Financial stability of the Top Clubs

FC Viitorul Constanta wrote:

I just wanted to make a point in this thread that this game is not setup for competitive play unless you trade or have a ton of capital that you eventually get from trading. While in reality most financing is from sponsors, competition prizes in champions league or premier leagues, and stadium income.

That's not really true though is it? Most financing in football is from Billionaire owners. Man City didn't get to the top of the Prem through sponsors, stadium income etc. They got there by being a midtable to bottom half Prem team who were on the brink of financial collapse and got taken over by one of the world's richest men.

The only way to win top flight titles in most leagues is to have a hugely wealthy backer propping the club up.

So actually, making the money from trading so that you have a tonne of capital is far more realistic than your fictional narrative. It's just you have to work for the capital instead of a wealthy backer coming in and splashing the cash.

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't really make sense. I sold my players past their prime. They spent their prime winning trophies for me. I sold them when they were still competitive but starting to decline instead of just watching them lose value. There's lots of other bits that don't make sense - eg you want more realism but you don't think you should have to keep paying your players high wages when you get relegated? Guess what happens in real life? Ask Portsmouth if you need help with that one.

The Dark Carnival wrote:

FC Viitorul Constanta wrote:

I just wanted to make a point in this thread that this game is not setup for competitive play unless you trade or have a ton of capital that you eventually get from trading. While in reality most financing is from sponsors, competition prizes in champions league or premier leagues, and stadium income.

That's not really true though is it? Most financing in football is from Billionaire owners. Man City didn't get to the top of the Prem through sponsors, stadium income etc. They got there by being a midtable to bottom half Prem team who were on the brink of financial collapse and got taken over by one of the world's richest men.

The only way to win top flight titles in most leagues is to have a hugely wealthy backer propping the club up.

So actually, making the money from trading so that you have a tonne of capital is far more realistic than your fictional narrative. It's just you have to work for the capital instead of a wealthy backer coming in and splashing the cash.

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't really make sense. I sold my players past their prime. They spent their prime winning trophies for me. I sold them when they were still competitive but starting to decline instead of just watching them lose value. There's lots of other bits that don't make sense - eg you want more realism but you don't think you should have to keep paying your players high wages when you get relegated? Guess what happens in real life? Ask Portsmouth if you need help with that one.

Tom you are a smart Guy haven't you noticed the OP has been complaining about the game from his first forum thread (that I seen). This game isn't good enough it's full of faults and extremely unrealistic, but he's still here moaning about this terrible game.

And as for unrealistic trading, Leicester City, we do have a good Rich owner but look at the team who won the Premier league, it cost less then 10m, we have made over 200m in sales of the players who wanted to leave, and we've replaced them for less and are 3ed after finishing 4th last season

The Dark Carnival wrote:

FC Viitorul Constanta wrote:

I just wanted to make a point in this thread that this game is not setup for competitive play unless you trade or have a ton of capital that you eventually get from trading. While in reality most financing is from sponsors, competition prizes in champions league or premier leagues, and stadium income.

That's not really true though is it? Most financing in football is from Billionaire owners. Man City didn't get to the top of the Prem through sponsors, stadium income etc. They got there by being a midtable to bottom half Prem team who were on the brink of financial collapse and got taken over by one of the world's richest men.

The only way to win top flight titles in most leagues is to have a hugely wealthy backer propping the club up.

So actually, making the money from trading so that you have a tonne of capital is far more realistic than your fictional narrative. It's just you have to work for the capital instead of a wealthy backer coming in and splashing the cash.

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't really make sense. I sold my players past their prime. They spent their prime winning trophies for me. I sold them when they were still competitive but starting to decline instead of just watching them lose value. There's lots of other bits that don't make sense - eg you want more realism but you don't think you should have to keep paying your players high wages when you get relegated? Guess what happens in real life? Ask Portsmouth if you need help with that one.

Tom you are a smart Guy haven't you noticed the OP has been complaining about the game from his first forum thread (that I seen). This game isn't good enough it's full of faults and extremely unrealistic, but he's still here moaning about this terrible game.

And as for unrealistic trading, Leicester City, we do have a good Rich owner but look at the team who won the Premier league, it cost less then 10m, we have made over 200m in sales of the players who wanted to leave, and we've replaced them for less and are 3ed after finishing 4th last season.

The sales of Drinkwater mahrez Maguire and Kante, alone push 200 million

The Goon Sqwad wrote:

And as for unrealistic trading, Leicester City, we do have a good Rich owner but look at the team who won the Premier league, it cost less then 10m, we have made over 200m in sales of the players who wanted to leave, and we've replaced them for less and are 3ed after finishing 4th last season.

The sales of Drinkwater mahrez Maguire and Kante, alone push 200 million

Yep, Norwich don't have a rich backer so we have to trade to survive. Maddison, the Murphy twins, Ben Godfrey, Jamal Lewis = £115 mill in last 3 years. All of them academy products (except Maddison who we bought as a 19 year old for a few million).

It's almost like developing youth players and selling them on is a viable strategy in real life.

We've also picked up Buendia cheap as a 21 year old from the Spanish second division, and have Max Aarons and Todd Cantwell from our academy. all of whom are worth 40m or more.

OK, we're not competing for titles but we are regular features in the top flight and too good for the second tier even when we have to sell assets.

Sponsorship, TV money and ticket sales help, but without trading, we'd go under as a club. We're really well run but in the real world, unless you have a rich owner, you have to trade to get by.

Of course VC won't believe this narrative so it's pointless discussing it. The facts don't align with his tunnel vision.

FC Viitorul Constanta wrote:

So basically all you have to show for after 14 months financially is 18m while training players on WCTF for the entire duration. How much would you have made just by training 42 promising or higher for the same duration? Or by casually step trading for the same duration? This is what im saying by competting at the top there is no more room to grow and the starting capital is insanely high. In 14 month I went from 0 to WCTF +some 50k stadium and 200m team.and for the same period (except for trophies which I'm not saying they're not important, on the contrary) is 18M starting at WCTF and 30k places more than me at the end of the 14th month approximately.
I think it's a bit disproportionate the cost of trophies or having a great team, all the other clubs catch up on you...

Ask yourself: why do people want to compete for trophies when it is more profitable to just train 42 promising players?

Will the answer change if you earned more at the top? Probably not. Then what would happend? The prices on the best players would just rise. There would be no difference in the profitability of competing for trophies.

The Dark Carnival wrote:

Of course VC won't believe this narrative so it's pointless discussing it. The facts don't align with his tunnel vision.

I agree... Don't know what else to say

Final Whistle wrote:

Most of the Red below is the cost of promotion from 2nd division to 1st and hopefully not to relegate. Include around 4M weekly profit that's not displayed, that was also eat up. There are very small investments in youth in one of the oldest seasons displayed however. All the profits were also reinvested, current balance sits at 1.3M from the last 2-3 days of matches at home.



Wonder how much I will lose for a stint in 1st division for 1-2 months and if I'll manage to remain there without significant investments in player replacements/upgrades...

In comparison after changing leagues and landing in 3rd division I started selling most of the players that I haven't trained in my youth squad, and used those to have a skeleton crew along with the remaining players to fill the gaps.
This looks a lot better, with all contracts renewed so another 2.5M paid in advance or I'd be close to +20M

Seems being in 1st division is a waste of time, in which case I'll probably leave sooner rather than later... My other manager is still progressing slowly so I'm mostly killing my time here in the meantime.
Not even considering to upgrade the stadium, I need 5M more for the LVL 5 East/West stands which cost 48M each...