View forum thread

Yes agree younger players do ask for a shorter term,personally i have never had a younger player refuse to sign a longer term if you offer the right mix.Where as an older player will at times refuse the longer offer.

On -2 after 1 buy and 2 negos. So it will probably take 6 (!) transactions to make up a -3. Seriously? What is the purpose of this?

I'm another manager stuck on -2 after withdrawing from a purchase because a player would only accept a shorter contract than normal for his age...

So, I understand your frustration, I want to buy some players but almost everyone I'm interested is listed with default MTR 0, so can't bid.... There are some managers listing a few players with MTR -10 or -something, (actually I always do this anyway), but not so many. I agree, it's really difficult to recover, I guess we will just have to be very, very patient...


On the other hand, because a change was made, where the punishment seems a little harsh, perhaps one option could be to lower the default MTR a little on new transfer listings....
This would allow those managers, who have made just one, I repeat just one, withdrawal to be able to compete in more transfers and have a chance to regain their MTR rather than being shut out of a large percentage of the market.... Managers who don't want to sell to a manager who has withdrawn previously still have the option to change the MTR on their listed player to 0 or whatever they like...

It's a little frustrating that managers are, in my opinion, probably being blocked from many transfers by default, rather than by choice....

I have to disagree that -3 is too harsh.

I list players to sell and I bid to buy and I expect the same in return.
In the last IAG it was so frustrating and was a big problem when the one bidder of your player pulled out for xyz reason. You have waited up to 7 days for this, paid listing fees and then nothing!

I recently bid on a striker who was 30. I knew he most likely wasn't going to accept a long contract. At negotiations he asked for 2 years and wouldn't budge to even 3 years.
Did I pull out?? No, I offered him a 2 year contract. I bid for him so I'll do it as I considered it beforehand.
He eventually accepted an offer somewhere else to someone willing to pay more wages than what he asked me for (no idea why, must have really wanted him!)

Point is, you need to think about every move you make and have a plan. Are you prepared to offer him just a 1 year contract if that's all he will accept? If he only wants 2 years is that enough for you, maybe re-sell him after the first year?
No - then don't bid in the first place.

I almost always list my player at either 0 or at least 1 as I don't want people pulling out and wasting my time because they didn't consider the fact he may not want a 3, 4 or 5 year contract or whatever else. I'm glad it's now being punished harder as it makes people think more before bidding.

But, I do completely agree it should have been made clearer what would happen by pulling out. It's a big part of the game as you guys are finding out. If you knew you would lose that much and be in the situation you are in now would you still have pulled out?

Perhaps this is something Ron or the MODS could look into doing?
Maybe on the screen where you confirm you want to withdraw it warns you that by doing so your MTR will be hit -3 ????
Might make some people think twice about actually doing it and making life hard for themselves, and if they still do it then thats their own choice.

If I had been new to the game I would have left.

Thats it, punishing so harshly will only do that to newbies. For newcomers to complete 6 transactions will take seasons in a slow TM. We are 836 managers and can't do that.

This game needs to treat newcomers better.

There is currently 2 players in the Nigeria market under 100k, one listed at -10 and the other -6. In the Scotland market there is currently a massive 8 players under 100k - some less than 30k, six of those are listed at -10, and two at -2!!

Would they be the type of players I want? Probably not, but due to the fact I withdrew from a buy and messed another manager around and cost him/her money in process it serves me right.

If I had to take a -3 hit I could make that back up within weeks, maybe less, if I really really wanted to. It wouldn't cost a massive fortune either to do it. It might be a financial hit to me in the process but again, serves me right - it's nothing I didn't do to the manager of the selling team I withdrew from.

Like I said, I agree it should be better stated so that newbies do understand thoroughly as it is an important part of the game. It's also one that could put people off if they make the mistake.
But it's no where near to being too harsh and very easy and quick to rectify should you make it. Its just that the players who are that cheap you don't want to buy.

It is quick to fix for you and me, but not for people who do not understand the game yet. In general, the game treats newcomers poorly. They are handed the rubbish after existing managers pick the best clubs from the vacancy list. This problem is just one of many, the game isn't catering to newcomers at all and no wonder it has problems.

Fair play to you Kejeas. I agree with most of this. I wish more people acted like you.

I differ with this point though.

The problem is only with older players. I see a player that I like, but he needs training up. I need at least 1 season, probably 2 to get him trained so he's good enough to play. He needs to agree a minimum of a 3 season contract for me to get any use out of him. Otherwise there's simply no point in buying him.

So, no, I'm not prepared to take him for 1 season and 2 probably isn't enough either. Why shouldn't I bid and find out? After all he might sign for 5 seasons, but I just don't know.

As things stand with a potential hit of -3, when everyone gets use to it, people won't want to take the risk of bidding. So it will simply make older players harder to sell and/or lower the bid values.

I do agree that people should not pull out when bidding. I would prefer that the withdraw option simply didn't exist.

If you transfer list them you can't withdraw, and you must sell.

The same should apply to buying. If you bid you buy. Implement that as well and MTR can simply be abandoned.

But the game has a flaw here, it doesn't allow the buyer to know in advance the likely contract length. Let the buyer stipulate his minimum contract length when buying and if the player agrees then the sale goes through.

Buying players your club doesn't need or selling players too cheaply just to correct a negative transfer rating comes in conflict with game rules. It is probably not an issue if you buy 1 or 2 players, but if you sign 6 to even -3 out I would call it club destruction.

I can see you point, but if you look at clubs in this game there isn't many over age 34. This is the point when realistically players will start to retire from.
People know that as a player gets into his 30's the chances of him accepting a contract over 2 years is more luck than anything.
When you get to players 32,33 yrs the chances are they will only accept 1 year as they are close to retirement.

It's not much different to real life, there isn't many players aged 32+ getting offered 3 or 4 year contracts. This game is no different.

But that is why they are so cheap, you won't get as much use out of them but if you are short in an area due to injury/suspension it can fill a temporary hole at a cheap price. Even if you let them retire after that year when your usual players return.

No-one should really be looking at old players with the view to training them up as like you say, it will takes seasons to do it. It is a problem at the moment as all players are lowly rated. In a few seasons you will see old players rated in their 30's being listed at these cheap prices. A lower division team can pick them up for a quick ratings boost without the need for this training. That will be the use of these old players, not to build a squad around.




I disagree, it's just rectifying a mistake a manager made, which is a big difference.
Club destruction is purposely doing something bad for your club for no reason at all. You can do things to your club which appear at first glance to be destruction, if it's within a long term plan for the club that will benefit it overall in the long run.

Plus, if you manage to get a few of them on 2 yr contracts you could always sell them the following season at the same price, therefore not losing anything apart from wages.
My illustration above was just an example of how quick it could be done. If it's takes 6 sales/buys to sort out a -3 rating I would take a little more time about it. However, even I concede that a large percentage of players list at a min MTR of 0. But like I said, that's what I do as I don't want to risk my time being wasted.

With a few sales you could buy 4 old players and actually turn a profit from the transfer fees. Then I would just buy them at <50k to get the rating sorted and either let them retire or sell them on again, when I could, and learn from it.

Again though, that's the punishment for withdrawing. A manager who has suffered that once would surely (hopefully) not do it again and learn from it and bid more wiser next time.

I will say again though that I do agree that something that can have as big an impact as this should be more transparent.

It's such an easy mistake to make, especially for a newbie. I agree that it could really put new people off staying having made one simple mistake.

I still think having a warning message explaining the MTR drop just before you click to confirm the withdrawal is what is needed, unless anyone else has something better to suggest?

I don't know if Ron reads these or not but maybe it's something he could consider. Anything that potentially causes newbies to leave should be a little food for thought perhaps.

Buying players not useful for your club, only for your manager rating is harming your club. That is wrong. The right way to overcome a hit in transfer rating is buying players or selling players who both you as a manager and your club prosper from. Which will take time, my point.

And the cheap oldies are usually 1 season contract ones, likely to even refuse being listed again. Going into these deals hoping to get 2 season contracts is just asking to get burned again.

Agreed, maybe we should leave it at this and disagree on how to fix a negative MTR.

So far I've bought a few older players: a 34 yr old for 3 seasons, a 33 yr old for 4 seasons and a 31 year old who might go on for quite a while. I've also been in negs on about 3 or 4 others that wouldn't stick around for long, some I withdrew from and others I hoped the other bidders would take him so I didn't lose MTR.

It is different to real life. Any transfer offer made by a club is dependent on the player agreeing terms. If the player refuses what's offered by the buying club, then nobody gets penalised. In real life it's called due diligence, making sure the asset is worth the investment and there aren't any nasty surprises.



They aren't necessarily cheap. Every player is different, some are dirt cheap and others can be quite expensive. Personally I value my offer in the hope or expectation they will sign a decent contract. If they won't I'm not interested.

Why do you say "no-one"? I can choose to buy old players and train them up if I wish, so can anyone else. Why on earth not? You don't have to, but you can't expect others to play it your way. They are free to do as they please.

You are right, of course, that this is completely different when you are talking about ready trained older players that will come in and do a job for a season or 2.

I guess the difficulty is that we are discussing something that is unrealistic in real life.

Having players aged in their early to mid 30s who can barely play for the under 16s, but with potential to become great players if only they had some coaching is totally ridiculous. Whoever heard of that?

But it is what it is and if players like those exist then some people will want to buy them.

Of course everyone can play it their way. I wasn't trying to say otherwise but perhaps didn't word it correctly.
I merely meant due to the risk of them only wanting a shorter contract that's the way I feel they have to be looked at - obviously though there is no right or wrong way to play the game and everyone should play it whatever way they want to.

It sounds like you have been lucky with your contracts to older players and have probably got some good bargains. However, caution should be used as not all players that age will ask or accept that length and you need to be prepared for that. It's the risk of bidding on an older player.

I understand that you would like to know what contract length he will accept beforehand but don't you think that will hamper the market?
Imagine if half the older players only accept 1 or 2 yr contracts and the other half longer ones - them older players with the tiny contracts will never be sold and we will be back to the last IAG where old players couldn't be sold. That's why these changes were brought about in this version with the ability to sell at a massively reduced cost. But you still have that contract risk.

Maybe things will, or could be, adjusted and it's a good topic to discuss. As it stands, you can get these older players for dirt cheap in some instances, but you may run into a player that wants a tiny contract. To me that's worth the risk. To others not. But people need to decide what they they will do in that situation before bidding and be prepared for any consequences of any action they take.

I don't think it's high on Ron's list (if at all), but maybe it's an area that could do with a bit of tweaking. Especially as it does affect new players badly, which is something we really don't want to be doing.

I don't think I've been particularly lucky. I've only bought 3 so far but I've bid on quite a few others and lost rating 2 or 3 times. Can't recall exactly.

Now I know how it works, it makes me a bit more cautious, but it won't stop me bidding completely. Being more careful probably means I won't bid on the borderline players where I am less certain that I want them or I'll avoid more expensive ones and higher bids.

No doubt others will do the same. They will become more risk averse. That means fewer sales and lower prices.

I'm not too bothered whether contract length has to be known beforehand as long as it's part of the equation. And, no, I don't think that will hamper the market; it would probably have the opposite effect as there is less risk, so more potential bidders.

Players refusing longer contracts will still be sold, either because they are ready trained or to the unwary who don't realise it might be a risk. I don't see that changing.

I agree things are unlikely to change. Especially if the users can't agree, Ron's unlikely to put the effort in to something that doesn't have a large majority approval. Although the impact on retaining new users should be a driving force for change.

As things stand I can plan to work around it. In the long run, the fact that it means fewer bidders may well work to my own advantage if I'm buying. I will just be careful to keep my MTR high enough to cope with the odd blip when I withdraw.

It's the unwary that will suffer most. And the sellers as older players will be harder to sell.

If the transfer market wasn't hard enough at the minute you get an extra kick in the teeth if you pull out at the negotiations stage (I know this has been mentioned a lot).

Was looking to buy an older player on the assumption he might accept a 2 year contract. Found out this morning that he will only accept 1 year so I have pulled out as not worth it.

Transfer rating now gone from 9 down to 5

I thought we were wanting to attract people to the game not drive them away.

Its going to get to the point where people just use youths and accept the fact that they are going to have an average team at best rather than risk using the transfer market.

Top football clubs pull out of deals all the time at the negotiation stage without any impact to them so I don't get why there is such a massive hit on teams in IAG for doing the same.

A 1 point drop I would get but 4 is ridiculous.

Same issue here. It's very risky bidding on any player aged 30+ unless they have recently signed a long contract with their own club.

I've just bid a very high price on a potentially good 30 year old in the hope he might sign a long contract. He won't. I'd be happy to take him on a shorter contract for a lower price, but not at such a high price.

Now I have to withdraw with a likely TR hit of -3.

I may be the only bidder so the seller loses out too.

The change to lower prices for older players is a great one both for buyers and sellers and they can both benefit from the sale but to be hit so hard when pulling out for valid reasons is hard to take and a massive disincentive.

transfer market is sterile enough at the moment without an extra disincentive.

Absolutely.

I would bid on more older players if there wasn't such a risk. So it hinders the market.

The other issue is the price. Do you "value" your bid based on a 2, 3, 4 or 5 season contract? Blind bidding makes that much more difficult. If you can see the other bids and you're the only bidder then you're safe with the asking price. It's difficult to see a good solution to that one without removing the blind bidding.