Managing the nouveau-riche Anzhi

[ZentSPB]

Here my predicament:

"We need to sigh high profile players, and pay them exorbitant wages. Samuel Eto'o is getting lonely on that premium wage packet.", says Mr Money.

Sure thing. How about we sign Kaka. He's on the wane and wants 240k+ a week. Another footballing antique to add to our museum!", suggests Mr Manager

"Perfect! offer him a contract of 80k maximum.

"Ok. Wait... What?"

"80k tops"

"But... our wage budget is 255k a week."

"This is Anzhi! We shall not be held to ransom!"

"But Eto'o is already holding us..."

"Get out of my sight!"

***

What is the purpose of having sugar daddies in FM if they are so concerned with dental health?

[Guest]

For sugar-daddy clubs like Anzhi there should be scope for wage busting signings, something along the lines of a marquee status that allows the manager a free hand in offering stupid sums of money to get a big name player who would not consider the club if all that's on offer is a wage similar to what clubs from the more traditional powerhouse leagues can offer.

[ZentSPB]

Agreed. But What I fail to comprehend is, why the max wage offer limit for Anzhi is capped at 80k (euros), when the actual renaming wage budget is around 255k a week. I think Kaka is exactly the type of player (age and profile wise) that Anzhi could realistically acquire.

[Herbert Fandel]

Maybe, given Etoo's salary, they wish to keep the remaining 255 for a number of players, rather than just one.

Slightly at odds with the boardroom promise of big-signings, I'll give you that, but maybe they don't mean 'as' big as Etoo, just bigger than the general Russian league rep.

Barside, as far as I know there is already scope for wage busting signings, you ask the board to negotiate it and then they go beyond the budgets if they think it is worthwhile in sight of the finances vs their ambitions

[Guest]

It's a mechanism to encourage a balanced wage policy, something that is normally lacking in clubs that are financially supported by wealthy groups or individuals & more reason to create the additional status that I mentioned, it would also help in creating the sort of alleged disharmony that the arrival of the massively paid Hulk & Witsel had when they were signed by Zenit.

Maybe, given Etoo's salary, they wish to keep the remaining 255 for a number of players, rather than just one.

Slightly at odds with the boardroom promise of big-signings, I'll give you that, but maybe they don't mean 'as' big as Etoo, just bigger than the general Russian league rep.

Barside, as far as I know there is already scope for wage busting signings, you ask the board to negotiate it and then they go beyond the budgets if they think it is worthwhile in sight of the finances vs their ambitions

I've seen my board exceed the club's transfer budget when asked to deal with a big name signing but as yet I've not seen them break the wage ceiling, I don't have too many examples to work from as my history is not exactly littered with managing super rich clubs so I cannot say that it never happens.

[Herbert Fandel]

It's a mechanism to encourage a balanced wage policy, something that is normally lacking in clubs that are financially supported by wealthy groups or individuals & more reason to create the additional status that I mentioned, it would also help in creating the sort of alleged disharmony that the arrival of the massively paid Hulk & Witsel had when they were signed by Zenit.

This description does make me move a bit towards your line of thinking that the current 'ask board to negotiate' doesn't stretch to the scenario you describe, so something new could be added, but at this moment in time surely for like less than 10 clubs worldwide? The current ask board to negotaite shouldn't be discounted. If you have the money, they do it, I even had my board at St. Johnstone season 1 go waaaay over budget for some belgian guy I instantly decided I didn't want.

[soccer.joel]

Just adjust your wage budget higher and make him a key player then adjust it back when he agrees terms

[Guest]

That's somewhat of an exploit though & not one that the AI uses, it would be much better if there was a feature that specifically dealt with this style of club ownership as it would improve the realism of AI transfer behaviour.

[ZentSPB]

Once again I concur. Clubs are not always run sensibly, and it would be nice to see this aspect represented in FM. I want to see clubs being mismanaged by their owners. It would offer a compelling challenge, If I were to reap the short term benefits, but then reel from the long-term consequences. Here's to 'spend now, think later` module in FM14! Though it seems ever less likely now, with new financial rules on the horizon.

[Guest]

Financial rules will not change anything, clubs will only get punished when the owners get bored & pull the plug on their spending, run out of money or didn't have the money in the first place, in all these cases the owner who ruined the club will either already be out or on their way out so they'll be unconcerned about the club being banned from Europe or relegated by their national FA.

[ZentSPB]

Great! Conspicuous consumption all the way, then!

[Lawlore]

Once again I concur. Clubs are very rarely run sensibly, and it would be nice to see this aspect represented in FM.

Fixed that for you.

[forameuss]

It is possible to seriously financially mismanage in the current game, as it was in FM12. It's difficult, and you have to be pretty useless to be fair (which I am) but it is possible. I built Stockport County up in FM12 to the point where they won the Champions League, but that trophy came two years after our maiden Premiership title. After that one my reckless spending (although the board can take their share of the blame) that I had used to get to that level couldn't continue as the money more or less dried up. The save got canned soon after, so not sure how far I would have gone down the bad finance road. I also did similar with Como in FM13, but they didn't have very much to start with.

[AcidBurn]

I think for a club that has a sugar daddy and wants high profile signings then during contract negotiations the player should be allowed to smash the wage structure.

[Herbert Fandel]

It is possible to seriously financially mismanage in the current game, as it was in FM12. It's difficult, and you have to be pretty useless to be fair (which I am) but it is possible. I built Stockport County up in FM12 to the point where they won the Champions League, but that trophy came two years after our maiden Premiership title. After that one my reckless spending (although the board can take their share of the blame) that I had used to get to that level couldn't continue as the money more or less dried up. The save got canned soon after, so not sure how far I would have gone down the bad finance road. I also did similar with Como in FM13, but they didn't have very much to start with.

Every time I have run into financial trouble in any recent FM the board just move it to a loan, so the loan repayments get me in more trouble, so they take out a bigger loan. And on and on and on and on. At every level of the game. I wish there were more reprecussions for financially ruining clubs, (I've never even been sacked for it) but I have posted all this before so don't need to hijack this thread any further.

[ZentSPB]

Fixed that for you.

Thank you for that! I toyed with the idea of putting "rarely", but then my mind was somehow hijacked by the thoughts of Bayern and Arsenal, who are very prudently managed.

[forameuss]

Every time I have run into financial trouble in any recent FM the board just move it to a loan, so the loan repayments get me in more trouble, so they take out a bigger loan. And on and on and on and on. At every level of the game. I wish there were more reprecussions for financially ruining clubs, (I've never even been sacked for it) but I have posted all this before so don't need to hijack this thread any further.

I suppose there's a difference between mismanaging and ruining, but completely agree with you - you should be able to ruin things through bad or malicious management, and then you should have to deal with the consequences without the board spiriting money out of nowhere.

ETA; with FFP coming in, I get the feeling that the finance system might be one of the big tweaks for FM14. Could be wrong of course, but seems topical and sensible for them to overhaul that.

[jujigatame]

You can get around this by signing the player as a "key player" and then just pushing his squad status back down to "rotation" or "first team" or whatever after the signing has gone through. I agree the wage limits can be too stringent sometimes when it doesn't seem like you're pushing up against your cap.

[Herbert Fandel]

You can get around this by signing the player as a "key player" and then just pushing his squad status back down to "rotation" or "first team" or whatever after the signing has gone through. I agree the wage limits can be too stringent sometimes when it doesn't seem like you're pushing up against your cap.

I agree with Barside above that doing this is just an exploit of the game, and I wouldn't do it for this reason. You almost never get punished for it as even if the player is initially upset they forget within a few months.

I've posted in wishlist thread that players should learn to see through such tricks, i.e if you have a history of offering players 'key player' then putting it down, a player who doesn't really think he will be key player, or who you offer 'first team' or 'rotation' in the first few rounds of negotiations then change to 'key player' should say they don'nt believe they will be key player, and refuse the money unless their/ their agent's personality is money-orientated.

PS - he is talking about not being able to afford Kaka above 80kpw. One assumes he has already offered him key player.

[Guest]

That risks upsetting the player & as with another suggestion is just another exploit that the AI will not use & one that gives the human manager an unfair & probably unrealistic advantage in the transfer market.

[jujigatame]

That risks upsetting the player & as with another suggestion is just another exploit that the AI will not use & one that gives the human manager an unfair & probably unrealistic advantage in the transfer market.

As Herbert says, I've found that it actually pretty rarely upsets the player, because generally the player is only requesting "rotation" or "first team" in the first place. It's debatable as to whether this gives you an "unrealistic" advantage. I remember when I was managing Chelsea I was bumping up against wage limits of £30-40k for rotation players, which was simply not sufficient to sign any player good enough to be a "rotation" player on my squad, and probably not realistic for a club like Chelsea. Also as others have complained about, the AI is often able to sign players for wages far lower than what they were demanding from you.

[Herbert Fandel]

As Herbert says, I've found that it actually pretty rarely upsets the player, because generally the player is only requesting "rotation" or "first team" in the first place. It's debatable as to whether this gives you an "unrealistic" advantage. I remember when I was managing Chelsea I was bumping up against wage limits of £30-40k for rotation players, which was simply not sufficient to sign any player good enough to be a "rotation" player on my squad, and probably not realistic for a club like Chelsea. Also as others have complained about, the AI is often able to sign players for wages far lower than what they were demanding from you.

It definitely does give an unrealistic advantage, it is an advantage as the AI doesn't offer rotation players first team wages in the same cynical manner (it only does it from being too stupid to see a player is only rotation quality perhaps), and it is unrealistic as IRL a player would get far more upset by it than in-game, in my opinion.

[Guest]

Looking at the Chelsea squad at the start of the game shows that outside of the generally accepted first XI the players are rarely paid over £40K pw, those that are were the players who came in during the mad early years of Jose's spending, the same is true of most top divisions clubs except Arsenal who oddly enough have a history of paying squad rotation players more than their peers do.

Manipulating the contract offer system to get much better quality squad players than the wage structure would normally allow does imbalance peoples perception of the transfer market, add in the weak player interaction system & I am never surprised to hear people talk about how easy it is to beat the AI.

[jujigatame]

I would argue that the contract negotiation system is overly simplistic and that the use of this "exploit" can actually make for a more realistic experience. The game forces you to put players into rigid bins whereas I'm guessing real-life negotiations are much more fluid and individualistic. I've run into several situations where I am trying to buy a 4.5-star prospect but he demands 5x what my wage cap for a "hot prospect" is. Surely IRL a manager could talk to his board and work this out, particularly when there's plenty of spare room in the wage budget.