One Time Bonus For Renewing Player's Contract Is Too Expensive

[Gert Funck]

I agree the Contract length is a problem since I think it should run from the day after it was due to expire. eg if I want to renew my players contracts on Day 28 or the following Day 1 or up to Day 6 or whatever it should be the same term i.e. from Day 1. (I'm happy to pay a little bit extra on Day 28 or before to avoid the 2/3* replacements. )

My gut reaction to the signing on fee is that its a non-issue at lower levels and it's not actually the real issue at higher levels, where I suspect its the imbalance between MV and wages that causes a problem.

But, I'd like to see some numbers rather than guess.

[Buffs Mad]

Thanks Gert. Clearly the bigger cash issue at your level is the balance between wages and value and the impact the 'rising' wages vs the 'almost-capped' Market Value.

For me the signing on fee is a constant (with MV) and no more significant than TM buy and sell variations.

[Gert Funck]

Thanks Gert. Clearly the bigger cash issue at your level is the balance between wages and value and the impact the 'rising' wages vs the 'almost-capped' Market Value.

For me the signing on fee is a constant (with MV) and no more significant than TM buy and sell variations.

Wages is clearly the biggest issue, and this is extreme because a sell can only provide two players salary. That said, it seems that the two economical packs from Nordeus has tweaked the balance . but player value vs. wage is still wrong IMO

[Buffs Mad]

Wages is clearly the biggest issue, and this is extreme because a sell can only provide two players salary. That said, it seems that the two economical packs from Nordeus has tweaked the balance . but player value vs. wage is still wrong IMO

+1 - but my point is the one time bonus signing on fee is a non-issue.

As soon as someone at your level signs a player, any non-FA player from the TM, they lose money because of the imbalance between the wage rise and MV rise and this would remain the case even if the sign-on bonus was zero.....I think.

[Tactician]

+1 - but my point is the one time bonus signing on fee is a non-issue.

As soon as someone at your level signs a player, any non-FA player from the TM, they lose money because of the imbalance between the wage rise and MV rise and this would remain the case even if the sign-on bonus was zero.....I think.

The wages for the new contracts are high also.

Maybe, if we were given the option to negotiate the value of the new wage and the bonus, it would be better.

[Buffs Mad]

The wages for the new contracts are high also.

Maybe, if we were given the option to negotiate the value of the new wage and the bonus, it would be better.

But at your level and a few levels below mine, you are getting what you pay for. That's the point. You won't experience the wage imbalance until you hit the Market Value capping. Your players MV will rise with Q as will their wages and bonus - they are fairly well balanced with relative increases.

EDIT: movedthis bit because itmade no sense in para below >.<

Costs a lot to renew but so does replacing. It does give you the choice of selling or renewing (a player who's performance is known) - management choice.

If you compare the cost of replacing an equivalent player or renewing at your level then its not punitive. At Gert's its a big blow and its not the bonus.

/EDIT

At Gert's level (and mine to a very small extent) the MV hardly moves and the sign-on fee is relatively static but the wage increases.

No idea how they could implement a negotiation mechanic without having some sort of penalty - if the player (by chance) rejects he might become ineligible to play/performance penalty/MV reduction etc. Its a nice idea but a minefield I think.

[Gert Funck]

..

I could add the impossibility to sell players resulting in extreme costly; ex 2 year contract => player value

[Tactician]

But at your level and a few levels below mine, you are getting what you pay for. That's the point. You won't experience the wage imbalance until you hit the Market Value capping. Your players MV will rise with Q as will their wages and bonus - they are fairly well balanced with relative increases.

At Gert's level (and mine to a very small extent) the MV hardly moves and the sign-on fee is relatively static but the wage increases. Costs a lot to renew but so does replacing. It does give you the choice of selling or renewing (a player who's performance is known) - management choice.

If you compare the cost of replacing an equivalent player or renewing at your level then its not punitive. At Gert's its a big blow and its not the bonus.

No idea how they could implement a negotiation mechanic without having some sort of penalty - if the player (by chance) rejects he might become ineligible to play/performance penalty/MV reduction etc. Its a nice idea but a minefield I think.

If the player rejects, you can still offer a better contract.

[Visionary S]

So He costs you half of his value.
58M

[Gert Funck]

So He costs you half of his value.
58M

Yes every season, and then double when his contract is renewed