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

[Tactician]

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.

[Gert Funck]

The cost to renew a player's contract is very expensive; it is required to pay an amount (so called bonus) equivalent to the value of the player. This is unrealistic.

I agree, this should only be the case when signing/buying a new player, not on renewal of contract.

As it is now it is 10% extremely expensive

[Tactician]

I agree, this should only be the case when signing/buying a new player, not on renewal of contract.

As it is now it is 10% extremely expensive

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.

[Buffs Mad]

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.

[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.

[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