Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 16:06:42 GMT
This afternoon got me thinking a bit when I looked at my 64 PDF regarding signing on fees.
As far as I'm aware any normal contract (excluding OOC which is programmed differently I think) is 10% of the players value. I'm sure I've seen it discussed previously people saying it's that, which is fine.
So anyway today I offered contracts to the following:
11991 Dan-Axel Zagadou ( 20 / 79 ) agrees contract with Scarborough of £9,000
13578 Joshua Kimmich ( 25 / 84 ) agrees contract with Scarborough of £36,500
16105 Marc Andre ter Stegen( 28 / 86 ) agrees contract with Scarborough of £72,000
12282 Jadon Sancho ( 20 / 83 ) agrees contract with Scarborough of £21,500
Values of the players are 5.02m, 28.2mil, 50mil, 40.09m which equals a grand total of £123.31mil. No issues, I paid signing on fees of £12.3mil which backs up the 10% of value. No problems to the moneybags at Scarborough.
WHICH GOT ME THINKING...
I've seen certain players in games that are clearly undertrained from DB, as seen them fully trained in the new game 19.
Now,I know some people generally retrain like Sadio Mane was an 87ov ATT in G64 worth 71mil ish. Thats a 7.1mil signing on fee going by my calcuations. He's recenrlt been retrained to a MID, think hes at 84ov (clearly trying to train back up) but his value is now 25.56mil.
Now, I know he'll still request his 87ov wage of 120k a week plus BUT what happens to the 10% signing on fee if his value has now dropped by 50mil? Does he only need to pay 2.5mil as opposed to 7.1mil? Then when contract time comes retrain back to an ATT? This is just an example, I know the manager is trying to retrain back to 87ov. But plenty of other examples out there.
Just got me thinking, I've seen other players kept low with low values when like 82/83 in the new game? Surely you'd train your player to the highest potential overall you can?
Thoughts? Anyone able to clarify that they have indeed trained/kept a player on a low value so his siging on fee is lower?
As far as I'm aware any normal contract (excluding OOC which is programmed differently I think) is 10% of the players value. I'm sure I've seen it discussed previously people saying it's that, which is fine.
So anyway today I offered contracts to the following:
11991 Dan-Axel Zagadou ( 20 / 79 ) agrees contract with Scarborough of £9,000
13578 Joshua Kimmich ( 25 / 84 ) agrees contract with Scarborough of £36,500
16105 Marc Andre ter Stegen( 28 / 86 ) agrees contract with Scarborough of £72,000
12282 Jadon Sancho ( 20 / 83 ) agrees contract with Scarborough of £21,500
Values of the players are 5.02m, 28.2mil, 50mil, 40.09m which equals a grand total of £123.31mil. No issues, I paid signing on fees of £12.3mil which backs up the 10% of value. No problems to the moneybags at Scarborough.
WHICH GOT ME THINKING...
I've seen certain players in games that are clearly undertrained from DB, as seen them fully trained in the new game 19.
Now,I know some people generally retrain like Sadio Mane was an 87ov ATT in G64 worth 71mil ish. Thats a 7.1mil signing on fee going by my calcuations. He's recenrlt been retrained to a MID, think hes at 84ov (clearly trying to train back up) but his value is now 25.56mil.
Now, I know he'll still request his 87ov wage of 120k a week plus BUT what happens to the 10% signing on fee if his value has now dropped by 50mil? Does he only need to pay 2.5mil as opposed to 7.1mil? Then when contract time comes retrain back to an ATT? This is just an example, I know the manager is trying to retrain back to 87ov. But plenty of other examples out there.
Just got me thinking, I've seen other players kept low with low values when like 82/83 in the new game? Surely you'd train your player to the highest potential overall you can?
Thoughts? Anyone able to clarify that they have indeed trained/kept a player on a low value so his siging on fee is lower?