disappointed with the financial agreement for the loan of player X

[marc1953]

I have a lot of message like: "disappointed with the financial agreement for the loan of player X" while the lending club takes charge of 100% of the salary. I can't lend a player without getting this message from the leaders.
An opinion on the subject please?
Good game everyone

[FrazT]

Maybe the board think you should also be getting a monthly fee as well as the wage contribution?  This module is needing some attention as often the board logic is flawed and anyway, why dont they say something at the time of the deal and not at a review?

[Prepper_Jack]

Yep, you need to add a monthly fee on top of any deal to make the board happy. You might find that they would have been happy with 60% wages, and 10, 20, or $100 a month in fees. Annoying, particularly as if you put someone on the development list, the General Manager seems to never include a fee, which makes the entire development list idea needlessly dangerous to your career. In a prior save in Sweden, I was loaning out youth... and youth contracts there are absurdly low at around $300-600 per year. Nearly got sacked for loaning out about 5 of them for development. Later on I made those loans manually, entered in $20 a month in fees, and the club was ecstatic about that. Just found it absurd they were ready to sack me over a matter of $100 a month, or basically $800 for the season. 

Nowhere is there any indication of what fee the board might deem acceptable, so you just kind of have to wing it. Given the importance they place on this sort of thing, I imagine you could keep your career afloat through harsh times just by securing good and profitable loan deals. I do know that some players make quite a lucrative business out of that as well.

[marc1953]

Thank you for your answers. I also think this point of FM22 is buggy. Good game everyone.

[AurioDK]

It´s one of the things I use the editor for, got tired of the board always moaning about youth loans to my affiliates. I strike a deal and check the numbers, then I move them using the editor with the correct numbers.

If it´s a big loan then I will take the heat.

[Cam NBH]

This problem makes loan affiliate clubs pointless as they always take your players for 0 wages and 0 fee. I think this should be fixed

[SherlockHolmes]

I've had the same problem.  Using the Editor I played around and it still happens.  I set the Monthly Fee to £10m (max), the wages to 200% (max) and a future fee of £750m and the board were still disappointed with the finances of the loan deal for a player worth between £2.4-£3.7m

[Draakon]

Yeah, I've complained about this in forums, too. I believe that the board should be more interested in loan fees when the club is cash-strapped and shouldn't care about them if the bank balance is well off. At the moment they're always complaining, even when the move would probably suit the best for the player and aid his development.

I think in my current save the board feedback focuses more on player wage contribution when the wage is £2-3k or more, but when it's less than that they always want to see the real money coming in.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Draakon

[KingCanary]

20 hours ago, Draakon said:

Yeah, I've complained about this in forums, too. I believe that the board should be more interested in loan fees when the club is cash-strapped and shouldn't care about them if the bank balance is well off. At the moment they're always complaining, even when the move would probably suit the best for the player and aid his development.

I think in my current save the board feedback focuses more on player wage contribution when the wage is £2-3k or more, but when it's less than that they always want to see the real money coming in.

I think in general the board's view of things needs a bit of work.

Why, for example, are the board solely interested in the financials when reviewing your transfer deals, while fans are the only ones concerned with their performance on the pitch? It seems odd that the board apparently don't evaluate a players on pitch performance when deciding if he was a good signing on my part.

[podunkboy]

Wait a minute - some of you actually pay attention to what upsets the board? I've never been sacked for anything other than on-field performance, and I always accept those sackings as absolutely MY fault. Terms of loan, transfer terms on deadwood who are never going to see the pitch under my watch, tactical requirements, etc.-- my team, my rules. If the board thinks THEY can do a better job, they why did they hire me?

[Draakon]

5 hours ago, KingCanary said:

I think in general the board's view of things needs a bit of work.

Why, for example, are the board solely interested in the financials when reviewing your transfer deals, while fans are the only ones concerned with their performance on the pitch? It seems odd that the board apparently don't evaluate a players on pitch performance when deciding if he was a good signing on my part.

This one I can understand. When financials of the sale is good, then the board is at least content with the sell and by allocating those funds to your transfer budget, the board trusts you to put this money in good use. Generally there's no need to panic, because there is always other (cheaper? better?) players and noone is irreplaceable. In my opinion superstar primadonnas a la Messi turn to liability on and off the pitch at one point or another (big wages, too much influence in dressing room etc.). 

The board is not worried when you sell somebody, but they should be concerned when you don't buy any replacements. Several FM's back (was it FM07?) the board often demanded at least one good signing in the transfer window and if you didn't act, they ultimately made the decision and just bought somebody over your head on the transfer deadline day. You might say that it's realistic, but it prevented youth only saves (on the other hand, can you imagine any real life football manager explaining to the board that they'd like to work with youth only without signing anybody, ever?).

In FM the ones who are concerned about results are other players. Here you can see worried conversations and sometimes players try to push terms like "promise to improve defence" in their contract renewal terms. The board is usually not prematurely worried about the results. They just know that it's your job on the line if things won't work out.

At the same time the board is a bit too fixated on whether the player sale was profitable or not, just comparing buying price and selling price. When I sell 21 years old player for £500k, because it's evident that he won't make it to the first team, why the grievance for the fact that our previous manager spent £2m on him when he was 18 years old? He flopped. What should I do? Keep him in the club until his contract runs out? Asking £2,5m for him, well knowing that he's not worth over £500k? Similarly, they're pleased if you sell a player for £30m that was once bought for £10m, even though his real market value (and value for the club) could be well above £40-50m. They think it's a profitable deal, but they're not evaluating the player correctly.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Draakon