48 month payments, what do you think?

[robertcornell68]

It's not cheating, it's just one of many advantages human managers have over the AI.

As humans usually over-achieve by a long way, you can pay the money back. In real life, you'd do a Rangers or Portsmouth. The club would implode.

Like the near post corner thing, if you're happy using it then go for it.

(At the start of the game I paid all fees up front, now I do 50% down and 50% over two years. It's a compromise.)

[dafuge]

I usually buy with money up front and sell with fees spread over 48 months. I can usually make more money that way.

[TeeWee]

I usually restrict my spending, but if I feel I need a player that much, I might go for the 48 months if that's what it takes. I will not, however, allow consecutive seasons of heavy spending, to balance things out. Since I'm more of a "feeder"-type club for the real big fish, I usually buy younger with an aim to sell them for a slight profit after I get several years' worth of matches or sign an old hand to boost experience, preferably on a free.

Currently though, I'm trying to cement my place as the big fish in my smallish pond, so I may have to hold on to my top players a tad longer than usual. This might change my transfer policy as well.

[Krald]

I usually buy with money up front and sell with fees spread over 48 months. I can usually make more money that way.

It certainly makes for a more consistent income, which can sometimes keep dividends down.

[dafuge]

It certainly makes for a more consistent income, which can sometimes keep dividends down.

That's the other big bonus, it avoids the quick profits that can result in one-off crippling tax bills the following year.

[Smurf]

That's not the issue at all. It's not about what you prefer to do.

You completely left out that you only have a $50 budget to buy your television.

That's the problem with the 48 month transfers. I can have a €40m transfer budget and spend €195m in one transfer window - and nobody bats an eyelid.

[Camb0dia]

the issue isn't so much whether 48months is cheating but rather the way that budgets are calculated are too high if you use 48 months as transfers. In real life the Hazard deal is done over 48months (or the life of the contract) rather than immediately. So for instance 40mil that barcelona have reported as their transfer budget is actually over 48months.

[soccer.joel]

Not cheating, I only use them when required and I try to stick to budget and not overspend anyway

[vlobben]

It's only cheating when you use installments actively as a way to circumvent the transfer budget.

[Ryknow]

Maximum of 24months if needed, but thats only for large transfers and around 20%of the fee. It's mainly to avoid going below a bank balance figure I set myself.

I like to make a profit each month so most of my sales are over 24-48months. A steady stream of income is always handy to cover costs at the club.

[bigdaddydave]

Nothing is cheating in FM,with the exception of editing stats in one way or another, all you are doing is exploiting a weakness in the system. Human managers in the real world would do exactly the same. Which means those who get all bent out of shape of "cheating" would probably be poor managers in real life.

[endtime]

I like it when people go out of their way to convince others they're not "cheating", but merely "exploiting the system", as if anyone cared how they play their single player game.

[Widzew]

I've never done it, just personal preference to get the fee done and over with but I have sold many players to the AI over an X amount of months. (their offers)

[haunted1234]

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/304626-is-monthly-payments-cheating?highlight=monthly+cheating

[Robert the Spud]

Fact is no team IRL will pay a fee upfront, or atleast it would be rare and for smaller transfers. We're still paying Dinamo for Modric. Now as for the game, people do exploit it too much imo. Depends how you use it though. I'm not going to buy Neymar, Ganso, Cavano, Damiao etc on 48-month payment plans. I prefer tighter budgets and cutting my cloth accordingly. For the challenge.

[ivandrago]

Most of people here in Brazil does not have $480 to buy a tv

as they earn their wages they pay for their things

That's why credit card was invented, so you can buy stuff without all the working capital

Do you really think Chelsea is going to pay for Oscar up front?

If you do a simple balance sheet analysis you will learn that every company in the world has debts (short, medium, long term)

The problem here is that to have credit, you must give some warranty. As a buyer you must offer some warranty that you will pay all the money, as a seller you must trust you will receive all the money. To compensate that risk, and not having the full amount of money, sellers earn interests over installments

In FM, transactions are automatically made while you having or not having the funds. That's the problem. The economic system is broken

[TioPatinhax]

with this "hack" of managing to spend 120M in one season, will his club effectively go bankrupt or at least face severe problems in the future? If not, if there isnt any penalty, it is REALLY cheating

[Ackter]

with this "hack" of managing to spend 120M in one season, will his club effectively go bankrupt or at least face severe problems in the future? If not, if there isnt any penalty, it is REALLY cheating

It will be in financial trouble if he can't maintain success over the four seasons it'll take to pay those back.

[Smurf]

Yeh it is cheating, that's why I only do it when I'm bored of my save.

[ivandrago]

there's no debt default or inflation

at least I haven't noticed none of it

[TacticalGenius]

The exploit of 48 months transfers is only an exploit if you exploit it. Therefore the game is only broken if you break it.

You cannot complain the game is boring if you are buying superstars and winning everything in season one as you are the one who chose to use the exploit. Play it normally and there are no problems.

[Ackter]

The exploit of 48 months transfers is only an exploit if you exploit it. Therefore the game is only broken if you break it.

You cannot complain the game is boring if you are buying superstars and winning everything in season one as you are the one who chose to use the exploit. Play it normally and there are no problems.

It still, ideally, shouldn't be present and is symptomatic of another, much larger, problem (ie that you have far too much control over finances).

[ivandrago]

I'm happy to know most of people here bought their houses up front

Wait, if that is the real situation, why are we facing Global Crisis?

[rancer890]

I mostly spread out payments over 30 months now. I think I broke that for my biggest signing ever at $60 million ($20 million up front + $40 million over 48 months) for a newgen striker. I think I spent $100+ million on a $30 million budget at Bayern, but now I reined back my spending to mostly even transfers in and out now.

[dafuge]

I'm happy to know most of people here bought their houses up front

Wait, if that is the real situation, why are we facing Global Crisis?

Taking out a mortgage on a house shouldn't really be a risk though, as it is when you quadruple your budget by spreading transfer fees over four years on FM. The problem is that the risk is far too small because it is too easy to guarantee success.

[TacticalGenius]

It still, ideally, shouldn't be present and is symptomatic of another, much larger, problem (ie that you have far too much control over finances).

I agree that it shouldn't be exploitable in the first place, but people saying it breaks the game are wrong. As I said before, it is only a game-breaker if you make it so. When I'm playing, I get given a budget and as far as I'm concerned, once it is spent, I'll then sell players if I require more funds.

The same can be said for 3 central striker ME exploit tactics too, but that is another can of worms. I'd rather lose constantly than resort to that. As with the payments exploit - just because it is there, it doesn't mean it has to be used.

[ivandrago]

Taking out a mortgage on a house shouldn't really be a risk though, as it is when you quadruple your budget by spreading transfer fees over four years on FM. The problem is that the risk is far too small because it is too easy to guarantee success.

That's what I'm trying o say

Credit is a useful tool for most of people and companies, and must be used on FM

The problem is how is being done and it's consequences

[ivandrago]

I wanted to start a company but only had 1/4 of the money. I took my project to the bank and they lent me money for it

With this money I could buy a farm and some machines. Now I'm selling the cassava I have planted and paying interests to bank

I would have never started this if I didn't have credit

And the bank would not earn money on interests

[Äktsjon Männ]

I wanted to start a company but only had 1/4 of the money. I took my project to the bank and they lent me money for it

With this money I could buy a farm and some machines. Now I'm selling the cassava I have planted and paying interests to bank

I would have never started this if I didn't have credit

And the bank would not earn money on interests

No-one's saying you shouldn't be able to use monthly payments. It should just not be allowed to quadruple your transfer budget by doing this. No board would ever sanction it. Like no bank would give you a £1m loan if you only have £250k worth of assets to secure it against.

[ivandrago]

No-one's saying you shouldn't be able to use monthly payments. It should just not be allowed to quadruple your transfer budget by doing this. No board would ever sanction it. Like no bank would give you a £1m loan if you only have £250k worth of assets to secure it against.

I agree with you

I'm not saying everyone should get credit

But some clubs, sometimes should be able do it

I put my apartment in warranty for the farm. If I fail to pay the bills, bank will take my apartment

Clubs have tv revenue. They can take in advance next year's income to spend this year

Brazilian clubs does that all the time

IE: You are managing Manchester United, what's the chance on your club facing relegation this year? very little, right? why can't you spend tv revenue from next year in advance as you would receive it next year anyway?

Maybe you could receive not the whole package, but some money in advance.. If you fail to pay your debts, you can have deducted points next season, or more serious sanctions

On Fm12 I have managed Wakehurst from Northern Ireland for 20 years

after 15 years in charge, there was absolutely no competition at all for the championship and, therefore, for CL spot

My board cannot understand that i have enormous chance of qualifying for CL and spend 6 million pounds I would receive from UEFA in advance?

Football clubs are companies like others.. in a way

I'm only saying that are many financial tools avaiable not implemented on the game.

[BenArsenal]

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

But that happens in real life as well. It's like buying a house. You seldom splunk hundreds of thousands in cash at one go (unless you're a gazillionaire). You take a loan and spread out the payments to your own needs and requirements.

[BenArsenal]

I agree with you

I'm not saying everyone should get credit

But some clubs, sometimes should be able do it

I put my apartment in warranty for the farm. If I fail to pay the bills, bank will take my apartment

Clubs have tv revenue. They can take in advance next year's income to spend this year

Brazilian clubs does that all the time

IE: You are managing Manchester United, what's the chance on your club facing relegation this year? very little, right? why can't you spend tv revenue from next year in advance as you would receive it next year anyway?

Maybe you could receive not the whole package, but some money in advance.. If you fail to pay your debts, you can have deducted points next season, or more serious sanctions

On Fm12 I have managed Wakehurst from Northern Ireland for 20 years

after 15 years in charge, there was absolutely no competition at all for the championship and, therefore, for CL spot

My board cannot understand that i have enormous chance of qualifying for CL and spend 6 million pounds I would receive from UEFA in advance?

Football clubs are companies like others.. in a way

I'm only saying that are many financial tools avaiable not implemented on the game.

Yeah but that's a huge risk. Nothing's guaranteed in life.

Just look at Leeds.

[ivandrago]

Yeah but that's a huge risk. Nothing's guaranteed in life.

Just look at Leeds.

I agree with you

Living is risky itself

[scott MUFC]

if the budgets and player prices matched up more we wouldn't need this.

Real madrid offered me 40 mill for vidic.. 30 million of which is over months

my transfer budget for january... 7 million. and it says you don't have the funds if you can not afford the monthly payments?

[POMPEY657]

But even if you're not succesful and not getting stupid amounts of prize money to pay off the transfers in the following 4 seasons, the board will always pay off the debts anyways once you are in the red. This money doesn't come out of the following transfer budget, it's also very rarely that the board will take out a loan to make the payments. They just magically put aload of cash into the club over and over. So whatever people want to call it 'exploiting or cheating', it's the same result. You're benifiting from something that shouldn't be in the game IMO.

This really needs to be looked at and changed for future releases.

[TioPatinhax]

So you never go bankrupt or something like that even if you use too many 48 month payments?

[dafuge]

So you never go bankrupt or something like that even if you use too many 48 month payments?

You probably would if you weren't successful enough to cover the payments (like Pompey/Leeds), but that is unlikely to happen if you make decent signings.

[Äktsjon Männ]

You probably would if you weren't successful enough to cover the payments (like Pompey/Leeds)

It's near impossible to go bust in the latest versions. As said above, the board will just keep pumping cash in if there's any hint of financial trouble.

[ivandrago]

It's near impossible to go bust in the latest versions. As said above, the board will just keep pumping cash in if there's any hint of financial trouble.

And that's the main problem IMO.

[TioPatinhax]

No one here ever went bust?

[Harper]

Depends. I usually start with Arsenal so, if I start with a transfer budget of £43M and make sales/loans that total £94M, my expenses on players bought, £128M, is still less than my transfer budget + player sales.

(Budget + Player Sales/Loan Fees) - Players Bought

(£43M + £94M) - £128M

£137M - £128M = £9M

To me, I didn't cheat. Mainly because, the amount I spent was covered by the amount made from player sales plus my original budget.

Looking at my Players Bought section of expenditures, it looks like 36 month payment plans were what I used, but over that period, between 6/12 and 5/15, I had about £3M, rising to £4.5 million going out per month outside of the transfer windows. After 8/15, outside of the transfer windows, my expenditures on players bought, was at zero.

Over the same period of time, it looks like my profit per month, outside of the transfer windows, was around -£10M/month, but more than made up for by TV revenue, prize money, and future net transfer spending (-£22.5M in 2014/15).

Did the math and for transfer fees greater than £10M, the sum (transfer fees / 36) falls right were the graph seems to indicate. It looks like I did a some 24 month payments in 6/13 when my monthly players bought graph rose from £3 to five

So, would you all consider that exploiting the game? Or just the benefit of playing a rich club with big revenue streams?

My main rule for using the monthly payments is that I don't make payments longer than I plan on keeping the player. If I do a 36 month payment, the player will be a key figure in my squad.

Month Purchased	  Total Value	   Duration	 Monthly Amt    Total Monthly Payment
Jun-2012	 £22,500,000.00 	36	 £625,000.00 	
Jun-2012	 £15,000,000.00 	36	 £416,666.67 	
Jun-2012	 £16,000,000.00 	36	 £444,444.44 	
Jun-2012	 £11,500,000.00 	36	 £319,444.44 	
Jun-2012	 £12,500,000.00 	36	 £347,222.22 	
Jun-2012	 £12,500,000.00 	36	 £347,222.22 	
Aug-2012	 £10,000,000.00 	36	 £277,777.78 	 £2,777,777.78 
Jun-2013	 £15,000,000.00 	24	 £625,000.00 	
Aug-2012	 £17,500,000.00 	24	 £729,166.67 	 £4,131,944.44 

[Loki679]

Not all of the transfer fees you receive would go back into the transfer budget though. What's your % of transfer revenue made available?

[Harper]

Not all of the transfer fees you receive would go back into the transfer budget though. What's your % of transfer revenue made available?

It was/is 100%. That's the first thing I check when I start a game and the first request I make to the board.

[upthetoon]

it's impossible to go bust in this game as you are better than the AI in every single way. You can sign all the best players and your intelligence is far far better than the AI. So you will definately win titles.

and the board do pump in money.

the only way to stop this exploit is make it realistic and make the chairman intervene when you have ridiculous amount of 48 months transfers.

[DeadlyBren]

How do these such payments actually work?

Say I wanted to pay £10 million for a player, how would that work out over 24, 36 and 48 months?

[pigfacemonkeyman]

How do these such payments actually work?

Say I wanted to pay £10 million for a player, how would that work out over 24, 36 and 48 months?

You offer an initial payment - let's say £2m - leaving £8m balance to be payed over - let's say 48 months - you must have enough money available in your budget to cover the initial payment + the first year's installments - £2m + £2m = £4m. Hence a £10m player for a layout of £4m.

[Herter]

How do these such payments actually work?

Say I wanted to pay £10 million for a player, how would that work out over 24, 36 and 48 months?

10m divided by 24 = monthly payment (+ interests of course)

[DaveDaveDave]

I don't really get why this is even a debate. If you use it, use it. If not, fine. I use my transfer budgets as and how I need to. If I have a 25yo DM and a 17yo DM, and a transfer budget of £1.5m, I might sign another senior DM on loan for a season and hope that the young kid is ready next time round, I might bring a guy in on a free if there is anyone good enough, or if I'm offered a top quality (3.5* plus) DM for £6m, I might decide to use the 48-month option. I would never use it to spend £70m on Neymar or Cavani because, let's face it, there are other options. Apart from the teams that can afford those fees upfront, everyone would be improved by a Neymar but would probably also be improved with someone who has a PA of 10 less than Neymar but might cost £40m less.

Ultimately, you need success to sustain this kind of spending. I'll use it every so often at the start of a game if I feel like I have one particularly weak position and not enough money to bring it up to standard. I always prefer to accept transfer offers that include monthly payments though, because it's a nice way of keeping finances at a steady position over a period of time.