dafuge's FM08 small club to big club challenge

[Scoham]

I've had a request for a rule change which will make a big impact on the first season, but it should be for the good.

For FM09, all people should load all players from England.

This should mean that the newly promoted clubs in the second season are full of real players rather than getting empty squads with a handful of youth regens. This request came from a head researcher for the lower leagues whose work often goes unnoticed because of the large database overlooking these players.

Thoughts?

It's more realistic and more of a challenge, as you said a squad full of deadwood takes a while to sort out.

I've made threads during testing about the lower league players not being in the game unless you load all English players, but it seems thats how SI want it to work.

They should be there for cup matches, friendlies, potential transfers to playable clubs as well as promotion to the playable leagues.

[dafuge]

Retaining players from england adds an extra ~6,000 players and ~2,000 staff, whilst retainning just the players for the challenge teams adds ~1,000 players and 200 staff.

Also retaining all english players on the small database gives you a bigger database than the default large database - so retaining all english players on low spec machines may not be good.

Great information, thanks

That's a good point about loading all players on a small database, ever since this challenge started I've made sure that even the most basic machine will be able to run it, I don't want to start alienating people now.

I still think it is important that we all are managing clubs full of players though, so perhaps the DDT file could be made available for anyone who has problems running it all.

Personally I think I'll load them all, the thought of meeting real players instead of grey ones in the early rounds of the FA Cup makes it worth it.

[mag man]

I'm also quite keen on loading all players from England, will make the challenge more interesting. Previously I would always play first few games of season with grey players because my scouts hadn't come up with any players yet.

Could it have an effect on teams promoted?

[dafuge]

Could it have an effect on teams promoted?

Yes, the three feeder leagues below the BSN/S are fully researched but the current setup bypasses that and gives us empty squads. Loading all the English players should give everyone a full squad (of useless players) when they start.

[mag man]

Yes, the three feeder leagues below the BSN/S are fully researched but the current setup bypasses that and gives us empty squads. Loading all the English players should give everyone a full squad (of useless players) when they start.

Sorry, wasnt clear enough from me. I mean could having full squads loaded affect which clubs get promoted rather than reputation alone.

[dafuge]

Sorry, wasnt clear enough from me. I mean could having full squads loaded affect which clubs get promoted rather than reputation alone.

Not sure really, I'm assuming it will be the same as before.

[Thebaker]

Sorry, wasnt clear enough from me. I mean could having full squads loaded affect which clubs get promoted rather than reputation alone.

I played a game last year with all nations loaded and a lot of leagues, holidayed for a year and played with one of the teams being promoted (Tiverton), reloaded several times to see the teams available but they appeared to be the same higher rep teams i saw playing with dafuge's challenge rules.

Not definitive i know, but my point is that the teams were picked by rep rather than any players in the squads, besides some teams don't have many players at all anyway.

[daemonic]

Does the retain players option work the same if you don't play using real players?

[Blackmama]

Does the retain players option work the same if you don't play using real players?

As far as I know you only change the player names by unticking "Use real players" - so retaining players will be the same. They just have other names. As far as I know....

[dafuge]

I'm still undecided on parent clubs.

A total ban would make the challenge a little greater, while at the same time meaning that it will not be possible for clubs to receive loan players who are too good. A partial ban would mean we'd have to 'check up' on people, which is the last thing I want to be doing. No ban at all will mean there will be some people who get lucky and storm the BSN/S using a loaned superstriker.

I'm starting to think a total ban would be the most interesting.

[Blackmama]

with regards to the parent club discussion...

It's not an easy discussion. My opinion is that since parent clubs are in the game a total ban would be wrong. However stating in the rules that anyone taking part in the challenge cannot be affiliated with a club in the Premiership or Championship untill promoted to League 2 would be fair I think.

As for the "checking up" that's been going on since you started this challenge. Every single image uploaded is scrutinized by other challengers and I reckon a mandatory screenshot of afiliated clubs combined with a transfer overwiev could single out any cheaters.

I hope others will join in with opinions as well - a healthy debate never harmed anyone

[mocko666]

5 Clubs in the Premiership have teams which they are affiliated to in the blue square north south or below, while a further three teams have either a blue square premier team or a team from N.Ireland who are also semi professional so while it seems unlikely so it is basically 25 per cent of premiership teams or affiliated to a blue square prem team, i don't know if you can take that out of the challenge as obviously it happens.

Also, Coca cola championship teams there is 9 out of 24 teams who are affiliated to a blue square north/south team or below, therefore while not too often, it does happen. So can you take it out of the challenge when it does happen, i don't think you can. However obviously this is obviously my own two cents on whether it happens or not. It is up to you whether it is 'ban' such teams in the Blue Square north/south from having parent clubs in the premiership and championship.

However this information is purely based on the data in the 8.0.2 database so therefore it may not be correct to this present day, however this is the in game data i have to work with.

If you would like to know which premiership and Championship teams are affiliated to blue square north/south teams then feel free to ask. Either way i will be having a go at this challenge.

Thanks

[michaeltmurrayuk]

I'm still undecided on parent clubs.

A total ban would make the challenge a little greater, while at the same time meaning that it will not be possible for clubs to receive loan players who are too good. A partial ban would mean we'd have to 'check up' on people, which is the last thing I want to be doing. No ban at all will mean there will be some people who get lucky and storm the BSN/S using a loaned superstriker.

I'm starting to think a total ban would be the most interesting.

To be fair I'm against a ban on Parent teams, it's a feature of the game and doesn't the game now have the loan rules for the BSS/N?, also playing as Man Utd on the demo my youngsters are being snapped upon loan by FL teams, and with loans apparently being more common in FM09 we should have a smaller chance of loaning anyone good, as in my experiences for the first several seasons I can only ever attract players no-one else is interested in.

Also was their a major problem with loan players in FM08? I remember having a few, mainly a CD, RM and backup GK, but I remember the computer teams loaning far better players than I could.

It may be best to see how the first few days go - possibly just use the first weekend as a testing weekend, as from my memory each year the challenge has been slightly different, I miss FM06 when I signed half of Man Utd's youth team on free's

[daemonic]

I've mentioned it before but a total ban on parent clubs could be difficult as your board may decide to pair you up with a big team without it being requested. Once this is done I think it's a minimum of a year before you can cancel a link and if it's a good deal financially the board may not be best pleased. This could result in cheating accusations because even the news item announcing the link may not be clear as to whether the board decided on the link or it was requested.

Even limiting what league you can have a parent from is difficult in this situation.

In priniciple I agree with the idea as i prefer to develop my own players anyway but I can't see how it can be done without problems.

[rlipscombe]

i think that you could argue and argue forever on this subject. if you don't ban it, some people may be 'lucky' enough to benefit from it. if you do ban it, there might be issues like those daemonic mentioned. A partial ban may work but i fear the thread could turn into a bit of a 'you're a cheat.... etc' feel should people be left to their own devices.

either way, i think the decision needs making before we go live again. IMO, i would leave it as it is. then those that want to 'abuse' the system can, and those that don't want to benefit from it and keep the game 'real' can do so of their own accord.

[mocko666]

But keeping the game 'real' would be to use these as is seen from the fact that Blue square north/south team do have big parent clubs which players go on loan to them is an issue i suppose we don't know about. However now it's been raised and people have views on this then either way people may look down on peoples achievements because they (sorry to single out your comments rlipscombe) 'abuse' the system. Which does put the thread open to cheating chants, as it is this challenge has always been played as the player having as much fun as possible, not a challenge against other people, therefore my 'vote' would be to keep it as it is and at the users discretion.

Therefore i feel that as long as people don't look down on people's achievements because they have used this method in their game, then it should work well.

[dlnwba86]

Hi All

I completed this challenge in FM07 with King's Lynn but failed miserably FM08, i will be starting this challenge on day 1 like the majority of you here. I just thought i'd chip in with my own opinions on this debate.

I think we're all in agreement that loading all players from England would be the way forward for both realism and to thank the researchers in our own small way as their work normally goes unnoticed at this level.

As far as parent clubs go, i did think a few days ago along the lines of Daemonic in that it has been possible in the past to be given a parent club without asking for one. Even if you reject all the players that they send you, an advantage in annual fees would still occur disadvantaging those without a club. My thoughts are that it is a part of the game and shouldn't be removed. I just think that will be too much of a hassle to check which club everyone has, even if we introduce some kind of upper league limit. What if we ask for a club and only get prem/champ clubs whilst others get offered L1 or L2 clubs??

I think it should just be allowed as it is, let the people who play decide what/if a parent club is what they want, those who do it without will just have more to brag about.

Look forward to starting this challenge this weekend with whatever rules dafuge decides to use!!

[daemonic]

I say leave them in and anyone who doesn't want to use them that's their choice. Lots of us have our own little rules for these challenges anyway. Some only buy players their scout finds on scouting trips, other don't load real players etc. This can be another one of those personal choices. It's not like it makes the challenge ridiculously easy anyway

Once you hit league football the chances of getting a player who rips the division apart diminishes so the challenge won't be any the less for allowing people use parent clubs whatever way they like.

[Guest roberto922]

Yeah I struggled first season in L2 despite having Arsenal as a parent club. Like I've said before the beauty of this challenge is its simplicity, take that away and I think it damages it. IMO you should leave the game ruleless (to a certain extent of course) and then you simply have greater bragging rights if you manage it without a Premiership parent club or a parent club at all etc. etc.

[rlipscombe]

I say leave them in and anyone who doesn't want to use them that's their choice. Lots of us have our own little rules for these challenges anyway. Some only buy players their scout finds on scouting trips, other don't load real players etc. This can be another one of those personal choices. It's not like it makes the challenge ridiculously easy anyway

Once you hit league football the chances of getting a player who rips the division apart diminishes so the challenge won't be any the less for allowing people use parent clubs whatever way they like.

pretty much sums it up for me that daemonic.

[Thebaker]

I say leave them in and anyone who doesn't want to use them that's their choice. Lots of us have our own little rules for these challenges anyway. Some only buy players their scout finds on scouting trips, other don't load real players etc. This can be another one of those personal choices. It's not like it makes the challenge ridiculously easy anyway

Once you hit league football the chances of getting a player who rips the division apart diminishes so the challenge won't be any the less for allowing people use parent clubs whatever way they like.

I agree completely with you.

I tried this challenge for the last 2 years and only at best reached the championship. The players i was loaned only ever seemed good for the non leagues, after that i never used any loan players as they were never good enough, didn't really help me to complete the challenge.

[DaveHammer]

Im another long term player of this challenge and think that the parent/feeder club should be left as it is. No need to change a winning formula.

In fm06 i took Braintree to the champions league and also got as far as this with Chelmsford in '07 but failed miserably on 08. However I have never officially finished the challenge(remember losing a champions league final with Braintree,gutting) but am adamant that this will be my year!

[daemonic]

Although as previously stated I'm not a fan of loaning players I'm going to add one more arguement in favour...I'm perverse like that sometimes.

While people who've played the challenge previously are likely to give it a go whatever rules are in place, banning parent clubs will probably mean less new participants. Reason being, without loans the first season or 2 will be even more daunting, the period during which a save is most likely to be abandoned. Allowing loanees in the first couple of seasons allows people 'get into' a save. If it just seems like an impossible slog then less people will stick with it.

[Jimbokav1971]

Ive been asking for a change to this for a few issues now.

The simple fact is that Parent/Feeder relationships between clubs based in the UK is outlawed by all the home nations FA's.

If we were to outlaw the setting up of feeder relationships, it would not stop people loaning good players from higher divisions, it would just make it a little harder and a little more realistic.

I would actually like dafuge to introduce more restrictions on loan signings rather than just ban parent clubs.

I propose that we limit the number of leagues that a player can drop via a loan move.

1. Premiership.

2. Championship.

3. League 1.

4. League 2.

5. Conf Nat.

6. Conf N/S.

My suggestion is that players are inly allowed to drop 3 leagues via a loan.

So a Premiership player could dop down as far as League 2, (that's realistic as I have seen David Wheater on loan at Darlo against Barnet).

Looking at it from the bottom up, A club in the Conference N/S would be able to loan players from League 1 and below, but not the CHampionship and the Premiership.

I think this makes the challenge more realistic and doesnt involve lots of checking up.

[mocko666]

jimbokav1971 but the thing is, is that teams in the premiership and championship are affiliated to teams in the blue square premier and north and south. Also in one instance they were affiliated to a team below the blue square north/south that is if the 8.0.2 data is correct, then how can we 'outlaw' something that happens realistically (in real life). How about outlawing loaning players that are in the premiership championship, while in blue square north/south. Then you can go up to Championship when in blue square prem, then premiership when in league 2 and so on.

However you can still take on loan the players sent via your parent clubs.

[Scoham]

jimbokav1971 but the thing is, is that teams in the premiership and championship are affiliated to teams in the blue square premier and north and south.

Aren't they mainly just annual friendlies though, such as Charlton and Welling, rather than loan deals?

[mocko666]

Ahhh so it seems that way, i stupidly did not think of that thanks Scoham. However Coventry, Norwich, Plymouth all have loans arrangements, so yes i would agree a ban on premiership parents clubs with loan arrangments however other arrangments, e.g. friendlies could be kept in there and as for championship teams i'm not too sure now as it is very unlikely (however does happen) so i guess thats up to dafuge and the rest of the users.

Either way i'll still be taking part.

[spankie]

I'll stick my oar into affiliated clubs debate.

Watford have an affiliation with Wealdstone and every year at around this time we send them one or more young players for a month or two loan. Partially to let them play in competitive games against men and also because there's not much U18 or reserve games at this time of year.

This year it's Marvin Sordell, last year it was Dale Bennett and Liam Henderson (the latter having 6 appearances for the first team so far) and the year before that it was John-Joe O'Toole and Theo Robinson.

Wealdstone are in the Isthmian League Premier Division, that's 5 leagues down the ladder.

We do play a friendly against them and Northwood, but that's always the reserves/U18s that play.

[Scab]

If it's correct that the board may decide on this without consulting you, I don't see an outright ban on parent clubs being practical. For the sake of simplicity I'd rather just leave this up to the game.

[Scoham]

I'll stick my oar into affiliated clubs debate.

Watford have an affiliation with Wealdstone and every year at around this time we send them one or more young players for a month or two loan. Partially to let them play in competitive games against men and also because there's not much U18 or reserve games at this time of year.

This year it's Marvin Sordell, last year it was Dale Bennett and Liam Henderson (the latter having 6 appearances for the first team so far) and the year before that it was John-Joe O'Toole and Theo Robinson.

Wealdstone are in the Isthmian League Premier Division, that's 5 leagues down the ladder.

We do play a friendly against them and Northwood, but that's always the reserves/U18s that play.

I'm guessing those players go to Wealdstone on 'work experience', rather than a loan? We occasionally do the same with u18 players, they join clubs at much lower levels than youngsters on pro contracts would.

Last season we had a player with Heybridge Swifts for a month or two, and about 3/4 years ago we sent a player to Bishop's Stortford, I think they were in the Conference South at the time.

[dafuge]

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=60316

Presume this feature will have to be turned off?

I didn't know anything about that feature.

My initial thought is to have it ticked, so we start the game with a full playing and non playing squad.

Thoughts?

[canvey!!]

I think we should aim for realism, and in that respect we don't want the game generating extra staff when IRL those staff aren't there.

[dafuge]

Also, after reading a lot of people's comments I'm thinking that the best way forward with parent clubs is to leave the rules as they are and let people choose how they play it. I may put a note in the rules though and explain about how there is a chance having a parent club may make the early seasons a bit easier though.

[dafuge]

I think we should aim for realism, and in that respect we don't want the game generating extra staff when IRL those staff aren't there.

Although thinking about it, with loading all English players those clubs should have the correct staff in place already, so maybe we don't need it.

This one might need testing out.

[Blackmama]

Although thinking about it, with loading all English players those clubs should have the correct staff in place already, so maybe we don't need it.

This one might need testing out.

Why not postpone the decision untill after the weekend. We'll all get a chance to see how the different subjects affect the game. Right now we are all just speculating...

[Husty]

My Profile

It's 21st June, but I hope there isn't big difference. I accidentally went 2 days over 19th.

[dafuge]

Why not postpone the decision untill after the weekend. We'll all get a chance to see how the different subjects affect the game. Right now we are all just speculating...

I'm not sure about everyone else but I'm planning on starting my game on Friday night. I only really have time to play FM at weekends at the moment so if I don't get it under way this weekend then it will be another week before things kick off.

[dafuge]

One more possible rule change, what about changing the reputation from automatic to Sunday league footballer.

From what I gather, for most people it won't make any difference but it will mean that people can't get extra reputation by selecting a higher age. It also means that our new profiles will say 'Sunday league footballer' rather than 'Automatic', which I think looks a bit odd.

[Guest roberto922]

Like you said it won't affect me but it'll be a bit more realism into the challenge.

[Evertonbloke]

Not that it matters a great deal, but heres my opinions on the proposed new rules.

Parent Clubs from any league should be allowed.

Rep should be the lowest, ie Sunday League.

The fill key roles button should NOT be ticked

All English players should be loaded.

The challenge should kick off on Friday 14th.

I cant wait to get into this one this year! Dont know why I'm so mad for it this time round, I only managed to get 4 seasons or so in on FM08!

Will the list of reputations for all the possible promoted teams be published again? I only ask as I will be taking the real man challenge and want someone with less than 1000 rep!!!

[spankie]

One more possible rule change, what about changing the reputation from automatic to Sunday league footballer.

From what I gather, for most people it won't make any difference but it will mean that people can't get extra reputation by selecting a higher age. It also means that our new profiles will say 'Sunday league footballer' rather than 'Automatic', which I think looks a bit odd.

As long as us older players don't have to knock 10 years off our age to get the Unproven reputation that everyone else starts off with.

[dafuge]

As long as us older players don't have to knock 10 years off our age to get the Unproven reputation that everyone else starts off with.

I'll have to check but I think switching from automatic to Sunday league will mean everyone will start with the same rep, whatever their age.

[daemonic]

One more possible rule change, what about changing the reputation from automatic to Sunday league footballer.

From what I gather, for most people it won't make any difference but it will mean that people can't get extra reputation by selecting a higher age. It also means that our new profiles will say 'Sunday league footballer' rather than 'Automatic', which I think looks a bit odd.

What do you mean selecting a higher age, I wish I was young enough not to get that boost in rep

Good idea though.

[Scoham]

I didn't know anything about that feature.

My initial thought is to have it ticked, so we start the game with a full playing and non playing squad.

Thoughts?

It'll add generated staff, so its more realistic to have it unticked.

If a club doesn't currently have an assistant for example, it'll create one. Won't be so bad with the smaller clubs I guess, but if one of the top clubs has a generated assistant it wouldn't feel right, at least not to me.

[basic_flaw]

I said on another thread that the parent clubs should stay. Mainly because I know Argyle send players to Tiverton. The problem in '08 was that the youth players at EPL and CCC level were overrated by the game. As a result, all BSN/S teams can loan players better than their real life counterparts. IMO it's no different to being able to sign Hadji immediately (although this appears to be sorted in '09 if the demo's anything to go by).

Shirley the start with basic staff should be ticked? Every promoted club has staff! If they're crap, you've gotta get rid of them like your players. I'm in favour of starting with the staff and players and having to clear out the deadwood in both. Will definitely add realism.

[BrapBrapBrap]

I'll be playing this challenge this year. I've always done a similar thing but look forward to getting involved with something 'official'.

I personally think that the key staff feature should be unchecked. The leagues are researched, I imagine a lot of teams will have backroom staff already. If they don't then it doesn't seem very helpful to have generated staff- it's not realistic. It may be helpful if there are initially no coaches at some clubs, but I am sure those clubs will have different drawbacks to others?

I think all parent clubs should be allowed, just for ease of use for new players, and for the previously mentioned difficulties.

I also want to say that I would also appreciate the rules being posted on Friday, I don't have a lot of time other than the odd weekend here and there, so I want to get stuck into my file early and make a start. Nice one!

[Jimbokav1971]

jimbokav1971 but the thing is, is that teams in the premiership and championship are affiliated to teams in the blue square premier and north and south. Also in one instance they were affiliated to a team below the blue square north/south that is if the 8.0.2 data is correct, then how can we 'outlaw' something that happens realistically (in real life). How about outlawing loaning players that are in the premiership championship, while in blue square north/south. Then you can go up to Championship when in blue square prem, then premiership when in league 2 and so on.

However you can still take on loan the players sent via your parent clubs.

Affiliated? Yes.

Parent club with a system in place to loan players to other English leage clubs? No.

Why? Because it is outlawed by the English FA.

Barnet for example have an excellent relationship with Arsenal in real life. There is a money spinning pre- season friendly at Underhill every season, Arsenal Reserves play at Underhill and there are good relationships between many players and staff, (both first choice French left-backs are flat-mates). What there is not however is any sort of PARENT/FEEDER relationship that the game simulates.

The whle terms "feeder" club is misleading becase it is against FA rules.

If the system between the club was classed as "affiliation" then that's ok, affiliation means "link" and there is nothing against that in the FA rules. There are however rules outlawing any club acting as a feeder club to another in this Country,

[Jimbokav1971]

Aren't they mainly just annual friendlies though, such as Charlton and Welling, rather than loan deals?

That's exactly what they are:thup:.

[Jimbokav1971]

Ahhh so it seems that way, i stupidly did not think of that thanks Scoham. However Coventry, Norwich, Plymouth all have loans arrangements, so yes i would agree a ban on premiership parents clubs with loan arrangments however other arrangments, e.g. friendlies could be kept in there and as for championship teams i'm not too sure now as it is very unlikely (however does happen) so i guess thats up to dafuge and the rest of the users.

Either way i'll still be taking part.

No, no they don't.

They might have a good relationship with another club at either managerial or boardroom level, (that makes the loaning of players more likely), but they absolutely do not, (under any circumstances), have a formal agreement where players are loaned from 1 club to the other on a regular basis.

Why? Because if they did the FA would be forced to withdraw their membership of the English FA.

[Jimbokav1971]

I'll stick my oar into affiliated clubs debate.

Watford have an affiliation with Wealdstone and every year at around this time we send them one or more young players for a month or two loan. Partially to let them play in competitive games against men and also because there's not much U18 or reserve games at this time of year.

This year it's Marvin Sordell, last year it was Dale Bennett and Liam Henderson (the latter having 6 appearances for the first team so far) and the year before that it was John-Joe O'Toole and Theo Robinson.

Wealdstone are in the Isthmian League Premier Division, that's 5 leagues down the ladder.

We do play a friendly against them and Northwood, but that's always the reserves/U18s that play.

No they don't. They might have sent loan players to Wealdstone for the last few years, (I know they did), and they might continue to do so, (they probably will as it has worked really well), but what they have NOT got is a formal agreement of any kind to do so. There is absolutely nothing in place anywhere to back this up.

Why? Because if there was they would be in beach of FA regulations.

What you have is a good relationship between management and/or board members.