janks wrote:nino33 wrote:janks wrote:the board interfere and decides to not sign player I (as GM) selected.
If you're close to or over the Player Budget it makes sense the Board restricts your signings; also the Chairman (i.e. the Board) position has an "Interference" Attribute that might affect a GM's ability to sign players
If neither seems applicable then it's probably something that should be reported to Riz on the SI EHM Bugs Forum
https://community.sigames.com/forum/292 ... ugs-forum/
It works such way - the closer you get to Max player budget the max amount of money allowed by board for each group of your players (key, core etc) gets reduced. So you can make an offer to player X, then sign player Y and immediately you get closer to max player budget and max amount you can offer player X gets reduced and when he agrees you simply cannot sign him for initially offered amount of money and get that announcement about board decision.
The main underlying cause to this issue, as well as the issue with the CHL teams signing overaged players when they are already at the overaged cap and then insta-dropping them is that the AI has no scripting to think ahead at all, except in trades, where they will refuse if it would put them over the cap. They will just keep signing players until they go over the cap, then go "oh no, the cap!" and put a poorly chosen player on the block to get back under the cap. This is the same reason you can get a team to indefinately trade you all their 1st and 2nd round picks from now until the cows come home. It's a cheap, but oh so effective way to get them to feed you high 1st round picks every single year.
On the note of how the scaling possible wage works. There is a point where the wage you can offer a player bottoms out, your board will allow you to sign players to that wage even if it takes you way, way above the salary budget in non-capped leagues. The only way they will refuse a signing is if you agree on a deal and then have another player come in while the deal is being finalized, causing your not-yet-bottomed-out salary to get bottomed out. I'll give a very common example from Swe-2:
On day 1 you offer August Gunnarsson a deal worth 180k SEK a year for 3 years, at that point in time you have 500k left in the Salary Budget, meaning there is no limit on your max wage other than the enforced 10% of total Salary budget for Key players (which would be 260k in this example). Gunnarsson takes 10 days to reply saying he accepts the offer.
On day 2 you offer four other players deals for 130k SEK each (which happens to be the bottomed out salary value in this example). They all agree in 7 days, because some players just agree faster in EHM.
On day 10 Gunnarsson says he will sign for you, you click accept. But at this point you have -20k wage budget left, which means you're well beyond the point of bottoming out at 130k SEK. The day after the board will veto your deal, because you're no longer allowed to sign players on 180k SEK wages. If however Gunnarsson had agreed to a 130k SEK deal with you, he would have been signed even though that takes you well over budget.
You can in fact go well beyond 50% over budget by signing all your expensive players first, then filling out the rest of the team with 130k SEK bargains until you have a full team, even though you'd end up breaking the economy. But it's impossible to go bankrupt in EHM, you always get bailed by your owner as long as you perform well. Also the budget is messed up in leagues like Swe-2 to the point where even if you stick to the budget you will end up in the red at the end of year 1.
Because player's wage demands scale with your available money, this allows you to actually be able to sign players that you can't sign when under budget, while you are over budget. As a troll move Riz made it so players who are slightly too high Rep to join your team will always ask for ~125% of what you're able to offer them as wage demand. No matter how much money you have. However, players are almost 100% of the time willing to sign a deal for a single "click"* lower than their asked wage in a short enough contract (2-3 years+player option+team option). This means that when you're over budget and bottomed out at 130k, their wage demand will end up just inside the next "click" up, which would be 160k due to really weird rounding in contracts and variable "click" sizes. So a player that the game intends to be unsignable to your team actually becomes signable, but ONLY if you're over budget. This scaling wage nonsense also means that generally a lower wage budget team can make a better squad than a higher wage budget team, because the players' wage scaling ends up being very beneficial to you. It's some very questionable game design.
*By "click" I mean that when you're giving someone a wage of say 6M $ in the NHL and click the > key it "clicks" up to 6.25M, but if you're at 100k SEK and go one "click" down it goes to 90k SEK, but one "click" up takes it to 120k SEK, not 110k. So the size of a "click" is variable. Another addendum to this is that at some wage values you can go 2 "clicks" down if the value difference is no more than 20k SEK. I know having it in SEK is really dumb for anyone not swedish and playing in sweden, but that's what I used to find all of this through trial and error. So it's the only measurement I know it in.
And in the example with the bottomed out 130k SEK wage (half of the normal capped value 260k) rounding up to 160 allowing the "unattainable" player to be obtained, it's because 130 normally doesn't exist as a wage option. Only 120k and 140k does, so it rounds 130k up to count as the 140k "click", and the next "click" above 140k is 160k, which is less than 125% of 130, which means you can sign the player that should be mathematically impossible to sign.
