Premiership Teams in order of reputation?

ok,im editing my game for the 08/09 season and was just wondering what order of reputation would you give to the top 10 teams in the premiership?would it be

man u,chelsea,liverpool,arsenal,man city,tottenham etc...

what order would you put them in and does man citys new financial status have an effect on this?

ok,im editing my game for the 08/09 season and was just wondering what order of reputation would you give to the top 10 teams in the premiership?would it be

man u,chelsea,liverpool,arsenal,man city,tottenham etc...

what order would you put them in and does man citys new financial status have an effect on this?

I would definitely increase Man City's reputation.

As for top 10 you could probably find a post or something

about that on here.

IMO :

1) Manchester United

2) Chelsea

3) Liverpool

4) Arsenal

5) Man C

6) Spurs

7) Newcastle

8) Villa

9) Westham

10) Portsmouth

11) Everton

12) Blackburn

13) Sunderland

14) Boro

15) Fulham

16) Wigan

17) Bolton

18) West brom

19) Hull

20) Stoke

i think it should be man utd, liverpool, chelsea, arsenal, Everton, City, Newcastle, Villa, Tottenham, Blackburn, West Ham, Bolton, Middlesborough, Portsmouth, Fulham, Sunderland, West Brom, Wigan, Stoke, Hull

Liverpool would probably be ahead of Chelsea, they have a bigger fan base world wide

It depends on what you mean by repuation , whether it is in terms of finacnes ,fan base or how well they are knwon around the world or attracting players.

1) Manchester United (double champions )

2) Chelsea

3) arsenl

4) spurs

5) portsmouth

6) everton

7) Newcastle

8) villa

9) Westham

10) west brom

11) Fulham

12) Blackburn

13) Sunderland

14) Boro

15) Stoke

16) Wigan

17) Bolton

18) Hull

19) Liverpool

20) Man C

Rep means ability to attract players. For example, Hull's rep should be above Leeds'.

I'd keep City's around it's current level until they sign another player on Robinho's level. IMO Spurs' rep should be higher than City's.

Also, the suggestion that Pompey and Everton should be behind Newcastle is strange.

Newcastle ahead of Villa?

Personally I'd keep them all at whatever level they are at, but then I don't like medaling with such things.

Yeah, why are people suggesting Newcastle should be so high?

Newcastle are a bigger club , in terms of finincially at support base than Villa , Everton etc.

1) Manchester United (double champions )

2) Chelsea

3) arsenl

4) spurs

5) portsmouth

6) everton

7) Newcastle

8) villa

9) Westham

10) west brom

11) Fulham

12) Blackburn

13) Sunderland

14) Boro

15) Stoke

16) Wigan

17) Bolton

18) Hull

19) Liverpool

20) Man C

well we can see someone is a man unted fan lol

1) Manchester United

2) Chelsea

3) Arsenal

4) Liverpool

5) Spurs

6) Man City

7) Villa

8) Everton

9) Portsmouth

10) Newcastle

11) West Ham

12) Blackburn

13) Boro

14) Sunderland

15) Fulham

16) Wigan

17) Bolton

18) West brom

19) Stoke

20) Hull

United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool, Everton, Villa.

If reputation is purely the ability to attract players surely all you need to do is look at who signed for which clubs and determine the order from that?!

1) Manchester United

2) Chelsea

3) Liverpool

4) Arsenal

5) Spurs

6) Man City

7) Villa

8) Newcastle

9) Everton

10) Portsmouth

11) Middlesborough

12) Blackburn

13) West Ham

14) Sunderland

15) Fulham

16) Bolton

17) Wigan

18) West Brom

19) Stoke

20) Hull

If reputation is purely the ability to attract players surely all you need to do is look at who signed for which clubs and determine the order from that?!

Pretty much (a few minor things such as the number of shirts they sell in Japan to consider too).

1)Man United (close to max)

2)Chelsea (about 15 behind United)

3)Arsenal (about 40 behind Chelsea)

4)Liverpool (about 30 behind Arsenal)

5)Spurs (300 or more behind Liverpool)

6)City (close behind Spurs, say 20 points?)

7)Everton (60 points behind City)

8.Pompey (30 points behind Everton)

9)Villa (15 points behind Pompey)

10)Blackburn (50 points behind Villa)

11)West Ham (50 points or more behind Blackburn)

12)Newcastle (50 points or more behind West Ham)

13)Boro (30 points or so behind Newcastle)

14)Wigan (45 points or so behind 'boro)

15)Bolton (15 points behind Wigan)

16)Sunderland (15 points behind Bolton)

17)Fulham (15 points behind Sund'land

18)West Brom (50 points behind Fulham)

19)Stoke (10 below West Brom)

20)Hull (5 below Stoke)

I had to increase the gaps in rep to make it more balanced.

1) Chelsea

2) Manchester United

3) Arsenal

4) Liverpool

5) Man City

6) Spurs

7) Newcastle United

8) Everton

9) A Villa

10) Portsmouth

A lot of people think very highly of Newcastle then!!

A lot of people think very highly of Newcastle then!!

massive fanbase, one of the richest (in terms of assets, etc), and it wasn't too many years ago that they were doing well in the league and were in the champions league. in terms of attracting players, they'll drop considerably imo, due to what's gone on, no self-respecting manager / player would want to manage / play for them atm

1). United

2). Chelski

3). Farcenal

4). Liverpool

5). Spurs

cant be bothered to squabble over the others

A lot of people think very highly of Newcastle then!!

they have before the emirates came, newcastle had the 2nd highest attendance, even though they haven't won anything in 50 years

No other club in the <u> world</u> has fans that loyal

A lot of people think very highly of Newcastle then!!

they have before the emirates came, newcastle had the 2nd highest attendance, even though they haven't won anything in 50 years

No other club in the world has fans that loyal

they have before the emirates came, newcastle had the 2nd highest attendance, even though they haven't won anything in 50 years

No other club in the world has fans that loyal

That's not necessarily true. I respect Newcastle's fans massively, but let's not forget, among other things, that Man City were turning an average attendance of over 30,000 after being relegated twice in two seasons, which was an attendance four times larger than the other teams, despite the massive feel-bad factor, and City hasn't won anything in almost as long as Newcastle - we haven't come 2nd in the Premier League, either. I'm not saying Newcastle couldn't be that loyal, or that City's fans are better, but I think that to make a statement that Newcastle's fans are the most loyal just because they haven't won anything recently and because they love their club is a little short-sighted, especially considering they haven't been through what other clubs have, so we can't draw a comparison on those levels...

Surely fans of Fisher Athletic and even further down are more loyal than Newcastle's. Do they deserve huge reps?

Surely fans of Fisher Athletic and even further down are more loyal than Newcastle's. Do they deserve huge reps?

quantity as well as quality is important

What does fanbase have to do with reputation?

they have before the emirates came, newcastle had the 2nd highest attendance, even though they haven't won anything in 50 years

No other club in the world has fans that loyal

So where were 40,000 of these 'loyal' supporters 17 years ago?

1) Man Utd

2) Liverpool

3) Chelsea

4) Arsenal

5) Spurs

6) Newcastle

7) Everton

8) Villa

9) Man C

10) West Ham

hull above stoke definetely

Here's 8.0.2 for reference:

Manchester United 9250

Chelsea 9200

Liverpool 8850

Arsenal 8800

Tottenham 7350

Newcastle 7150

Everton 7000

Aston Villa 6850

Manchester City 6850

West Ham 6850

Blackburn 6750

Bolton 6700

Middlesbrough 6700

Portsmouth 6500

Sunderland 6200

Birmingham 6150

Fulham 6050

Wigan 6000

Reading 5900

Derby 5750

1) Manchester United (double champions )

2) Chelsea

3) arsenl

4) spurs

5) portsmouth

6) everton

7) Newcastle

8) villa

9) Westham

10) west brom

11) Fulham

12) Blackburn

13) Sunderland

14) Boro

15) Stoke

16) Wigan

17) Bolton

18) Hull

19) Liverpool

20) Man C

Someone is sour for losing last week, lol

They should do reputation by how ARD your fans are. West Ham obviously being the ardest of the lot.

I honestly see the departure of Mourinho a dent in Chelsea's rep, I can't see them being ahead of Arsenal, but probably higher than Liverpool.

Man Utd

Arsenal

Chelsea

Liverpool

with the signings of Robinho, Jo, Elano, Kompany, etc I think that City will jump the likes of Spurs, Newcastle and Villa.

Man City

Spurs

Newcastle

Villa

Everton

the rest, I don't have the paitence.

1. Man Utd (Twice Premier League champions, and current European champions too.)

2. Chelsea (A fairly obvious choice for 2nd)

3. Liverpool (While the squad isn't as good as Arsenal's, they have won the Champions League "recently" and also have an enormous history)

4. Arsenal (They're called "The Big Four" for a reason!)

5. Spurs

6. Everton

7. Man City

8. Aston Villa

9. Newcastle United

10. Portsmouth/Sunderland

1). United

2). Chelski

3). Farcenal

4). Liverpool

5). Spurs

cant be bothered to squabble over the others

And there you have it in one with what is wrong with football!

Fanbase shouldn't come into reputation, but it does.

Ask a player whether he would prefer to play in front of 50k or 20k and most would chose the former.

Additionally the location of the club counts for a lot too. Clubs around London and Manchester would find it easier to attract players than the likes of Norwich, Carlisle, Hull and Bristol.

Using the figures above you would have perhaps every Premier League club starting with a reputation of 5000. Add on a figure for fanbase (not a large number), then a figure for location and then finally add in a figure for likelihood of winning trophies. Perhaps historical data can be factored in too eg Huddersfield whilst being in league 1 would have a higher reputation than Bradford despite Bradford being a Prem Lg club not so long ago. Huddersfields 3 Div 1 titles in the 30's (I think) would give their rep a small boost.

And finally, during the summer Hull signed Geovanni in an attempt to increase the reputation of the club (Jay Jay last season) in an effort to use him as a carrot to entice other players. No idea how this would be factored in?

IMO :

1) Manchester United

2) Chelsea

3) Liverpool

4) Arsenal

5) Man C

6) Spurs

7) Newcastle

8) Villa

9) Westham

10) Portsmouth

11) Everton

12) Blackburn

13) Sunderland

14) Boro

15) Fulham

16) Wigan

17) Bolton

18) West brom

19) Hull

20) Stoke

A reputation must be based on previous achivements, not on the promise of future ones. Man City's reputation can not be changed until its proven in game by league position, cup progress etc. Having lots of money doesn't improve reputation. How its spent and reflected in team results will

6-0 drubbing of them against Pompey is in sufficient

A reputation must be based on previous achivements, not on the promise of future ones. Man City's reputation can not be changed until its proven in game by league position, cup progress etc. Having lots of money doesn't improve reputation. How its spent and reflected in team results will

6-0 drubbing of them against Pompey is in sufficient

Sour grapes?

This thread genuinely makes me sad about football How anyone can consider Man City as having a bigger reputation than Spurs, Newcastle, Villa and Everton is beyond me. Also it pains me to say it, but surely Liverpool should be higher than Chelsea.

This thread genuinely makes me sad about football How anyone can consider Man City as having a bigger reputation than Spurs, Newcastle, Villa and Everton is beyond me. Also it pains me to say it, but surely Liverpool should be higher than Chelsea.

That's what I thought too

Liverpool are the most successful club in English history and have a huge fan base, therefore a worldwide reputation, but not as big as manchester united, but certainly bigger than Chelsea's

It seems most people in this thread are confusing reputation with wealth

Definition of reputation:

1. the estimation in which a person or thing is held, esp. by the community or the public generally; repute: a man of good reputation.

2. favorable repute; good name: to ruin one's reputation by misconduct.

3. a favorable and publicly recognized name or standing for merit, achievement, reliability, etc.: to build up a reputation.

4. the estimation or name of being, having, having done, etc., something specified: He has the reputation of being a shrewd businessman.

Now someone tell me how Chelsea rank above Liverpool based on any of the above definitions?

If we were talking about ability to pull a world class player, then Chelsea would be higher due to having bigger pockets, but that's completely different to what reputation is about

If we were talking about ability to pull a world class player, then Chelsea would be higher due to having bigger pockets, but that's completely different to what reputation is about

Thats what mine was based on because IMO this is the major reason for changing the reputations in game.

Sour grapes?

LOL - It was a joke. What is funnier is seeing Newcastle so high. Judging by their debt and lack of silverware I can't see how anyone thinks they are that high. How many Manager's have turned down Newcastle, its a joke. They are bottom 10 easy, Spurs also

They should do reputation by how ARD your fans are. West Ham obviously being the ardest of the lot.

The only time Millwall would find themselves in the top-flight of anything for the next century!

EDIT: Danny, I loved you in The Football Factory. And The Real Football Factories. And The Real Football Factories International. And Charlie And The Chocolate Factory.

That's what I thought too

Liverpool are the most successful club in English history and have a huge fan base, therefore a worldwide reputation, but not as big as manchester united, but certainly bigger than Chelsea's

It seems most people in this thread are confusing reputation with wealth

Definition of reputation:

1. the estimation in which a person or thing is held, esp. by the community or the public generally; repute: a man of good reputation.

2. favorable repute; good name: to ruin one's reputation by misconduct.

3. a favorable and publicly recognized name or standing for merit, achievement, reliability, etc.: to build up a reputation.

4. the estimation or name of being, having, having done, etc., something specified: He has the reputation of being a shrewd businessman.

Now someone tell me how Chelsea rank above Liverpool based on any of the above definitions?

If we were talking about ability to pull a world class player, then Chelsea would be higher due to having bigger pockets, but that's completely different to what reputation is about

Actually, your last sentence is exactly what rep is about in FM. It's the ability to attract players. Hence why Wigan's is higher than Leeds'. I don't think City's should be put up too high until they sign another player of Robinho's ilk.

This thread genuinely makes me sad about football How anyone can consider Man City as having a bigger reputation than Spurs, Newcastle, Villa and Everton is beyond me. Also it pains me to say it, but surely Liverpool should be higher than Chelsea.

In terms of ability to attract players, I think City probably are higher than at least three of the four teams you mentioned.

In terms of normal definition of reputation - I agree with you.

Someone is sour for losing last week, lol

nar not really, ill be happy at the end of the season when liverpool fail agen

Liverpool should have a world class reputation in FM because they do IRL, just behind Man Yoo despite remaining considerably more successful, and WAY ahead of Chelsea and Arsenal who have won how many European Cups?...

I imagine SI are waiting for Liverpool to win the league IRL before upping their rep in the game.

It's odd how, even now after 18yrs without winning it, Liverpool are considered among the title contenders every year.

Liverpool should have a world class reputation in FM because they do IRL, just behind Man Yoo despite remaining considerably more successful, and WAY ahead of Chelsea and Arsenal who have won how many European Cups?...

I imagine SI are waiting for Liverpool to win the league IRL before upping their rep in the game.

It's odd how, even now after 18yrs without winning it, Liverpool are considered among the title contenders every year.

"Reputation" in the game is not equal to "reputation" in real-life.

"Reputation" in the game is a measure of "attractiveness" of a team to a player based on success. If Messi left Barcelona for some reason, he'd want to go to Chelsea rather than Liverpool despite Liverpool arguably having a higher "reputation" in real-life.

Leeds, Newcastle and so on have fairly high real-life reputations but (rightfully) relatively-poor ones in the game, simply because they can't attract the best players. They can't in real-life either!