Non-negotiable clauses by the AI

[Some Guy!]

Picture this scenario, a young player has had somewhat of a good start the their season having broken into the first team the previous season. They currently have 4 years to run on their deal, but their agent believes that their emergence as a first team player is worth fresh terms. All well and good. Now imagine those negotiations:

Mr. Manager: So, what are you looking for in these negotiations

Agent: My client wants a 100% increase in wage on a 5 year deal, with £100k signing on bonus for himself, a £150k agent fee for me, increased match fees and some finer details

Mr. Manager: All well and good, we might need to discuss the finer details, but that all seems reasonable in light of recent form. Did you client ask directly for you to get £150k here as you implied?

Agent: ...yes...

Mr. Manager: Fair enough. What are the details of these finer details?

Agent: He would like the yearly wage rise to remain at 15% for the duration of this contract

Mr. Manager: Okay

Agent: A bonus for being in the team of the year

Mr. Manager: Seems fair

Agent: ...and an EXACTLY NINETEEN MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUND RELEASE CLAUSE!

Mr. Manager: Pardon me?

Agent: You know, a minimum fee that your club must accept for my client OF EXACTLY NINETEEN MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS!!

Mr. Manager: Okay, I know what a release clause is, what I don't get is why after a calm and collected start to nego...

Agent: EXACTLY NINETEEN MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS!!!

Mr. Manager: Why are you shouting, and why exactly ni...

Agent: EXACTLY NINETEEN MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS!!!

Mr. Manager: Can you at least tell my why it's exactly

Agent: NINETEEN MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS!!!!

*Mr. Manager leaves the room*

*2 weeks later*

Mr. Manager: You wanted to speak to me again?

Agent: My client wants a 100% increase in wage on a 5 year deal, with £100k signing on bonus for himself, a £150k agent fee for me, increased match fees and some finer details

Mr. Manager: Yes, you said this all last time. I am fine with most of the deal with discussed, save for some minor points, but your insistence on forcing a re...

Agent: NINETEEN MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS!!!!

*Mr. Manager leaves the room*

Mr. Manager: Johnny Player, can you come into my office

Johnny Player: Nice to talk to you again boss, what is this meeting about?

Mr. Manager: Welcome Johnny, I'm a bit worried that your agent is stifling negotiations with his insistence on a clause with zero room to negotiate. If you wish for a deal to be struck here at this time, it may be best you part company with him at this time.

Johnny Player: Hmmm... I never thought of it that way, I'll part company with him as soon as possible and we can discuss the deal between us.

Mr. Manager: Good

*Later that very day*

Mr. Manager: So, what are you looking for in these negotiations Johnny?

Agent: A RELEASE CLAUSE OF EXACTLY NINETEEN MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS!!!!

Mr. Manager: ...see you in 2 years...

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, I can get the logic behind the decision to have these kinds of moments. Human players have been given the ability to set a clause, value and such to be non-negotiable, and by not allowing the AI to do so there exists an apparent imbalance. On the other hand, these kinds of scenarios make for bizarre gameworld situations that come off feeling extremely gamey and, for me at least, severely break immersion in the gameworld.

I would actually argue that the issue is the concept of non-negotiable clauses in the game in general, but there does exist a need for them. In a gameworld where the human player is incapable of directly saying what is important to them in the negotiations, then this is a useful tool for allowing negotiations to be somewhat more interactive, and considerably less gamey. By giving the same tool to the AI though, which has the full arsenal of options by which to talk to the player (through the text boxes, and by other means) however creates issues, because there is no way to give feedback on why you've just walked away from negotiations. The game just doesn't remember such information or take it into account, bringing about situations like the above. In such instances non-negotiable clauses come off as essentially going into a calm negotiation and being immediately shouted at by the agent, the potential for an impasse before the negotiations have really began isn't just real, but in many cases likely.

So the question is where to go from there. There really are a few options:

1. Remove the ability for the AI to make non-negotiable demands

Whilst this gives the player the ability to communicate through this means, and the AI can use other means to get their point across, this comes back to the impression of an imbalanced system where the human player is given all the cards in that respect. Arguably though as the one handing out the contracts it makes sense in some ways. This however is essentially rolling back a few years without progress in the communication and at this point wouldn't add anything to the negotiations

2. Allow non-negotiable clauses, but the values may be negotiated

This makes particular sense in the case that you may want to negotiate the value of such clause in a manner that benefits the AI party. At this time it can come off as particularly odd if the AI demands that you not offer it better terms in one area. This of course has other weaknesses.

3. Remove non-negotiable from both sides, and replace them with a "high priority system"

This would have a number of benefits, without the weaknesses of the others. It could be geared in a way that the AI would only change them (that is, they are effectively non-negotiable) in all cases except where they'd bring about an immediate end to negotiations. In the case of an uninterested AI party such demands which are against their wishes would arguably lead to a break down immediately in many cases. This however would give better feedback to the player in a negotiation, while achieving a similar effect.

Where this shines though is with AI parties. Asking them to change such would be seen in a largely negative light, and in most cases lead to an immediate breakdown of the negotiations (i.e. very similar but a less gamey version of the current non-negotiable system), but it would be something that is possible. In the instance of negotiations such as the above it would also allow for a compromise to be met, rather than leading to quite silly deadlocks for players who are still 2-3 years away from having the power to either force a new contract or a move away. That is, the original negotiation could go:

Mr. Manager: So, what are you looking for in these negotiations

Agent: My client wants a 100% increase in wage on a 5 year deal, with £100k signing on bonus for himself, a £150k agent fee for me, increased match fees and some finer details

Mr. Manager: All well and good, we might need to discuss the finer details, but that all seems reasonable in light of recent form. Did you client ask directly for you to get £150k here as you implied?

Agent: ...yes...

Mr. Manager: Fair enough. What are the details of these finer details?

Agent: He would like the yearly wage rise to remain at 15% for the duration of this contract

Mr. Manager: Okay

Agent: A bonus for being in the team of the year

Mr. Manager: Seems fair

Agent: ...and we feel very strongly that it should have a release clause of around £19.5 million

Mr. Manager: Whilst we agree in principle to the rest of you suggested terms, we too feel strongly about the issue of a release clause. Would we be able to offer benefits elsewhere in place of such a clause

Agent: My client whilst happy here for now does want to keep his options open for the future. We don't believe an agreement could be reached without a release clause

Mr. Manager: How about for increase wage and signing on bonuses, and an added bonus for future international caps we instead consider a release clause in the region of £45 million. This covers the options for your client, while giving the club added protection for a player we feel is far more valuable even now than the £19.5 million proposed.

Agent: This deal could work

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Still a tough negotiation, the AI still gets it's point across as well as being closer to it's intended result, but the negotiation is less gamey. In some cases maybe the clause could be negotiated away entirely, in some cases maybe such suggestions would end the negotiation. The point is though that it would be a more natural negotiation, which is even on both sides, but less gamey all round.

I don't know, FM16 has been fantastic from what I've played of it, but this has just stuck out for this version and FM15 as something very out of place in negotiations, and something that I hope SI can find a solution to in the future.

[andrew74]

Interesting read and I agree with a lot of your points, but where the non-negotiable clause came in very handy for me was when I was managing a lower-tier team and the agent kept coming back with clauses that were above what my board would allow. I had no other mechanism to tell the AI that I had no wiggle room on that and I was giving the best deal that I could. When I locked those out, the AI was able to increase other clauses and we could come to an agreement that was acceptable to me, the player, and the board.

[Danchinaski]

That post made me genuinely laugh out loud.

[noikeee]

That post made me genuinely laugh out loud.

This, and I think the OP is 100% right.

Just replace the "lock" button by an exclamation mark or something else that marks that it's something really high priority for you, and that you're not willing to change much. Then the AI has access to it as well when it's their turn in a negotiation. Simple.

[Hairycull]

The non negotiable minimum release clause is annoying the hell out of me.

In my St Johnstone save I have a finish striker that is banging in the goals and has insisted on a £14,500,000 minimum release clause for the last couple of seasons. The trouble is that he is now worth 13,500,000 million.

While every transfer window other clubs are interested in him I have found an exploit to stop him being interested in signing.

Simply give him a new contract.

He is happy with the exact same deal and while it is kinda annoying having to give him signing on fees and his agent as well I am able to keep him because he doesnt want to sign for anyone because he has just signed a new contract.

[Guest]

That's an interesting bug, if bigger clubs or those playing in higher profile league are interested the player's demands should probably be too high for your budget when they already haves low value release fee.

The main point of players or agents insisting on release clauses is when the player is keen to move to a higher profile league that will see his income significantly increase, your experience seems to exposing a flaw & that makes the insistence on the release fee appear pointless & as a consequence an annoyance.

[Some Guy!]

Interesting read and I agree with a lot of your points, but where the non-negotiable clause came in very handy for me was when I was managing a lower-tier team and the agent kept coming back with clauses that were above what my board would allow. I had no other mechanism to tell the AI that I had no wiggle room on that and I was giving the best deal that I could. When I locked those out, the AI was able to increase other clauses and we could come to an agreement that was acceptable to me, the player, and the board.

Again, that's kind of the point. The system is useful as it allows the player to give the AI information about what is important to them in the negotiation (i.e. clauses that you simply can't offer). I'm not saying there shouldn't be such a system, far from it, I'm just suggesting that changes are needed to make the negotiation experience a bit less gamey. Personally I think a high priority system, as suggested in the original post, could achieve this goal if implemented carefully.

[Rayzor]

OP opener made me smile. Could be a Paul Whitehouse sketch for the agent of Julio Geordio.

I don't disagree with any of the points made, but are you saying you would want to reject a £20M offer for him?

With relatively low signing on fees in the region of £150K, a release clause in the £20M range might be considered rather reasonably large - to the point it perhaps shouldn't be rejected.

[Hairycull]

That's an interesting bug, if bigger clubs or those playing in higher profile league are interested the player's demands should probably be too high for your budget when they already haves low value release fee.

The main point of players or agents insisting on release clauses is when the player is keen to move to a higher profile league that will see his income significantly increase, your experience seems to exposing a flaw & that makes the insistence on the release fee appear pointless & as a consequence an annoyance.

Yes I agree, also it doesnt make sense for the player/agent to be insisting for a minimum fee that is only £1mil more than his value.

When I get the time I will get back to the save and see if I can get his actual value to go over the minimum release cause fee and then see what the player/agent says in the next round of contract negotiations.