that much money, I could budget around it, but to me it just seems like an RNG put into the game for the sake of giving the player a rush. In my current save that I'm on break from because of this I have a 190 ish CA player attracting bids of 4-6 million in his peak, while an 18 year old is getting bids of 30+. In the next or 2 windows from now that 18 year old won't see a bid over 5 million despite having become a much better player, with better performances and better achievements, and I have no idea why. Similarly you can be 30 years into a save and dominate world football for half of it and maybe get 15 million a year from sponsors, then randomly you get a one year lucrative sponsorship from China worth 100m. The inconsistency makes no sense.

My ideas aren't arbitrary, they're based on natural progression. There doesn't have to be precedent for something to be realistic. Just in the last 5 years Norway has changed rules and schedules for the sake of competing in Europe several times. None of that can happen in game, but that doesn't make it unrealistic. A player like Mbappe has never and will never leave Norway at his current level, that much is obvious, but it makes no sense that a guy that is way above the competition shouldn't raise the bar. 4m for a 15 year old and 5m for a 16 year old in Norway definitely falls under that, and Salzburg sold Haaland for a release clause maximum. We have no idea what the limits of that deal could've been. Where are you getting "suddenly" from? I'm the one advocating for this taking a long time, for the overall progression time table to be slowed down for the sake of realism on both ends, human exploitation and game mechanics. In Football Manager John Carew could be in my Rosenborg side, win 5 Champions League trophies in a row and never get a bid as high as the one he got in 2000 before it's adjusted for inflation which according to this would make his fee just short of 20 million. Part of the problem is that the game just throws all this money at you, the manager, to do with it whatever you want, whereas in real life a club's economy isn't a one year thing where you can spend like an idiot. Bodø/Glimt is a poor example because they were in the 2nd tier just a few years ago, got a significant fee on their one high profile sale and is showing ambition in the off season by refusing to sell players like Kasper Junker, despite him wanting to leave. The figures we're talking about here is 1/4th of what they'd get from CL qualification, which isn't exactly impossible for any of them, though only Rosenborg has managed it recently. With money like that of course the club and league will be affected as long as their own head of board don't sabotage them, like Koteng did with Rosenborg. For once, I'd like a counter argument. Setting aside the fact you're wildly misinterpreting what I'm arguing for here, can you give me one good reason why the world shouldn't have potential for being shaken up in 20 years? All the changes I'd like to see in the game would also be significant improvements short term, and so what if in 1/1000 saves the AI wins the CL with a Norwegian team in 30 years? What exactly is the problem? Anytime something like this happens on a national scale, everyone thinks it's so cool, but suggest it on a continental or intercontinental scale and it's suddenly the worst thing that can happen?

It's farthest thing from realistic. It's artificial. There's also a lot of middle ground between Belfast Celtic and CL winners. Biggest reason why I don't enjoy Premier League and those leagues is because the game is already too easy, so in Norway I at least get 10-15 years out of a save, but I'd like to get 50. If it takes me the 10 years it currently takes me to win CL just to be consistent in the group stages, but the road there is natural and realistic, then I'm all for it. You're playing in a nation with no bias from something like 120 in reputation. Of course you'll see change. In Norway I'd need to get to 171 League reputation to see the same change. At game start I believe only 2 domestic leagues have a reputation that high. That means at 170 reputation, my players are worth 5 million, and at 171 reputation they're worth 60 million. Is that realistic to you? If I could remove bias in the editor like I should be able to do then I'd just do that, but as mentioned, it's inconsistent and doesn't make any sense. My only option is basically to give up on managing where I want to manage and just go to a nation with better settings. I've posted a lot about these issues in all the forums and the SI team are infallible. Their game is perfect, so I've given up on any change. This thread wasn't about that.

Doesn't matter if reputation is dynamic when it doesn't ever significantly impact anything. Just makes it worse. It's all for show.

There's not just one side to this. Natural growth is prevented by unrealistic game mechanics. A club consistently qualifying for CL would invest in their squad. They won't replace a 10m player with a 100 000 one. Yet in Football Manager only the human is allowed to grow. Why? I can literally donate 100s of millions to my league competition and they just will not spend more on players than they did at game start. I fully agree a Norwegian team shouldn't be able to win the CL within 10 or so years, but it shouldn't be artificially prevented from ever doing so either. Instead of working to make this harder to do and more realistic, they put up artificial roadblocks and punish you for succeeding too fast. Can you imagine if the semi-final Ajax team was expected to win Champions League the next year? That's what the game does, but to much more extremes. To grow in a natural pace that wouldn't screw myself over I'd need to lose so many games on purpose along the way over 30-50 years at least, or give myself insane restrictions like you're doing in Northern Ireland, and that still only benefits me, not the nation. Why can't these reasons be dynamic? Why are they set in stone on day 1 and can never, ever change? The problem with this is that 1) The AI bids based on their value, and 2) I have no idea how to budget when I don't know what my assets are worth. I too get random bids every few years way above the value of a player, but I have no idea what goes into these bids happening, so I have no way of planning for a sale. A team like Dortmund can have a bad season and sell their Sancho or Haaland asset for a 100 million and know they'll be fine. When all my world class players are valued and bid at 1/10th of what it would take to replace them, I can't. There's no way for me to sustain that, but the expectations of me require that I do. I'd start by significantly reduce the effect of the bias. Harry Maguire might not move for 80m if he came from another league, but he wouldn't move for 5. If the 50 top teams can be in for a player at 5m, 1 team can bid 10m. The bias itself should be based on nation's wealth, game importance, reputation, those kind of things.

It's not realistic though. For that argument to hold any weight they'd also need to make it impossible for a team from Scandinavia or whatever to go on and dominate Champions League every year, but they don't. The two can't co-exist and be called realistic. Nor is "realistic" limited to what is happening in the world, but what can happen. Should Mbappe and Haaland only be worth 5 million euros because the 5 time CL winning side they're on is from Norway? It makes no sense that an English Premier League in 2050 performing to the level of the Norwegian League in 2020 should have players worth more than the Norwegian League in 2050 performing as the English in 2020. But the big question mark in this thread is why in the world can't these biases just be removed when many nations work just fine without them. Why can Bundesliga have every value removed and remain reasonable, but do it to Premier League or La Liga and their world class talent start leaving for free? And why in the world is world class players from The Netherlands worth twice that of everywhere else? This lack of consistency also makes it completely impractical to make a custom database because it's impossible to ensure everything is working correctly and will continue do so in the next 50+ years. 2030 is hardly a long term save, but for the sake of conversation, with what team? In a nation with unrealistic bias, this nonsense results in several hundred bids every window, unreasonable man management, suicidal Club Visions and expectations, it makes roles like DoF, Technical Director and Loan Manager(?) useless and staff recommendations doesn't make any sense. This is partly because of the neglected financial aspect of the game, but if it wasn't for the bias, the manager could work around that with good transfers. Long term saves aren't football management, they're a grind against bad game mechanics that don't communicate with each other and set you up for failure. A bias set by dynamic variables. Player values aren't decided arbitrarily in the real world, and so they shouldn't be in the game. A lot of relevant variables are already in the game and presumably affect these values in nations it isn't hard coded. Why can't it for all?

Every nation has a bias for player wages, values and sponsorships, that soft fixes these values based on a league, club and player's reputation. While these biases do somewhat help keep transfers realistic in the first few years, they also lock the footballing world into the status quo perpetually. Even 5 years into a save you can make these values completely unrealistic and nonsensical. Never mind 30 years down the line. Youth Rating and Game Importance has nothing to do with this. And yet the game is hard coded to never change.

Well, it won't work as I've discovered now. I expected removing the bias to make the game base it on whatever system it has for nations without all ranges filled out, and for Bundesliga this happened, but in Premier League or La Liga every player ended up costing 10 pounds or leaving for free. At a loss. I don't understand how Sports Interactive can despise long term saves and managing outside of these ugly leagues so much.

Has anyone tried removing all the settings in the editor for player value ranges, wage ranges, sponsorship ranges, preferred signings, and given a long term save a go? Doesn't have to be FM21, just curious how it plays out over time as the default bias just makes long term saves unplayable imo, and trying to balance it myself would take way too long.