A funny thing happened in transfer market

[nikolgiorgos]

So the lessons, I think, are these: ...

Well, I wrote about those cases so if you bother to read it all, you can find some useful tips.

How come one guy's salary did not adjust? Is it a bug, or is it because he was not at the end of his contract like his two buddies?

It's not a bug.
In theory, if one player is sold by his managers every time before the end of his contract, he can finish his t11 career with his 1st salary

[ponzu]

In theory, if one player is sold by his managers every time before the end of his contract, he can finish his t11 career with his 1st salary

But only if his Q never increases?

So, I read your value and salary guide which you helpfully linked in another thread. Let me see if I understand better what happened with my Chinese-made "superstars" turned flops.

To recap, they were 23 and 24 when I bought them. They had tiny salaries, played three positions each, and had SAs. They had fairly high values which suggested they were super fast trainers, but turned out to be just average trainers for me. And their salaries jumped when I bought them.

Their original owner must have bought them as 18 yo fast trainers. He poured all training into extra positions and SA, therefore never increasing either salary or Q, which probably helped his cup and league draws. He must have kept them for 5-6 years like that.

Question 1: how come their salary did not increased when he re-signed them? Possible answer: because salary only depends on Q and not on extra positions or SA, and their Q was not increasing.

It's not like he did not play them during the time he had them. They had quite impressive stats.

Their trainability diminished year over year and he decided to get rid of them.

Question 2: why was he selling them then, having invested so much time and SP into their roles and SA? Why not sell them sooner or later? How does this work from the standpoint of the original owner?

When I bought them, their salary went up to the more realistic number and the new ratio of value to salary reflected their true trainability, which was, by this point in their career, average.

Question 3: Why did their salary go up when I bought them, but not when the original owner (presumably) re-signed them in the 3rd year? This seems to contradict my assumptions about Question 1.

Question 4: Why did two players' salary go up and the third did not? I know HoofDaddy and nikolgiorgos tried answering that, but I am too dense. I understand from nikolgiorgos's guide that the salary is not supposed to increase if there is no increase in Q. Form this standpoint, it seems correct that one guy's salary did not increase. So why did the other two increase?

[ponzu]

A possible answer to Questions 3 and 4 is (see, I am thinking; I may not be learning, but at least I am thinking, and often out loud):

Having maxed out their roles and SA, the original owner did allow two players' Q to grow, so when I bought them, they were not at their original Q, but at an increased Q. The third player was still at the original Q that the owner acquired him.