NineCloudNine

This player was already at your club though, right? So he already has a contract with you (the one with the release clause) and you've agreed a new contract to start in a year's time. Meanwhile his current contract remains in force. He's not being 'poached'. Endrick has agreed a future transfer, not a new contract, so it's not the same thing.

No idea what you think the bug is. You agreed to those release clauses when you signed their contracts.

Don’t you also have to set their contract to run until then?

There’s a tickbox on the player contract page in the editor for ‘will leave at end of contract’. Has that got ticked by mistake?

I've done this using the editor - on Marcos Leonardo when I turned him into the original Ronaldo - and the only one I really noticed was Shoots With Power, partly because commentary calls it out. I didn't see him trying any of the tricks more often. It's a fun idea though!

Go to a player's page. Hover over the stars under 'role and duty'. No mention of anyone's opinion. Those stars are a result of CA, positional familiarity and the league you are in. You can see the way it works if you look at 'role scores' in the pre-game editor. As the save progresses, I have seen players' roles scores go up by half a point beyond the formula when they play very well. But they never vary from the forumla at the start. Other stars in different places (eg 'coach summary' top right of player screen) clearly state that it's a staff member's opinion. Same with scouting. I believe that those scores are calculated the same way but then given a +/1 margin to make it look like it's uncertain. Like many areas of FM's interface, this is cluttered, unintuitive and often unclear, Point is though, role stars are not "just an assistant's opinion". They have a statistical basis and need to be included in decisions about tactics, players and roles. Rather than repeat myself again I'm going to leave this now. Good luck !

I've not managed to get a Targetman tactic going as such, in the sense of hitting crosses to the TM to get knockdowns etc. However, I am having a lot of success with targetman-like strikers. Duvan Zapata is currently scoring a goal a game for me at Roma. The team isn't specifically set up for a TM, though we are playing quite fast and direct. Crossing, physical attributes and set pieces are all very strong in FM24, so it's a good time to be a big lad who's strong in the air!

I haven't even been able to make TAA work well as an IWB. Or at least, not as well as be works as a CWB. That might well be because crossing is very strong in FM24 and he's very good at that. I wrote a bit about it here:

I think the setting applies to everyone, but its effect is going to be much more obvious on more creative players, which means attackers. I would expect though, that a GK with (for example) higher than average flair and passing will be slightly more likely to try high risk passes with BME on. But the effect would be tiny, especially since that GK would probably already be playing as a SK.

That can be caused by asking a player to take risks with passing when he’s not good enough to make it work. You are asking him to be a midfielder in possession, perhaps even a playmaker. Does he have the attributes for this? TAA gives the ball away more than average IRL, but that’s because he is asked to try game-changing passes. And he’s one of the very best passers in the league.

The explanation you are pleased with is wrong, as regards role scores . The answers you are looking for are in my several long posts in thsi thread that no-one has read .

Again ...does anyone read the thread? ... ROLE stars are not the opinion of your staff and they do not change when staff do. The stars under 'coach assessment' and in scouting do vary with staff skill. But the OP isn't about those

Yes 150 is easily good enough to be a regular international - as Mancini is. But Transfermarkt currently has him valued around £20m, so maybe FM wasn't as far out as my initial post suggested when Madrid offered me £18m. And there is a very large jump from 150 to 160 CA and up. A quick look at the database shows just over 500 players with CA between 140 and 150, just over 200 between 150 and 160 and 79 over 160. The transfer values of those 79 are vertiginously higher than the 200 below them, who are in turn worth multiple of the next 500. I'm not saying SI have got this right, but I think I get what they are trying to do. Your point about the selling club is an interesting one. Roma are very average and financially weak, which might be reflected in the valuation the game gives their players.

I agree, it's not good programming. There is a theme here with player interactions, promises, press conferences and contract negotiations where the logic trees simply aren't up to the ambition of including more human interation and personality in the game world. I have a slight dread that SI are hoping some advanced AI will come along to solve this problem for them, rather than the harder, time-intensive but more reliable method of teams of humans painstakingly mapping out, writing and testing better conversational logic. Or they could just take 90% of it out. I really doubt many players would mind.

I suspect that in real life 99% of managers would bite their hand off for the job and just take the payoff it it didn't work out !

I'm going to back away from my previous comment here. I've spent some time looking at CA/PA of players to see if I can make some sense of the valuations. In this particutar case Gianluca Mancini has a CA of 146 and a PA of 150, at age 26. He's just not that good and he's not going to get any better. Valentin Gomez has a CA of around 135 at age 20 and a PA of over 160 so having over double Mancini's valuation makes sense. In fact the weird thing is that Real Madrid wanted to buy Mancini at all tbh. Valuations seem to take a very serious jump up at higher CA and PA, meaning over 160. Nicolo Barella - same age as Mancini - has a CA of 161 and a PA of 169, which is very rarified air. He's valued at over £100m by Inter. There are still some weird numbers, but it does seem that SI are trying to replicate the real life situation of world class players and high potential kids going for very very high fees while most clubs scrabble around trading players at a fraction of that value even if they are 'only' 10-15pts of CA worse.

The first paragraph here describes a perfectly normal situation - you couldn't agree, walk away - that happens all the time IRL. The second is weird ofc, so I suspect what has happened is that he has systematically rejected all the good offers and been left only with the West Ham one. He didn't 'choose' West Ham as such, just that the AI somehow sequences things such that the player can't play clubs off against each other as would happen IRL - instead, each negotiation is treated as a standalone take-it-or-leave-it event.

This thread isn’t working out the way the OP hoped it would .

Still less than real life. Have you seen Newcastle’s injury list this season? Plenty of players use a mod which *increases* injury rates to something more realistic.

Looks like a fun challenge! Yes, you will have to sell everyone and rely on kids, loans and cheap frees. You’ll probably get relegated and then sacked. But you might pull off a miracle. Save your game before applying then do both saves?

This isn’t accurate. Rather than retype what I wrote above, take a look. The role star ratings depend on CA, positional familiarity and the division you are in. As the game progresses player reputation can also boost it. I have experimented with adding new star players, removing star players, changing Assistants, changing Assistant attributes, changing player positions, CA, PA, attributes. Only changes to CA and position familiarity change the highest star a player gets. Changing player attributes alters the order of their preferred roles and how good they are at a role, but only up to the cap set by their CA and league. If you have the IGE you can test this yourself. Give several players 200 CA. They will max at 5 stars for their preferred role (and perhaps others). The role stars of your other players will not change. There may be some confusion here with the ‘assistants opinion of this player’s ability’, which does change as you describe. But role stars do not.

Yes…and no. Your previous post described the role scores as an Assistant’s opinion. That’s not so. You can test this yourself by hiring a different Assistant - the role scores won’t change. They won’t change if you bring in a new star player or three either, because how many stars a player with X CA gets depends on your league. You can test this too. You are correct that players can be asked to perform - and may excel at - multiple positions and roles depending on your tactic and team needs. This happens all the time in real life. However, the statistical basis for the stars can’t be ignored. The formula effectively gives a CA penalty to a player who is not playing their strongest role. In the top leagues this penalty is 10pts per half star. This may not matter at all, but multiplied across a team with a lot of players not in their strongest role it might heavily hamper your team. It depends on how much of a difference there is between the roles, a player’s own PPM’s, your TIs etc etc. So yes, it is just a guide. But no, it’s also more than that because FM is a numbers based game. I’ve done lots of playing around with this. A team where everyone is playing in their best role will be happier, more coherent and perform better than a team with the same tactic, the same collective/individual CAs but all playing in non-preferred roles. Those are extremes of course - in reality every team will have a mix of players playing in preferred roles and players playing in non-preferred roles. How much effect this has depends on a billion factors, but it can’t be ignored.

I haven’t had any problems with occasionally benching or subbing off a star player to give them a break. Leaving them out of the squad entirely is more likely to cause tension, but I still do it for easier matches a few times a season.

The role suitability stars on a player’s profile are a function of Current Ability, positional familiarity, the league you’re in and (as the game progresses) player reputation. In the pre-game editor each player has a ‘role scores’ tab. This lists their role suitabilities in order. The top one always has a ‘score’ equal to Current Ability, with the rest having scores which decrement from that depending on the player’s attributes and positional familiarity. Only roles in positions for which a player has maximum positional familiarity will get the full CA-linked score. In game this is turned into stars depending on the league you are in. For top leagues (Premier, La Liga, Serie A for sure) 100 CA = 1 star and it goes up half a star for every 10pts of CA to 5 stars at 180 CA. You can experiment with this using the IGE if you have it. Change a player’s CA and their role stars will increase (though the order of them will not). Change their positional familiarity and their role stars for their ‘new’ position will increase. The game is effectively saying that a player with 5 stars in a role (180 CA) is equivalent to a 160 CA player in a role for which they have 4 stars. As your game progresses, a very high performing player may get a star rating in excess of the formula used at the start. So player reputation/performance does have a role, but not in the initial setup of the game. Where I strongly agree with the OP is the silliness of saying that a 4-star AML winger will suddenly become and awkward 2-star if asked to be a winger in ML. I’m less convinced by the example of a Target Man being able to seamlessly transition to being a Shadow Striker. It’s hard to think of two more different attacking roles.

If you don’t take up the sale option then the loan will run its course and end as normal.