German_Rabbit

Yes, I think that would make sense. In the real world, clubs would not accept premiums which are much higher than the actual cash value. Maybe 10-15% for all added premiums would be too strict, but for any of such premiums it could be good limit. Or you limit the sum of all premiums to e.g. 50% of cash value and then one could divide it however it suits best.

I am just trying to find solutions to a problem, which this chat shows we all agree exits. For the years to come, FM25, 26, 27... they will improve the game. And part of any improvement alongside to the tactic, strategy gameplay should also be the transfer market.

Do you think it is really so difficult to solve (programme)? I would have thought, the premiums that are most unrealistic are: 1. Games played (in particular 50 games, as this allows you to play the guy 2-3 seasons) 2. Goals scored (in partiuclar 40 or 50 goals) If SI would programme it the way that if you sell the player within 3 years, you have to pay ( pro-rata or all) on the premiums (goes against current and future budget), it would significantly hurt the budget if players are simply bought to generate short term trading revenue. That way, making money on trading players is much more difficult.

Ok, duly noted. You seem to have a different opinion. But I will say, I have only played FM in multiplayer mode, as I think it is more fun to compete with real friends. and it's obviously easier (with any game) if you can just play it without having to discuss and monitor any special private rules. We played German Bundesliga, Frankfurt and Cologne. Until 2029, we won the league each year; my buddy playing Cologne won the CL 3 times in a row. While it should be the ultimate goal and possible, I think it should be tougher to reach it, i.e. take longer because in real life - especially these kind of clubs - dont have the means to buy all these players in such a short time. But enough said, interesting to learn that you do not feel that way and I guess we agree to disagree. All good. Enjoy FM.

@Freakiie: That is completely fine and a different problem. If a player does not develop, well nothing is paid. But to pay little to no cash and only get the player because of offering crazy premiums which can easily be avoided to be paid by an onsale, just does not make sense. If he really develops nicely and you then cash in on higher market value. And that is the biggest difference to the game when compared to real life, as it is pretty clear in the game who will develop well. Therefore, it should be made more difficult to buy players with adding premiums (as future risk is limited in the game). @turnip/spallo: My post was meant to be as an idea to improve the game and to make it more realistic. It's great how many options and premiums are possible in the transfer market and why not make it a little more realistic? Could be simple maximum limits in the background on premiums related to cash amounts, which is really not hard to add. Or, as I mentioned, one could leave the premiums as is and only add that those are paid if the player is sold within e.g. 2 or 3 years or a certain percentage of that. That way, you align the game to what's happening in reality, which will further enhance the game. For me the point is, since it is a game and players have a certain outcome regarding their ability (and hence future transfer price), the transfer market should be made much harder, as the game - naturally - misses out on the risk of future development of players. Also, I don't quite understand the single player/multi-player argument. It's the same game experience and if it is too easy to buy top players by creating revenue through trading, it's no fun to play - single or multi player.

I get that, but the way it is designed in FM is completely ridiculous. With any mediocre team - as long as you have a small budget to get thinks rolling - one can end up with 20 world class superstarts after 3-5 years. And your example is very different to the issue I describe, because then Birmingham gets the player back. In FM, Birmingham would have bought the player for a small amount, agreed to a very high premium if played more than 10 games. Then simply bench him after 9 games and sell him for a lot of money, never paying that premium. Very different outcome for Leicester (and in real life they would never agree to that). But to buy e.g. Bellingham for 25 in cash and 130 in premiums and then just sell him for 80mil (cash) after 40 games and not pay any premiums is nothing that would ever happen in real life. One way to fix it is also to limit the premiums, to e.g. the equivalent of the amount that is paid cash.

Well, actually there are many people playing multi-player mode. It is difficult not not exploit it, since where do you draw the line? Generally, such clauses are good and necessary to allow for some negotiation room. If a club purchases a good player and then e.g. qualifies for CL and then has the money to aford the premiums that is exactly what should be possible. Since such future premiums make sense as such, I do not think it is a difficult fix. Easiest fix is, if a player is sold, all premiums become immediatly due and are deducted from the transfer budget (first instance), or future budget (if transfer budget is zero and having accounted for room in the salary budget) and will be a hit on the cash position of the club.

The transfer and financing market is way too easy. Main reason is that it is no problem to buy players with very little cash and add very high premiums, but those premiums never have to be paid: Example: Player costs 80million (transfer value) Purchase: 30million cash + premiums for: 50 games played: 50mil and 50 goals: 50mil (and maybe 20 games for national team another 10mil). Sell this guy after 49 games (which is basically 2 seasons minimum, as only league games count) for lets say 80mil; and never pay the 100mil. --> made 50mil profit (on younger players this obviously usually increases) Do that with 10-15 players on a rotating basis on various level to increase the budgets to insane level. What needs to be changed is that in case such premiums are added, e.g. based on number of games played or goals scored, those premiums would have to be payable if the player is sold. On goals, it could be done pro-rata, i.e. if the premium is 40mil for 50 goals, if the player has scored 40 goals and is sold, 32mill are payble (40/50 x 40mil). On games played it would have to be the lump sum that was agreed to when bought. There is no way this would work in real life, i.e. let's say ManCity buys Mbappe for 300mil for e.g. 150 upfront and a clause that says they pay 150mil after 50 games, but PSG would not receive the 150 if the guy is onsold after 49 games.

The transfer and financing market is way too easy. Main reason is that it is no problem to buy players with very little cash and add very high premiums, but those premiums are never paid. For instance, a player who costs 80million can be bought for e.g. 30million cash and adding premiums for: 1. 50 games played: 50mil & 50 goals also 50mil (and maybe 20 games for national team another 10mil). All I need to do is to sell this guy after 49 games (which is basically 2 seasons minimum, as only league games count) and I don't have to pay 100mil. Most likely though, one can easily sell such a player for 80-120mill. if you do that on various levels, e.g. with 10 players, it is so easy to increase the budgets to insane level. What needs to be changed is that in case such premiums are added, e.g. based on number of games played or goals scored, those premiums would have to be payable if the player is sold. On goals, it could be done pro-rata, i.e. if the premium is 40mil for 50 goals, if the player has scored 40 goals and is sold, 32mill are payble (40/50 x 40mil). On games played it would have to be the lump sum that was agreed to when bought. There is no way this would work in real life, i.e. let's say ManCity buys Mbappe for 300mil for e.g. 150 upfront and a clause that says they pay 150mil after 50 games, but PSG would not receive the 150 if the guy is onsold after 49 games.