Not sure I agree.

I was in the database the other day and noticed that Arsenal's reputation is 8800 (or something close to that) yet Chelsea (who have won very little prior to their russian billionare taking over) have a higher reputation 9200 or 9250. Am I wrong is saying that one of the most successful english clubs (next to Liverpool and Manchester United) should have a higher reputation in the game because I am sure in real life Arsenal must be seen as the more successful club, surely? I mean just compare the histories of both clubs and the silverware.

I would have thought when it comes to reputation the database should have (with regards English Clubs) listed maybe like this:

Liverpool (highest Rep)

Man U

Arsenal

Aston villa

etc...

be nice in your replies and yes there probably is spelling mistakes, it is early and I have yet to have my 3rd cup of coffee.

Cheers

btw I am a Arsenal supporter ;-)

I was in the database the other day and noticed that Arsenal's reputation is 8800 (or something close to that) yet Chelsea (who have won very little prior to their russian billionare taking over) have a higher reputation 9200 or 9250. Am I wrong is saying that one of the most successful english clubs (next to Liverpool and Manchester United) should have a higher reputation in the game because I am sure in real life Arsenal must be seen as the more successful club, surely? I mean just compare the histories of both clubs and the silverware.

I would have thought when it comes to reputation the database should have (with regards English Clubs) listed maybe like this:

Liverpool (highest Rep)

Man U

Arsenal

Aston villa

etc...

be nice in your replies and yes there probably is spelling mistakes, it is early and I have yet to have my 3rd cup of coffee.

Cheers

btw I am a Arsenal supporter ;-)

Im not sure I agree with that, I mean that was in the past, Arsenal haven't won the EPL in a while or for that matter any other cup for a few years now. Chelski have been more successful in recent years than Arsenal. Although Arsenal are a good team, I'd say Chelski are more well known in Europe and around the globe atm. And Im a Arsenal fan aswell

Sorry if I blabber on

I was in the database the other day and noticed that Arsenal's reputation is 8800 (or something close to that) yet Chelsea (who have won very little prior to their russian billionare taking over) have a higher reputation 9200 or 9250. Am I wrong is saying that one of the most successful english clubs (next to Liverpool and Manchester United) should have a higher reputation in the game because I am sure in real life Arsenal must be seen as the more successful club, surely? I mean just compare the histories of both clubs and the silverware.

I would have thought when it comes to reputation the database should have (with regards English Clubs) listed maybe like this:

Liverpool (highest Rep)

Man U

Arsenal

Aston villa

etc...

be nice in your replies and yes there probably is spelling mistakes, it is early and I have yet to have my 3rd cup of coffee.

Cheers

btw I am a Arsenal supporter ;-)

i see your point, but i would say the rep has more to do with how a team has performed recently, i mean if you were going on history you'd have to put notts forest, blackburn, burnley, wolves and preston right up there!

the sorry fact is that fans care about the now factor. notts forest has won the european cup before, but where are they now? do people from all over the world support them as crazy as last time?

the sad answer is a no.

that's like saying Dynamo Dresden's reputation should be higher than Werder Bremen's.

I think they are right on about the rep.

Aston Villa?? What?

What was the last thing they won?

they're one of the founding members of the english football league, are one of the four english clubs that have ever lifted the european cup, won First Division Championship seven times and the FA Cup seven times.

Reputation in FM isn't about history. It's about whats happening now because it is largely used to decide title odds/players available etc.

they're one of the founding members of the english football league, are one of the four english clubs that have ever lifted the european cup, won First Division Championship seven times and the FA Cup seven times.

Right..any of that recently? No.

Reputation is a recent thing. By that logic, Blackburn should be up there too because they won the FA cup many times back in the 1890's - 1910's.

If it was about history rep, bury would be gods among the football world.

Right..any of that recently? No.

Reputation is a recent thing. By that logic, Blackburn should be up there too because they won the FA cup many times back in the 1890's - 1910's.

erm... if u had seen my posts above this u would notice that im with the fact that football fans focuses on the now factor only

erm... if u had seen my posts above this u would notice that im with the fact that football fans focuses on the now factor only

wasn't disagreeing with you

Although it does look like, reading my post again sorry

Although I fully understand where the OP is coming from here, I don't think for a second that a team's rep is based on overall success. Moreover, it is exactly as it says on the tin: Current Reputation of said team.

Chelsea were bought over by a Russian Billionaire who started throwing money around like a drunken sailor. Suddenly everyone in the (football) world hears about it and the world is talking. Couple that with back-to-back League titles (thereby winning their first league title for the first time in 50 years) = massive boost in club reputation.

Then we have Man City. They have just been bought by some Squillionaires from the middle east and are now, apparently, the richest club in the world. Their rep has already improved significantly, but if they were to go on and win some titles and/or cups in the next few years; everyone would then be talking about them too (if they aren't already).

If Liverpool don't buck their ideas up soon and win a league title or two, we could find ourselves floundering down the rep trough, much like Aston Villa, Nottm Forest etc...

i see your point, but i would say the rep has more to do with how a team has performed recently, i mean if you were going on history you'd have to put notts forest, blackburn, burnley, wolves and preston right up there!

Yeah, I agree with you, good point, so I can't help wonder why those clubs don't get better rep's as well, I think it should be based on history, just my view though, but good reply none the less, thanks.

Aston Villa?? What?

What was the last thing they won?

I thought Villa had a solid history, I was looking at club history as rep rather than present, again just my view.

they're one of the founding members of the english football league, are one of the four english clubs that have ever lifted the european cup, won First Division Championship seven times and the FA Cup seven times.

Yes, that is what I am talking about "a clubs history should determine their reputation"

cheers

If it was about history rep, bury would be gods among the football world.

Wow, I didn't know that, what is their history like?

I would be interested.

Cheers

Wow, I didn't know that, what is their history like?

I would be interested.

Cheers

Eastern Counties League: Winners 1963-64; Runners Up 2004-05,

Eastern Counties League Cup: Winners 1961-62, 1963-64

FA Vase : Semi Finalists 2005-06, Quarter Finals 2004-05, 1988-89,

Metropolitan League: Winners 1965-66; Runners Up 1967-68, 1970-71,

Metropolitan League Cup: Winners 1967-68,

Suffolk Premier Cup Winners: 1958-59, 1959-60,1960-61, 1961-62, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1970-71, 1977-78, 1995-96

Suffolk Senior Cup Winners: 1936-37, 1937-38, 1938-39, 1944-45, 1984-85.

Memorial Cup Winners: 1982-83

Eastern Counties League: Winners 1963-64; Runners Up 2004-05,

Eastern Counties League Cup: Winners 1961-62, 1963-64

FA Vase : Semi Finalists 2005-06, Quarter Finals 2004-05, 1988-89,

Metropolitan League: Winners 1965-66; Runners Up 1967-68, 1970-71,

Metropolitan League Cup: Winners 1967-68,

Suffolk Premier Cup Winners: 1958-59, 1959-60,1960-61, 1961-62, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1970-71, 1977-78, 1995-96

Suffolk Senior Cup Winners: 1936-37, 1937-38, 1938-39, 1944-45, 1984-85.

Memorial Cup Winners: 1982-83

Very impressive, thanks for the info.

The thing is, that would kinda ruin the game mechanics. You'd have chelsea being able to attract hardly any player of note while Bury would be front of the line for superstars

Aston Villa?? What?

What was the last thing they won?

villa have a big history, but i do agree that they should not have a big rep on the game(btw im a villa fan)but with the likes of chelsea you have to think about money players will go there for higher wages.so they should have a higher rep then arsenal.

It would be nice if those clubs with history did have it recognised in their reputation. They could try implementing a system that adds rep for past victories that diminishes over the years, so after 30 years or so that victory no longer carries any weight in the world of reputation. Obviously it couldn't be a linear fall over the years and the points would have to be heavily weighted towards recent success but fall off quite quickly in the first 10 years if that success isn't followed up. This way, teams that have history get that recognised but at a much lower points total but at the same time it's enough to set them apart from their peers. It's not a perfect solution but I think it has some merit. Opinions?

I think its fine as is (recent rep). OP having Liverpool at the top? That must be the 3rd/4th choice team for the average player to move to if they have any choice (based on current system).

ManU

Chelsea

Arsenal

Liverpool

Tottenham

Villa

Harchester

etc.

It would be nice if those clubs with history did have it recognised in their reputation. They could try implementing a system that adds rep for past victories that diminishes over the years, so after 30 years or so that victory no longer carries any weight in the world of reputation. Obviously it couldn't be a linear fall over the years and the points would have to be heavily weighted towards recent success but fall off quite quickly in the first 10 years if that success isn't followed up. This way, teams that have history get that recognised but at a much lower points total but at the same time it's enough to set them apart from their peers. It's not a perfect solution but I think it has some merit. Opinions?

thats a good idea.like the player signed for x club because they were a great team years ago or a player signs for a club becasue he likes the history of the club.

Exactly. Something like this would definitely set a team like Leeds above those around them in terms of rep, which is as it should be.

But isnt that, in some way, reflected in the rep value given to a club like Leeds? i.e. Leeds probably have a high/the highest rep for any team in that league?

Player comments would be good though (and necessitate an extra mechanics feature).

Well, I hadn't actually checked on Leeds but they came to mind. Probably a bad example anyway given their relatively recent success before the whole financial collapse thingy. You know what I mean though. Using it as something to seperate teams that are on a level plain so the team with a history of winning things is more appealing though they may currently be in the same situation.