The cost to renew a player's contract is expensive; it is required to pay an amount (so called bonus) equivalent to 10% the value of the player. The contract length is only 2 years.
The total amount required for renewing a group of players contracts which are about to expire is a significant amount.
The increase in wage is also too much.
I agree, this should only be the case when signing/buying a new player, not on renewal of contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
As it is now it is 10% extremely expensive :rolleyes:
Like it is now, renewing a player's contract is as if buying the player again from the market. Maybe this is why many users sell their players after 2 seasons and buy other players.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. ;)
Unfortunately, I need another player to complete a true picture with the numbers, but at my level (18) there is no real difference between renewing a young fast training OOC 5* player and selling him to buy an equivalent new one.
The cost of renewing the contracts of 5 players at my level is a significant amount (and I have) but it is no more significant than replacing them like for like.
The game centres around token use, ofc they will encourage use of them.
this has nothing to do with tokens :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoofDaddy
It will if the user has not enough money (and don't know or don't want to use free signings as a source of revenue), but he wants to keep his current players who their current contract have expired or are about to expire. And, even if the user let the players go, he will have to buy other decent players from the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gert Funck
Attachment 50703Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gert Funck
For me the signing on fee is a constant (with MV) and no more significant than TM buy and sell variations.
http://i59.tinypic.com/20gfuk3.jpg
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 :o. but player value vs. wage is still wrong IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by Buffs Mad
+1 - but my point is the one time bonus signing on fee is a non-issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gert Funck
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffs Mad
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
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.
I could add the impossibility to sell players resulting in extreme costly; ex 2 year contract => player value :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffs Mad
If the player rejects, you can still offer a better contract. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Buffs Mad
So He costs you half of his value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gert Funck
58M
Yes every season, and then double when his contract is renewed:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionary S
I agree that re-signing fee is not the largest financial problem. I rather suggest lowering win bonus to players. If I am careless, this can silently eat my cash.
