Sorry mate have no idea. The only way is sell players, try offering lower contracts to players without signing on fees, try offering contracts to rotation players based more on appearance fee than a fixed weekly wage, put players up for loan, try to offload underperforming high earners. Also if you have a key player who has been generating interest from other clubs and the transfer window is approaching then be strategic with your scouting. Try to find a cheap replacement before deciding to sell, or a player you could get on loan to fill the gap temporarily.
Not to hijack your thread but I really hope the Board AI gets a revamp in a future patch or versions. As far as I see it SI have a number of options:-
1. implement a more complex calculation so the board make more prudent financial decisions. Some may argue that particular board attributes affect this but to me I would be surprised that if when it came to financial decisions like installing seats or building a new stadium that modern day football clubs who behave like businesses would not hire outside consultants to judge the financial viability of those decisions if they did not have the in house expertise to do this.
If processing is an issue then, as geeky as it sounds, let me make the financial decision. At least I can do a rough projection of cash flows and figure out whether or not the cost of a stadium will bankrupt the club and cost me my job.
2. have a secondary financial model, maybe under the hood, that only involves financial decisions that the manager has involvement in. The balance and cash flows from these ‘manager only accounts’ would be the values referenced by the board when judging financial performance. Thus a manager will only get judged on what he has done to affect the financial situation of the club (transfers, wages).
This secondary model could also be used to prevent managers getting sacked based on a financial situation created by their predecessor, despite their own dealings being profitable since joining the club. Although a stipulation might be implemented whereby if part of the new manager’s remit was to reduce the debt by x%, then this would act as a reference point. So if the new manager had only managed to maintain the status quo or made little impact on the debt then the board could be realistically aggrieved.
3. remove independent board decisions that affect a manager’s position from the game completely. This might be somewhat controversial as it is unrealistic but when the board actually behaves in a realistic manner then I will accept realism as an argument against this.
I have no knowledge of what goes on at a football club but I find it hard to believe that in real life a board would spend money which pushes the club in to depth, and then a month later act as if it is the manager’s fault.
It’s like when you were a kid and broke something in the house. You would glue it back together in such a way that it would still break pretty easily, then try and get one of your siblings to knock against it, causing it to fall to the floor and break. At which point you would blame them for breaking it and do it enough so as to convince them that it was their fault and deflect suspicion away from yourself.
That’s my 2 cents on it anyway.
| 
Linear Mode
