View forum thread

Ramiro Pujol (66) Striker 26 yr old - Fixed attributes in 90s - Anyone interested for around £20m
Do not really want to sell but need the money.

Not sure why nobody is interested in this player - some guidance on how transferring pricing works would be great.

I can't see how much you've listed him for because the TM is currently on Scotland for me, but I'm assuming you've listed him for 30-40M due to his FAs.

Unfortunately age is also a big factor in buying players, not just their FAs. The reason that 18 and 19yo players sell for 30M+ is because you can get a good 10 seasons out of them and still sell them on when they get into their early 30s for a tidy amount to a club desperate for a rating or preview boost.

26 year olds you'll only get about half that playing time out of, and therefore are more likely to sell for 15-20M. I bought Durojaiye, my record signing, for 18M aged 26 and considered it a pretty good deal, but not an amazing one.

The top clubs also prefer untrained players rated 10-20 because they can get them on a 5-season contract for peanuts and very quickly train them up. Signing a 66-rated player is going to cost you about 1.5-2M a season in wages instead of 50k for an untrained youth.

Good luck

There''s a clue in the bold-printed title.

I'm too tired to read a whole long title, I was up at 4am today

But not too tired to write a much longer post!

Thanks for the info.

He is not currently on the market. Two seasons ago I put him on the market for around £27 million. Last season I put him on the for £19 million. Really dont understand as it is not worth me selling him for less than that.

If I anyone is interested please let me know and I will list me. Only reason I want to sell him is because I do not have the coaches to train him to his full ability.

Honestly, I would put his valuation even lower than FS. The big clubs won't bother with him - they can have their pick of all the top quality teenagers the market and their academies provide.

That leaves people like me (and FS) - it might take two seasons for my coaches to get him up to mid-80s, maybe even three for them to do everything they can. He'll be 28/29 then, so I'll get a couple of seasons, maybe three, before his pace and reflexes start to fade.

15-20M for two or three seasons of quality in two or three seasons' time? Not that attractive to me, I'm afraid.

Sorry to be negative

This thread has a few comments so here are my views on those:



If I really needed a right-footed striker who was already fairly well trained, I would pay 20m. In my case, my squad currently has too many forwards, so I'm not i'm not interested. Secondly, right footed-strikers are quite common and not difficult to find. There may be someone willing to pay that, at the right time, and if you are patient, but don't be surprised if not.



Hopefully my club is considered to be a "top club" and I am allowed to comment on this.

- I'd actually prefer to buy players that are already partly, or mostly trained, even if they are one or a few more years older. Training players from 10 rating is tedious. But, the reality is that there are very few partly-trained, and young, players listed in the transfer market. Most clubs sell early or keep them.

- I think the "top clubs" have enough cash to not worry about whether a new signing will join for "peanuts" or demands a higher wage. They have enough money to pay whatever wages a player demands if he's good enough.

- A 66-rated player should not be costing 1.5-2m a season in wages.



Again, if you consider my club as a "big club" and can comment, I'd say:

- I agree big clubs probably won't usually buy such players at that price except when they really need a particular kind of player / position.

- But, regarding "have their pick of all the top quality teenagers on the market". Everyone has a chance, don't they? Maybe "big clubs" usually have more money and more chance but that does not mean success in buying every player.

- And "have their pick of all the top quality teenagers their academies provide". Don't all academies have the same chance of producing top quality teenagers?

Okay, I will revise that to - have sufficient success with the top quality teenagers that it's usually not worth their while pursuing an untrained mid-20s player. It wasn't a complaint.

I mostly added that for completeness but - are you saying that better youth coaches don't improve the frequency of youths reaching their potential, or the rate at which they do so?

Pfft, not even ranked #1, your opinion is obviously invalid


I don't understand why you'd do that, but it's up to you. Personally I'd rather save on wages and put a little more effort into training the guy up, especially if I had your coaches. Time spent under rubbish coaches is a waste of a 90s FA youth "lifespan" in my personal opinion.


Perhaps so, but if you are getting someone in on a 5-season contract then the difference between 50k a season and 1M a season is an extra 4.5M that could have gone on the transfer fee, which might be the difference between top and second bid...


OK, I mistyped that. Should have been 0.5-1M.