Optional future fee

[Neckzz]

Neapel got Ait-Nouri on loan from Bayern with a optional Future fee 28.5 M.

 

 

But they offer a deal about 55M ?

This have to be a bug or did i miss smthg?

[fc.cadoni]

Optional does not mean that Bayern will accept it 100%.

[busngabb]

2 hours ago, fc.cadoni said:

Optional does not mean that Bayern will accept it 100%.

It does, they would contractually have to accept that. The only way this could happen is if the player himself rejected the move. But then Napoli still wouldn't need to bid any more than £28.5m. Seems like a bug to me.

[fc.cadoni]

8 hours ago, busngabb said:

It does, they would contractually have to accept that. The only way this could happen is if the player himself rejected the move. But then Napoli still wouldn't need to bid any more than £28.5m. Seems like a bug to me.

What if that X player made so far a fantastic season and his transfer value being increased? Or attract more interested? Mandatory was a better option here, instead of Optional.

From the other hand, I don't understand why to pay 28M+ for someone which his contracts expire in six months. 

[enigmatic]

yeah, looks like a bug

there are occasions when a club might rationally offer more than an agreed fee like needing to pay in installments or wanting to pay less but with more in future bonuses

But not double the price

[CAE82]

An optional fee means that the buying club is not obliged to buy the player at the end of the loan whereas a mandatory fee means they do. In either case, the selling club must accept.

I guess the specified fee must be a straight cash bid and then it would be accepted. Possibly the higher bid was a lower amount with add-ons? In any case, seems strange and likely a bug.

I saw something equally strange recently. I matched a release fee but with the transfer date at the end of the season and it was rejected. It was only accepted with an immediate date.

[turnip]

I will often defend SI when it comes to transfer shenanigans, but the "we will only accept what we are legally obliged to accept, even if the alternative is a lot better" part of transfer dealings is near-comically bad AI. 

I did have a situation recently where I was able to gazump Southampton on a player (as a smaller team) because they bid a long way below his MFRC and I matched it, so it isn't always hopeless. Just, y'know, often enough that I always assume it will be.

[Mst82]

15 hours ago, CAE82 said:

I saw something equally strange recently. I matched a release fee but with the transfer date at the end of the season and it was rejected. It was only accepted with an immediate date.

Yeah that’s annoying - if you add anything to the deal, like end of season as you say, or loan back etc, the release fee icon disappears.

Surely that can’t be reflective of real life?

[CAE82]

Maybe they’ll look more closely at that kind of stuff for FM25.

Another clause that needs tightening up is the release fee for Champions League clubs. I spent a while trying to figure out why I couldn’t activate one and finally realised that they are only relevant when the parent club is not in the Champions League themselves. I didn’t find it particularly obvious. 

[wazzaflow10]

17 hours ago, turnip said:

I will often defend SI when it comes to transfer shenanigans, but the "we will only accept what we are legally obliged to accept, even if the alternative is a lot better" part of transfer dealings is near-comically bad AI. 

I did have a situation recently where I was able to gazump Southampton on a player (as a smaller team) because they bid a long way below his MFRC and I matched it, so it isn't always hopeless. Just, y'know, often enough that I always assume it will be.

This was on FM 21 so some things may have changed/provided better UI but aggravating nonetheless.

I just had a situation where I was negotiating in the winter window and selected end of season which was June 7 2024. Well negotiations drug on through the rest of the year and when they finally accepted it was June 1st/2nd. Apparently the transfer date at that time rolled over to 2025. I reloaded after I realized he didn't join when he was supposed to. 

The best part was I had done a bunch of other deals. They all stayed the same except one. I was sending out one player on huge wages (350k p/w) and good loan fee (200k p/m). Well after reloading Chelsea somehow decided they could only afford 50% of wages and no fee. I must have replayed the same week between June 1 and June 8th for 2 hours to get that loan back to where I agreed initially. I almost deleted the save out of frustration.

[phantombandit]

On 26/08/2023 at 17:48, busngabb said:

It does, they would contractually have to accept that. The only way this could happen is if the player himself rejected the move. But then Napoli still wouldn't need to bid any more than £28.5m. Seems like a bug to me.

The club does not have to trigger an optional future fee. All that means is there is basically a release clause for that loan.

They only have to do it for mandatory future fees, however with those, the contract is agreed on ahead of time so not even the player can back out.

[busngabb]

On 12/09/2023 at 01:53, phantombandit said:

The club does not have to trigger an optional future fee. All that means is there is basically a release clause for that loan.

They only have to do it for mandatory future fees, however with those, the contract is agreed on ahead of time so not even the player can back out.

No, of course the buying club (Napoli in this example) don't have to trigger the future fee. But if they did, Bayern would have to accept it. Which is why this must be a bug, because they've bid 55m for someone they can contractually get for 28.5m.

[priority76]

I miss the bug where you could loan any player for free by offering a £300 million optional fee.  Why do they quickly fix the good bugs but some bad bugs linger?