Ideas & Suggested Improvements: Player Contracts & Transfer Offers

July 31st, 2008 by SM Dev (ste)

In real-life when a football player moves between two clubs the move is never simple and straightforward.

A popular suggestion which we receive is in relation to player contracts and transfer offers. The idea centres around expanding and building on the current transfer system which is in place. The various suggestions we have received want more options in relation to a transfer offer, and also the ability to offer a player a contract (instead of the chairman doing it on your behalf).

At this moment in time when you submit a transfer offer there are only three options being:

Straight cash offer;
Player part-exchange;
Player part-exchange and cash.

So what are the suggestions we have received to build on what is currently on offer in relation to tranfers? Well as we well know certain transfers can be broken down into multiple payments, contain various clauses or additional fees. Some examples of more complex transfers are as follows:

Percentage of next sale e.g. selling clubs to receive 20% of next transfer fee;
Buy back price e.g. will sell the player for £10m but want the option to buy him back at future date for £28m;
Monthly installments e.g pay £10m upfront and then £2m per month for the next six months;
After league appearances e.g pay £10m upfront and then £2.5m afer 50 appearances;
Per leauge appearance e.g pay £10m upfront and then £50,000 per appearance upto 50 appearances;
Min. no of goals e.g pay £10m upfront and then £2.5m after the player has scored 20 league goals;
After promotion e.g pay £10m upfront and then £2.5 after the clubs gains promotion.

So what are the suggestions we have received in relation to player contracts? Well as we well know player contracts could be more complex, and contain various clauses or bonuses. Some examples of more complex transfers are as follows:

Salary e.g. the player receives £10,000 per turn;
Squad status e.g. the player will be used in a squad rotation system (which could impact on their morale if you go back on your word);
Transfer date e.g. the transfer is to take place at the end of the current season;
Contract length e.g 5 year contract;
Signing on fee e.g the player receives £1m on signing;
Appearance fee e.g the player receives £10,000 per appearance;
Goal bonus e.g the player receives £10,000 per goal scored;
Assist bonus e.g the player receives £10,000 per assist;
Min. fee release clause e.g the club must accept an offer for the player if it is over £2.5m;
Relegation release clause e.g. the player is allowed to leave the club if they are relegated;
Non-promotion release clause e.g. the player is allowed to leave the club if they fail to gain promotion.

The above are only a handful of ideas which we have received, and the question now is how they would be implemented into the game and what impact it would have?
Please Note: Do not contact SM Support in relation to this topic as your ticket will be closed as this article is in relation to suggestions members of our community have sent in.

Bookmark this:
Add 'Ideas & Suggested Improvements: Player Contracts & Transfer Offers' to Del.icio.us

Del.icio.us Add 'Ideas & Suggested Improvements: Player Contracts & Transfer Offers' to digg

digg

Add 'Ideas & Suggested Improvements: Player Contracts & Transfer Offers' to reddit

Facebook

Add 'Ideas & Suggested Improvements: Player Contracts & Transfer Offers' to Technorati

Technorati Add 'Ideas & Suggested Improvements: Player Contracts & Transfer Offers' to Stumble Upon

Stumble Upon

Translate into:

Posted in: Ideas & Suggested Improvements

Previous / Next Articles

Which Scouting Technique is More Skillful? Ideas & Suggested Improvements: Replace Friendlies With Reserve Games

41 Comments Add your own

1. Snowy4Liverpool | July 31st, 2008 at 3:35 pm

I think this is a great idea, and would really improve SM
2. adzs | July 31st, 2008 at 3:44 pm

i like the idea of a buying back clause in a transfer…..it would work wonders if u sell a youth player for 850k with the option to buy him back for a million….and then if he becomes a 90 something you are getting a quality player for a more than bargain price……this would split the good managers from the average ones and could also be used for the player rating system….on the other hand a percentage of sell on clause would be a waste of time considering the 32 turn transfer ban of a recently transfered player….one more idea….i think it would make the game more interesting if this happened - when a player is going to become a free agent there is a list (like a loan list) of upcoming free agents…this would allow rival clubs to negotiate an early deal with the player (like ac Milan and flamini agreed a deal b4 the end of the season), and also test the players current manager in a sense of financial security (has the manager got a financial plan for re-signing free agents) and also test his squad strength (has he got back up players for if he lost a player to a rival)..this could also be used for the manager rating system instead of ratings going up weekly…as a manager might be a level 100 but absolutely hopeless as a manager.
Thanks for reading this (very long) comment lol
3. musty | July 31st, 2008 at 3:53 pm

what if u decide to pay £10m for example staright up and £2.5m after 20 league goals, but at that time the club doesnt have £2.5m?
4. Andrew B | July 31st, 2008 at 4:14 pm

good idea and i am sure soccer manager can manage it!
5. f ootball | July 31st, 2008 at 4:26 pm

I like that Adzs guys idea……as a very competitive person myself this would give SM that extra edge and excitement…and it would keep managers constantly on their toes and on the look out
great idea mate
6. Jack Davies | July 31st, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Awful idea and would leave managers taking over a club having to deal with any stupid deals the previous manager put in place.

Say i hv a young 90ish rated player whos worth 15 million. I want to sell for that value to fund the purchase of another player.

I wanted 15 million for him, which is a fair price and which i am offered for him HOWEVER there is a 20% clause on the players transfer fee, which would leave me with 12 million. I do not believe 12 million is good value for this player so i dont sell him.

I dont sell this player, so i dont get the money to buy the other player.

Result: Transfer system grinds to an embarrasing halt…

Plus if u sell that player in a P/E deal then u cant get 20% of the player you received! I wouldnt get Flamini’s arm if i bought him with that player. That would just be stupid!
7. tony beddows | July 31st, 2008 at 4:31 pm

its difficult enough dealing with some managers as it is
without making it more complicated.
a bonus on eg 20 app then the guys sells after 19
a bonus on 20 goals then the guy sells on 19
this may happen. also managers may quit clubs leaveing massive ongoing bills to the next manager
8. Toggs | July 31st, 2008 at 4:36 pm

I think the transfer bid ideas are good but SM shouldnt go too in-depth with the contracts.
9. adzs | July 31st, 2008 at 4:38 pm

yh but the deal went through didn’t it…this game is meant to be realistic..and this is added realism….somehow i dnt see Carlo ancelotti (manager of ac Milan) getting worried about the mess he’ll be leaving his replacement….at the end of the day if a manager decides to take over a club then its their responsibility to know what they r getting themselves into…unlucky jack but Ur theory just got proven wrong lol
10. Fhd | July 31st, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Silly idea. Don’t make transfers complicated. Keep them as they are.
I’m afraid SM will become too detailed and complicated and weighed down with realism. At the end of the day, this is just a game….It will get to the stage where it becomes very time consuming to manage even one club properly never mind quite a few clubs if your a Gold Member.

Just my opinion, if anyone else doesn’t like it then go and jump
11. matty | July 31st, 2008 at 5:45 pm

i personally think things are great just the way they are and wouldnt change them… sometimes simpler is better
12. Anthony | July 31st, 2008 at 5:55 pm

i like the sound of azds suggestion of having a list of players who’s contract is ending soon because i see plenty of players who’s contracts are ending but always forget about them.
13. Stevey D | July 31st, 2008 at 6:00 pm

i want the game to be realistic as well as easy and not complicated. I guess you can’t have both though.
I have to say I like the game the way it is but wouldn’t mind a small change here and there.
14. JG | July 31st, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Im with Tonys on this, its prone to fiddling with and its meant to be A GAME!

Contracts are a complete no, there fine as they are.

I still dislike this transfer thing but i can see it getting implemented, so hey ho….yet more hassle trying to get a transfer through just for it to get rejected by the chairman

Plus, all these added extras are just going to give the chairman more to block deals for…..
15. pedro | July 31st, 2008 at 6:04 pm

i agree with matty, things are very well are they are, it will only make things harder and it will make transfers harder to be made
16. Stevie D | July 31st, 2008 at 6:07 pm

here Stevey D u stole my name

i think Adzs is 100% right, well done
17. Rich | July 31st, 2008 at 6:17 pm

These ideas are in theory good ones but as FHD said we all know that the cheaters within the game, and indeed many who might not have cheated before but feel the compulsion to in the case of paying for someone after 20 apps only to sell him at 19, well it will happen it’s a dead cert unfortunatly.

Good ideas, but putting them in place is a non-starter. The actions currently in place already make the transfer market a ridiculous and unpleasent experience, anything like this will only make it worse.

I’d love to have something like it incorporated but it just wouldnt work. I suppose you could apply some of these actions but then, why do it half ar$ed.
18. tebthereb | July 31st, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Seems pointless to me to add most of those suggestions. The transfer system is generally very good already, just the loan system is a bit limited. The reason I dislike most of these ideas is, as touched on by others, people will just tie clubs up in debt before leaving. Managers in SM come and go far more than in real life or in a PC game so I don’t think SM should try and match reality/other games in all aspects.
19. nikkis | July 31st, 2008 at 6:55 pm

this is amazin idea…but wat wud b perfect is 2 make the tactics more advanced…not jst subs n teamstyle….wat i say is like we put 4 subs…the same 4 formation….E.G. IF WINNING AFTER 60 MIN…change my formation frm 4-4-2 v.attacking to 4-4-2 devensive…n other stuff like tht..wud make the game the best!!
20. chris palmer | July 31st, 2008 at 7:00 pm

All these ideas are taken from football manager
21. Sleeps | July 31st, 2008 at 7:02 pm

I agree with matty……the current format is great as it is…….I wouldn’t change a thing.
22. shane | July 31st, 2008 at 8:07 pm

why not have no free agents and place them into teams within the setups with not many players in the team. that way make it harder for teams to beat them when some teams have 18 players all unfit after a few games
23. Johan Cruyff | July 31st, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Big problem will always be the managers. In champ or football manager(PC game) all teams hav managers. On SM managers drop out left right and centre. In theory its gr8 pratical i cant see it working.
24. Johan Cruyff | July 31st, 2008 at 8:28 pm

And on PC games there only one ’setup’. Sm hav lots of setups. Or wat about letting umanaged teams(english setup lets say Hull is unmanaged an then they make transfers) in ur setup buy players?
25. Luke Sefton (forum) | July 31st, 2008 at 8:42 pm

I think it should be left as it is. This would make it too complicated IMO. Like mentioned, managers come and go more often on SM that RL.
26. Wunna | July 31st, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Definitely, all the new transfer ideas would leave the clubs in massive debts with managers buying a lot of players with (only 2 mil or 3 mil right now) and then using something like installments. Then, that manager quit leaving the club with a massive debt and no new manager will want to take control of the club.

The same goals for paying based on appearance and goals. The new complicated system will be more subject to abuse by the few minority.

But I like the idea about contracts i must say. Clauses like “Release if relegated” would make more players available in the market after each season. Also with bonuses for each goal/assist should come the higher morale for the player

Also, more loan options should be great such as “buy at the end of the season clause”. Loan system should be improved first, imo
27. Wunna | July 31st, 2008 at 9:04 pm

I think the proposed transfer options would be more subject to abuse by a few minority: making a lot of purchases with installments and quitting the club when it is in debt.

But I like some of the ideas regarding contracts. Clauses such as “release if relegated” would make more players available in the market after each season. But there should be a limit though. If all players are on “release if relegated’ clause and if the club is relegated, the whole team will be released so should limit to like 3 or 5 or something like that.

Also the loan system should be improved first with options such as “paying a fee so that the player cannot be recalled until the end of the season” or “buying at the end of the season” and things like that.
28. Chris McLean | July 31st, 2008 at 11:27 pm

All the ideas may be from other games, but we have to remember, that these ideas actually happen in real - life, and it happens there then it can only improve the game and make it more realistic. One of the best ideas i think SM can introduce, even better than the stadium building in my opinion
29. alonso2007 | August 1st, 2008 at 5:09 am

#
# Min. fee release clause e.g the club must accept an offer for the player if it is over £2.5m;
# Relegation release clause e.g. the player is allowed to leave the club if they are relegated;
# Non-promotion release clause e.g. the player is allowed to leave the club if they fail to gain promotion.

i think these clauses will have a bad effect on the game as its a computer game

even if a club matches the release clause of a player many times a player in real life won’t leave. How do we decide that in the game ?

& the 2nd & 3rd rule will lessen the no. of people who take small clubs by even more as they will risk losing several good players whom they have bought over time
30. Jamie Todoroski (Chatroom) | August 1st, 2008 at 7:55 am

Dont like this idea really,
Its fine as is. No need to complcate
something that is great in its simpliest form.
31. ash | August 1st, 2008 at 9:53 am

great idea bring it on !! !! !!
32. Stuart | August 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Brilliant
33. Adam H | August 1st, 2008 at 6:44 pm

No its just getting far too ‘literal’.

This would make SM far to difficult on the whole, maybe some of the contract ideas raised wouldnt be too bad but the transfer ideas are ridiculus.

Eg. take the idea of paying a fee upfront then having to pay more money at a later date for whatever reason, well some managers are going to completely mis-use this idea and it will be like they will want £50 mil upfront then £50 mil at a later date, and some managers already make life difficult as it is making ridiculus negotiations for players (not ruling out myself ;))

Like matty sa earlier, simpler may be better.
34. sas786 | August 1st, 2008 at 10:29 pm

BRILLIANT IDEA!!! since ive started getting use to sm i feel that the game has devloped since i first joined. After playing so many championship manager or football manager games ive been putting in many posts of this sorts so that i can either sell on or purchase players with different transfer methods

WELL DONE SM! BRILLIANT IDEA!
35. Kieran | August 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Bad idea this is! ..
Too confusing for people & you’ve gotta understand that there’s young kids on here so they wont have a clue.
It’ll just make it more complicated.
I say leave the transfers as it is!
36. volkan | August 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 pm

I think most of the ideas are great but the inner contracts deals like various clauses or bonuses are bad as i like thi game as it is easy to check. I like the idea of paying some then paying the rest after. But on that idea i think you should put a limit on how little you can put on.
37. alex bardsley | August 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 am

i like it but 6 months is far to long . a season in most leagues only last a 2-3 months and after lets say 5 months ( thats a new season) you may get confused why you have just lost a bit of money .
38. Drafz | August 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm

please soccermanager dont do it. it will make the game too complicated. the current system makes soccermanger what it is. mint.
39. Batman | August 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Think this idea is going to be 50/50 with the masses. It would make transfers more interesting but as what has been previously mentioned, the problem is existing deals at a club you might take over, I wouldn’t want to lose a good player to a minimal buy back clause agreed by the previous manager, then again could that scenario not happen in real life when a club sacks it’s manager and gets a new one? Could present new challenges, but I’m on the fence with this one can’t decide too many pro’s and con’s, but I do think the transfer system needs tweaked mainly due to managers ignoring bids (although I am guilty for this sometimes) and ridiculous couter-offers, an example from today - to buy Fabregas a manager wanted £99 mil + Arshavin + Ballack hmmmm don’t think my chairman would allow that.
40. dave | August 4th, 2008 at 5:05 am

I like the idea.

but anyway, why cant we snap up “free agents” for free??
41. Sharpy | August 4th, 2008 at 11:29 am

i think these ideas would def make it feel more like a comp game imo. i like SM as it is transfer wise but i do agree on the “free agents” idea, we shld have a free agent list and actually get the player for free although that would prob mean bringing in a simplified version of the contract ideas to implement it!