What's the math behind board's transfer reaction?

[Russiandude]

Feels like it's beyond broken to me. I just signed 3 players as regular starter with 200 p/w full-time (that's 40 above min) and 1 16yo pre-contract for 300p/w and they all get E rating because their wage is to high for their "place in the squad". 11 fringe players have 50~ wage from last season when we were still part-timers. 3 Regular starters from last season with renewed contract of 500p/w got C+.

If I release a couple of players one of these turns to B+ because the wage is apparently lower than what they would expect for someone of his ability. He's just half a star better than the 2 other I signed who still got E rated!!

They should be thankful I don't offer 1000p/w for everyone with the 30k wage budget they handed me because of my 5mil sales. Oh guess what? Sold 3 players of the same calibre for exactly 1.7mil each to top clubs and only got 2 C rated and 1 B. I just sextupled your money by selling players (who I got for free) for 800 times of their market value but fine. The fans were understandably furious that I sold 2 of their favorites and an icon but eh, I need facilities.

 

So pray tell, how on earth does the game calculate this thing?

[turnip]

I think the board like to have the money from a transfer spread out over time. So if you're buying a player for £1m, they'll be much happier if you make that £300k up front and then £700k in installments, than if you just hand over £1m all at once.

Similarly, they'd rather get £300k up front and £700k in installments for a player, than get £1m all at once. 

 

As for whether it matters.... eh. As long as you're doing well enough on the pitch, I wouldn't worry about it.

[Mrlee.1986]

I think that could be true, I sold a youngster with an attitude issue, and the board were unhappy I didn’t insert a future % clause.

- tbh I just wanted him gone and the money wasn’t bad.