y2k1

48 month payments, what do you think?

98 posts in this topic

I just signed with Arsenal:

Rossi

Robert Huth

Yann Sommer

Willian

Hamsik

Andreas Beck

Christian Molinaro

Walter Montillo

all for 120m in the first summer of the season without having to do the add manager cheat.

All you have to do is maximize your wage budget by putting the slider all the way to the left and then bidding on players using long monthly fees of 4 years. Then when it comes to the signing the board compromises the wage structure so you are always successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a well known AI exploit.

a) You have to go out of your way to cheat it, so it's hardly a priority fix

b) Unless you're successful as hell, you've just crippled your club financially for the next four years and beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep ruined

or you could try not glitching? it is a kind of glitch afterall

if i can shoot through walls in call of duty i might take the decent option of not doing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people disagree but I have always thought that the board should give two budgets one for upfront payments and one for monthly ones. As it is now it's too easy to over spend I know people can control their own budgets but I would like a more realistic system for monthly spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and c) you signed Robert Huth? Are you nuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There definitely needs to be more financial restraints shown by the board in game, as things like this risking the entire future of the club just wouldn't happen. We can all point to the likes of Leeds, but we can equally point to teams like Tottenham, where they only spend what they can realistically afford to.

Oh, and £120m to spend and you go for Robert Huth? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The board really needs to learn when to say "ahaha, there's no way we're letting you do that, you fool".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people disagree but I have always thought that the board should give two budgets one for upfront payments and one for monthly ones. As it is now it's too easy to over spend I know people can control their own budgets but I would like a more realistic system for monthly spending.

Yeah, there should be a board-imposed limit on how much a club can owe in monthly payments at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, there should be a board-imposed limit on how much a club can owe in monthly payments at any time.

The hack fix would be to introduce a second budget, but the proper fix would be to have the clubs budgeting over many years, rather than just every season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The hack fix would be to introduce a second budget, but the proper fix would be to have the clubs budgeting over many years, rather than just every season.

Easier said than done though - ask Portsmouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ that one

Also i don't think there is enough financial instability in the game so clubs struggling after overstretching themselves is part of football.

So i say go ahead and do it but be prepared to pay for it later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^^ that one

Also i don't think there is enough financial instability in the game so clubs struggling after overstretching themselves is part of football.

So i say go ahead and do it but be prepared to pay for it later

There isn't any overstretching in FM. If his finances are red enough his board will just clear the debt, add some giant heaps of cash and he's good to go again. You can easily spend all the transfer budget each year signing superstars on 4-year downpayment deals, losing 5, 10, 60 millions a month regardless of which club you are.

Because SI is too afraid of lawsuits to add actual financial problems. I think the solution is to let us delete a file like we do with a certain other feature...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The hack fix would be to introduce a second budget, but the proper fix would be to have the clubs budgeting over many years, rather than just every season.

:thup:

xxx

EDIT: They need to project as far into the future as the longest monthly payment option. (4 years?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There isn't any overstretching in FM. If his finances are red enough his board will just clear the debt, add some giant heaps of cash and he's good to go again. You can easily spend all the transfer budget each year signing superstars on 4-year downpayment deals, losing 5, 10, 60 millions a month regardless of which club you are.

Because SI is too afraid of lawsuits to add actual financial problems. I think the solution is to let us delete a file like we do with a certain other feature...

I've seen clubs go into administrationin FM10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always pay cash up front for my transfers to keep properly within a reasonable budget.

I think perhaps it would be good to have a min. of say, 75% down-payment on all transfers. This would keep budgets in some sort of order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to cheat you might at least have bought some better players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, there should be a board-imposed limit on how much a club can owe in monthly payments at any time.

I think this would be the most sensible option.

In theory it's a risky strategy but in practice a human player can easily make the money back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 48 month exploit is a pretty bad. I hope SI fix this for next edition. It's far too easy. I'm in 2030 now and kinda finished with the game, so for a laugh I'm taking any job offer that comes my way and building the team up with the best players in the world, and seeing where they go after I leave etc.

At Atletico Madrid now, I sold players for €72m and I bought players for €195m in one transfer window - basically a whole new team. Low and behold I'm top of the league and soaring to Champions League success.

I do win everything, but I'm rarely at a club for 4 seasons. So I don't care about their finances. I am just signing the best players. I have one rule, don't sign anyone that I've signed before.

I could just start over, but I'm fairly bored with FM at the moment. It's not realistic enough, and the 48month exploit is one of the many reasons.

I've gone from Sabadell, to Liverpool, to Roma. That's where I started messing around after about 2 seasons of winning the leauge, cup, champions league etc. I wasn't having fun. So I bought all the best players for Roma and won everything again. Then At Madrid came in, and now I'm just buying whatever player that I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 48 month exploit is a pretty bad. I hope SI fix this for next edition. It's far too easy.

The exploit itself isn't the problem (as we can avoid using it), the problem is that it is far too easy to guarantee success while doing it. It needs to be harder to take a club to 'the next level' in order to get situations like Pompey/Leeds in FM.

Splashing out and spreading the cost over four years should be a massive risk, but it just isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The hack fix would be to introduce a second budget, but the proper fix would be to have the clubs budgeting over many years, rather than just every season.

Any later season's budget should defo take into account what has been arranged as due instalments already. This could be made transparent by giving an initial number and immediately deducting the instalments due during that season. Also in the season expectations vs. budget choice news item that should then be mentioned.

If finances are bad that should also be able to lead to a reduced budget, i.e. a transfer budget of 0 and a wage budget below the current payroll.

Boards should imho not step in and prevent the 48 months schedule, but they should step in later and restrict further spending if the instalments could otherwise become a financial danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the age old arugment on this, you complain about the exploit yet constantly use it, its like being able to see through walls in COD and complain its too easy to win.

The game is far more fun when you have to actually think about who your going to sign. Not just throwing money around like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The exploit itself isn't the problem (as we can avoid using it), the problem is that it is far too easy to guarantee success while doing it. It needs to be harder to take a club to 'the next level' in order to get situations like Pompey/Leeds in FM.

Splashing out and spreading the cost over four years should be a massive risk, but it just isn't.

That's completely true. I have suggested in the past that the Board should only allow 1 or 2 48 month deals. If you tried to sign too many on 48 month deals the Board could cancel the transaction.

However, I wanted to sign a player and Man City bid for him as well. I had to bid 40m for the player, and then he signed for Man City - and the fee was only €22m for them and no strings either, I checked.

It's pretty annoying that the AI can buy the same player for cheaper but not want to sell to me for that price? So I feel kinda justified in using the 48month when I have to spend twice what the AI has to.

Its the age old arugment on this, you complain about the exploit yet constantly use it, its like being able to see through walls in COD and complain its too easy to win.

The game is far more fun when you have to actually think about who your going to sign. Not just throwing money around like that.

Oh I definitely didn't use it for the first 12 seasons I was playing. I was building teams gradually, I spent 8 seasons at Sabadell and 4 seasons at Liverpool - playing properly. It's just when I won the quadruple with Liverpool twice, and then went to Roma and won the Tripple there twice, the game was just too easy. So I made Roma a superteam and now I'm doing the same at At Madrid.

The only difference is one way takes longer and the exploit takes a shorter amount of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned the problem is not the 48 month transfer. They are often used in real life.

The problem is that the board (in game) has the same sense of economic management as many a bank director. As long it's not their money why care?

As I've also mentioned in the bug forum the board (mine anyways) almost every year pay out dividends so the yearly balance ends up with a deficit.

SI should take a good look at the financial aspects of the board as the board is too lenient in my opinion (in my game I have a bank balance of ~90M Euro but a transfer budget of ~400M Euro (before selling players) and a weekly wage budget of ~1M Euro)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SI should take a good look at the financial aspects of the board as the board is too lenient in my opinion (in my game I have a bank balance of ~90M Euro but a transfer budget of ~400M Euro (before selling players) and a weekly wage budget of ~1M Euro)

These figures appear very sensible to me. The entire allowed expense can be covered by what already lies at the bank. So nothing whatsoever can happen to the club as the club will keep generating income throughout the year.

The real comparison should be made to the yearly turnover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These figures appear very sensible to me. The entire allowed expense can be covered by what already lies at the bank. So nothing whatsoever can happen to the club as the club will keep generating income throughout the year.

The real comparison should be made to the yearly turnover.

My club is no where near to generate that amount in a year (400-90 = 310M Euros). Most of my income come from Champions League and that's it. I'm managing Brøndby IF so I am not earning much from sponsorships and league winnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My club is no where near to generate that amount in a year (400-90 = 310M Euros). Most of my income come from Champions League and that's it. I'm managing Brøndby IF so I am not earning much from sponsorships and league winnings.

Sorry, missed a zero there. My count was 40+52.

Have to stand corrected and agree with you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The finances in the game are a complete mess. I never look at them. The board never says anything about finances or anything. I don't even payattention to that side of the game.

Just spend what I want on who I want and nobody bats and eyelid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The finances in the game are a complete mess. I never look at them. The board never says anything about finances or anything. I don't even payattention to that side of the game.

Just spend what I want on who I want and nobody bats and eyelid.

Harry, is that you? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get that reference lol

Anyway, point is it is possible to spend €250m in a single transfer window, on a €40m budget. And nobody says anything. It's kinda ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also transfer list and sell off your entire first team without anyone saying anything, when the first bit alone should be leading to mass supporter protests and a very stern word (or possible straight out firing) from the board.

Wonder how it works in real life? Surely the manager has to go through the board in order to transfer list a player in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is meaning Redknap had a knack for overspending ;)

I agree getting to spend that kinda money is crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There definitely needs to be ramifications for overspending on budgets, from the board and from the supporters. Like boycotting games or staging rallys - putting pressure on the board.

That's exactly what I did at At Madrid, I identified the targets I wanted, and I bought a whole new team. I only kept 3 of the current squad.

Sold €72m and bought €195m - my transfer budget was €40m.

I spent €83m over-budget.

Just because I could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You went more overbudget than that, as only a percentage of your transfer income actually gets put into the transfer kitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, not sure what percentage of transfer fees I was getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You went more overbudget than that, as only a percentage of your transfer income actually gets put into the transfer kitty.

Depends on the clubs finances and the board I guess. I have 100% of my transfer income put into the transfer budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on the clubs finances and the board I guess. I have 100% of my transfer income put into the transfer budget.

It tends to go that way once you're a proven boss, but usually at the start you're limited to about 90% at most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It tends to go that way once you're a proven boss, but usually at the start you're limited to about 90% at most.

Yeah, I guess that's right. When I started at the club it was 5% as far as I remember :) But the economy of the club was also rubbish...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i sometime ago started a thread about this, i won the champions league with a polish club after buying lots of players on 48month payments, it really is kinda random, and as long as you keep winning the league and participating in the champions league + performing good, i dont see a problem covering the monthly expenses tbh

makes the game really easy though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ability to pay in installments has to be made to work as many transfers are paid in installments and I'd guess most are. I stay at clubs a long time so I wouldn't use this as I like to improve facilities as much as I can and also it would feel a bit cheap being successful like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I was already very successful in winning everything with Sabadell, Liverpool and Roma - so I decided to start messing around and using the exploit to sign the best players possible.

I definitely wouldn't do it at the start of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I believe you should approach the chairman with your transfer, stating what you think should be paid, and then the chairman does the deal based on your suggestion if he can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just impose your own rule by setting it to 24 months installment as your max, then it won't be that easy to buy players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the board needs to have tools available to make sure that the overall spending of the club month by month and year by year does not go haywire. The reason RL clubs pay transfers in monthly fees is that if they paid everything at once the club's bank balance might take a dip into the red, which is not a good idea. A transfer budget is a transfer budget regardless of how the transfer fee is paid, so the 4x feature should just be removed. If the club does not have enough money in the bank to pay for the transfer straight up, the option to pay straight up should simply be removed, leaving only the monthly fee option. Even that should be restricted to what the club has budgeted with, so if the club is losing more money per month than they can expect to recoup in the course of a year, the amount of money paid in transfer fees each month would have to be spread over more and more months, until the 48 month limit has been reached. If the club needs more months than that to pay for the transfer, you shouldn't be allowed to complete it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I've made 2 buys of say €30m over 48 months and try to do another one a message should come up in the news feed

"The board have intervened in the transfer and suggest that all cash</75%/50%/25% or something> be paid up front or the deal will be cancelled

Accept Cancel"

If I am selling an unusual amount of players (like 18 players like I did at At Madrid) the Board should be coming down hard on me and demanding a higher league position and put pressure on me.

And if I sign 20 players for stupid amounts of money like going nearly 100% over my budget, they should be warning me to be top of the table or face the sack

etc.

It would be great if the Board were more involved. Or the Chairman might decide he's taking over the buying and selling of players (like Abramovich does) and doesn't give me back control until I've proved myself as a manager to the team - who should all hate me for a while after trying to offload them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be an option in the game to "allow the chairman to take on transfer dealings". After all thats the way it's done in real life. Not by the manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say you want to buy a new television. You go to the store and find out that it costs $480.

You have 2 options, paying $10 each month for 4 years or paying $480 up front. What do you prefer?

Why would the board want to spend all that cash when they can pay over installments?

If you have no discount on paying up front, pay it over 48 months... It's kind of obvious to me.

If clubs negotiate for discounts there can be some advantage.. let's say 5% to 15% discount on paying upfront. It's better to spend the money than earn interest from banks (to say only one example of investiments)

On the other hand, if I as a seller have enough cash, i always choose bigger offers over 48 months instead of smaller offers up front. I don't need the money now, I can earn more on waiting, just as a bank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondered people's thought on the fact you can spread your transfer fees out? It happens in real life but some people on here deam it cheating, do whats your thoughts on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to use them if possible. If I do use them, I set myself a limit of not allowing the 48 month payment part of the transfer to total more than 50% of the total transfer fee. E.g. If I'm paying £5mil for a player, a maximum of £2.5mil of that could be spread over 48 months.

I don't see it as cheating per se, but I think it definitely tips the game into giving you an advantage. Obviously people can play the game how they see fit so I wouldn't chastise anyone for using excessive 48 month payments, but too much usage doesn't fit in with my preferred play style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it cheating?

I said some people see it as that as you can spend more, was just wondering people's thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.