Kilmarnock

In the editor, in the weekly wages values after selecting a nation, can some explain how the game see these values? EG. - England Reputation 101-110 - Weekly Wage Value £3,000. Is the £3,000 the minimum figure a player of that reputation will ask for or the average?

If I add an additional reserve team such as a B team or an Under 18 team, will it cause any problems in my save? They aren't due to play in any fixtures apart from friendlies.

What proof is it you need? At no point was I going to use any website when I asked for a submission form.

Stuart, Thanks for the reply. FM24 is the first game I have decided to invest after years of keeping FM18 up to date. Using the FM18 editor I managed to fix most of the tv dates issues. However I could never fix the TV dates after the split and after finding out this and the youth league isn't going to be fixed until next year, it put me in a bad mood and I unloaded. In terms of Youth players what is enough to add them? Is it just D/O/B - position and full name? Perhaps you could fire me through an research submission document?

I don’t know why you seem to think this is such an important point. He is a 20 year old who has played less than 10 games. His current potential is fine.

Was this fixed in the latest update?

Was this fixed in the latest update?

You are correct. The transfer payments aren't the problem anyway, its the fact the database has the club paying 132million a season back to the bank, despite these loans being interest only.

While I understand that Si might not want to put in inaccurate figures, it is obvious that competition will have a higher payout to clubs. Perhaps putting in conservative figures would be a good compromise at this point.

I’m sorry but you obviously haven’t read the article. In fact the article says Manchester United are losing 400k a week, that over a year is 20 million… not 300 million. The headline 300 million in that article refers to transfer debt which is obviously over a number of seasons via instalments. If anything that article actually helps prove that the finances in relation to the clubs loan repayments in game, are incorrect.

Yes I agree. It’s crazy that is in the game but it has been highlighted in the bugs forum and apparently the researcher believes that the debt was refinanced in 2022. Despite the fact that didn’t happen and is crazy to think that after nearly 20 years of the debt being in and around 600 million that the Glazers came up with a plan to pay the remaining debt off within 5 years and then decide to try and sell the club a few months after this mysterious agreement. It’s pretty obvious to me that the finances are clearly incorrect but they don’t want to change it.

The most recent annual accounts are available for Manchester United and they aren't paying 132 million per season towards debt and they certainly won't be debt free in 2027/29. I believe this was changed as people moaned about Manchester United having powerful finances. It is widely available online that the club pays around 20/25 million pounds a season towards the debt.

No the game only seems to support a relegation clause. I believe the clause has been at United for a few years and I wouldn't be surprised if most top clubs have wage increases or decreases depending on which European competition they qualify for.

I agree. To say Manchester United is in a precious position in real life is just wishful thinking. The Glazers who are just in it for the money wouldn't be turning down 4/5 Billion if they were in a precarious position. The fact that the most recent accounts had the club making a 28 million loss when the OP had a 300 million loss proves something has to be wrong or the OP has done something silly. In game the club is paying 11 million pounds a month in debt. I really don't believe that this is right. The average payments to debt the club has made over the years is around 20 million per season, even in the first few years of Glazer ownership it topped around 40million per season. To have that number suddenly jump up to 132million per season is crazy. In fact if you actually look at the dates of the debt, it suggests they all started in 2022 with the majority having a 5 year period to pay it off. This is just not correct what so ever. Furthermore one of the bigger issues in the game is that players salaries are not able to be decreased if they do not qualify for the champions league. At Manchester United there is a 20% decrease in players wages if they do not qualify for the champions league, this is one of the many issues that set Ronaldo off in a collision course with the club. This would result in a decrease in annual wages of around 40 million, if not in the champions league.

I bought my first new FM in years as I have been keeping an older version of the game up to date and enjoyed playing that for many years. After a couple of weeks of spending time getting the game ready for my first save I have to say I am very disappointed in the accuracy of the database. I put up a post a couple of weeks ago highlighting the duplication of transfer percentages and some of the missing data. I know a patch was sent down to fix some of these issues but there is far too much missing data. Its just an unfinished database. I have posted a couple of examples on the bugs forum, mainly about the Scottish league, but its everywhere. I honestly don't understand how basic information, which is available, is just left blank in the database. If a researcher cant tell you what foot a player plays with or indeed what position they play, how can they set a potential or current ability?

Oli Shaw's (Motherwell on loan from Barnsley) fixed potential is just way too high for a player who turns 26 in March. Shaw has only ever been consistent in the Scottish Championship and even then that was only over one season. He has always struggled for goals in the Scottish Premiership and I have no idea who felt he ever had that kind of potential. Personally I feel his potential should be dropped by around 15%. Scott Wright (Rangers) currently has his main position set as a central attacking midfielder. I believe this to be wrong and it should be set to a right attacking midfielder with a drop to 15 for central and 16 left.

I think you are letting your own bias influence your own judgement. It could be argued that Newcastle having a higher morale than a team that beat them in a cup final, finished above them in the league and progressed much further than they did in the FA Cup, is wrong. Although I can understand why a smaller club would be delighted with their achievements last year and therefore I am not going to argue that point.

Entirely disagree with some of this. Manchester United didn’t “just” finish 3rd. They finished 3rd with the highest point total for 3rd in 5 years and considering they finished 6th the year before, it is an improvement. They also reached both cup finals and won one. Qualification for the champions league also meant an increase in the players wages. As you stated this is starting morale so refers to a date in July, a lot of the unhappiness in the camp has mainly unfolded in the last 3 months. To have them below 14 morale would just be bizarre.

David Watson (2000135060) - Kilmarnock - Contract should be until 2025, a new deal was signed in the summer. I also notice his preferred foot information is missing. He is naturally right footed and and I would probably give him a 8/10 for his left due to his technical ability. Matthew Kennedy (61042103) - Kilmarnock -Matty's natural position is left wing. He has been used in a number of positions but LW/LW is still his natural position. He has (15) for RWB but I would reduce this (10-12) but also repeat this for LWB. Daniel Armstrong (61068122) - Kilmarnock - Daniel has mainly being playing the hybrid right wing back role in the last 18 months and currently has this role set as 0. I would recommend changing that at around 14/15 while perhaps reducing his striker role to around 8. Fraser Murray (61080840) - Kilmarnock - Fraser has rarely played as a center midfielder in his career but for some reason has this set to 15 and attacking midfield to 17. I would recommend reducing both to below 15. Fraser has mainly played in wide positions in the last 2 and half years at Kilmarnock. Covering both wing back roles and wide midfield roles. My suggestion would be to change both wing back roles to around 12 and both wide midfield roles to 15. Fraser is also right footed with a semi strong left foot. Fraser having 15 for his left foot I think is too strong, 12 would be better. Kilmarnock also currently has 0 for Corporate Facilities. I believe this figure is wrong due to the number of different packages they offer on match days and the fact the main stand has been furbished with a large hospitality suite. I would also question some of ratings of the Kilmarnock's midfield. I also realize that this is down to opinion but to have someone like Ross Docherty quite a bit better than the majority of Kilmarnock's central midfield options is pretty questionable.

Its certainly not a few minor issues. This coupled with number of blanks left in players height and preferred foot right across the database (information which is easy to find) is appalling.

This game is almost unplayable due to the number of duplication of sell on causes, conditional fees and installments. I am only half way through the Premier League teams and so the following players have duplication of their transfers fees,. Marcus Tavernier Bruno Guimarares (an extra 15 million+) Joao Palhinha Jarrad Brathwaite Michael Olise David Raya Frank Onyeka Jarrod Bowen I mention that I am only half way through the English Premier League but its across other leagues as well and I wont be surprised if its across the whole game. Please someone tell me this has been highlighted elsewhere? At this point I am close to requested a refunded as the game database is blatantly unfinished.