wazzaflow10

psh my email inbox has 30k unread messages.

I'm not one of those people that can immediately diagnose but... First suggestion would be to watch the match in full. You might see you're losing the ball in similar patterns. Second suggestion would be to post your current tactic and the one the opposition is playing. If they're playing something like a 3-4-2-1/5-2-2-1 it'll be very compact in the middle. Its hard to say what exactly is going on with just summary statistics. Third suggestion is your players are complacent after such a winning run and need a reminder that effort is required to win. Or your team is just having a bad day at the office. Its bound to happen during a season. Man City drew Crystal Palace at home. Nothing to do but move on to the next game. Don't go chopping and changing a tactic that has produced excellent results otherwise Fourth suggestion is because of your winning run teams are sitting deeper against you and content to let you have the ball out wide/in your own half. It doesn't appear like you've set your team on the typical high intensity gegenpress but you might want to allow the opposing team some space in order to create opportunities in behind. Fifth suggestion is if you're really frustrated, take a break from the game. Come back with some fresh ideas and attitude so you can look at what's happening without the frustration. I do this pretty regularly.

Good tips so far. Some shouldn't be necessary but probably come about because of some of the issues that popped up in the game this year. Scouting should be much broader, more players with some knowledge, with recommendations being a subset that fit the criteria. #4 is a little gamey if you're playing a "scouted players only" save imo. It doesn't bother me if people play this way but part of this is the "wonderkid hunting" that makes the game easier for the human than the AI. I personally try to avoid this sort of route. You should have to at least scout a player before getting a MV and it should be as broad as the PA is unknown to reduce how strongly correlated it is with actual PA.

I haven't renewed any contracts, certainly not £70M worth of contracts in one month. Outlined the installment plans and their payout dates. Not sure on loyalty bonuses but I'd assume they'd be paid out more evenly or remaining balance upon sale. I'm certainly not selling anyone outside of the window where that'd come into play so significantly. I believe Agent fees and loyalty bonuses have their own line item now too. Even so, I'd understand a few million difference to account for these extra fees but this seems to be 200M+ on top of what they've already spent. I would expect the transfers that already at save start (Jackson & Nkunku) to have been paid/accounted for already in the budget. I'm basing this on the fact that there isn't nearly £150M in transfer income from transfers that happen on or before July 1. To be honest I'm not even sure what happened in October that generated £21M in revenue. I feel like this has to be a bug or some transfer fee schedule isn't show to us. The math just doesn't line up.

@XaW I didn't realize there was another thread with the same topic feel free to merge if necessary.

Just tallied up all the clauses in the game and their dates. 77M in fees paid out mainly in January, July, and August. Don't think this is it.

Has anyone come up with a reason why transfer expenditures are occuring outside of the transfer window? I most certainly did not spend £76M in October, nor did I spend £41M in the last month. On course to fail FFP as a result. There were £185M outgoing - most of which was bought before I got there. I can't figure out how £185M becomes £216M and that's assuming the transfers that did happen prior were actually counted starting in July 2023. The only players I've brought in are the bottom two.

Part of it is probably due to playing for AZ and Real Betis are proof there is some high level talent that your other players haven't shown. I don't think its a reputation is A therefore value is B sort of thing. I'm not sure SI are in a position to give us the exact formula. But I'm kind of pleasantly surprised that players who have played in a top 5 league have significantly higher value than those who have not. To me it represents there is some value in a players pedigree beyond the current situation. It speaks to if you want a more "known" player you have to pay for it. Granted a good number of these players are likely going to be free transferred because they are ultimately replaceable. We have to remember the player valuations are also an accounting exercise for the club to balance the books.

They'll still use it for future reference. Sometimes its hard to spot a logical error until it happens in the game. FM25 would still be using the same logical concepts.

The only other thing would be if the injury rating was very high. You can have peak fitness but be very highly susceptible to injury. Best to raise it as a bug so that they can have an example to tweak how it works so that it isn't run everyone into the ground and then sit half the squad.

Are you/they running away with the league or in the relegation zone or both in direct competition with each other? The game doesn't know what team you are managing. Its certainly not random though as its been hinted by SI that lower priority games will see more rotations. So either they thought well no chance at this one, better to save our team for matches we can actually win or we should win this easily so we'll rotate. Best to upload the save prior to the game without any editor modifications to the bug forums. You'll probably get a better explanation there if something is wrong. I'm also assuming you're not using any other mods - while useful SI can't really comment on/fix effects from 3rd party changes.

need more context. Who are you? What kind of match was it?

Oh I wouldn't have a clue because I'm not sure why a Serie A club would be interested, unless either your scouts have poor JPA or Udinese are desperate for cover. I'd start lining up replacements though because any decent offer I'd probably sell and see if I could find another player. He shouldn't be hard to replace at your level and with 18 months left on a contract its a good time to sell before value starts dropping. I'd also see if you can get a bidding war going if Udinese are truly interested. That will help drive the price up.

That sounds about right. It should be to reflect the difficulty of replacing a player midseason. How else would Andy Carroll be worth £35M?

Thinking along the lines of a tweak here - there seems to be two key factors that limit the players that are scouted/recommended. The first is the ability of the player and the second is the interested of the player. I would propose something along the lines of the recruitment focus set up being something like this: The CA/PA stars handle the quality of the player. If you only want to get players that can play or potentially play for Arsenal or Man City then you can adjust them here. If you want a broader assignment then reducing the stars would provide loads of useless players. This currently exists though I'm not entirely sure it functions as it appears in the UI screen. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it does. A new addition would be using the interest level widget we see on the scouting page that ranges from Very interested to Doubtful/Dubious/None. When selecting the recruitment focus we can use this to also filter out players who have interest or lack of interest in joining. Setting it to None would provide the widest range of players while very interested would be the most narrow. I think the default would be the game as is. Players who are interested in joining as well as possess the requisite ability to contribute. I think that provides the new user/speed scouter play styles sufficiently. For those of us who want to be more hands on, allowing the focus to be more open and direct who is scouted more directly by the current mechanism of acknowledge (defer), keep scouting, or discard in reports would be more satisfactory. It would also create enough volume that the wonderkid hunters would have to trawl through a load of reports or just empty recommendation focuses to find obscure wonderkids.

Agreed. I wasn't even considering his on the ball ability much but noted he was a poor passer/first touch as well. The composure makes him very vulnerable to a high press in higher leagues. Probably better off suited in leagues that play much slower and have lower blocks. I hope he likes hot weather! I do think he could get by as an NCB with a stopper role in the Championship that plays direct but I don't think a yo-yo club has much use for him on the field. Mid table Championship side seems to be the absolute limit but probably as a impact sub/rotational player. I could see BWM though I don't know how much retraining him into a DM would eat into whats left of his PA.

Off topic a bit but I would disagree about McGroary's potential based on your scouts opinion of him and his current CA. He's got good Championship tier mental attributes, maybe relegation club PL level. His physicals are probably below average though imo. It'd be one thing to be slow but be tall and have a jumping reach of 16+. He's a below average jumper for someone that is 188cm/6'2" with a jumping reach of 13. I think that kind of relegates him to the Championship-level leagues for his career. Mentals can generally improve as players get older. Physicals are a little harder (as they should be) to improve - you can't take someone slow and make them as fast as Mbappe. With that in mind I think Championship level teams with PL aspirations (read: teams with money) wouldn't really be interested in him until he proves he can compete against higher level players. That would probably put a damper on his value and what you could sell him for now and in the future. I'd guess he's a player who bloomed early (hence why he was at Chelsea) but doesn't really have much to grow (hence why he was released). He'd probably get a higher wage packet at a championship club but might be a mid table side and maybe even be a sub/rotational player. It's probably more fun to be a regular starter/important player win league titles maybe get a few Europa or Europa Conference league matches in. Sounds way better than slogging through 46 Championship matches and only playing in 20-30 of them.

I'll play for fun. With the caveat that before I answer market values are primarily relative to your league. At least that's been my experience. For example a Championship level player who has a contract with a premier league club will have a PL market value. But if a premier league club doesn't want them they won't fetch that price. You'd have to settle for the going rate for Championship level players which would be significantly less than their market value. This is why when you sign a player from a small nation into a bigger nation there's a big jump in market value right after signing. The value of that player is based on the assumption they are at least a "decent" level player of that league. There's other factors for sure like contract value and length and player happiness but the baseline from what I've seen has been usually centered around the league the team they are contracted to is playing in. They look like championship level players so if a championship level team wanted to sign them I'd start by asking for the going rate of a championship level player from them. I believe that's roughly around €1M - €2M for players that don't have PL level experience/potential. I don't think I'd get it, I'd probably have to give them a discount because I'm not in the championship. If the players don't have a reputation of a championship level player it's unlikely you'll get a championship price. The Championship club is taking on "some" risk by signing players who are in a league considered below them so the price has to reflect that. You can mitigate some of that risk with add-ons though, either sell-ons or after so many league appearances etc. A quick peak a the going rate for current Denmark based players is between €500k - €1M. It suggests to me that the MV for a players in a similar league albeit newer to the stage would be around those values but probably less than that. Jumping up 100 places in league ranking in 10 years isn't going to automatically provide you the same boost as a league that has been in that tier for much longer. I'd wager that both players are somewhere between €100k-€250k in MV. You've only got 1 year left on their contracts and you're paying both < €1k a week. It doesn't mean you'll sell them for more or less, its just what they're valued at for the club. I find this transfer to be pretty relavent to this discussion. MV of approx €350k-€500k for his whole career. And by this metric when Rapid Wien sold him to Hertha BSC they "lost" nearly €2M euros of value by selling him for only €500k. I'm sure when he moves on from Hertha, they won't get €2.5M either. https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/haris-tabakovic/profil/spieler/203123

is it in your recycle bin?

On the flip side of this is if you were playing as a big club would you pay £75M for a player in a Hungarian league? Even if they did the impossible and won the CL no team would smash the Hungarian transfer record 16x over. Getting ~3x the transfer record in £12M+ is a testament to 1) how good the player is and 2) the recognition that there is some growth from the baseline values in the game that recognize the improvement in team/league status. 5 years of success isn't nearly long enough to break the normal balance of the world to start commanding top fees up front. There's inherently too much risk involved in the real world of signing players from lower tiered leagues. The game has to represent that risk somehow. A few successful champions league matches would indeed improve a player's profile but not nearly to the degree that it overwhelms the fact that they play in the Hungarian league regularly. The game would quickly become unbalanced if short trends caused massive changes in reputation. One could even argue that despite the success of Man City over the past decade they're still not nearly as popular as Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal. What chance does a small team from Hungary have in five years to become a global powerhouse? The challenge you're having in game is you're looking at values the computer can't and you know the current attributes with certainty. If you didn't know either with 100% accuracy you'd be more cautious about signing players from lower reputation leagues as a big club as well as cash in on players who are performing at a high enough level to get 3x the league transfer record as a lower tiered club.

Imagine that! The third post on the page. Even expanded on why a board might not sell a player: Seems you just don't like the response? So you devolve the conversation into ad hominen attacks and hilarious inaccurately accusations of strawmen and cherry picking all while doing the things you accuse other of yourself? Yes let's talk about irony. The fact of the matter is the manager answers to the board. What they say goes. You don't have to like it, you're free to resign or get sacked as you wish if you think the board is being unreasonable. Managers are expendable, especially ones where players are worth 200k (which by the way the OP never stated what the listed value in game was so for all we know it could be a 50% discount). And under the hood from a programmer's perspective if I had to write this module it'd start with something like this conceptually: Every board has a tolerance of how much they're willing to take a loss on a player based on their fiscal/financial profile and bank balance: some might be 0%, others 30%, and others still might have 100%. They don't view it as oh its only X difference and we'll lose Y waiting (which shouldn't matter in this scenario because OP even said he doesn't have sufficient cover without that player. So they're even less likely to accept because either it'll result in a panic buy with worse financial outcomes or they'll be short of players. In otherwords player wages are a cost of business and the board views it partially as a sunk cost so it likely doesn't have huge weight in determining if they'll accept a transfer). It's a logical statement. If selling price is not greater than or equal to the minimum set value then they block the transfer. Now you can add modifiers to both willingness to take a loss and to the function to give it some flavor and turn it into less of a yes/no binary statement. It can be a probability clause where approving a transfer is when value returned from the function is >X%. The inputs into the function can be things like manager security. A manager with very stable security might get more leeway in selling a player whereas a manager with very insecure status would get less. You can also modify it by how long a player has left on a contract. A long or recently renewed contract would equate in less willing to take a loss whereas a player 6 months from expiry might be sold just to get something. At the end of the day only SI knows what goes into it, and I'm sure if you asked politely instead of ranting half the time they might actually answer with high level feedback of what determines the value a board sets and if they're willing to accept a transfer fee. Or not and you can just play the game and enjoy it and create a narrative of the world to add your own immersion to get around what you believe are limitations of the game.

Sounds like you want more of an echo chamber than feedback

Agreed yes it shouldn't be just about wage. Home country or close to home should have a weight. Also prospect of playing more or being able to showcase abilities should be heavily weighted for young players. I'd like the game to take into consideration that if you have a player's primary position blocked by key players and/or other young players, they're less interested in your team and it'd be very hard to sign them away from a squad that has a clearer playing time pathway for them. I think that'd go a long way to stopping the "wonderkid hoarding" that human players can do. I know its also unpopular but players should also complain about playing time more and asking to move or play especially if they have high ambition and determination traits. It doesn't have to result in a full disaster or mutiny but I'd like the players to have a little more personality to make the game a little harder to maintain success year after year.

Definitely a bug. Assuming Elche is still in Segunda Division and 1860 Muchen is in the Bundesliga and not in 3. Liga. Looks like he was offered star player, more money, even if it was less than expected its still €1M more per year, and a min fee release clause of €0, which after paying €8.25M seems ridiculous as well. I don't see how being disappointed with a €1M per year wage hike translates into taking an lesser offer and a lateral wage move into a lower division. Seems a bit of cut off your nose to spite your face sort of move. If the offers were close in wage value then I can understand going elsewhere or if it was a team that had a strong reputation of developing players i.e. the Dortmund model but I don't think that's factored in the game unless you explicitly promise the allow club to be stepping stone. Can't make sense of this one. Not even like he's Spanish and going "home".