Stadium criteria and League status.

After reading a thread about how easy it is to progress through the leagues and with the new data editor for FM10 enabling us to play as far down the lower leagues as we want, I suddenly thought about Stadium criteria for league status.

Going back a few years, Lewes FC were denied promotion from the Conference South to the Conference Premier 2 years in a row due to their ground not being up to scratch for Health and Safety purposes etc. Which of course also happens quite often alot lower down the league spectrum as you can imagine the quality of other grounds to be pretty poor too.

Would people accept this if it were to be implemented in FM?

I know this would probably frustrate a large number, but we do want the game to be more realitic, right!?!

It would only frustrate. Unless the boards AI were improved to make them realise expansion is necessary.

SI have always said that minimum stadium requirements would not be implemented because of the frustration it would give to managers of small clubs on career games.

Personally, I think there is some justification, in these circumstances, in using FMRTE to edit your stadiums capacity slowly so that you can compete financially.

SI have always said that minimum stadium requirements would not be implemented because of the frustration it would give to managers of small clubs on career games.

Bu surely then it needs to work the other way also? By that i mean that the board should look at the bigger picture and plan more in advance, rather than just realising, "oh, we've got promoted, now i guess we need to do something about our stadium........ oops too late, sorry".

IRL, a lot of teams get a stay of execution on the proviso of the work being done in a certain timeframe.

Personally, I think there is some justification, in these circumstances, in using FMRTE to edit your stadiums capacity slowly so that you can compete financially.

Really??? Cheat ;)

It should definately be in the game. FM is supposed to be all about realism, yet this hasn't been included since CM01/02.

I'll certainly support Stadium criteria

Will never happen. Tbh I wouldn't like to be around GD if it ever was. Imagine the countless threads of "I have been X club for y amount of season and I can't get promoted. This game ****ing sucks"

Although it would be realistic for certain clubs never to obtain the necessary capacity in that time....

I support stadium criteria too... Realism is realism.

Realism is realism, i agree. However there becomes a point where realism stops the game from being a game. I just find it amusing that people clamour for so much realism, yet they walk straight into managing teams like Man U, Liverpool etc, without having to do anything to earn the right to manage there, such as earn your coaching badges.

It's punishing you for doing well, and as such shouldn't be in a game.

baker.simon- pfft. That's a poor example. For all you know, you've already earned your coaching badges. After all, you've potentially had a career spanning decades and at least 25 years of life.

It's punishing you for doing well, and as such shouldn't be in a game.

baker.simon- pfft. That's a poor example. For all you know, you've already earned your coaching badges. After all, you've potentially had a career spanning decades and at least 25 years of life.

Depends doesnt it? If you add an imaginary back story to your manager. I dont, im 27 years old and thats how old i am in game. Its very unlikely i would have gained any of the neccesary qualifications or experience needed to be able to just waltz into a top team anywhere!

It should be included because we're not forced to stay in the team we start out with. You can choose to either stay with that club hoping that at some point you can gain enough money to fix up the stadium or you can simply quit and find yourself a better job after a couple of years of finishing in 1st place.

If it is implemented, SI would have to make it clear that the team can't get promoted due to not meeting stadia criteria so people don't choose the team accidentally.

It should be included because we're not forced to stay in the team we start out with. You can choose to either stay with that club hoping that at some point you can gain enough money to fix up the stadium or you can simply quit and find yourself a better job after a couple of years of finishing in 1st place.

If it is implemented, SI would have to make it clear that the team can't get promoted due to not meeting stadia criteria so people don't choose the team accidentally.

In my opinion it should be so that if a club doesn't meet the stadium criteria but has enough money (and/or a chairman who is determined enough) that the ground should be expanded over the summer. Occasionally causing to let the club go into debt as added challenge.

This would create enough realism while still giving the human player the chance to have his stadium expanded and club promoted.

Before this could be implemented, I'd imagine the board AI would need a massive overhaul as at present, I can't imagine it has the ability to forward plan, which would be crucially important for stadium restrictions. And until that happens, there is no way that stadium restrictions would be in the game.

Even then, I still think it should only be included as an option. I certainlly wouldn't want to use it, and I'm pretty sure there will be a hell of a lot of others who feel the same.

It would be nice if it was included in the start of season expectations message i.e. if you were managing a very low level club the board could say in response to your claim you would get promoted " We have made £xxx available for stadium expansion to enable you to achieve your aim based on our expectations of increased revenues from the higher division". Then you could enable stadium criteria and if you failed to win promotion after spending the money on expansion you would start the next season in massive debt, administration or even fold (making you unemployed and releasing all the players)

Realism is realism, i agree. However there becomes a point where realism stops the game from being a game. I just find it amusing that people clamour for so much realism, yet they walk straight into managing teams like Man U, Liverpool etc, without having to do anything to earn the right to manage there, such as earn your coaching badges.

You are generalising an awful lot there. I for one want realism (in this case correct stadium criteria). I always start in a low league, usually Conference North/South so your claim doesn't hold much wait.

IRL, a lot of teams get a stay of execution on the proviso of the work being done in a certain timeframe.

Yes they do, and a few are kicked out of the league they were promoted to for failing to improve their grounds. Basically it punishes the player for something that is totally out of their control, which is never good even if it is realistic.

The ground requirements are frankly ridiculous at some of the lower levels, where most clubs never get attendences even close to the 3000 capacity a BSS/N club stadium requirement (or 4000 for the BSP).

This is should definitely be in the game. But the board attitude must be more forgiving as well!!

SI have always said that minimum stadium requirements would not be implemented because of the frustration it would give to managers of small clubs on career games.

It used to be in though (CM01/02 certainly, put a club in the Conference, won the league on the last day, and promotion was denied).

I really do think it should be in, frustrating or not - it gives an incentive to bring players through for a profit, for example, with the money then going on ground improvements.

Thing is with stadium criteria at lower league levels they have to get the stadiums up to scratch over the season. Take Retford United for example. They won the Unibond Division One South league in the 07/08 season but were denied promotion due to the ground being nowhere near good enough for the Premier Division or the Division one league. In the 08/09 season they won the league again but were allowed promotion due to winning the league again. They were given a deadline of March 31st to get their ground up to scratch in 08 and it still hasn't been met. Their ground is a ****hole and shouldn't be anywhere near NPL level. The ground inspections get done around March time so a club can't decide over the summer since they got promoted to improve their ground. Clubs are being saved from relegation due to other teams going out of business and because of ground grading. The farce it would be for such features to be done on fm would be huge as the procedure of ground grading is quite complex. Sorry but i'm all for realism but their comes a point when it is too realistic. This is supposed to be a game after all.

I belive that Step 5 clubs have to apply for promotion before Dec 31st. This then triggers a ground inspection the following March, with work needing to be completed by June 30th.

Of course, clubs still have to finish in the top two to go up.

should be an option at the start of the game.. enforce gound rules yes or no?

FM is about realism, so it should be in the game. A simple tick box at the start of a game to allow the user to turn it off would cater for the more casual manager too.

Agreeing with it being in the game.

FM is about realism, so it should be in the game.

FM is a game that attempts to be realistic - but it is a game first and foremost. If it was 'realistic', you could only start off managing the local Under-10s, it would progress only in real-time, and you would have to take 5-hour training sessions every single day.

FM should strive to be realistic within the limits of being a game.

Weden, you may or may not have heard LLM ethos' - As realistic as the game allows. The game allows, as it is a game, access to Conference N/S as a starting point - starting there is realistic. Further, with the new edition, if you really want to go overboard, you can start pretty much anywhere on the English League Pyramid.

However, what is being suggested here is a very sensible, easily done, easily turn offable (for those casual managers) and most importantly for FM, which prides itself on its realism, realistic. This is a great idea, with the proviso of a tickbox much like the transfer window tickbox or the use real players tickbox at the start, and should, in my opinion, be in the game.

However, my query is for other leagues. At a guess, this has probably been suggested for SI before, and their gualm has been implementing it for other leagues where the rules may not be so clear.

In any case, definately should be in.