Blocked Deals

Anybody else been having deals blocked recently?

I've had a couple where the other parties' Chairman have said that the deal is too cheap. So, I've given up my players and then not got back what had been agreed.

To me it's always been a given that a manager can sell a player for whatever he wants, you pay yer money and are entitled to do what you want, aren't you?

If this is a new rule I'd like Paul to let us know what the boundaries of transfers are, i.e half of trib value then it's gonna get called off by the Chairmen. Just what are the rules?

Bunch of arse!

Enjoy your weekend fella's.

this is a new thing i think that paul has brought in and its pissing me off aswell. if i pay for a turn i atleast exepect to know what the rules are if i can't do what i like. end of.

Tried for the last three weeks to get hold of a player, but every week the deal has been blocked by the chairman.

Last offer was 3 x buycost and a sell-on fee. Also both managers included a 'letter to the chairman' to justify the deal, but still to no avail?!

Also, the selling club has finances over -£10m, so they desperatly need to sell players apparently, yet it still doesn't go through?! I know which the chairman should be more concerned about.

Really don't understand this side of the game????

Ive had a few deals blocked since i took over at City, chairman stepped in on one and player refused to go to one club on the other!

Very frustratin and i agree it needs explaining

fellas there is one rule that i know for certain - if you now sell a player and then attempt to re-sign him then this will not be allowed. players will not return to yours or any other club while the same manager is in charge. i know of players i used to have that have been blocked because of this. also, maresca refused to sign for lazio on the basis that he didnt want to return to them so "soon" - even though prior to phil having him, rob had him at inter for 18 months, which must make it atleast 2 years since he was a lazio player. the question of course is how long is "soon"?!

Make that over four seasons for Maresca. I swapped him out and Rob picked him up I think, although I may be wrong as I may have swapped him to Internazionale whilst they unmanaged.

So.............Do players in the game now harbour grudges against managers who have previously sold them ?

maybe its just you martin lol?

so as not to single the bloke out, i've had a few like this, yet Angelo Palombo had no qualms about returning to me last week after only being at rob's place for half a season. we just need to know what the ruling here is, because to me it seems inconsistent if maresca wouldnt sign for lazio based on having played their 4 years ago yet palombo would sign for me.

Phil@Arsenal wrote:

maybe its just you martin lol?

You have a point Phil.

I wouldn't want to play for me either

Ok so i got some response from Paul on this for everyone last turn that might be worth sharing with you guys.

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Players will not return to a previous club for a minmum of 7 weeks after he last played for them. It is now much more complex and depends on many things and there is no guarantee that he will return to a previous club outside of that timescale. It also depends on things like how you treated the player the last time you had him, how often you left him out of the first team squad if he expected it, his wages, his comparative wages, where he played imbetween and his wages there. I did this to make it much harder to resign old players as this rarely happens in real life. And I cant override such transfer requests either if they dont go thru with a 'note to chairman'.

so there you go. i did have a chat with someone else on here about this and its fair enough i guess but my issue is......what if....you have say Victor Moses. He turns out to be a misfit for Wigan in RL so you decide to sell him from your club in the game. Fair enough. Two years down the line he's been transfered to Sunderland in RL where he scores goals for fun, gets an england call up and is transferred to Chelsea for 20m. Now....surely there needs to be something where you can resign a player if he was a sack of spuds when you last had him. it shouldnt just be really that you cant have the player back cos you never played him last time.....well i didnt play him last time cos he was a crappy 8888, but now hes a 9997 thank you very much and I might like to...

anyway....just a small critique at the system's new thought process when we're trying to re-sign former players. I accept the fact it doesnt happen in real life though...maybe we should just accept the fact then that if you let a player go and he comes good its just tough luck.

lol!!

bummer, im in worlds of trouble

All the youngsters ive let go, in about 2-3 years there might not be a player about that i can sign, thats going to bite me in the ass.

like it tho, its a good and sensible ruling, might slow down the player merry go round.