Patrick23213 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 Instead they should just look at the player's actual playing time. I've got a player who features frequently on the first team because he's a professional player with high leadership (19) and teamwork (16) and determination (12) attribute which is the best captain choice and pretty much the best wing back I can get but the board are extremely disappointed about the wage offered which is a measly £50/week for backup player compared to some of the rotation players I got that played much less for £150+ a week. Then I tested renewing his contract to rotation with £85/week and suddenly the board are okay with it even though the club is actually spending more. That doesn't make any sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrazT Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 So, are you saying that your board is complaining at the low contract terms for a contract renewal, for a contract that the player has accepted? If so, that is nonsense and should be reported as a bug. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick23213 Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 20 minutes ago, FrazT said: So, are you saying that your board is complaining at the low contract terms for a contract renewal, for a contract that the player has accepted? If so, that is nonsense and should be reported as a bug. No. I'm saying that the board is more happy with high earning players with "rotation" squad status (the one offered in contract talks) who plays in 3 out of 10 matches, than low earning player with "backup" as their squad status who ended up having an important role in the first team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Neil Brock Posted November 9, 2018 Administrators Share Posted November 9, 2018 Reviewed so locked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.