wazzaflow10

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".

Interesting link. Not surprising - suggests that either the quality isn't there or the xG is too high and might come down over time to match reality. However 0 is a very large gap to 9 in the context of simulating multiple seasons. 0 should be possible but it should be an exception not a norm. I'd love to see the distribution of goals scored from DFK from independent saves. If it's heavily weighted towards zero there's a problem. Its not a huge problem given the total number of goals isn't far off but it does ruin a bit of the immersion in game knowing a dfk has 0% chance of going in.

Stuff like what? You'll have to be more explicit.

Yes totally a strawman argument to use real life data that the game is modeled after. What team I was doesn't matter. He was transfer listed for 12m by Man City. Any team could have bought him for that amount. If you're just having a whine about how broken the game is, just say so. Most people at least have the dignity to put the words "RANT" in their posts.

What a long winded way of being called a fanboy. Amusing. I just showed you with real life data why you only got 2M. You clearly expected something close 20M otherwise you wouldn't be whining about it. Its much more than just reputation. If it was, the game would look at the player and go "oh he's a playing in the premier league so we should pay premier league money". But no one did. Why? Because he's clearly not good enough by your own admission to be in that league. I'm going to guess you're not playing him regularly and you've probably offered him out multiple times indicating a willingness to sell. You've destroy any leverage you had to command any decent fee. Its not really a surprise you got an average championship fee because that's the ability of the player. If you had him as the leading goalscorer of the PL for a few seasons and only got 2M then there'd be an issue. The game should be weighted so that the big clubs retain their status for a long period of time. Man Utd hasn't won anything and been in disarray for over a decade and yet they're still considered a top club. Liverpool went 30+ years between titles and were still a top team. It should take more than 18 seasons to upset the natural balance of the world thats been set over the past 150 years. Who is Chelmsford compared to them? LOL I don't know anything about this job but I'm going to call the people working on it lazy and say its not hard to just do X. Just write a script! Oh you can't? Everything must be broken then. Sheer ignorance. If you see something that doesn't make sense raise a bug with what happened. Its not hard. It might not make it to the top of the priority list especially if it is a one off but at least they're aware. Accusing me of not reading when I clearly said this to you as to why they would keep a player on the team. Maybe to spell it out a bit more for you managers get sacked all the time and players who found themselves out of favor suddenly are first teamers with the new manager. So when it comes to transfer policies, yes a board might block a transfer even if it "costs" them money in the long run. In their mind they're losing out on a potential bigger fee than just 10k at that point. And if you can somehow manage to get the additional 10k, you're free to sell him albeit to the disappointment of the board.

City transfer listed him for 12M which was well below his actual value. Any team could have bought him for 12M. He was a starter for me when I sold him. Barcelona came in and made a decent bid that I negotiated up. In the same save I sold Martial to Real Madrid for 120M after a few rounds of negotiation. He was also a starter for me. I've had other saves where I've struggled to sell him for value because he's a part time player and doesn't perform. You've done something highly unrealistic in taking semi-pro team to the premier league. You kind of have to take the good with the bad here. Of course the game isn't going to work the same as a team that's been established for its entire history near the top of the league. Just because Luton Town is in the PL doesn't mean all of their players are going to fetch PL value, certainly not ones that can't quite hack it in the Prem but were just good enough for the Championship. Of course teams are going to be wary of your players who had a meteoric rise through the pyramid and of course reputation will lag behind. Of all leagues the Premier League has the most value bloat due to the league's reputation. It sounds like you want his reputation to outweigh his stats if he isn't cut out for the PL. He shouldn't get premier league value if he's not a premier league player. Here's the values for the RW's in the Championship. https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/marktwerte/wettbewerb/GB2/plus//galerie/0?pos=&detailpos=12&altersklasse=alle&land_id=0 and the list of transfers for each team https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/transfers/wettbewerb/GB2/plus/?saison_id=2023&s_w=&leihe=1&intern=0 Would you pay 20M as a championship team for a winger with average league ability and limited PL potential? Or would you rather buy someone like Fatawu who Leicester just bought as part of a loan deal after securing promotion for 17M? In my opinion, the game is weighting his ability correctly given he's probably really an average championship winger/striker who benefited from a system. Only the teams recently relegated are spending huge fees, in part based on their surplus from selling players back into the PL. Your market is pretty limited to get even remotely close to 20M. I'm sure the AI would demand 20M if the roles were reversed but you'd probably say the AI was crazy asking for 20M for an average player and move on, if you ever even considered a bid for that player. The loan market is not great in FM24. However, part of not being able to find loans for players it seems is mainly due to lack of player interest in moving. If I'm a player and I was a top scorer in the National League, got promoted to League 2, I'm not interested in moving back down a division or being sent to another team. Why would anyone want to do that? Do you think Macauly Langstaff or Paul Mullin would go back to the VNL after getting promoted last season? Or join an unfamiliar League 2 team? I find that to be highly unlikely - it might happen but it shouldn't be the norm. I do think the game can do a better job of communicating that teams are in fact interested but players are not open to a loan move at all. You see it sometimes as a news item where a team thinks a player doesn't have sufficient interest in joining. The AI scouting module is different than the human's but it wouldn't shock me if the AI knew a player had a loan interest of "None" for their squad in some way. So the AI doesn't actually have any interest in negotiating a loan for a player who will not join them at all so it looks like no one actually wants your player when in reality your player doesn't actually want to move.

It depends on what team you are and what you're doing. There's been plenty of examples by people here selling for more than value. If you're playing as a PL team you're not going to get a ton of value shedding players from your team. If you're a newly promoted team from league one to the championship you're not going to get championship money for league one players. And its entirely possible to get players below value from the AI if they're transfer listed or unhappy. I got John Stones from MC in a 2021 save for 12M and sold him for nearly 40M a few years later to Barca. I've unsettled players who were long term targets and forced a move. Could the AI do with some work negotiating? absolutely. I've had my share of frustrating negotiations that have gone haywire for no apparent reason. But in regards to the board not allowing a transfer because its below their min valuation doesn't seem wrong even if they're paying for wages on a player you don't plan on using. They could easily turn around and sack a manager and the next guy comes in and makes the guy you wanted to sell a key player.

What's the value on his player page (assuming you haven't put a price tag on him)? Transfermarkt has him as 225k currently. Selling him at 180k would be a 20% discount so it's not totally outrageous to be blocked imo. It'd be nice if there was a bit more dialogue between the manager and the board before it happened to state why he's being sold so low. But it probably means you can push the negotiation more and up the value either through clauses or outright fees. The best solution is to play him more even if you don't want to so you can demand more money.

What's the value on his player page (assuming you haven't put a price tag on him)? Transfermarkt has him as 225k currently. Selling him at 180k would be a 20% discount so it's not totally outrageous to be blocked imo. It'd be nice if there was a bit more dialogue between the manager and the board before it happened to state why he's being sold so low. But it probably means you can push the negotiation more and up the value either through clauses or outright fees. The best solution is to play him more even if you don't want to so you can demand more money.

Agreed. I'd be fine if they just showed a range (so long as it isn't always the middle number) or even inaccuracies unless you were tracking them for a long time (and I mean like 6 months maybe a year), akin to declaring someone as a top target. I don't have an issue with the concept of the focuses. It should only show you players that are interested or meet the criteria. And if that's 0 players or 100 players that's fine. But somewhere along the way they've conflated the point of recruitment focuses and scouting so now there's just one module that doesn't really serve the purpose of either very well. I don't understand the point of the CA/PA stars in the focus set up if the focus won't return players who aren't equal to your team's CA. I'm asking for the scout to find players with 1/2 silver CA star and 1/2 silver PA stars and up and I get 0 results half the time. I should be inundated with reports. So much so it should be impossible to dig through them. This isn't to say setting 1/2 CA stars and 3 PA stars should be a automatic wonderkid finder. there should be a sufficient number of players and unknown PA and CA attributes that you have to track players for a very long time (long enough for other AI teams to find them and sign them before you) that its inefficient to cast such a wide net. They can also make wonderkids incredibly unlikely to sign for clubs that either have a ton of first team and/or youth players at their position or are not one of the bigger teams in the world. Players should also evaluate playing time pathways much more and demand a certain pathway if they are that highly rated along with pay increases such that we have to make a serious commitment to them or risk the player causing a fuss and the agent developing a bad relationship and not wanting to work with us. I know that's easier said than done from a programming perspective but I'm hopeful the module can be improved in the future.

Been "broken" at least since december patch. Its okay-ish if you're a small club but according to them the game will automatically filter out players who are wholly uninterested in joining your or players it deems not good enough for your squad. So the game simultaneously scouts and doesn't scout players. Its fine if they don't have anyone to recommend based on your criteria (i.e. you only want a striker thats 3* CA and 5* PA and plays in Africa) but there should still be players that you can see were scouted and said doesn't fit for whatever reason. It seemed that they didn't want to give you the view to everyone for fear that people would abuse it and only scout for wonderkids and beat the AI to every signing. I get their point but its very frustrating to only view a fraction of the actual players in the game when you're a big club. Its my main dissatisfaction with the game. Hoping 25 gets tweaked a bit.

I mean you can still transfer list players for it if you're not in a situation where you think they should be feeling that way. the game is still telling you something about the players hidden attributes most likely. It might happen a little too frequently imo or not always in the correct context but you can still do something indirectly about it. There doesn't have to be a magic button to solve every problem with a click immediately.

Just because you can't do anything about it doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game. It can be implemented better/more logically but you shouldn't be able to control/affect everything. You're not supposed to be omnipotent.

defensive or cautious mentality doesn't mean you won't score or go on attack. What team are you?

The first one is the original fm23 database. I think so but they're not the same save so I can't be 100% sure. I wasn't specifically tracking his development when I started my save. He spent two years on loan before coming back as a rotational starter. But other than that no. I'm sure I had him grouped with Bruno Fernandes for mentoring so it could be from that. I believe Fernandes is highly aggressive/brave so it could be mentoring/squad personality influences. His personality changed from balanced to fairly ambitious so something under the hood most likely. I'm not an expert in development by any means. I just think the game should mimic some bits of real life where a player who has potential has a period of super accelerated growth from an average youth prospect to a squad player/starter in a shorter period of time. I'd be happy to be proven wrong by someone who's looked at this more holistically.

In a sense I guess yes. It'd be different than say a 17 year old wonderkid who's had high attributes since the game created them. Here's someone like Garnacho at the beginning of FM23 and FM24 and latest update. and my version of FM23 Garnacho 5 years into the game. He eventually kind of gets there but as you can see there's still recent development and its certainly not from a lack of playing time. Granted I'm probably not the best at maximising development or knowing all the tips and tricks but I'd love to see someone try to start 18 year old Garnacho in October of 2022 get him to roughly these attributes while missing 2 months due to injury as well. I don't know what SI uses to determine player development paths but they should use their own researchers updates and use that as a model for player progression. I'd love to see in future games variation between players getting better faster via training with your first team v getting match experience elsewhere. It just feels very unlikely that you'd have player who started in reserves like Garnacho was and then within 6 months become a first teamer (with the attribtues to support it). Personally I think attributes should fluctuate (as a matter of perception but not necessarily in reality) a lot more on these player pages to reflect form/morale/training performance to give the game some extra bit of dynamism to transfer policy/activity. As a matter of speaking players should be able to look better than their CA and PA if performances justify it. Equally so a player should be able to look worse than their CA if they're on a bad run of form. No this isn't they were really good before they were 18. This is a regular looking youth player (doesn't even have to have high potential) and then a very quick rise to a new ability tier. Not the wonderkid at 16 with world class ability.