hull_cityafc

Add the button!!

isuckatfm

^^as much as i love/hate playing this game there are aspects of it that appear to be either poorly implemented or not well thought through. They give the illusion of realism but are actually just a bunch of equations that trigger events without any kind of 'common sense' implemented in the program.

It feels like there is a fixed calculation that says based on this chairman's attributes he will accept offers of x amount as a function of the player's nominal value, contract wage. contract length etc. but gives no reference to the amount of money the club has available. If anyone reading this has experienced a chairman who goes from selling players over your head to not selling them as your bank balance went up then I can accept that my impression of how it works is wrong.

Haven't gotten far enough into 07 to know if things have changed.

The board confidence issue with the long term goals being achieved too early is another indication of this. Great idea but just poorly implemented.

I'm hoping as well that the financial decision making model, particularly for new stadiums, has been made more complex than it was for 07. I had a long term game where the board spent 86m on a stadium that would hold an extra 5000 people. Didn't seem like it was worth the risk to me.

Just my opinions, not looking to get into a flame war with anyone

To the OP's original problem I wonder if the player was unhappy at having previous bids from Arsenal rejected. That appears to be the key. If you get a news item saying how the player is unhappy at not being allowed move clubs then that's the time to strike. That's how you can get Micah Richards for 20m.

With regards to people saying that's good for a goalkeeper I say nonsense. It should be relative to a player's value in the game and not his position. After reading that I went looking for Ustari. He's still at Getafe in 2009, valued at £4.3m and the club are asking for £28.5m and their finances says secure. Do you see the discrepancy?

Ranger

And what price did he buy him for, has he become an regular international for ltaly?

A goalie that have 8 u21 internationals, 21 years old, not that well known, 18 mill is a massive amount.

I can off cource not tell how he did for the post author in season. I can tell i just tried to sign him to arsenal in my game, and they sell for 5,6 mill.

Jopo12

That's very much correct. And again we can think which is more important, realism or enjoyment. I'd like to see myself as a head of the team who makes decisions which aren't external money dependant like stadium expansions etc. Surely IRL chairmen and managers can have and will have a little chat about each other's thoughts? Would somebody like to be a FM Mourinho? I like to play my games myself, not by some chairman.

We should remember also that there are things which aren't acquirable with money. It's not that easy to just buy another player which is as good and maybe young, and from a rival club so it would compensate their strengthening by your star prospect which your idiot chairman just sold them. Some people have emotional bonds with certain players and don't want to sell them to specific clubs etc.

That chairman stuff and buttons wouldn't be needed if transfers and sackings were logical, but as they really aren't it'd be nice to be in more control. Just like the no sacking-button which I read about. Too many of those sacks are very stupid and senseless without a clue of realism.

Lell

So need that button right now,

I'm Reading in my second season, Madjeski sold Shorey for £10 Million when he was worth £6 Mill just before the season started. It wasn't to big of a deal as in the first season I had signed a pretty good left back in the first season. But then january rolled round and Madjeski sold Sonko to Zaragoza for £12 Million when he was worth £6 Mill and the coupe de grace he sells Shoreys replacement for £11 Mill ( Pineda, Gonzalo to Celtic) essentially screwing over my defence.
Oh and I only got around 13 Million from those sales for my transfer budget.

At the time of posting I was 4th in the prem and 1-0 up in the semis of league cup vs Liverpool.

oxford84

I dont think the manager would have any say if bids get accepted or not by the chairman.The way it works is that managers make a list of players they want and its up to the chairman if they can buy them or not.Now if a bid comes in for a player the chairman will accept if he feels right by it,even if the manager doesnt want to sell,it is the chairman/boards money afterall.

I would think that the chairman would talk to the manager about the offer,then accept the offer and tell the manager he has whatever £s to get a replacement in,and then asks who the manager wants.The manager runs the team,its the board and chairmen who control the money.

DamianY2J

That's very much correct. And again we can think which is more important, realism or enjoyment. I'd like to see myself as a head of the team who makes decisions which aren't external money dependant like stadium expansions etc. Surely IRL chairmen and managers can have and will have a little chat about each other's thoughts? Would somebody like to be a FM Mourinho? I like to play my games myself, not by some chairman.

We should remember also that there are things which aren't acquirable with money. It's not that easy to just buy another player which is as good and maybe young, and from a rival club so it would compensate their strengthening by your star prospect which your idiot chairman just sold them. Some people have emotional bonds with certain players and don't want to sell them to specific clubs etc.

That chairman stuff and buttons wouldn't be needed if transfers and sackings were logical, but as they really aren't it'd be nice to be in more control. Just like the no sacking-button which I read about. Too many of those sacks are very stupid and senseless without a clue of realism. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Both of you are so so wrong. You say it has never ever happened like you're some sort of world authority on it, but in reality, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

I could give you literally a million examples of where a chairman has accepted a bid for a player and then given the money back to the manager to sign another player.

For quickness sake, I'll list just a few here:


Arsenal - Accepted a £15m for Thierry Henry, probably the best player in the world at that point, and then gave £11m back to Wenger to sign Eduardo.

Manchester United - Used the £25m for Beckham to sign Cristiano.

Manchester United - Used the £15m for Van Nistelrooy to sign Nani/Anderson (it might not have been straight after, but the money raised from the sale was used to purchase these players).

Middlesbrough - Used the money raised through the sales of Viduka and Yakubu to sign Aliadiere, Tuncay and Mido.

Aston Villa - Used the money raised through the sale of Liam Ridgewell to sign Zat Knight.

Everton - Used the £4m raised through the sale of James Beattie to buy Phil Jakielka.

Fulham - Sold Franck Queudrue, Zat Knight and Papa Boupa Diop to have the money to buy Diomansy Kamara.

Liverpool - Sold Craig Bellamy to buy Ryan Babel.

Manchester United - Sold Heinze, Rossi and Alan Smith to afford Hargreaves.

Portsmouth - Sold O'Neil and Lua Lua to sign Nugent.



No-one has any idea how many of the above were transfers that the chairman accepted for the manager, and in every single case, the manager was able to use the money to purchase replacements.

There is only a very small percentage of cases where the chairman accepts to raise money for non-footballing reasons (stadium, loans, etc).


The chairman interfering "feature" is set perfectly right at the moment - if you are a small club, you should expect to lose your best players from time to time, and it is a test of your management skills to purchase good enough replacements using the money.