perpetua

Thanks! This was spotted but it was too late to make the change unfortunately. Our Gaziantep AR is aware of it and will fix.

I think it would be useful to more clearly define what is being tested here. Are you testing the rate of player attribute decline when team training is not conducted? Are you testing the rate of team cohesion/tactical familiarity decline when team training is not conducted? Or something else? Training, it seems to me, is multi faceted. There is team training (which the original poster's example stopped). There is also individual training (including additional focus and PPM training). Rate of player attribute decline/improvement appear more closely related to individual training than team training, whereas team cohesion/tactical familiarity appears more closely related to team training. If the goal is to test the rate of attribute decline, it's probably more appropriate to put an end to individual training. If the goal is to test the rate of decline for team cohesion/tactical familiarity, then it would probably be useful to monitor team cohesion/tactical familiarity decline over time as well as match results. If the point is to examine the prevalence of injuries, this is probably a bit more complicated. You probably want to first have a few baseline cases where the team trains normally and plays in matches using a specific tactic over a period of time and examine how often injuries occur. Then compare this baseline injury frequency to a few schemes where the team is not doing team training. Repeat with a few schemes where the team is not doing team or individual training. Doing this on the same save (ie. test one case, document, reload to the first day of the game, test another case etc.) is probably the best practice to ensure players have the same starting attributes (in case of some players having random attributes/PA). So I think it's important to clearly define what is being tested and use an experiment design which puts the appropriate stress on the relevant game mechanics. This will probably be of great help for @Neil Brock and others at SI to make specific adjustments where necessary rather than reviewing thousands of lines of code to look for a needle in a haystack.

This does not appear to be a data issue.

This should clarify. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/sporarena/galatasarayda-kaan-ayhanin-sarta-bagli-satin-alma-opsiyon-maddesi-ortaya-cikti-42212454

This is entered as a compulsory purchase for 2.8 million Euro if Galatasaray wins the league. I think it's a translation error which @Turksportal should probably examine.

Thanks for your comments. What you refer to are not, per se, mistakes but rather differences of opinion on the strengths/weaknesses of players. Player attributes are subjective in nature. It would be best if you outlined your different opinions and supported them with arguments so researchers can decide whether they need to make a change. Also, please note that the heading attribute is a technical attribute which influences how well a player heads the ball (power/direction) after he has won an aerial duel, not how proficient the player is in winning aerial duels. The likelihood of a player winning aerial duels is more closely related to mental and physical attributes such as jumping, anticipation, bravery, concentration, positioning etc. Nelsson is indeed very good at winning aerial duels and his attributes back do this up.

Thanks for your comment. We'll monitor his situation as he plays and make amendments where necessary.

He counts towards foreigner limit in real life as well because he chose to represent Austria.

It's because of the permanent feeder relationship with Sivasspor. We have made changes to this in a later version of the database. You will not be able to gain promotion unless Sivasspor get relegated from the top division with your current game.

Fixed all of those as well as a few others. Thanks!

He has been in the game for years under he name Mahmut Kortan Aktürk.

Thanks for the heads-up @Ente35.

Thanks!

This isn't a data issue. I hope that someone from SI can move it to an appropriate location so it can be examined.

Good spot. Thanks!

https://community.sigames.com/bugtracker/football-manager-2023-bugs-tracker/759_all-other-issues/ You probably can log it here.

Player is in English db so not a Turkish issue. This seems to be a known issue.

He's under the control of the Belgian team. Please inform them with sources.

@.Supersonic Yes you are correct. They did not spend their transfer season like this. However this does not mean they will not spend their transfer season like this. Unfortunately the game has this requirement that a club have money and budget space to make transfers.

It's not really a policy decision but rather a financial restriction. Turkish clubs earn income in Turkish lira. Much of the wages are in Euros. They are projected to make historical losses this season unless they sell players. I would suggest the behaviour you show is quite realistic given the financial situation.

However it's probably an oversight to have both of them formed in 1949. I'll investigate that.

They are two different clubs. https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&kulupID=263 https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&kulupID=5342

Amended. Thanks!

Thanks. We will review this.

https://ajansspor.com/haber/ozel-altay-bayindir-imzayi-atti-10-milyon-euro-599292 Since Fenerbahce don't announce wages, it's usually some guessing and bits and pieces grabbed from the media. Above is the source for the wages entered in the db.