A bug perhaps? Amount of leagues and DB size affecting board responses.

So about 6 hours ago I decided to try starting a game as Betis, as always I tried them out starting with only La Liga and a small db loaded just to have a look at the squad, staff, finances etc. Doing this I noticed that they had quite alot in the bank (€19m) but only a quite small transfer budget (€2.5m) so I decided to ask for more funds. The board accepted and gave be a total budget of €10m. Good I thought and decided to start a proper game with 42 leagues loaded.

Problem was that once I had started that new game and asked for the extra funds it was rejected, despite Betis having just as much in the bank so I decided to go and experiment a little bit and I found that out of the 5 times that I started with a small database and only the top 2 Spanish leagues loaded I was given the extra funds 4 times.

Out of the 5 times I started with 42 leagues loaded and a large database I was told that the current budget was more than enough 5 times.

I know that ideally I should have done this atleast 10 different times but because of time restraints and boredom I just cba to do it more than 5 times each.

With the small db the clubs bank balace varied between €17m and €18m and with the large it was between €18m and €19m. So by all reason I should have had my request accepted more with the large db than with the small.

And before you ask I did the exact same procedure everytime I started a new game, chose the same leagues, gave the same expectations and went into the same menus before I asked for the funds. Never hit continue, made any bids or anything.

I find that both strange and terribly annoying and as an effect I probably won't start a serious save with Betis because I would need that extra €8m to buy a proper left-back and bring in a full set of staff.

I don't think this is a bug, board opinion etc will differ with every new game loaded in much the same way that a players CA/PA will differ. Each new load is not identical to the last load, so it isn't an exact experiment.

boost your reputation, don't leave it to automatic, you will get more transfer funds

I don't think this is a bug, board opinion etc will differ with every new game loaded in much the same way that a players CA/PA will differ. Each new load is not identical to the last load, so it isn't an exact experiment.

You do have to admit that there seems to be a pattern?

Like I said, 10, 20 or even more starts would be needed to do a proper statistical measurement but my boredom factor was breached once I had done five starts.

As for the comparison with CA/PA I don't think it is very fair. The odds for a -10 player to get a PA of 200 is 1/30, the odds for a yes/no question like the extra funds should be 1/2 or 50/50. The results of my quick test shows otherwise.

My the results of my quick little test seems to point to there being a link in the code, faulty or not, between the database size and/or the amounts of leagues and the response of your board.

boost your reputation, don't leave it to automatic, you will get more transfer funds

That would be boring for me as I like having that player rebellion at the start everytime I take over a big club, makes things a bit more interesting.

If you have more players available in the loaded database, then player's relative value should decrease. By this I mean, that on a small database with 2 leagues, there may only be 5 players of a sufficient standard to improve your team in a specific position. On a large databse with 42 leagues, there should be a larger number of players available that meet the same criteria. Subsequently, the increased number of players should allow you to be able to find the players necessary on a smaller budget - and as a result the board may believe that you don't need more money to be able to do your job. On the smaller database, they may believe that they need to increase the funds to make you equally competitive.

If you have more players available in the loaded database, then player's relative value should decrease. By this I mean, that on a small database with 2 leagues, there may only be 5 players of a sufficient standard to improve your team in a specific position. On a large databse with 42 leagues, there should be a larger number of players available that meet the same criteria. Subsequently, the increased number of players should allow you to be able to find the players necessary on a smaller budget - and as a result the board may believe that you don't need more money to be able to do your job. On the smaller database, they may believe that they need to increase the funds to make you equally competitive.

Please keep in mind that the transfer system in FM08 is effed up pretty badly according to consensus before using it as an argument.

As for what you say, I doubt the AI (if there even is any AI involved in this particular action) are capable of such advanced logical thinking.

You do have to admit that there seems to be a pattern?

Like I said, 10, 20 or even more starts would be needed to do a proper statistical measurement but my boredom factor was breached once I had done five starts.

As for the comparison with CA/PA I don't think it is very fair. The odds for a -10 player to get a PA of 200 is 1/30, the odds for a yes/no question like the extra funds should be 1/2 or 50/50. The results of my quick test shows otherwise.

My the results of my quick little test seems to point to there being a link in the code, faulty or not, between the database size and/or the amounts of leagues and the response of your board.

I still disagree tbh, I don't see why it would be coded for the AI to give a certain answer each time, it's luck of the draw and that's the way it should be.