Jump to content

Contracts? Pointless or useful?


Recommended Posts

Player's Contract Expiring at End of Season

This is the amazing thing about contracts and the quote above:

What do they actually do?

Are they just to make Soccer Manager look better? Or do they actually have a point to it?

This is my suggestion:

I think that at the moment contracts do not have any say in the game. If we can make the contracts more realistic, it would make the game even better.

Right, now this is where my suggestion really comes in.

When a player has two years left on his contract, and only then, is the manager allowed to negotiate a new one. He should be able to have a wider variety in contracts, so not only how many years, but also how much the player should be paid. Contract clauses are over too complex for the time being.

Someone like Kaka, you cannot offer something like 10k and expect him to accept, so therefore when you choose how much you pay the player, the SM Chairman tells you, just like he would for transfers, what is the least amount of money that Kaka would accept. This will not only improve the game, but also give you more of a say in finances. Another thing is that we will have less complaints that so and so is being paid 70k, and therefore my club is in debt, because using my way, they cannot really blame SM but themselves for the finances.

I still think that even if the above is placed , there should be another improvement.

When the 2 years left has come for a player, and if their morale is any lower than average and they have not played often enough, they should refuse any offer, unless it is high and ask for a transfer out of the club.

They still have to complete the contract years left, but here comes the tricky part. The manager can sell the unwanted player when the first of the two years left has gone for a good price, but if the manager decides to keep the player for the last year in his contract, the player is allowed to leave but only on a FREE transfer.

Think of it this way. The game would not only become betetr with both suggestions, but it will be a ton more realistic and will make the contracts a hundred times MORE useful.

All opinions appreciated.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

Search the Forum' date=' Had a big debate not so long ago & it was Agreed that Contracts the way there are now would not change/be put in the manager hands.

[b']You cant renew a contract till there final year/2 years anyway[/b].

You can. I just done it with someone who had 4 years left. Try it, if you don't believe me.

Why shouldn't they be put in the manager's hands? After all, they are in real football...

And you may say " Yes, but people may give Kaka 5k and it'll be accepted,so it's unfair etc" but I have already solved this on my first post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

You can. I just done it with someone who had 4 years left. Try it' date=' if you don't believe me.

Why shouldn't they be put in the manager's hands? After all, they are in real football...

And you may say " Yes, but people may give Kaka 5k and it'll be accepted,so it's unfair etc" but I have already solved this on my first post.[/quote']

Its unusualy then mostly only in last year can you now renew there contract

Find the other thread & theres hours of info why Contracts wont be Put in Managers Hands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

Its unusualy then mostly only in last year can you now renew there contract

Find the other thread & theres hours of info why Contracts wont be Put in Managers Hands

Errm, I seacrhed for 4 pages of threads, and most of them are quite different to mine. Do you remember the thread title?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

This is the amazing thing about contracts and the quote above:

What do they actually do?

Are they just to make Soccer Manager look better? Or do they actually have a point to it?

This is my suggestion:

I think that at the moment contracts do not have any say in the game. If we can make the contracts more realistic' date=' it would make the game even better.

Right, now this is where my suggestion really comes in.

When a player has two years left on his contract, and only then, is the manager allowed to negotiate a new one. He should be able to have a wider variety in contracts, so not only how many years, but also how much the player should be paid. Contract clauses are over too complex for the time being.

Someone like Kaka, you cannot offer something like 10k and expect him to accept, so therefore when you choose how much you pay the player, the SM Chairman tells you, just like he would for transfers, what is the least amount of money that Kaka would accept. This will not only improve the game, but also give you more of a say in finances. Another thing is that we will have less complaints that so and so is being paid 70k, and therefore my club is in debt, because using my way, they cannot really blame SM but themselves for the finances.

I still think that even if the above is placed , there should be another improvement.

When the 2 years left has come for a player, and if their morale is any lower than average and they have not played often enough, they should refuse any offer, unless it is high and ask for a transfer out of the club.

They still have to complete the contract years left, but here comes the tricky part. The manager can sell the unwanted player when the first of the two years left has gone for a good price, but if the manager decides to keep the player for the last year in his contract, the player is allowed to leave but only on a [b']FREE [/b]transfer.

Think of it this way. The game would not only become betetr with both suggestions, but it will be a ton more realistic and will make the contracts a hundred times MORE useful.

All opinions appreciated.:)

I like everything about this, gives a realistic feel to the game and this stuff all happens in real life. Would give Barcelona managers something to think about. Lets be honest they'd have a good starting XI but not much after that under this system!! (I have one, what a headache that would be!!)

Only thing I can see wrong in it is when people build these big sqauds for the future with a lot of 15-18 yr olds and place them in the youth squad, they can't keep all of these young ones happy too and I know that a lot of people play SM to do the scouting. I would say that people in the youth squad are immune but then you can stick 90ish players that are under 21 in their youth team in order to get around this, i.e. Nasri.

Also I've noticed especially in GC's that clubs make 2-3 different "teams" in their squad. The 1st team for big games and SMFA games (if in those comps) and others for lesser competitions.

What I would suggest to stop players from being hoarded by bigger clubs is something in the contract whereby, according to their rating or value, when contracts are negotiated there are stipulations to them signing, i.e. Barca sign Nasri as detailed above. For Nasri to sign he must play a set percentage of games, i.e. 50 % and if not is allowed to move clubs for chairmans value. A bit harsh if he goes for nothing!

But then people will talk about injuries and suspensions and they couldn't play this player 50% of the time for this reason, maybe 50% of the games he is available for.

There are so many permiatations, just a few of my thoughts here. Please add if you have some bright ideas :D

A great idea in principle though and something that definitely has some mileage in it. Not sure how easy it would be for SM to implement but a good idea :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

I like everything about this' date=' gives a realistic feel to the game and this stuff all happens in real life. Would give Barcelona managers something to think about. Lets be honest they'd have a good starting XI but not much after that under this system!! (I have one, what a headache that would be!!)

[b']Only thing I can see wrong in it is when people build these big sqauds for the future with a lot of 15-18 yr olds and place them in the youth squad, they can't keep all of these young ones happy too and I know that a lot of people play SM to do the scouting. I would say that people in the youth squad are immune but then you can stick 90ish players that are under 21 in their youth team in order to get around this, i.e. Nasri[/b].

Also I've noticed especially in GC's that clubs make 2-3 different "teams" in their squad. The 1st team for big games and SMFA games (if in those comps) and others for lesser competitions.

What I would suggest to stop players from being hoarded by bigger clubs is something in the contract whereby, according to their rating or value, when contracts are negotiated there are stipulations to them signing, i.e. Barca sign Nasri as detailed above. For Nasri to sign he must play a set percentage of games, i.e. 50 % and if not is allowed to move clubs for chairmans value. A bit harsh if he goes for nothing!

But then people will talk about injuries and suspensions and they couldn't play this player 50% of the time for this reason, maybe 50% of the games he is available for.

There are so many permiatations, just a few of my thoughts here. Please add if you have some bright ideas :D

A great idea in principle though and something that definitely has some mileage in it. Not sure how easy it would be for SM to implement but a good idea :D

Not sure, but the Bosman maybe should got players who are not in the youth squad. I mean you don't see a player in say, Tottenham's youth team go to Fulham's ,do you?

So maybe the second rule should only apply to players NOT in the youth team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

None of this Will happen' date=' SM said that contracts would not be put into managers hands due to Cheating & Ruining Teams.

Dont know were the thread is, Could have ben Nells or frazer that started it.[/quote']

I agree, but it's the B******s that cheat that screw us decent players out of things like this, you have to admit Shelbs that it's a great idea in principle and all the good people (like you n me ;):D ) would enjoy this if it came into action.

Would be yet another realistic aspect of football management that we would have to deal with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

I dont agree, Reg comes to the conclusion that he could save moeny ect ect with kaka,

Whats to say SM woudent change the systyme were you would have to give him 100k & thus lose money.

You just thinking about saving more money ect ect ALL THIS came up in the debate we had.

{not posting here anymore} :eek:;)

What if the AC MILAN manager dident want to give kaka mkore than 50k & let his contract run out & thus KAKA Leaves ?? All Discussed previosly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

I dont agree' date=' Reg comes to the conclusion that he could save moeny ect ect with kaka,

[b']Whats to say SM woudent change the systyme were you would have to give him 100k & thus lose money.[/b]

You just thinking about saving more money ect ect ALL THIS came up in the debate we had.

{not posting here anymore} :eek:;)

What if the AC MILAN manager dident want to give kaka mkore than 50k & let his contract run out & thus KAKA Leaves ?? All Discussed previosly

Where?!?! I can't find it, at all.

To be honest, you're not really saying a real reason for why you disagree, you just say this came up in the other debate.

The bold part- I explained this in the first post, about the SM Chairman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

This is the amazing thing about contracts and the quote above:

What do they actually do?

Are they just to make Soccer Manager look better? Or do they actually have a point to it?

This is my suggestion:

I think that at the moment contracts do not have any say in the game. If we can make the contracts more realistic' date=' it would make the game even better.

Right, now this is where my suggestion really comes in.

When a player has two years left on his contract, and only then, is the manager allowed to negotiate a new one. He should be able to have a wider variety in contracts, so not only how many years, but also how much the player should be paid. Contract clauses are over too complex for the time being.

Someone like Kaka, you cannot offer something like 10k and expect him to accept, so therefore when you choose how much you pay the player, the SM Chairman tells you, just like he would for transfers, what is the least amount of money that Kaka would accept. This will not only improve the game, but also give you more of a say in finances. Another thing is that we will have less complaints that so and so is being paid 70k, and therefore my club is in debt, because using my way, they cannot really blame SM but themselves for the finances.

I still think that even if the above is placed , there should be another improvement.

When the 2 years left has come for a player, and if their morale is any lower than average and they have not played often enough, they should refuse any offer, unless it is high and ask for a transfer out of the club.

They still have to complete the contract years left, but here comes the tricky part. The manager can sell the unwanted player when the first of the two years left has gone for a good price, but if the manager decides to keep the player for the last year in his contract, the player is allowed to leave but only on a [b']FREE [/b]transfer.

Think of it this way. The game would not only become betetr with both suggestions, but it will be a ton more realistic and will make the contracts a hundred times MORE useful.

All opinions appreciated.:)

The idea of a manager being allowed to offer ANY of their players a contract has been mentioned before. There are a few points you all have to consider (which I will mention below) and then you can give feedback to see if you would like this or not.

First Point: With the current system a contract is automatically given to ANY player when he signs for your club. This means that as soon as the transfer is accepted by the other manager or AI' date=' it is usually completed within 24 hours.

If we allowed ANY manager to offer terms to ANY player, the period in which your transfer was accepted to completed would be extended by at least 48 hours.

The reasons for this is as follows - Your transfer would be accepted by the other club (24 hours). You would then have to offer personal terms to the incoming player. If he accepts this contract offer straight away, then he would join you in another 24 hours (taking the total transfer time to 48 hours). What if the player rejected your contract offer due to the wage being to low, contract length being to short etc? The you will have to submit another offer, and IF that is accepted it would have taken you 36 hours to sign the player. IF he rejects your second contract offer you are talking about 36 hours plus! Would people want this?

[i']Second Point:[/i] There will be some managers who offer ludicrous contracts to ANY one of their players, and this will have several knock-on-effects. Firstly he might struggle to sell the player on if he his on a mamouth contract. In real-life this happened to Chelsea and they could not sell Ballack during the summer (Real baulked at his wages). Secondly some clubs could plummet into debt if they are allowed to negotiate their own wages.

Third Point: There will be a minority who will ruin it for the majority.

Fourth Point: If you want to get technical on contracts, how technical do you want it to become? You could start adding things like signing -on fees, minimum release clauses, relegation release clauses, percentage of next sale etc. Whilst a lot of managers might appreciate this, again think of the knock-on effect. Signing on fees would eat into your transfer budget, minimum release clauses could cripple lower league clubs, percentage of next sale could be picked up by the next manager as old manager left etc.

Fifth Point: If ANY manager were allowed to negotiate a contract, a wage budget would have to be introduced to try and limit clubs expenditure.

Do not get me wrong I am not against this idea, I am just trying to point out that for every idea you have to weigh up the pros and cons. Only once have you done this, then you can sit back and view if it would be worthwhile introducing it. Feel free to comment on the above.

The idea of Work Permits is a good idea, but again think of the pros and cons. Each country has different rules and regulations regarding players outside his own country, and then you have to consider all the EU Rules & Regulations etc.

People have complained in the past that if we introduced squad limits, it would restrict who a manager could sign. Wouldn't introducing Work Permits do the same? An example would be that English clubs wouldn't be able to sign all of the up-and-coming South American talents.

Just a few thoughts for you all to chew on whilst watching tonights soaps in the UK.

This is from a bit back ,still watching soaps ,get back after this weeks weddings.:D:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

great piece of digging there crazy bones.

Now that I've read that Mr Gore does give out some good points, but admits himself that he's not against the idea, it's just very, very hard to implement which i sort of highlighted in my post.

For everything you think of to solve a problem, another pops up and makes it yet more trivial and a bit of a b**ch to implement in a way that would be beneficial to the game.

Would take a lot of development to get to the point where the contract system could be a bit more user-orientated but hey, we want this game to be the best, we're ambitious and one day it could well happen.

Just makes you feel sorry for the real clubs when you think about all of the permiatations and outcomes!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

The idea of a manager being allowed to offer ANY of their players a contract has been mentioned before. There are a few points you all have to consider (which I will mention below) and then you can give feedback to see if you would like this or not.

First Point: With the current system a contract is automatically given to ANY player when he signs for your club. This means that as soon as the transfer is accepted by the other manager or AI, it is usually completed within 24 hours.

If we allowed ANY manager to offer terms to ANY player, the period in which your transfer was accepted to completed would be extended by at least 48 hours.

The reasons for this is as follows - Your transfer would be accepted by the other club (24 hours). You would then have to offer personal terms to the incoming player. If he accepts this contract offer straight away, then he would join you in another 24 hours (taking the total transfer time to 48 hours). What if the player rejected your contract offer due to the wage being to low, contract length being to short etc? The you will have to submit another offer, and IF that is accepted it would have taken you 36 hours to sign the player. IF he rejects your second contract offer you are talking about 36 hours plus! Would people want this?

Second Point: There will be some managers who offer ludicrous contracts to ANY one of their players, and this will have several knock-on-effects. Firstly he might struggle to sell the player on if he his on a mamouth contract. In real-life this happened to Chelsea and they could not sell Ballack during the summer (Real baulked at his wages). Secondly some clubs could plummet into debt if they are allowed to negotiate their own wages.

Third Point: There will be a minority who will ruin it for the majority.

Fourth Point: If you want to get technical on contracts, how technical do you want it to become? You could start adding things like signing -on fees, minimum release clauses, relegation release clauses, percentage of next sale etc. Whilst a lot of managers might appreciate this, again think of the knock-on effect. Signing on fees would eat into your transfer budget, minimum release clauses could cripple lower league clubs, percentage of next sale could be picked up by the next manager as old manager left etc.

Fifth Point: If ANY manager were allowed to negotiate a contract, a wage budget would have to be introduced to try and limit clubs expenditure.

First point-With signing the player, you should NOT be able to do contract negotiations, when you are signing him. This would make it easier then doing the 36 hours thing. But you should be able to only change their contract when they have two years left and this can just go back to my first post.

Second point- As I said, the SM chairman should give the LEAST that the player will accept and the MOST that you are allowed to accept for that player, so that the club does not does not fall into debt and prevent cheating.

Third Point- True, but name me one part of the game where you cannot cheat??? This strict rules that I have said may prevent cheating.

Fourth Point- As I said, I wouldn't want clauses and signing on fees as it is too complex, but all I want is 2 options. How many years and How much?

Fifth Point-Answered this in the second point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

This is the amazing thing about contracts and the quote above:

What do they actually do?

Are they just to make Soccer Manager look better? Or do they actually have a point to it?

This is my suggestion:

I think that at the moment contracts do not have any say in the game. If we can make the contracts more realistic' date=' it would make the game even better.

Right, now this is where my suggestion really comes in.

When a player has two years left on his contract, and only then, is the manager allowed to negotiate a new one. He should be able to have a wider variety in contracts, so not only how many years, but also how much the player should be paid. Contract clauses are over too complex for the time being.

Someone like Kaka, you cannot offer something like 10k and expect him to accept, so therefore when you choose how much you pay the player, the SM Chairman tells you, just like he would for transfers, what is the least amount of money that Kaka would accept. This will not only improve the game, but also give you more of a say in finances. Another thing is that we will have less complaints that so and so is being paid 70k, and therefore my club is in debt, because using my way, they cannot really blame SM but themselves for the finances.

I still think that even if the above is placed , there should be another improvement.

When the 2 years left has come for a player, and if their morale is any lower than average and they have not played often enough, they should refuse any offer, unless it is high and ask for a transfer out of the club.

They still have to complete the contract years left, but here comes the tricky part. The manager can sell the unwanted player when the first of the two years left has gone for a good price, but if the manager decides to keep the player for the last year in his contract, the player is allowed to leave but only on a [b']FREE [/b]transfer.

Think of it this way. The game would not only become betetr with both suggestions, but it will be a ton more realistic and will make the contracts a hundred times MORE useful.

All opinions appreciated.:)

I asked for the Bosman rule to be implemented long ago since it would make contracts realistic, and I think it is a very good idea since it would make contracts realistic.

Also I would think that offering a player contract would be great but also very hard and I think the wage for the players are a bit unrealistic atm since Gerrard, Kaka etc. only get like 75,000 pounds a week while in real life, it is around 120,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

Ok here goes first post.

I myself, since I have been playing S/M have always found contracts to be pretty pointless, not only because the players you own never reject the contracts you offer them - regardless of wether they always play or they never play, and this doesnt make much sense to me considering the fact the game is trying to accomplish realism.

The above is only one reason, next is another. Why does the club send you a message saying a certain players contracts are expiring, and that the player will be released if a contract is offered? This isn't the case at all, the player stays in your squad and i do believe an automated contract is offered so the player just stays where he is. What IS the point in this?

I think S/M have just about cracked everything as regards to realism throughout the game, but contracts I feel have always been a weak link. There are plenty of new excellent improvements arriving weekly to the game and this is excellent. But there are still a few more nuts and crannies that could be bumped as far as realism is concerned.

Just my opinion, but thats what we are here for right :) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

We have had this debate before and I will quickly just state our position.

Firstly we are all for realism and in principle are in favour of adding extra contract interaction into the game. However there is always a trade off between realism, usability, cheat prevention and protecting clubs.

The point of offering a player a contract when signing is a good idea but has a few drawbacks. As many people know a transfer takes a while to complete due to the game being online and not all managers on at the same time. Make bid-> wait for response (may take a while)-> accepted/negotiated/rejected-> completed. Adding in a contract negotiation section with a player adds an extra layer to this process thus making it longer.

And what benefit would this extra layer accomplish?

"Your chairman tells you Kaka will accept £65k or more and wants a 3 year contract." You then offer £65k (who would offer more?) and this would be the same amount as if the process would be automated as it currently is.

The other point about contracts expiring and players leaving on a free is, in principle, a good idea and one which we have considered. But what happens if a manger takes over Man Utd and just lets Rooney's contract run out in order to either a) ruin Utd or try and buy him from another team?

Or a manager is a bit 'silly' or lazy and just ignores his warnings that players contracts are running out and ends up with a squad of 7 players?

The other point about players being unhappy as they are not being played and not signing contracts is open to the same abuse. A manger deliberately ruining a club by not playing players in order to make them unhappy and leave.

However, currently in the game good players not playing do get unhappy but we will be improving this to enhance the effects and also possibly so they do ask to be transfer listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

I totally agree with John on this one too although Tevez made some good points, good first post Tev.

Id like to point out from Johns post that people have to realise this game is an online based simulation, thus, managers are not on all the time and in turn making the transfer process a lot longer as stated, and this would sort of contradict the fact that SM have recently tried to speed up the whole transfer process?

As for players being released on a free, that could cause outrageous consequences as John also said, a manager could take over man utd, and just let the likes of Rooney, Ronaldo, Ferdinand get released once their contracts are up so a friend, or himself as another team could snap them up for a lot cheaper.

But what Tevez also said is correct in his post. The fact that a club does receive a message saying that a player will get released if he is not offered a contract does tell a porky pie so what is the point of having it there? Just have a warning to the manager as you have in place now - stating that players a,b,c,d ... x etc are in their last x months of contract and a new contract needs to be offered or an automated 1 year rolling contract deal will be offered?

Good posts though, and some good points - especially the enhancement of low morale features whereby players ask to be transfer listed, or maybe even loan listed for a spell of first team football? That would be excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

We have had this debate before and I will quickly just state our position.

Firstly we are all for realism and in principle are in favour of adding extra contract interaction into the game. However there is always a trade off between realism' date=' usability, cheat prevention and protecting clubs.

The point of offering a player a contract when signing is a good idea but has a few drawbacks. As many people know a transfer takes a while to complete due to the game being online and not all managers on at the same time. Make bid-> wait for response (may take a while)-> accepted/negotiated/rejected-> completed. Adding in a contract negotiation section with a player adds an extra layer to this process thus making it longer.

And what benefit would this extra layer accomplish?

"Your chairman tells you Kaka will accept £65k or more and wants a 3 year contract." You then offer £65k (who would offer more?) and this would be the same amount as if the process would be automated as it currently is.

The other point about contracts expiring and players leaving on a free is, in principle, a good idea and one which we have considered. But what happens if a manger takes over Man Utd and just lets Rooney's contract run out in order to either a) ruin Utd or try and buy him from another team?

Or a manager is a bit 'silly' or lazy and just ignores his warnings that players contracts are running out and ends up with a squad of 7 players?

The other point about players being unhappy as they are not being played and not signing contracts is open to the same abuse. A manger deliberately ruining a club by not playing players in order to make them unhappy and leave.

However, currently in the game good players not playing do get unhappy but we will be improving this to enhance the effects and also possibly so they do ask to be transfer listed.[/quote']

Ok if you had read my third post or so on this thread, I have explained your query:

First point-With signing the player, you should NOT be able to do contract negotiations, when you are signing him. This would make it easier then doing the 36 hours thing. But you should be able to only change their contract when they have two years left and this can just go back to my first post.

Ok second point you mentioned is a toughie, but nothing is impossible. Maybe when a new manager comes in the players restore their contracts immediately without any question An easier option I believe.

With the manager being lazy, who would want to lose their best players??? Seriously, if they are lazy that's their choice, they will lose their best players. And his squad siz cannot go less than 18.;)

The point about player's being unhappy. Maybe I should change that and make it clearer. If the player's morale is poor, very poor or terrible they should be able to leave. If it is Adequate, average, good etc, they sign a new contract as they do now.

And the last point, it looks like you will improve it anyways.

Here is my final plan for contracts, bit like first one but some differences:

You should not be able to do contract talks when the player is signing, as it is too complex.

When a player has two years left on his contract, and only then, is the manager allowed to negotiate a new one. He should be able to have a wider variety in contracts, so not only how many years, but also how much the player should be paid. Contract clauses are also over too complex for the time being.

Someone like Kaka, you cannot offer something like 10k and expect him to accept, so therefore when you choose how much you pay the player, the SM Chairman tells you, just like he would for transfers, what is the least amount of money that Kaka would accept. This will not only improve the game, but also give you more of a say in finances. Another thing is that we will have less complaints that so and so is being paid 70k, and therefore my club is in debt, because using my way, they cannot really blame SM but themselves for the finances.

I still think that even if the above is placed , there should be another improvement.

When the 2 years left has come for a player, and if their morale is poor or lower and they have not played often enough, they should be able to refuse any offer, unless it is high and ask for a transfer out of the club.

They still have to complete the contract years left, but here comes the tricky part. The manager can sell the unwanted player when the first of the two years left has gone for a good price, but if the manager decides to keep the player for the last year in his contract, the player is allowed to leave but only on a FREE transfer. I a new manager comes in, and Rooney for example is just about to leave, then he restores a contract for 3 years for the new manager.

Think of it this way. The game would not only become betetr with both suggestions, but it will be a ton more realistic and will make the contracts a hundred times MORE useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

Eve Alan Jnr likes the idea' date=' he repped me.:D[/quote']

Yep he does have his funny side sometimes.:D

What do they actually do?

Are they just to make Soccer Manager look better? Or do they actually have a point to it?

This is my suggestion:

I think that at the moment contracts do not have any say in the game. If we can make the contracts more realistic' date=' it would make the game even better.[/quote']

Will dispute this because they do play certain parts and the parts they play also play a part in the game .

1. Offer a new contract and it can have an affect on that players morale .

2. Main part though that can save you a lot of money in this game is knowing how your player is doing in real life or any youngster etc,if you think could be going up in rating you will put them on a long one ,if going down then a short one etc .

So even though there not major in your eyes its still a part so wrong to say contracts do nothing .

I have saved a fortune in wages for my small clubs as well as big by taking a gamble on what length to give players.

Right' date=' now this is where my suggestion really comes in.

When a player has two years left on his contract, and only then, is the manager allowed to negotiate a new one. He should be able to have a wider variety in contracts, so not only how many years, but also how much the player should be paid. Contract clauses are over too complex for the time being.[/quote']

How are they too complex at moment ,you can only put them from 2-5 yrs how complex is that ,also no way do managers decide how much is paid will not go into depth on here for this part because had these debates already plenty of time in past ,think one of these threads was where i dug Stegores up from .

Someone like Kaka' date=' you cannot offer something like 10k and expect him to accept, so therefore when you choose how much you pay the player, the SM Chairman tells you, just like he would for transfers, what is the least amount of money that Kaka would accept. This will not only improve the game, but also give you more of a say in finances. Another thing is that we will have less complaints that so and so is being paid 70k, and therefore my club is in debt, because using my way, they cannot really blame SM but themselves for the finances.[/quote']

Youve just answered why this is also a no go for me ,for one anyone in their right mind will pick the lowest what the chairman says ,if then you can get rejected on this and need to go higher depending on what max is set then its too much hassle ,its bad enough members coming on now moaning because transfers dont go through first time without this extra burden ,we will be wanting to offer special bonuses,houses ,cars etc like they already do on some rubbish footie on line games .

As for blaming SM for debt you cant even now if you are in debt or use the contracts as based now for reasons,i took over a Bristol rovers side in Div 3 ,

14 mill in debt and reason last manager had overloaded with old high rated players ,so wage bill out of this world .

Its not contracts as they stand at the moment that put teams in debt its just managers that dont concern their selves with this side of game ,take Kaka who you mention do you think a lot of youngsters care if his wages take their club in debt if it means getting hold of him ,dont think so ,but would they like to set his wages :D

[quote name=Pièce de résistance;189621

When the 2 years left has come for a player' date=' and if their morale is any lower than average and they have not played often enough, they should refuse any offer, unless it is high and ask for a transfer out of the club.

They still have to complete the contract years left, but here comes the tricky part. The manager can sell the unwanted player when the first of the two years left has gone for a good price, but if the manager decides to keep the player for the last year in his contract, the player is allowed to leave but only on a FREE transfer.

Will get my backing on part of this ,always have said need to stop teams hogging all top players knowing full well majority will not play ,so i am all for players refusing contracts and moving on,but like Steve and John said this will not be easily achieved or implemented for reasons given ,but that dosnt mean it should be a get out statement because unless they are in the youth Squad then they should have to play certain ammount of games so a solution needs to be found some how ,i wouldnt set my sights on any early change on this side of things .:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

Yeah I did rep but more for the thought and time you put into your suggestion.

I have always been against managers offering any kind of wage to there players it would totaly ruin the game, it happens on most online games if people were battling for a players sig they would just offer stupid amounts to get him then that club would plumet into debt that manager would quit and the club would prob stay unmanaged.

I do agree there should be more to contracts I think if a manager lets a players contract run out then something should happen say if the player is a certain amount of points over the squad average rating (IE hes letting a very good player go) maybe the chairman should re-sign the contract himself stating that the player is 2 important to let go and deduct X amount for a signing on fee.

if the player is below the squad average rating he should just leave on a free or whatever.

I think all the points against managers doing players contracts by made by SM in the past (most of which have been listed on this thread) are excellent ones.

contracts & stadium upgrades (when avil) should always be somewhat automated to save the game been ruined like most others.

SM is top off the footie manager games and needs to stay there by not following the mistakes other sites have made imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Contracts? Pointless or useful?

Yep he does have his funny side sometimes.:D

Will dispute this because they do play certain parts and the parts they play also play a part in the game .

1. Offer a new contract and it can have an affect on that players morale .

2. Main part though that can save you a lot of money in this game is knowing how your player is doing in real life or any youngster etc' date='if you think could be going up in rating you will put them on a long one ,if going down then a short one etc .

So even though there not major in your eyes its still a part so wrong to say contracts do nothing .

I have saved a fortune in wages for my small clubs as well as big by taking a gamble on what length to give players.

Youve just answered why this is also a no go for me ,for one anyone in their right mind will pick the lowest what the chairman says ,if then you can get rejected on this and need to go higher depending on what max is set then its too much hassle ,its bad enough members coming on now moaning because transfers dont go through first time without this extra burden ,we will be wanting to offer special bonuses,houses ,cars etc like they already do on some rubbish footie on line games .

As for blaming SM for debt you cant even now if you are in debt or use the contracts as based now for reasons,i took over a Bristol rovers side in Div 3 ,

14 mill in debt and reason last manager had overloaded with old high rated players ,so wage bill out of this world .

Its not contracts as they stand at the moment that put teams in debt its just managers that dont concern their selves with this side of game ,take Kaka who you mention do you think a lot of youngsters care if his wages take their club in debt if it means getting hold of him ,dont think so ,but would they like to set his wages :D

Will get my backing on part of this ,always have said need to stop teams hogging all top players knowing full well majority will not play ,so i am all for players refusing contracts and moving on,but like Steve and John said this will not be easily achieved or implemented for reasons given ,but that dosnt mean it should be a get out statement because unless they are in the youth Squad then they should have to play certain ammount of games

[b']How are they too complex at moment ,you can only put them from 2-5 yrs how complex is that ,also no way do managers decide how much is paid will not go into depth on here for this part because had these debates already plenty of time in past ,think one of these threads was where i dug Stegores up from . [/b]

so a solution needs to be found some how ,i wouldnt set my sights on any early change on this side of things .:)

What I meant was adding contract clauses like signing on fees is complex, not what we have now :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...