Too many players "want to move to a bigger club"

[Ranbir]

Of course, it isn't just rep. There is the country's economic factor, state of development(as a western style consumerist state, I guess?) and league standard.

Can a country improve economically thanks to the improvements of the game? Relative to the sport I guess so. Can the standard of the league improve over time? Perhaps.

---------------

i think we can all acknowledge coding is long and tedious. It was probably the dullest part in Mathematics at uni.

[Fred_FCB]

I think that something needs to be done more on club reputation. As CP managed Benfica and won how many euro cups CP? If in real life a team like Benfica won 6 champions leagues in a row players would be more willing to join that club. I think there should be a point when club rep over rules league rep.

Love it! And its quite accurate as well. Most leagues have a few top teams that are way more interesting in terms of career advancement. Giving clubs with a high rep in low rep leagues a better chance of keeping/signing would be a good compliment.

The main issue at hand is exacly the problem I presume "CP" had. No matter how many CL/Euro cups you bag in a row, if you are in a "sub-par" league you wont be able to sign players that would realisticly go there.

If say Lyon had 6 straight CL throphies I would bet my right hand that club would be more attractive than say some 4-6 placed team in any of the "big three" leagues

[CaptainPlanet]

If say Lyon had 6 straight CL throphies I would bet my right hand that club would be more attractive than say some 4-6 placed team in any of the "big three" leagues

Thing is we don't know if that's true, because it hasn't happened. (recently anyway)

A lot of people are basing the CL as the main factor here, which is not a very accurate way to look at it when looking at the bigger picture, alkthough understandable given the main population of users here being from Europe.

A few examples to ponder:

1) Arsenal continue to not win any league titles, domestic cups and don't get any further than the group stage of the CL for 10 years and continue to offer relatively highly paid contracts to new signings

2) Man City also haven't won anything for 10 years, but continue to finish in the CL qualification places and offer all new signings stupidly large contracts

3) FC Nitra of the Slovakian Superliga have no money to offer big contracts to any players but have won the league title, all domestic cups and the CL for 10 years in a row

4) Perth Glory of the Australian league have a billionaire owner offering massive contracts, win everything that their team can win for 10 years in terms of league title, domestic and regional cup

How do you think club/league reputation should work for each club in those circumstances? Because I guarantee there will be a huge divided opinion on how people think it should work. You will have people who will want to make a club in the middle of Kenya the biggest club in the world by winning local competitions, and others who will want a more realistic dynamic economy.

What is it that drives the worlds biggest players to join football clubs? Money? Prestige? History? The Competitions they're in? And how do you put all of those factors into a realistic mechanic when all you really want is to sign Aguero and Ronaldo to your Welsh village town football team because you're won the CL a couple of times.

[bardock]

I think that something needs to be done more on club reputation. As CP managed Benfica and won how many euro cups CP? If in real life a team like Benfica won 6 champions leagues in a row players would be more willing to join that club. I think there should be a point when club rep over rules league rep.

I doubt it.

Players won't give up the "big" leagues (no offence to the Portuguese) to play in Portugal no matter how many Euro Cups Benfica win in a row. Overall the league will be viewed as a weak one despite the big team.

League reputation should be as dynamic as player/club reputation. I don't see why they don't apply it.

Something like if Benfica win the Champions League then the league reputation rises by a set amount. Every year a team from Portugal doesn't win it will see the league losing some of those rep points til it hits a pre-programmed Portugal League low (basically what it was at the start of the game).

They can even have dynamic TV deals like the Prem. If a league suddenly rises in stature then the TV money can eventually increase once the current TV deal is over. It really won't be that hard to simulate (much harder to code I suppose). League rep determines how much money the league gets from TV deals. They can use the Premiership as a base line. Of course for countries that have a system like Spain where clubs negotiate their own TV deal then their club+league reputation will determine how much money they get using Madrid as the base.

It would take a decade of playing the game to see any noticeable difference. So for those who play long term saves this could actually be fun. Watching the FM world change around them.

Sure it'll be complicated for SI, but I feel it'll add a lot to the game. The best part of all of this is the game doesn't get any more complicated for us.

[AcidBurn]

Are you saying that just Benfica winning the champions league should be enough to raise the whole leagues rep?

[Ranbir]

Well something surely must encourage extra investment and the increase of TV viewer ship. Like I said, There is the country's economic factor, state of development(as a western style consumerist state, I guess?) and league standard to consider alongside rep. All of which are static and keep the world in the status quo.

I don't think the example of Benfica winning six times is a good one. Since for me the issue is if Benfica dominated for over two decades. There must be some domino effect which increases interest in Benfica's fanbase, which would impact domestic viewing figures(interest in Benfica's league will increase), encourage greater TV deals, which could encourage greater investment in the league itself.

Obviously the economic factors of countries, on whether they can improve or not, would be incredibly simplistic and only based relative to sport investment and value.

[AcidBurn]

I see where you are coming from but then you have the problem of is the TV deal one that benefits the whole league like England. Or is it on that benefits just the club like Real Madrid negoiate their own TV deal as do some of the Italian clubs I think.

[CaptainPlanet]

And who would judge the realistic boundaries of which leagues could improve and how much they could based on real life non-football circumstances.

Perhaps each league could have a CA and PA like players? The problem there though is that there will still be people who want to take any club from any country to being the biggest club in the world and all we're really doing is increasing the amount of leagues a bit based on some peoples view on which country leagues could possibly increase in rep.

I refer back to my examples in previous post.

[Arkim]

Take a look at the following post;

http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=3776882&postcount=41

Miles acknowledges that it is an issue they are looking at (or so it seems, but I could be misunderstanding) and whether it will be in FM10 or not is anyone's guess, however the sooner they implement the change, the better.

[Ranbir]

I think that pretty much settles it, Arkim.

[AcidBurn]

It will be interesting to see how it works in the game, hopefully it'll be done right.

[Fred_FCB]

Thing is we don't know if that's true, because it hasn't happened. (recently anyway)

A lot of people are basing the CL as the main factor here, which is not a very accurate way to look at it when looking at the bigger picture, alkthough understandable given the main population of users here being from Europe.

The main factor should ofcause not be CL victory, not when it comes to league rep. I think we have already established that individual teams do not make a league popular. What it does however is create interest. Imagine if say for example the French premier division teams did not reach group stage in CL/Euro cup for 10 years in a row. Would people even talk about them or the league? Just as an example: The swedish league had a great spell way back when IFK Göteborg did well over at the continent. It created some buzz, people knew about the team and thus the league. These days... How many of you non scandinavians can name one or a few teams in the Swedish premier division. Not many I presume.

The same thing applies to me and the Ukrainian league. I had no knowledge of a team such as Shaktar Donetsk until very recently. Why is that? My answer is simple, they have made impressive progress on the continental scene. Hence, I now have an eye for that league. Its not that I like it, nor do I follow it. But I can atleast recognize it contains one impressive team. I.e, they are in the limelight. Id guess that is what you qualify as a boost in league rep. Naturaly, that isnt the only thing and we have to acknowledge that footballers would hardly think in those terms. You do not base your career on something that may be a freak accident (no pun intended against Shaktar or the Ukrainian league). But still, people are talking about them. That was not the case a few years ago.

A few examples to ponder:

1) Arsenal continue to not win any league titles, domestic cups and don't get any further than the group stage of the CL for 10 years and continue to offer relatively highly paid contracts to new signings

I blame Sky

2) Man City also haven't won anything for 10 years, but continue to finish in the CL qualification places and offer all new signings stupidly large contracts

I could make the argument that whoever goes to Man C is more interested in that oil money than titles but I wont go there...

3) FC Nitra of the Slovakian Superliga have no money to offer big contracts to any players but have won the league title, all domestic cups and the CL for 10 years in a row

I presume by CL you do not mean Champions League. Sorry, Im confused.

4) Perth Glory of the Australian league have a billionaire owner offering massive contracts, win everything that their team can win for 10 years in terms of league title, domestic and regional cup

You are quite right, they cant attract the top players either. The problem with "off Europe" teams is just that.. They are not in Europe. Football may be global but it is still very much regionalized. Teams like Boca and River are huge over in South America, but the traffic of footballers is very much a one trip story. Its not only money that governs the choice of hot prospects from abroad (otherwise UAE league and the east would be equaly tempting) but naturaly things like lifestyle, fame and whatnot plays a factor.

How do you think club/league reputation should work for each club in those circumstances? Because I guarantee there will be a huge divided opinion on how people think it should work. You will have people who will want to make a club in the middle of Kenya the biggest club in the world by winning local competitions, and others who will want a more realistic dynamic economy.

What is it that drives the worlds biggest players to join football clubs? Money? Prestige? History? The Competitions they're in? And how do you put all of those factors into a realistic mechanic when all you really want is to sign Aguero and Ronaldo to your Welsh village town football team because you're won the CL a couple of times.

You hit the nail on the spot here mate. What drives the worlds best? Honestly, I dont know.

All I can say is, before this discussion turns into a rant about the philosophical aspects of the game (of football that is, not FM), that we could benefit from a more fluid system.

Perhaps a good first step could be to mimic the regional differences when it comes to the general flow of players. Set up a regional distribution of reputation among clubs based on continents. Im not sure what plays the biggest part, codewise, when a player decides what club to sign for. My guess it is squad status, wage, team rep and league rep, hardly in that order. But still, we all know how much harder it is to sign a future superstar from an english club as compared to an argentinian club.

In short: I have no concrete idea on how this issue should/could be dealt with. Something, however, has to be done. Im not calling for a perfect system, but a start. I dont mind if its crude or slow. How many people do play a game for 40+ seasons? I havent. But Im sure it would appeal to a lot of people to at least have the chance to "try" to influence the bigger picture. Perhaps your top team in a crappy league might, after a few seasons, feel it is easier to keep hold of top players. Perhaps, after a diligent few decades, you are on even terms with the Dutch league. What satisfaction wouldnt you feel, as a player, if you manage that?

[CaptainPlanet]

I'm all for the idea btw, and was glad to read the linked post above from Miles. Just trying to point out to people that it's not as simple as they think to implement.

[Fred_FCB]

Take a look at the following post;

http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=3776882&postcount=41

Miles acknowledges that it is an issue they are looking at (or so it seems, but I could be misunderstanding) and whether it will be in FM10 or not is anyone's guess, however the sooner they implement the change, the better.

Sorry for the dbl post, I take too long to write.. Good stuff anyway, nice to see they are looking into it

[tiltman]

The "move to bigger club" issue get a lot worse playing with a small database. Try playing 20+ countries with all leagues and a large db...

Or my 20 yo centreback who wants to leave and can choose between illustrious clubs such as Larisa, Volendam, Mouscron or Lecce!

Clubs like this have a lack of national talents when a small db are used, they want your players cause there's so few talents around.

So;

Instead of changing the Club/League rep. thingy SI should do something involving autogen's and AI scouting when there's few players around, popping up national talents these clubs can "buy".

[aditya]

do you gain club reputation from signing players with high reputation?

[tiltman]

do you gain club reputation from signing players with high reputation?

No. Club rep slowly increases when winning titles.

[Ranbir]

Huh? That is strange. Surely RM would have an increase in noteriety and revenue now they've signed Ronaldo. Of course, RM were big anyone but I guess the bigger example is Man City.

The devs have boosted Man City's rep, because they've been under a big money take over and they've brought in players like Robinho and chased Kaka with £100m.

[Arkim]

No. Club rep slowly increases when winning titles.

I thought it did, though? I remember in FM 07 or FM 08, the board would want you to sign a player with high reputation every once in a while so that it would increase the club's overall reputation? Unless that was just a gimmick of a feature?

[AcidBurn]

I just did a quick test selected Man City and bid £100 million for Gerrard he agreed. Before he signed the rep of the club was 8500 on the data update I use when he signed I went forward 2 days and the rep of the club went to 8534. So it seems a small boost is given to rep when buying world class players.

[Arkim]

I just did a quick test selected Man City and bid £100 million for Gerrard he agreed. Before he signed the rep of the club was 8500 on the data update I use when he signed I went forward 2 days and the rep of the club went to 8534. So it seems a small boost is given to rep when buying world class players.

Cheers. I knew it had an effect. Otherwise, the feature I mentioned in the previous post would of been purely cosmetic and pointless.

[Nomis07]

No-one is suggesting that league reputations rocket(or plummet) in the short term. But to keep everything locked damages the long-term game.* Leagues get an increase in reputation. That reputation is indicative of increased viewer ship and financial investment. Neither of which change, which again further damages the long term prospects of building a club from a "lesser" league.

*We're talking games that reach the 2030s and beyond, here.

That doesn't matter. How many in game leagues, even 30 years down the line, who started out small, now have a number of teams ounching well above their weight? I'd be surprised if there ae any. There will be leagues with single teams punching above their weight, but not a number of teams and for league rep to improve you need there to be a number of teams who have made a significant stride, not one.

[Ranbir]

And those number of teams can not improve if investment and reputation in the league as a whole is left static.

Success creates interest which opens possibilities of future investment interest and growth.

[RBKalle]

I don't think League Reputation should be such a big issue.

As many have pointed out already, there's PLENTY of teams with a respectable European pedigree and a decent "attractiveness" for good players, despite said teams playing in a not-so-fancy league.

Take FC Porto.

The teams in Portuguese league, 'cept the Big Three [Porto, Benfica and Sporting CP] have an average attendance MUCH LOWER than the Norwegian Tippeligaen, despite lying 9 places higher in the UEFA rankings and having a solid and successful football tradition.

Despite the poor average quality of the domestic league, FC Porto, and to a lesser extent Benfica and Sporting, still attract good players, which for sure don't sign for Porto because they can't wait to face the likes of Rio Ave or Maritimo, but because the team can provide them a decent international exposure.

Why should that be different in FM?

If my international campaigns with Rosenborg are on par with those of, say, Paris SG or PSV (and I can afford to offer £1/1.5M wages), why on earth should EVERY John Doe in my team want to sign for Rennes or Heerenveen???

[TheRealMagpies]

What is it that drives the worlds biggest players to join football clubs? Money? Prestige? History? The Competitions they're in?

I would say Competitions & Money are the major driving factors for a lot of players.

Playing for thier Nation for many players is thier biggest dream ... and high profile cup (ECC/FA) success can influence thier selection chances, not usually ingame though ..

Man C/Notts both highlight how much the £ matters to some players.

[AcidBurn]

Whilst money may be the main factor for players joining Man City, its not the only reason. The club is clearly going places with the cash to build a really good team. Lescott made the right decision stay at Everton on alot less wages or go to a team that has the finance to build a squad capable of winning the prem and maybe more. I know I would leave my current job for 4 times the wage and so would anyone else.

[AB-forever]

Static league rep needs to go. If a league's financial situation increases, an increase in league rep should be able to follow if clubs do well with the extra money. And the cap on club rep should be less harsh, for example if Benfica won the CL 6 seasons in a row they should be able to attract better players than their league rep would normally allow.

[Celtic_1967]

Static league rep needs to go. If a league's financial situation increases, an increase in league rep should be able to follow if clubs do well with the extra money.

Surely the clubs would need to do well without the extra money first, to increase interest in the league that would warrant extra money from TV deals etc.

And the cap on club rep should be less harsh, for example if Benfica won the CL 6 seasons in a row they should be able to attract better players than their league rep would normally allow.

I do agree with this to some extent, although I guess it would be important not to go too far the other way. We dont want a situation where suddenly Benfica can attract Kaka and Messi et al.

[AB-forever]

Surely the clubs would need to do well without the extra money first, to increase interest in the league that would warrant extra money from TV deals etc.

Yeah probably but it doesn't even have to be that well. IIRC Danish clubs weren't doing particularly well in Europe when the Danish league got it's most lucrative TV-deal ever.

I do agree with this to some extent, although I guess it would be important not to go too far the other way. We dont want a situation where suddenly Benfica can attract Kaka and Messi et al.

Of course.

[TheMister]

Smashing debate people.

I'm for change - albeit it has to be over a long period of time; leagues HAVE to be given the CHANCE to improve.

One example would be the here often quoted SPL. If there was to be one team other than the old firm (I only say that as it keeps being mentioned here) improve in that league, which has a reputation of 13, I don't see why it shouldn't have the same reputation as Holland, which is at 14.

I take on board all the good reasons from those who don't want change - I can't argue with any of it. But the gameworld should be changeable, even if that doesn't reflect real life.

[MachinegunHead]

Take a look at the following post;

http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=3776882&postcount=41

Miles acknowledges that it is an issue they are looking at (or so it seems, but I could be misunderstanding) and whether it will be in FM10 or not is anyone's guess, however the sooner they implement the change, the better.

Thanks for linking to that post, I was meaning to post that in here.

I made a thread on this exact issue quite a while ago: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=56377

You'll be happy to notice a reply or two from some SI staff, and a lot of points discussed in this thread were also discussed in the linked one in a fair bit of detail.

I've thought about this topic a lot though, as it is something that I'd really like to see implemented into the game. Given the difficulty in making league reputations dynamic, as well as the economic model, I think that for FM11 (I doubt there is time for FM10) it may be worth putting in a different solution as a placeholder. If players were to put more weighting onto playing for an illustrious CLUB as opposed to a club in an illustrious LEAGUE, then the static league reputations wouldn't be so obvious. As a manager of a club, you don't really have much control over changing a league's reputation (unless you are Sir Alex) but you do have a tonne of control over your club's reputation. One good season, and BOOM you're up the charts, one bad one, and you fall back a bit.

If Rosenberg were doing quite well in the Champions League, I could see some quality players being tempted across from the EPL and other large leagues. Sure the quality of the league itself wouldn't be so good, but the knowledge that you'll be playing champions league football year in year out would be quite a large carrot. Maybe all it would take, is to add another stat to player's personalities, being whether they put more emphasis on playing for a good club or for playing in a good league.

An example of this would be Jason Culina coming back to the A-league to play for Gold Coast United. He is at least twice the player of anyone else in the league, and is of EPL quality, but he was lured to the new Australian team by the club's reputation, the owner's reputation, and the money. There was of course a national bias (being Australian) but the relatively poor reputation of the A-league had no bearing, as he believes he can increase it just by being here.

Adelaide United has also lured players from other clubs SPECIFICALLY because they know they will be playing in the Asian Champions League at the end of the year. They left clubs with arguably more reputation because of the potential to play in such a huge competition, and to put themselves in a shop window. Other players who could have left quite easily to larger clubs have stayed, purely because they want experience from the ACL.

So basically, the point I'm trying to make is that the decisions a player makes on which club they go to, should rarely be based on only the league their playing in. They should be based on all of the competitions they're playing in, the money available, the club reputation, the exposure to audiences and other clubs, and the possibility of jumping across to a club who has the potential to achieve great things (i.e. an EPL player joining Rosenberg because he believes he may help them win the Champions League).

-MGH

[AndreTheShadow]

Heh.

I've got a Rosenborg 2031 save in FM07, and this was a big enough problem for me after I won the CL with RBK that I downloaded FMM for the specific purpose of changing the league rep, because everyone left.

[Ranbir]

I do agree with this to some extent, although I guess it would be important not to go too far the other way. We dont want a situation where suddenly Benfica can attract Kaka and Messi et al

After 20 years of success?

[Celtic_1967]

After 20 years of success?

That wasnt the point being made. The point was that Benfica have won 6 CL's in a row, but they are the only Portugese team to have had any relative success. In this case they would be able to attract good players but not superstars as the rest of the league hasnt moved on.

I am advocating an increase in league rep based on Benfica's success that will help them sign better players, but not such a huge boost that they can sign anyone they like.

Why would Kaka sign for Benfica in this situation. Sure he's signing for multiple times European Champions but he has to play the likes of Rio Ave and Boavista every week. I'm not convinced that the CL titles are enough to make up for the fact that the rest of the portugese league isnt a very good standard.

Lets try something, substitute the word 'Benfica' for either of the following words 'Celtic' / 'Rangers'. Also substitute 'Portugese League' for 'SPL'. Still think Kaka should be interested? I bet not many do.

[DodgeeD]

Going back to the point in the OP about players wanting to leave for 'bigger' clubs: this is something frustarting but not entirely unrealistic imo.

Taking Turkey as an example, Galatasaray won the UEFA Cup in 2000 with a team of mainly domestic players. As foriegn stars they had Hagi, Popescu and Taffarel (who all came to the club before its European success). After that UEFA Cup win and progression to the Champions League quarter finals the next year, a number of the Turkish players left for mid-table teams in the big European leagues. Granted, Emre went to Inter but other players went to clubs like Lecce, Parma, Mallorca and Blackburn. So, they left a team that had enjoyed success in Europe to go to teams in Italy, Spain and England that didn't qualify for Europe regularly. Sound familiar?

As for league reps, many examples of leagues like Serie A changing over the last decade have been given but, taking that example, what has changed? It has gone from being the top league in Europe to the 3rd best - a change but not a huge one. No league I can think of has made massive strides up the ladder. Sure, some leagues have improved and changed but the world has changed, not just football. Not so long ago, it was major news when a foreign player came to England because it didn't happen that often. When foreign players did come, or when South Americans came to Europe, they were usually the best their country had to offer. Now, clubs at all levels of football scout Europe or beyond for players of a decent level for their league. That has resulted in some 'mid-range' leagues improving but I don't think the overall rep/attractiveness has improved.

Going back to the example of Turkey, after Galatasaray's success, did any big name players come to their top league? A few, players like Jardel came but no superstar players were tempted to come here. For Galatasaray, their best players left and within a few seasons they weren't getting any further than the group stages in Europe. As for Ukraine, in the late 1990s, Dinamo Kiev were regulars in the latter stages of the Champions League but their best players (Shevchenko, Rebrov et al) dispersed around Europe and they slipped back. Now Shakhtar have had success but I expect the same will happen.

Ukraine and Russia are prime examples of what I mentioned above about the way the world has changed and how clubs cast the net further in pursuit of success. Players like Cavenaghi, Jo and Elano have move to those leagues to make a mark for themselves but ultimately, what has happened? They have moved on despite improved performances from that region's clubs in Europe. They still see Man City, Everton and Bordeaux as bigger clubs.

One more point on the dynamic league repuatation debate: as Captain Planet said, it would be very difficult to implement and we should also consider this: what happens to the rep of leagues that are not active in the game? In order to give those leagues fair treatment, processing time would increase a lot as the game assessed and adjusted their reps, attractiveness to players, finances etc.

[AcidBurn]

Great post DodgeeD I agree with all of it.

[RBKalle]

But about Galatasaray, it has to be pointed out that a good portion of the 2000 UEFA Cup winners who later left the team were already aging players who were, so to speak, looking to land a lucrative pre-retirement deal abroad

Even those who were kinda younger [28-ish] when they left, and were rightfully looking to establish themselves elsewher, came back "home" as soon as their hopes of being successful outside of Galatasaray.

And the same thing goes for pretty much every Top Star from a second-tier team... They DO want to get a shot in the Big Leagues, even in a non-winning team, but that doesn't usually happen before said players have made a name for themselves playing in their "native" team.

Rebrov moved to England when he was 26. Sheva left for AC Milan at 23 but after SIX solid years of goals in Kiev.

Having youngsters leaving in droves at the first semi-decent offer from a semi-decent Dutch club doesn't make much sense to me.

For sure not as long as said players aren't FULLY established in their domestic league, and not as long as their present team is on par with the ones who want him...

Say: would you leave a position of head-programmer at a small local software house to end up writing the User Manual at Microsoft?

[mm007]

Tbh i havent read all the postings here, becase simply dont have the time for it. But I am still very interested on SI's position on this "Dynamic League Reputation" development. I also think this would be a major addition to the game, and make it alot more playable in future years...

So, anyone knows about the official "reply" on this?

Thx

[Arkim]

Tbh i havent read all the postings here, becase simply dont have the time for it. But I am still very interested on SI's position on this "Dynamic League Reputation" development. I also think this would be a major addition to the game, and make it alot more playable in future years...

So, anyone knows about the official "reply" on this?

Thx

Scroll up a bit, and you'll find a link to an official response from Miles.

[mm007]

Thx Arkim!

Well, so apparently it will not be included this year from my fast read...

Too bad... it probably just needed some math equation to make it work... for a start could be just a simplified one (like adding all points in Competitions from League teams + National Team)

[endtime]

I don't think dynamic league reputation is the answer here. I can see this becoming a double-edged sword: due to one club being highly successful, other clubs can suddenly sign players of a much better standard, as a result they do much better in European cups, league reputation rises even higher so they can sign even better players, rinse and repeat until you have some backwater league with a reputation of 20.

Way I see it, all that is needed is for players to be slightly more loyal; like the OP pointed out, it makes little sense for players from a successful team to clamor for a move to Israel or a mid-table Dutch club just because their leagues' reputation is 13 while yours is 11

[Celtic_1967]

Way I see it, all that is needed is for players to be slightly more loyal; like the OP pointed out, it makes little sense for players from a successful team to clamor for a move to Israel or a mid-table Dutch club just because their leagues' reputation is 13 while yours is 11

What about reputation groupins then as an answer. For example, group all the leagues that have a rep between 1-4, another group for 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20. If you play in a league with a rep of 7 only clubs of higher groupings will unsettle your players.

The only issue I see here is that if you are in the top leagues (17+) then there arent anymore teams who can unsettle your players. This would cause an issue in that Portsmouth couldn't have their players unsettled by Inter Milan for example. So maybe each league grouping would need sub groupings based on club rep. This would mean that only a club with a higher rep could unsettle players at your club.

Just a thought, might not work, havent thought it all the way through.

[mm007]

I don't think dynamic league reputation is the answer here. I can see this becoming a double-edged sword: due to one club being highly successful, other clubs can suddenly sign players of a much better standard, as a result they do much better in European cups, league reputation rises even higher so they can sign even better players, rinse and repeat until you have some backwater league with a reputation of 20.

Actually this does reflect reallity also. For ex. in Portugal, Porto has been winning everything on a national level and has had good success internationally as well. This has made (at least for their biggest rivals) that they are now better players playing. Ex. Aimar, Saviola, Ramires, even Moutinho has stayed loyal to his club and refused a tranfer to Everton last year.

So, though not all the clubs are getting much better in Pt, at least the ones competing in european cups have had their team with better names...

[endtime]

Actually this does reflect reallity also. For ex. in Portugal, Porto has been winning everything on a national level and has had good success internationally as well. This has made (at least for their biggest rivals) that they are now better players playing. Ex. Aimar, Saviola, Ramires, even Moutinho has stayed loyal to his club and refused a tranfer to Everton last year.

So, though not all the clubs are getting much better in Pt, at least the ones competing in european cups have had their team with better names...

I don't think that this is the case that we're talking about here; the big three in Portugal - Benfica, Porto, Sporting - have long been established as upper tier clubs in Europe (if anything, their reputation has decreased since the 80s and 90s). Despite not having won anything of note in the past few years, Benfica are still clearly seen as a big rep club due to their past successes, and they surely pay a lot of money to their stars as well.

Your point would be more valid if clubs like Braga, Belenenses or Boavista had profited in the way you described above - i.e. successes of the bigger clubs allowed them to keep their best players and sign better ones, but I haven't seen any signs of that.

Take a look at Rosenborg in real life - they had a lot of success a few years ago, playing regularly and with success in the CL, but that didn't cause other Norwegian clubs to suddenly enjoy greater success in Europe; I think only Molde managed to play in the CL after them, and they got soundly beaten in their one foray. And Rosenborg themselves recently lost to some duff Kazakh club and if anything they have become weaker since their heyday.

What about reputation groupins then as an answer. For example, group all the leagues that have a rep between 1-4, another group for 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20. If you play in a league with a rep of 7 only clubs of higher groupings will unsettle your players.

The only issue I see here is that if you are in the top leagues (17+) then there arent anymore teams who can unsettle your players. This would cause an issue in that Portsmouth couldn't have their players unsettled by Inter Milan for example. So maybe each league grouping would need sub groupings based on club rep. This would mean that only a club with a higher rep could unsettle players at your club.

Just a thought, might not work, havent thought it all the way through.

That's actually quite a good idea, though I think four points is too big a margin - clubs from a 12 rep league should easily unsettle players from a 9 rep league. As far as clubs within the same league grouping are concerned, there's still club reputation that can be used.

[charlo116]

Perhaps the answer lies in having dynamic league reps which mainly affect the tv rights and perhaps prize money whereas individual club reputations would be the focus of players moving between clubs with no focus on league rep, this way the weaker teams would not benefit as much as the larger teams who are increasing the rep of the league. Just a sugestion though.

[Celtic_1967]

That's actually quite a good idea, though I think four points is too big a margin - clubs from a 12 rep league should easily unsettle players from a 9 rep league. As far as clubs within the same league grouping are concerned, there's still club reputation that can be used.

Cheers. As far as the four point margin goes it was simply off the top of my head. I was trying to keep them reasonably close together whilst still having a decent gap, if that makes sense. I'm not suggesting for a second that my numbers are correct, merely using them as an example.

[mm007]

I don't think that this is the case that we're talking about here; the big three in Portugal - Benfica, Porto, Sporting - have long been established as upper tier clubs in Europe (if anything, their reputation has decreased since the 80s and 90s). Despite not having won anything of note in the past few years, Benfica are still clearly seen as a big rep club due to their past successes, and they surely pay a lot of money to their stars as well.

Your point would be more valid if clubs like Braga, Belenenses or Boavista had profited in the way you described above - i.e. successes of the bigger clubs allowed them to keep their best players and sign better ones, but I haven't seen any signs of that.

Well, Braga have been playing now in European competitions with some decent success (so they clearly profited). When Porto won the UEFA, Boavista was playing well internationally. And more, as i said this would apply to the major rivals of that team. As i know, Rosenborg hasnt won anything at that time... so prob. they're reputation didnt went that high anyways.

Furthermore, 5 or 6 years ago would you thought that players like Saviola would ever play for Benfica? Even if Benfica has a great past... i dont think so; the fact is that if you "steal" the national title from a great European team (Porto) your reputation will go up and attract better players.

Again, if Rosenborg had won the CL a couple of times, not only their team would have gotten bigger star players, but also their rivals. Ex. Galatasaray when they won UEFA.

Now imagine in the FM Game, if you win the CL a couple of times (or more), and allways go at least to the quarters, your league should automatically get more reputation. Maybe some "$Big Spenders$" would get more involved in that league... that could be the solution!

[Takamaru]

Isn't it pretty straightforward?

1. One-off international success

2. Causes increased interest from some mid-level players (not world-class)

3. Causes increased interest from tv

4. Causes increased tv income

5. Causes increased budgets

6. Means more quality players

7. Causes repeated international success

8. Causes increased top-level player interest

9. Top players and continuous successes increases league quality

10. Causes increased league reputation across the board

But indeed, this is a process that very rarely actually takes place. I think only the EPL is an example of this since the dark ages of the ban. Too often the cycle already stops at 2 (for example Porto, Feyenoord, Galataseray in recent years).

It's just a thought, maybe I'm thinking too simple.

[RBKalle]

Take a look at Rosenborg in real life - they had a lot of success a few years ago, playing regularly and with success in the CL, but that didn't cause other Norwegian clubs to suddenly enjoy greater success in Europe; I think only Molde managed to play in the CL after them, and they got soundly beaten in their one foray.

True.

Actually, Rosenborg dominating their domestic league for almost two decades and having the CL money flowing in kinda RUINED the competitiveness of the league.

When one team is richer and has a clearly better organization, the rest can just fight for second place.

And that's what happened in Norway, with no team actually able to mount a serious challenge for the title for more than one-two years.

Still, that shouldn't prevent a single team from improving their reputation, despite the league staying the same.

And Rosenborg themselves recently lost to some duff Kazakh club and if anything they have become weaker since their heyday.

Thanks for rubbing salt in the wound...

But to be honest, that loss was just a matter of poor tactical choices and a bit of overconfidence.

The typical bad day at the office, just twice in two weeks

[SCIAG]

League reputation- doesn't it just keep club reputation down below a certain level? So raising the reputation of the Israeli league, for example, due to Maccabi Hafia or someone winning the CL and WCC, wouldn't make all Israeli teams better.