Cancellation of Feeder clubs - something SI didn't feel the need to code properly? Details inside...

Having just read this i felt it would be useful if i got 'round to posting my thoughts on this, and what i found when i investigated.

In Short:

The cancellation of feeder clubs is almost entirely RANDOM. Statements such as "cancelled as link was not utilised enough" are nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the fact that it is not coded properly.

Exceptions:

The following are cases when cancellation is a certainty rather than random chance:

1/ Club promoted to same division

2/ Club rep increases to the point where they no longer want to be a feeder team - whether this itself is logical i will go into later.

Why i decided to investigate this.

I experienced something similar to this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

Down to the boards.

I got a cancellation once, because the clubs were not making the most of the deal. Yet every year, I would loan out 4 players to the club, and even bought 2 youngsters from them.!! How is that not making the most of it.!

On the other hand, I've had feeders for years, and years, and never done anything except pay them £50,000 a year, and the link hasn't been cancelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My findings:

The user is chelsea, with links to Westerlo, Dynamo moscow, LA, Osaka, Watford, and some mexican team. (previously linked with PSV which will be commented on at the end)

After repeating the june 18th/19th barrier 60 times here is the number of times links were terminated.

Watford - 11

Westerlo - 6

Dynamo - 2

Now, if the termonation of feeder clubs was based on some sort of fact, surely the same clubs would be terminated every time?

This does not apply to Watford - as i was not running the championship the promotions were randomly generated on the same 18th/19th barrier, hence every termination coincided with the clubs promotion - i have NO problem with this.

The MOST troubling aspect is the termintation of westerlo. When the link WAS terminated, the message given was to the effect of "link was not utilised enough". I had 9 players gaining belgian passports at that club - in what POSSIBLE way could this be considered not using the link?

Similarly, even if it was considered to be under utilised, why was it only considered as such 10% of the time? No factors changed and yet some times the link "wasn't being used", and others it was fine.

The only possible explanation is that the termination of such links is random, and the media messages that acompany these terminations are at best grossly inaccurate and at worst nothing more than an attempt to cover up what SI couldn't be bothered coding.

Lastly we look at the moscow link - this was only terminated twice, despite not being utilised in any way, shape or form...

Now to my second point - is it acceptable for an exceptionally useful link to be cancelled due only to reputation?

I refer here to the chelsea - PSV link. For two years the highest rated player at PSV, and the highest rated player in the entire division (also the top scorer) was on loan from chelsea. The reason for termination was given as "reputation".

I ask, in what logical world would a club cancel a link that was providing it with its best players? PSVs reputation hadn't increased dramatically, hence i find it illogical for any club to cancel such links.

Proposed Changes

1/ If you can't (or can't be bothered) to code this feature properly, make the termination of links entirely under the users control.

Obviously i would prefer it to work logically, but i feel that if we can't get to such a palce, then just leaving it under our control would stop much of this frustration.

2/ Should links be automatically terminated when a club gets promoted into the same division? I personally think not, as it is highly likely that the promoted club will find the loaned players useful and the lonaing club will have an even higher level to train his young players. It's win-win.

3/ Can we please be allowed multiple feeder clubs of the same type. No i don't want 30 merch feeder clubs, 2 of these is fine, however i would like to have multiple EU feeders, and local loan clubs - having asked for both of these specifically in my current save, i was told that they couldn't find any suitable clubs, another blatant lie, as following the cancellation of my EU link, they "found" 4 suitable clubs...

That just about covers it, i don't think any of these proposed changes are unreasonable nor should they be especially challenging, but obviously my knowledge of programming is limited.

I appreciate that i've been quite critical of SI and if any of the assumptions i've made are not entirely accurate i appologise, however if SI consider what it looks like from out POV then i hope they can appreciate why the feature is causing some irritation.

Thanks

Ched.

NB: The point of this thread is not to debate the INCLUSION of feeder clubs in the game itself, rather HOW they are included. I am fully aware that they are a grey area within FIFA rules and as such almost certainy don't fall within a manager's purview IRL.

Having just read this i felt it would be useful if i got 'round to posting my thoughts on this, and what i found when i investigated.

In Short:

The cancellation of feeder clubs is almost entirely RANDOM. Statements such as "cancelled as link was not utilised enough" are nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the fact that it is not coded properly.

Exceptions:

The following are cases when cancellation is a certainty rather than random chance:

1/ Club promoted to same division

2/ Club rep increases to the point where they no longer want to be a feeder team - whether this itself is logical i will go into later.

Why i decided to investigate this.

I experienced something similar to this:

Originally posted by NepentheZ:

Down to the boards.

I got a cancellation once, because the clubs were not making the most of the deal. Yet every year, I would loan out 4 players to the club, and even bought 2 youngsters from them.!! How is that not making the most of it.!

On the other hand, I've had feeders for years, and years, and never done anything except pay them £50,000 a year, and the link hasn't been cancelled.

My findings:

The user is chelsea, with links to Westerlo, Dynamo moscow, LA, Osaka, Watford, and some mexican team. (previously linked with PSV which will be commented on at the end)

After repeating the june 18th/19th barrier 60 times here is the number of times links were terminated.

Watford - 11

Westerlo - 6

Dynamo - 2

Now, if the termonation of feeder clubs was based on some sort of fact, surely the same clubs would be terminated every time?

This does not apply to Watford - as i was not running the championship the promotions were randomly generated on the same 18th/19th barrier, hence every termination coincided with the clubs promotion - i have NO problem with this.

The MOST troubling aspect is the termintation of westerlo. When the link WAS terminated, the message given was to the effect of "link was not utilised enough". I had 9 players gaining belgian passports at that club - in what POSSIBLE way could this be considered not using the link?

Similarly, even if it was considered to be under utilised, why was it only considered as such 10% of the time? No factors changed and yet some times the link "wasn't being used", and others it was fine.

The only possible explanation is that the termination of such links is random, and the media messages that acompany these terminations are at best grossly inaccurate and at worst nothing more than an attempt to cover up what SI couldn't be bothered coding.

Lastly we look at the moscow link - this was only terminated twice, despite not being utilised in any way, shape or form...

Now to my second point - is it acceptable for an exceptionally useful link to be cancelled due only to reputation?

I refer here to the chelsea - PSV link. For two years the highest rated player at PSV, and the highest rated player in the entire division (also the top scorer) was on loan from chelsea. The reason for termination was given as "reputation".

I ask, in what logical world would a club cancel a link that was providing it with its best players? PSVs reputation hadn't increased dramatically, hence i find it illogical for any club to cancel such links.

Proposed Changes

1/ If you can't (or can't be bothered) to code this feature properly, make the termination of links entirely under the users control.

Obviously i would prefer it to work logically, but i feel that if we can't get to such a palce, then just leaving it under our control would stop much of this frustration.

2/ Should links be automatically terminated when a club gets promoted into the same division? I personally think not, as it is highly likely that the promoted club will find the loaned players useful and the lonaing club will have an even higher level to train his young players. It's win-win.

3/ Can we please be allowed multiple feeder clubs of the same type. No i don't want 30 merch feeder clubs, 2 of these is fine, however i would like to have multiple EU feeders, and local loan clubs - having asked for both of these specifically in my current save, i was told that they couldn't find any suitable clubs, another blatant lie, as following the cancellation of my EU link, they "found" 4 suitable clubs...

That just about covers it, i don't think any of these proposed changes are unreasonable nor should they be especially challenging, but obviously my knowledge of programming is limited.

I appreciate that i've been quite critical of SI and if any of the assumptions i've made are not entirely accurate i appologise, however if SI consider what it looks like from out POV then i hope they can appreciate why the feature is causing some irritation.

Thanks

Ched.

NB: The point of this thread is not to debate the INCLUSION of feeder clubs in the game itself, rather HOW they are included. I am fully aware that they are a grey area within FIFA rules and as such almost certainy don't fall within a manager's purview IRL.

Wow, Ched, you're a machine!

I fully agree that a certain level of randomness seems to rule the feeder relationships. I hope SI will address this.

As for your proposed changes, I'd really like to see full user control. After all, it's the manager who makes the feeder recommendation (always adhered to by the board) and sends players off on loan. Why not make the only truly sentient element of the game (the player) decide for him/herself in this matter?

And please, give us the ability to identify leagues (if not clubs) that would have feeder potential.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Si BHA:

Do you have any save games shortly before the links are cancelled that you could upload to the FTP for us to look at? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the reply - i've uploaded a file into the FM/game-save folder, and it's titled FeederTerm.

The save is on June 19th, the day before terminations occur.

If this is yet another bug then i retract my previous accusations of deceit.

Was hoping that this would generate more forum interest, maybe the lack of popularity is the reason why the feature hasn't been finished properly?

There's a few of these messages that appear as auto generated and have no actual relation to what they claim to.

1. This feeder club example where the parameters in the code have determined that at least one feeder club needs to be terminated so it just throws that message up as a reason.

2. Player's not joining a club based purely on reputation yet the message will state things like:-

- does not feel a move to said country is worth the risk

- player thinks the quality of your training facilities are too poor

Neither of which have any impact sinced if you increase your club rep without changing his adaptability or your club's training facilities using FM Modifier the player will sign.

3. Players's joining a club on loan and stating that they might hope that the move becomes permanent when in fact there is no chance of them joining your club because of the differences in reputation.

4. Player's stating in the media that it was a wonderful team talk that inspired a come back when in fact from watching a match it was pretty clear that it was due to specific match events like a change in tactic (you or the AI), a player getting sent off or an impact substitute.

5. Players stating they want to move to a bigger club 'to win trophies' even though it is pretty obvious that their ability means they will never join a club that is capable of winning trophies.

I know a lot of these messages are there to add variety but I would prefer if the statements actually reflected the reasons. So for the above read:-

1. The feeder club has been cancelled because the board feels they have too many. In which case as Ched suggested give the user a choice as to which link gets cancelled.

2. The player does not wish to join your team as he feels he is currently playing for a bigger club which offers him a better chance of furthering his career.

3. The player has joined the club on loan as he hopes to gain more first team experience and maybe put himself in frame for a more prominent role at his club or attract the interest of other clubs.

4. I can't think of any particular suggestions here but the effect of team talk should be based on the feedback from the assistant, and if you are going to have a news message where the player in question claims it was the team talk then there should be a correlation with the team talk feedback. So if Player A says it was the effect of the team talk then him (and maybe other players) should have 'Looked fired up' or words to that effect in the feedback section of the half time team talk.

5. The player feels that in order to progress he needs to move to a bigger club that reflects his ability and offers him the chance to perform on a higher stage. Just to note as well that linked to this is the use of reputation as the control parameter which can lead to players moving to a bigger club playing in a lower division.

Apologies to Ched if it seems that I have hijacked your thread but I feel that all of the above are part of the same feeder club issue. Namely auto generated messages that actually mean nothing. Also before I get flamed let me categorically state that I have no clue as to how hard this would be to change. All I am saying is that from a user's perspective it is very annoying.

Feel free to hijack, no one seems to care much.

It is annoying that the media messages don't actually mean much. I wasn't aware that the messages relating to transfers were also meaningless, a bit disappointed tbh.

Thanks for all your work on this.

It must be barnstormingly random because I've had clubs that are a feeder for years without me ever buying or loaning a player either direction, hell not even a friendly. Yet I've also had clubs that are terminated in a similar fashion to yours (the whole 10 player on loan thing).

Perhaps if we absolutely have to get rid of one we could be given a similar choice to the one we get when we are granted a feeder (one abysmal choice, one reasonable choice, one club in the Upper Mboto reserves and A.N.Other).

It doesn't always get cancelled for a team in the same division. In my previous save when Villa became awful after about thirty years I had them as a feeder and they got promoted but remained in my feeder list.

Strange things.

VB

maybe is because the feeder club is not big enough for your team

i remember once man utd board terminated my link with an australian team and the next time i wanted a feeder club they bring me more australian clubs but biggers than the last one

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grevenfhi:

maybe is because the feeder club is not big enough for your team

i remember once man utd board terminated my link with an australian team and the next time i wanted a feeder club they bring me more australian clubs but biggers than the last one </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be a fair explanation IF the feeder club was terminated every time i repeated 18th/19th of june (or for some reason it's sometimes the 19th/20th), but the random nature of terminations implies that this isn't the case.

The "randomness" will most likely be caused by those clubs being near the cancellation limit. Watford are clearly the closest to this limit as they get cancelled the most.

Basically on the day you mention all sorts of calculations will be going on which will have an effect on the feeder club. In some cases it's enough to push the teams over the limit (and yes there will be some randomness to this which will be intentional).

Now it could be there's a bug that's pushed them this close to the limit in the first place, or a bug that's stopping them from being dragged away from the limit - it'll be nothing more sinister than that.

I'll also comment on the tone of your post - its as if you're becoming more and more paranoid with every thread you post. You may want to calm down a little, SI aren't out to get you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:

I'll also comment on the tone of your post - its as if you're becoming more and more paranoid with every thread you post. You may want to calm down a little, SI aren't out to get you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only tone i wanted to convey was one of irritation. I struggle to see any place where i even suggested SI were "out to get me". I simply felt that the termination of feeder clubs was mostly random, and the messages given were in no way relevant to the cancellation of the link, and may have been put there to hide that this feature was mainly random.

The rest of your post was useful however, a pity you had to end it with nonsense.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:

more and more paranoid with every thread you post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

* that said, this implies that you may have confused me with someone else - i have barely been on these forums recently, and have hardly started any threads. But, whatever, i digress.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:

The "randomness" will most likely be caused by those clubs being near the cancellation limit. Watford are clearly the closest to this limit as they get cancelled the most.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well whatever its doing its clearly doing it wrong. It doesnt really matter to us whether they are canceled randomly or canceled wrongly. The result is the same. IMO they should remove this altogether. Leave the decision to cancel feeders to us players and thats it. Only cancel them if for example you are playing in the same league. I hate it when the club cancels a feeder only to offer me the same feeder the next time im allowed to ask for it. And dont get me started on this silly idea that your are only allowed to ask them twice a year. Or the fact that they only ever manage to find only a few. (reloading the game will give you other choices which means there are obviously others available). Give us more control not less.

yes this fedder club thing is ridiculous i was outraged when man utd - sporting link was terminated.and reason was i thimk cancelled as link was not utilised enough. Ridiculous.

it will definately be looked at anyway, feder cubs arent allowed in england so it will need to be changed.

I agree with some of the points in the original post, but I would question the use of the term "random" referring to the termination of links being totally random.

Most aspects of the code have some random element coded into them because it would be an utterly tedious game if they didn't, but that is a long way from saying something is totally random.

I assume there are a set of criteria by which it is decided when a link is terminated and the value that is measured against that criteria will have some random element in it so that you just don't get the same thing happening every time - you may say that you should get the same thing happening every time, but I disagree and obviously there is no real life comparison to this because we don't get the chance to reverse time and try again in any real life circumstance.

Maybe in some cases the random factor needs toning down or just the message that goes with it is inaccurate, but we all know media messages in the game are a bit suspect when it comes to their meaning - when you select an option for pre-match media comment or whatever the interpretation put on it by the game in no way matches the sentiment of the original message - that is something that should be easily fixable in the case of feeder clubs though.

i dont understand.

i've had a feeder club with liverpool get promoted to the premiership and the news article says

'this affilate was cancelled due to you being in the same league'

or words to that effect.

some clubs i would think you dont need to loan players to/from etc because they are being utilised as cash cows.

for eample asian or american clubs.

this maybe why they dont get cancelled due to 'lack of use'

oh and as foryour question about links terminating when your in the same league.

of course it should.

otherwise you get a conflict in interest situation which i believe wouldn't be allowed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by postal postie:

i dont understand.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That much is evident.

The point i was trying to make is that the cancellation of clubs is not consistent. I DID state that promoted clubs was the only time i had seen when a feeder club WAS always terminated.

I've never seen a merch link terminated.

I brought up "lack of use" because the board clamied i wasn't using a club enough when i had 9 players on loan there.

As to you other post, i agree that there COULD be a conflict of interests, however, surely the same would apply to players loaned out to ANY club in the same division? I struggle to see where chelsea and derby's interests would be affected by the former loaning good young players to the latter, FA loan rules mean that they wouldn't be able to play against their parent club. Similarly, the game always allows clubs competing in the same european competition to remain as feeder clubs - if there was any conflict, surely it would be evident in europe as well?

Good work Ched; I'm not on here often so didn't see this when it was first posted.

I don't really have a problem with their being some element of randomness; however at the moment it is TOO random. There is no excuse for cancelling a link due to 'lack of use' when you have a load of players on loan there. If the club want to cancel a link, cancel one that really isn't being used; at the very least look at the number of players that have gone on loan to each 'first option' club in the past 3 years and pick the one with the lowest number.

The problem, as Ched has already said, is that in this case ('lack of use') and possibly in others, the media line that is given to the user does not in any way, shape or form relate to the true reason for a link being cancelled.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by postal postie:

i dont understand.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That much is evident.

The point i was trying to make is that the cancellation of clubs is not consistent. I DID state that promoted clubs was the only time i had seen when a feeder club WAS always terminated.

I've never seen a merch link terminated.

I brought up "lack of use" because the board clamied i wasn't using a club enough when i had 9 players on loan there.

As to you other post, i agree that there COULD be a conflict of interests, however, surely the same would apply to players loaned out to ANY club in the same division? I struggle to see where chelsea and derby's interests would be affected by the former loaning good young players to the latter, FA loan rules mean that they wouldn't be able to play against their parent club. Similarly, the game always allows clubs competing in the same european competition to remain as feeder clubs - if there was any conflict, surely it would be evident in europe as well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i'm pretty sure its only copying what happens in real life

so if that's because FA think its a conflict then it is.

the conflict in interest doesn't so much as come from the loaning of players but more to do with the fact that you are paying another club money to continue the affiliation

Arent Arsenal and Birmingham linked though?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by postal postie:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by postal postie:

i dont understand.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That much is evident.

The point i was trying to make is that the cancellation of clubs is not consistent. I DID state that promoted clubs was the only time i had seen when a feeder club WAS always terminated.

I've never seen a merch link terminated.

I brought up "lack of use" because the board clamied i wasn't using a club enough when i had 9 players on loan there.

As to you other post, i agree that there COULD be a conflict of interests, however, surely the same would apply to players loaned out to ANY club in the same division? I struggle to see where chelsea and derby's interests would be affected by the former loaning good young players to the latter, FA loan rules mean that they wouldn't be able to play against their parent club. Similarly, the game always allows clubs competing in the same european competition to remain as feeder clubs - if there was any conflict, surely it would be evident in europe as well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i'm pretty sure its only copying what happens in real life

so if that's because FA think its a conflict then it is.

the conflict in interest doesn't so much as come from the loaning of players but more to do with the fact that you are paying another club money to continue the affiliation </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok i've now completely lost what you're talking about.

1/ it can't be copying real life - as affiliates are not officially sanctioned in england. There are unofficial links e.g. chelsea and PSV have an "understanding" with regard to some players - but nothing as cut and dried as FM demonstrates.

With regard to your point about paying another club - this i hadn't considered and actually makes sense, so good point - however would this still not apply to any club you could play against in EU or cup comps? Surely the same conflict would be visible there?

Regardless of the reasons, the whole point i was making was that links aren't cancelled consistantly or logically.

I've seen a merchandising club cancelled - but it was them that cancelled it, not my board. They felt there were better options available to them or something along those lines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:

I've seen a merchandising club cancelled - but it was them that cancelled it, not my board. They felt there were better options available to them or something along those lines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sort of makes sense, if the parent club is no longer as high profile then i can see why they'd cancel it. Although, that said i'm not sure how many clubs would get rid of an extra £1.5m income (avge for merch feeders) - do they receive a greater benefit from having a more reputable parent?

Out of curiosity, has anyone played as LA galaxy or whoever, and found out if you can be a merch feeder club, and what benefits it brings?

First off, apologies for the MASSIVE bump and thread necromancy, I did a search for "Feeder" and "Terminated", and this looked like the best thread out of the 51 I was able to find.

Running FM2011, patch 10.3

I was looking because I've just experienced the termination of my work permit feeder club in June 2022, resulting in the premature ending of the three current loans I had active with the club. Obviously I reloaded, played the last few weeks (previous save was at the start of June), saved again before the update and ran it a few times, and didn't see any pattern at all as to which feeders were terminated.

I'm currently Aston Villa, feeders are :

Sheff Wed : Loan + friendly

Kaiserslauten : Loan + First Option

Lillestrom : Loan + FO

Istra 1961 : Work permits in 2 years (croatian)

Jagodina : Work permits in 3 years (serbian) + friendly

S.C. Ashdod : Loan + FO

The only ones that are used in any way are Istra, Sheff Wed and Kaiserslautern, and yet these are the three that are most commonly being terminated in the end of season update.

The OP is over three years old, I'm disappointed that this issue is STILL an issue so many versions later.