Will the sponsorship and feeder club system be fixed in 2012?

One of my main gripes with the FM series is that misrepresentation of sponsorship in comparison to your clubs status. It's never been changed throughout my time of playing FM games, and it does get quite annoying.

For example. Manchester United at the start of the game, probably have 7+ sponsors each gathering a sizeable sum. Luton town though only have the two, shirt sponsorship and kit sponsorship. Now granted that's a relatively fair assessment, considering the gulf between the two teams. But how come i can take Luton up the leagues, win the CL 5/6 times on the go, and still only receive the two sponsors. Whilst Utd hit decline and sink down the league yet get a tonne more money from sponsors.

Will this be finally sorted in 2012, will the amount of sponsors be finally represent your teams representation in the game?

Personally though, i would like to see even the smaller teams have more than just kit and shirt sponsor. After all, there is not many football teams you go to that doesn't have a few different sponsors on the hoardings around the pitch?

Another gripe is the feeder club system. This was supposed to be fix in the latest 2011 patch. How ever it still played up for me. How ever again how come i can take Luton to be the worlds biggest team, yet still my board can't find a feeder club?

I agree with you.

The feeder club issue is probably a bug, since it worked fine in FM10. I have never had my board accept finding a feeder club to loan out players to. That option does not work. I have had First Option feeder clubs accepted, though, and you can loan out to them as well.

SI should just have the option greyed out if the club's reputation isn't high enough to allow more feeder clubs. This leads to another issue: the reputation system isn't dynamic enough for clubs that rise quickly through the ranks. It is too much based on winning trophies. If you get promoted with Crewe to L1, the minimum reputation of Crewe should jump straight up to a "base league reputation" of L1 and not stay in L2 territory for several years. A L1 club is a L1 club - end of. The same goes for Premer League: any club, however small, getting a promotion to PL is a PL club and should be regarded as such.

If your team gets promoted and ends up in a mid-table position the first PL season, it should really not be tipped at 20th place the next season regardless of the club's name. And if you end up 10th the second PL season, you should be regarded as a mid-table club not a relegation candidate the third season.

Needless to say, the sponsorship mechanics must be equally dynamic.

i got ground sponsorship as well with luton but in fairness i did move ground in 2018. however we are still miles behind in terms of sponsorship despite being premier league champions.

I'd like to see this fixed for FM12, its frustrating having the lowest sponsorship in the Premiership all the time when you take a BSS/BSN team all the way to the Premiership.

Good points, hopefully it will be fixed for FM12.

Well my board for decades didn't give me a feeder club, why? because of the chairman, as soon as I got a new one, I was able to get a couple of feeder clubs, it's largely down to the chairman.

I have 2 commerical feeder clubs, 1 first option, 1 for improving my scouting network and 1 for sending players on loan, i must have a good chairman

SI should just have the option greyed out if the club's reputation isn't high enough to allow more feeder clubs. This leads to another issue: the reputation system isn't dynamic enough for clubs that rise quickly through the ranks. It is too much based on winning trophies. If you get promoted with Crewe to L1, the minimum reputation of Crewe should jump straight up to a "base league reputation" of L1 and not stay in L2 territory for several years. A L1 club is a L1 club - end of. The same goes for Premer League: any club, however small, getting a promotion to PL is a PL club and should be regarded as such.

Sorry but I really can't agree with this.

Last season Southamption (effectively a Championship side given their support, stadium and playing staff) were in League One along with Dagenham & Redbridge (really a League Two side overachieving, as it ultimately proved). It would be farcical to say they would have similar basic reputation.

Also have a look at the cases of Nolan and Bentley moving to Championship West Ham - either of these players could play in the Premier League but have instead dropped down a level.

Sorry but I really can't agree with this.

Last season Southamption (effectively a Championship side given their support, stadium and playing staff) were in League One along with Dagenham & Redbridge (really a League Two side overachieving, as it ultimately proved). It would be farcical to say they would have similar basic reputation.

Also have a look at the cases of Nolan and Bentley moving to Championship West Ham - either of these players could play in the Premier League but have instead dropped down a level.

Oh THAT is not what I meant. I want Dag&Red to be considered a L1 team, but this doesn't mean that Southampton should not have a higher reputation. Dag&Red should have had a bottom-L1 reputation last year and back to top half L2 this season. Conversely, even though Southampton as a club is of Championship/PL reputation, they shouldn't attract players who deem themselves of good Championship quality to L1.

I argue for a more dynamic club reputation, and I'd like it to have two separate layers that together forms the total attractiveness of the club. The league should be enough to attract players on its own, but the club's long-term stature should of course also count. One short-term reputation and one long-term so to speak. The goal is simply to prevent clubs making successive promotions/relegations to have L1 reputation in the Premier League (and vice versa) because this upsets the morale/motivation system. The current reputation system is not dynamic enough to address this problem.

Oh THAT is not what I meant. I want Dag&Red to be considered a L1 team, but this doesn't mean that Southampton should not have a higher reputation. Dag&Red should have had a bottom-L1 reputation last year and back to top half L2 this season. Conversely, even though Southampton as a club is of Championship/PL reputation, they shouldn't attract players who deem themselves of good Championship quality to L1.

They signed both Danny Butterfield and Richard Chaplow, decent quality Championship players those.

I argue for a more dynamic club reputation, and I'd like it to have two separate layers that together forms the total attractiveness of the club. The league should be enough to attract players on its own, but the club's long-term stature should of course also count. One short-term reputation and one long-term so to speak. The goal is simply to prevent clubs making successive promotions/relegations to have L1 reputation in the Premier League (and vice versa) because this upsets the morale/motivation system. The current reputation system is not dynamic enough to address this problem.

Although I agree with this, not sure how easy it would be to implement mind.

i got ground sponsorship as well with luton but in fairness i did move ground in 2018. however we are still miles behind in terms of sponsorship despite being premier league champions.

Yep that's what i mean, if you take a lower team to the top heights, the only additional sponsorship you can realistically get is ground sponsorship. You won't ever get any additional sponsorship deals, which is actually quite annoying.Saying the sponsorship of teams are unrealistic anyway, as i said in the op, even teams in the lower rungs of the pyramid will have more than two sponsors. It would be great if you could start with kit, shirts and several hoarding advertisement sponsors. Then as you rise through the ranks, your kit deals increase your pitch side hoarding deals increase and then you start getting more commercial partners on board.

As for the feeder club system, even if it's to do with my chairman, it's still very restrictive. It was fine in 2010, but changed in 2011. I'm the worlds best teams, even the most numbnuts of a chairman would be able to find a feeder club.

SI should just have the option greyed out if the club's reputation isn't high enough to allow more feeder clubs. This leads to another issue: the reputation system isn't dynamic enough for clubs that rise quickly through the ranks. It is too much based on winning trophies. If you get promoted with Crewe to L1, the minimum reputation of Crewe should jump straight up to a "base league reputation" of L1 and not stay in L2 territory for several years. A L1 club is a L1 club - end of. The same goes for Premer League: any club, however small, getting a promotion to PL is a PL club and should be regarded as such.

I sort of agree.

What I think could be best is a bit of an overlap.

So this year Swansea and Norwich, would have a similar rep to West Ham and Birmingham/Leicester.

Meaning some players going to top Championship sides because they are offering better wages.

But not preventing Swansea and Norwich signing players from the championship and meaning premier league cast offs would consider them.

don't know if it could be implemented though.

Well my board for decades didn't give me a feeder club, why? because of the chairman, as soon as I got a new one, I was able to get a couple of feeder clubs, it's largely down to the chairman.

Yep. Your chairman has stats just like any other backroom staff, albeit ones you can't see, and his performance will be related.

Playing as Barcelona and have just finished the 2037/2038 season and I was to get a new main kit sponsorship deal and a new TV deal. The clubs stature bar is maxed out, we have won La Liga 7 times in a row been pretty successful in Europe. Judge my suprise when I see both the main kit deal and the TV deal is going down, the main kit deal only a few hundered thousand but the TV deal more than 30 million less than the previous one.

I find it incredibly annoying when you're a big club and you have an established link with a feeder club and you can't get your players to go on loan there. In old FMs, it was no problem. But, for example with Man Utd, it is almost impossible to get youngsters to go to Antwerp for a loan, with the exception of the odd 16 year-old. I understand that the massive difference in club reputation and league reputation and country reputation probably has a lot to do with it. But, generally, when Man Utd decide they want to loan a player to Antwerp in real life, that player goes, whether he likes it or not.

What is the point in having feeder clubs when you can't even use them like this?

Didn't know about the feeder club issue but it makes sense. I haven't been able to get a parent or feeder club at all since the 11.3 patch. No associated clubs at all, my boards always agrees to look and then comes back saying they didn't think it was important.....