Sharpiejas Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 First season no transfer budget, second season 111k. Since we were going to spend 17m on Carroll, you would think that there is a lot more in the kitty. I am going to have another season with no transfers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiamoW21 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Spot on mate. Sunderland have spent big consistant for the past several years. This season, we spent £20mil bringing in Johnson and Fletcher yet, on FM, we have £1.5mil and bleed money from the club bank account. I'm losing £3mil a month, got no budget in January (first season) and I'm guessing I won't in the summer either. We're a very wealthy club, yet on FM we always seem to end up in administration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico877 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Yeah, starting balance of -£12.6m. Totally realistic for a newly promoted side... nope. Think the researcher may have just used the balance from FM12 and adjusted it based on transfers in the summer or something. It's a probably a data issue anyway so post in the West Ham thread - http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/318015-ENGLAND-%28Official%29-West-Ham-United-Data-Issues Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico877 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 How do you explain a second season budget of £110k then, mack? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRL88 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 It isnt difficult to grasp. The reason there is no budget in the first window is because of the money that was spent on players in real life. As for the second, if you are in the red then you are bound to be given next to no money because the club won't want to risk losing more money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 First season no transfer budget, second season 111k. Since we were going to spend 17m on Carroll, you would think that there is a lot more in the kitty. I am going to have another season with no transfers. The first season budget I understand but the second season seems a bit off. I suppose it depends on in-game club finances. Bit the fact remains that the Gold/Sullivan partnership would step up and find the funds themselves if they thought a player was crucial to the side, they have done it before and if Carrol ends up being a hit, I'm certain they'll stump up for him. This should be reflected ingame tbh. Maybe you should meet with some sucess if you go to the board and asked for funds to buy a crucial player if no budget has been set. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico877 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 -£12.8m as BALANCE makes no sense though. Surely everything didn't go towards transfers. Sad thing is that Burnley are richer than Liverpool, West Ham and Aston Villa combined just because they sold Jay Rodriguez for £7m. Makes no sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AjaxNo1 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 I find transfer fund also goes on how much the chairman trusts you, if you have had an average season and he isnt happy with your transfer dealings he is less likely to give you alot of money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 I find transfer fund also goes on how much the chairman trusts you, if you have had an average season and he isnt happy with your transfer dealings he is less likely to give you alot of money I'd like to see that confirmed by SI. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixmkz Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I was over performing and the board asked me if I want to set a higher expectation for myself with a bigger budget. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huggormen Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 We do have a 17 mill clause on carroll though.... no matter what some loser on here claims. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWWROCKS Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Just because you have the clause doesn't mean you have the money to use it. You might just look to shift some players in Janaury to make the money or you might not invoke the clause at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajj 7 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Aren't West Ham like £90 million in debt IRL? Seems pretty realistic to me that they don't have any money to spend. The tax bug probably doesn't help but most likely all their money is spent servicing their debts and paying the wages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welshace Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Data Issue forum please. Won't get it sorted by discussing it here. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.