Question to SI games

[edgar555]

8 games in Prem left. Man Utd have 4 TV games scheduled, Arsenal have 3, so unless Arsenal receive a lump sum at the end of the season they cant catch up...

Schedules are updated regularly thru end of season depending on title contenders. Wait and see.

[forzautd]

JGM has completed his season and there are differences between teams

[sperlz]

sperlz is looking for a game breaker for months already, but he does not proof anything, just guessing like in this thread:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/257571-A-big-issue-which-has-been-ignored-before-and-is-still-in-11.3

My advise is to double test anything he is posting here, as I don't think that we really can trust about his "observations".

The red card one I can deal with but not this one. It just kills the game. I havnt tested till end of season but good to see someone else is

And also look at the proof I have already given above. It clearly shows an issue

[edgar555]

end of my season (approx revenue income)

blackpool 14 televised games 42.3 m

west brom 12 televised games 41.3m

stoke 8 games televised games 39.3m

poor stoke lol, they were on tv an additional 3 times but all in the league cup sadly which seems to not to pay much.

This does seem concerning, especially as you would expect Stoke to have a higher rep and more games on TV.

Distressing is indeed the word.

[JGM]

okay heres how often each team was on tv (ordered by finishing position) i counted them off the fixtures screen of each team (bored tonight) so apologies if im one out somewhere-

arsenal 22

chelsea 26

everton 12

man utd 23

blackburn 8

liverpool 20

west ham 11

tottenham 12

man city 17

aston villa 18

sunderland 12

bolton 15

stoke 8

west brom 12

newcastle 15

birmingham 14

wolves 12

fulham 5

blackpool 14

wigan 10

[KUBI]

You need at least a whole season (but better three or four) figures for this. TV coverage is linked to both teams. If Blackpool is playing the big ones in their first 8 games it will have more tv coverage than other teams as an example.

[JGM]

You need at least a whole season (but better three or four) figures for this. TV coverage is linked to both teams. If Blackpool is playing the big ones in their first 8 games it will have more tv coverage than other teams as an example.

looking at 2 similar teams with similar reps- fulham and west ham (who ended up with 3 mil approx more in tv revenue than the former) it looks like west ham indeed ended up getting lucky and on tv against the big teams and fulham didn't guess its just a case of luck.

[edgar555]

KUBI I know one season isn't conclusive but it is indicative.

And that list indicates serious issues. Yes you can explain away Blackpool by saying they played Chelsea, Utd etc. But how do you explain Villa,Newcastle, Blackpool and Birmingham all playing more TV games than Spurs. Or Fulham playing 5!!!!!

Like I say this is indicative of a big problem. Wolves 1 place above Fulham receive £3.5m more than Fulham. Madness I tell you.

[Cougar2010]

Lets have a bit of perspective guys, talk about blowing things out of proportion.

From JGM's post above every team is getting TV games & one team isn't hogging all the TV games. How much of an issue is it? Is it even an issue? Its certainly not gamebreaking.

Does every team in the Premier League get the same amount of TV games in real life?

So what if some teams get more than others in TV money? Is your next issue going to be Man Utd get more ticket revenue than x? or they have more fans than x?

[KUBI]

Not the newest stats, but at least stats:

Television revenue for 2007-08 season

(2006-07 in brackets)

Manchester United £49.3m (£32m)

Chelsea £45.6m (£30.9m)

Arsenal £47m (£29m)

Liverpool £45.4m (£28.4m)

Everton £42.1m (£25.3m)

Aston Villa £42.3m (£22m)

Blackburn Rovers £40.2m (£22m)

Portsmouth £40.4m (£23m)

Manchester City £39.7m (£21m)

West Ham United £36.8m (£21.1m)

Tottenham Hotspur £36m (£27.3m)

Newcastle United £39.2m (£21.2m)

Middlesbrough £34.2m (£20.5m)

Wigan Athletic £33.4m (£18.4m)

Sunderland £33.6m (£6.5m*)

Bolton Wanderers £32m (£24.6m)

Fulham £31.3m (£20.4m)

Reading £30.6m (£23.6m)

Birmingham City £29.8m (£6.5m*)

Derby County £29.1m (n/a)

Read more: http://soccerlens.com/20072008-premier-league-tv-revenue/7415/#ixzz1GnNCL5oP

[JGM]

Lets have a bit of perspective guys, talk about blowing things out of proportion.

From JGM's post above every team is getting TV games & one team isn't hogging all the TV games. How much of an issue is it? Is it even an issue? Its certainly not gamebreaking.

Does every team in the Premier League get the same amount of TV games in real life?

So what if some teams get more than others in TV money? Is your next issue going to be Man Utd get more ticket revenue than x? or they have more fans than x?

looking through the fixtures further it seems fulham just got very unlucky not to be on tv more for example on the day they played Liverpool Chelsea played Man Utd Boxing day aside the Premiership doesn't seem too bad at all.

[sperlz]

Lets have a bit of perspective guys, talk about blowing things out of proportion.

From JGM's post above every team is getting TV games & one team isn't hogging all the TV games. How much of an issue is it? Is it even an issue? Its certainly not gamebreaking.

Does every team in the Premier League get the same amount of TV games in real life?

So what if some teams get more than others in TV money? Is your next issue going to be Man Utd get more ticket revenue than x? or they have more fans than x?

Are you an si games worker under an alter ego? I mean there is clearly a problem so stop denying it for Petes sake.

[KUBI]

Are you an si games worker under an alter ego? I mean there is clearly a problem so stop denying for Petes sake.

There is not clearly a problem, just some observations which needs a lot more testing and looking into it until we know that this is actually a bug or just some randomness in the game.

[edgar555]

Lets have a bit of perspective guys, talk about blowing things out of proportion.

From JGM's post above every team is getting TV games & one team isn't hogging all the TV games. How much of an issue is it? Is it even an issue? Its certainly not gamebreaking.

Does every team in the Premier League get the same amount of TV games in real life?

So what if some teams get more than others in TV money? Is your next issue going to be Man Utd get more ticket revenue than x? or they have more fans than x?

The problem is the spread of games Cougar.

And the differences in monies received. Using JGM's list and KUBI's source to me there are some discrepancies, not major ones, but lets be honest this is only one season and the comparisons are from different seaons and sources so its not scientifically sound.

My concern is that if this is wrong it could prohibit other teams challenging the status quo and that would not be cool FM'ing.

Gonna have to do some of my own tests but that won't happen til this weekend at the earliest.

[themadsheep2001]

Agree with edgar555 somewhat here, it seems indicative of an issue, but we do need more results etc to see if there is a real trend first.

[themadsheep2001]

The problem is the spread of games Cougar.

And the differences in monies received. Using JGM's list and KUBI's source to me there are some discrepancies, not major ones, but lets be honest this is only one season and the comparisons are from different seaons and sources so its not scientifically sound.

My concern is that if this is wrong it could prohibit other teams challenging the status quo and that would not be cool FM'ing.

Gonna have to do some of my own tests but that won't happen til this weekend at the earliest.

will also run some over the weekend, and currently looking to see if there are more recent figures

[milnerpoint]

well i just holidayed a season, up to the point that the new starts and it tells you how much tv money you get, and it looks to be set at £40m for the second season at least, might have been £38-39 the first season, now not one club that played in the prem league made under £39m in tv money in the first season, west brom were the worst with £39.3m, newcastle second worst with £39.9m but neither team had any good cup runs, arsenal who got to both cup finals made £47.1m but they also played 5 preseason friendlies infront of the TV cameras so that can be expected, i dont think its that much of an issue if i am honest, ill holiday the second season and see what the results show, if all teams make at least £40m tv money then i would say its working as it should.

should add i did not compare anything to games showed on tv just purely the financial side of things.

[JGM]

the more tests the better, its nice to see a constructive thread.

[themadsheep2001]

well i just holidayed a season, up to the point that the new starts and it tells you how much tv money you get, and it looks to be set at £40m for the second season at least, might have been £38-39 the first season, now not one club that played in the prem league made under £39m in tv money in the first season, west brom were the worst with £39.3m, newcastle second worst with £39.9m but neither team had any good cup runs, arsenal who got to both cup finals made £47.1m but they also played 5 preseason friendlies infront of the TV cameras so that can be expected, i dont think its that much of an issue if i am honest, ill holiday the second season and see what the results show, if all teams make at least £40m tv money then i would say its working as it should.

milnerpoint, what date did you run it to, so it shows you the figures? will try and run a test now

[edgar555]

.

should add i did not compare anything to games showed on tv just purely the financial side of things.

To me, the financial side is the most important aspect. It'll annoy if I only get 5 TV games but I won't be bothered if I'm getting paid for more!

[milnerpoint]

milnerpoint, what date did you run it to, so it shows you the figures? will try and run a test now

last game of the first season around 22 may, check the finances then before the champs league money is given out, make sure you look before the final, then second season the news thing comes on the 25th of june.

[milnerpoint]

what would be intersting is to see if someone can do this for teams in the lower divisions, run a season and compare the figures for the second season.

[milnerpoint]

To me, the financial side is the most important aspect. It'll annoy if I only get 5 TV games but I won't be bothered if I'm getting paid for more!

well looking a bit deeper, west brom for example had 7 games on tv all season, no cup games on tv, but still made £39.3m in tv money so in essence they got around £5.6m per game shown on TV!!!

[JGM]

well looking a bit deeper, west brom for example had 7 games on tv all season, no cup games on tv, but still made £39.3m in tv money so in essence they got around £5.6m per game shown on TV!!!

i think theres a "base" payment which is constant to every team, which is upped by 500k by every game involving the team shown on tv, which according to the OP is how it works IRL.

[KUBI]

Taken from the official Premier League website:

How are television revenues distributed to Premier League clubs?

50 per cent of total money goes on an equal share basis to the 20 Premier League clubs, while relegated clubs also receive some of this money in the form of a parachute payment. 25 per cent of the money is paid as facility fees, which are determined by the number of appearances on television. 25 per cent is paid in merit payments, determined by the position that a club finished in the league.

[milnerpoint]

i think theres a "base" payment which is constant to every team, which is upped by 500k by every game involving the team shown on tv, which according to the OP is how it works IRL.

that wouldnt tie in with my figures tho, Arsenal played 21 games on TV in the league alone, say the base payment in the first season is £39m, if they then got another £10.5m, for league games alone then they would have £49.5m, but for all domestic games include runs to both cup finals and pre season games (5 off) they got £47.1m.

[JGM]

that wouldnt tie in with my figures tho, Arsenal played 21 games on TV in the league alone, say the base payment in the first season is £39m, if they then got another £10.5m, for league games alone then they would have £49.5m, but for all domestic games include runs to both cup finals and pre season games (5 off) they got £47.1m.

i would guess it was around 35.3m working backwards from my stats

[milnerpoint]

i would guess it was around 35.3m working backwards from my stats

ah ok then it wouldnt have thought there would be a £5m difference just in a season but maybe your right. it will be interesting to see what the second season shows.

Thinking about it though, even if it was, and they got another £10.5 for the games shown, that would mean the 5 pre season and cup runs were only worth £1.8m, i would have thought cup runs would make them more than that.

[Bracken]

From what it looks like, the outcomes seem fairly close to real life, but the methods the game uses to get there seem a little weird. Doesn't bother me as long as the final cash sum for each club is roughly realistic.

[Cougar2010]

Are you an si games worker under an alter ego? I mean there is clearly a problem so stop denying it for Petes sake.

Seriously??

No if you want an answer, I'm just capable of applying some common sense.

From what I've seen in the thread, you've raised a possible issue, a few people have looked into it and I don't see anything that can be described as gamebreaking. In fact I don't even see that there is an issue at all.

You really don't expect every team to have the exact same number of games on TV do you?

As I've said before no team has every game on TV and no team has zero games on TV.

I don't know exactly how it works in real life but it would possibly make sense for SI to make sure that every team has a minimum number of games on TV & possibly a maximum as well.

[Cougar2010]

The problem is the spread of games Cougar.

And the differences in monies received. Using JGM's list and KUBI's source to me there are some discrepancies, not major ones, but lets be honest this is only one season and the comparisons are from different seaons and sources so its not scientifically sound.

My concern is that if this is wrong it could prohibit other teams challenging the status quo and that would not be cool FM'ing.

Gonna have to do some of my own tests but that won't happen til this weekend at the earliest.

So how is one team having a few more games on TV than another any different to one team having a bigger stadium? or selling more merchandise? or being based in an city with a large population?

All give a financial advantage but people seem to have picked up on the TV games in this thread and made a big issue out of it.

[KUBI]

The financial part of the game needs an overhaul in general, as I think it is more like "simulating" figures instead of generating in the game. But that's a long term task.

[edgar555]

So how is one team having a few more games on TV than another any different to one team having a bigger stadium? or selling more merchandise? or being based in an city with a large population?

All give a financial advantage but people seem to have picked up on the TV games in this thread and made a big issue out of it.

The question is, are the amounts of money each team receiving in line with RL, so as to not exaggerate an already wide financial gap. I couldn't care if I have 1 or 50 games on TV as long as my club makes the TV money it should. That was my point and the reason I was keen to find out for sure, before I go getting arsey. It now looks like we don't have a problem, just a weird bug with TV games scheduling. But it was worth pursuing and checking don't you think?

I'm not someone to cry broken game at the drop of a hat, but if finances were screwed then it would pretty much break it for me and many others I assume. It looks like we're all good though.

@KUBI: thats a whole nother thread!

[milnerpoint]

i agree the finacial side of things is a whole other thread and it needs updated but i can imagine its hard to mimic real life club growth.

But in this instance it does seem to be a cosmetic thing thankfully, but ill still post up the results from the second season, almost there now.

[milnerpoint]

right end of second season, with a guarenteed £40m stated at the start of the season, and every club has made at least that, again the bigger teams with the bigger reps have made a bit more, longer cup runs again, and various preseason friendlies, but the bottom 3 all made over £41m tv money for the season.

It is a bit random, some teams play few games others heaps but then i guess thats true to life to an extent, but there def is no issue with teams making money from TV in the EPL at least.

Oh and just to add there were games on tv from the first week of the season in this game which is a bit strange.

[edgar555]

Good news. Well done milner.

[themadsheep2001]

cheers milner, that pretty much puts me at ease, will still run my test but it sounds cosmetic and not gamebreaking

though the finanical side of the game needs to be overhauled imo

[milnerpoint]

just a quick look at two championship teams, and Ipswich have made £2.7m tv money in the first season with 4 games shown on tv, no cup games on tv and the second season they have made £2.9m with no league games and one cup game and one pre season game against man u.

Forest have made £2.7 in the first with 3 games on tv no cup games, and second season £2.9 with 4 league games shown no cup games.

League one, Brighton first season £408k, one league game on tv, no cup games, second season, £462 with one league game and the JPT semi and finals being shown, Mk Dons first season got £401k no games shown, second season, £441, one game shown, no cup games in either season.

[grade]

I just began to holiday on my game to run a test if there is issue or not.

[sperlz]

even if it is 'only cosmetic' does no-one else find it extremely annoying that if you are liverpool, you have games like wigan, bolton and wolves televised. but sometimes games like man utd, everton and arsenal wont be? Its not gamebreaking in the sense that it wont spoil the technical side of the game. but its gamebreaking in my eyes because it takes a lot of the enjoyment out.

All this talk about cosmetic is rubbish anyway, if it did'nt matter then why would they add the features in the first place. I like to browse around different leagues at the fixtures and various stats and things and looking at fixtures when they are all messed up really takes any sense of real life scenario's away.

The only way I would be able to continue my savegame is if there was a way of totally removing televised games or if they brought out a patch to fix the issue.

The third patch is meant to be the one that gives you the most complete game possible, but its just not. How can they not have picked up on something so blindingly obvious and also the missing stats problem. I noticed them both after 2 days into my game. It makes you wonder if they did notice them and just thought, 'this is too much work, dont worry about the paying customers.... there will be a few who moan but they will have to deal with it.'

[KUBI]

The only way I would be able to continue my savegame is if there was a way of totally removing televised games or if they brought out a patch to fix the issue.

Or just continuing the game and oversee it like other small issues, which do not have a real influence to the game play.

[Bracken]

Really? It's that big of an issue for you whether a game has the letter TV beside it or not? It's that big a problem? Seriously, how do you deal with all the other elements that aren't exactly realistic? If that's your biggest problem with the game then you have a truly bizarre sense of perspective.

[KUBI]

Some people tend to hyper-ventilate, others are more relaxed.

[Cougar2010]

even if it is 'only cosmetic' does no-one else find it extremely annoying that if you are liverpool, you have games like wigan, bolton and wolves televised. but sometimes games like man utd, everton and arsenal wont be? Its not gamebreaking in the sense that it wont spoil the technical side of the game. but its gamebreaking in my eyes because it takes a lot of the enjoyment out.

All this talk about cosmetic is rubbish anyway, if it did'nt matter then why would they add the features in the first place. I like to browse around different leagues at the fixtures and various stats and things and looking at fixtures when they are all messed up really takes any sense of real life scenario's away.

The only way I would be able to continue my savegame is if there was a way of totally removing televised games or if they brought out a patch to fix the issue.

The third patch is meant to be the one that gives you the most complete game possible, but its just not. How can they not have picked up on something so blindingly obvious and also the missing stats problem. I noticed them both after 2 days into my game. It makes you wonder if they did notice them and just thought, 'this is too much work, dont worry about the paying customers.... there will be a few who moan but they will have to deal with it.'

TBH sperlz you seem to be looking for an excuse to not to enjoy/play the game.

If you don't want to play it, just don't play it.

How does it spoil your enjoyment which games have a little "tv" logo next to them in the fixture list?

[edgar555]

sperlz you are right, its an annoyance, how much so is up to each individual to decide. You're right cosmetic is important the layers of depth add to the immersion which is surely the whole point of a simulation. Its a shame when things give you jolt back to reality and you realise its only a game.

The biggest shame is that if these things weren't present then people would find what is a compelling edition of FM. The ME has a couple of flaws(and they are stunningly infuriariting) left to be ironed out but it clearly is the best ever. Some of the football that can be created is surely something to behold.

I'm glad this is as Miles has said the least buggy FM ever. Lets hope that FM12 continues this trend and that this time they aren't quite so bloody annoying. Fwiw the stats thing really bothers me but thats cos I'm anal about numbers.

I would suggest that a lot of the venting is due to disappointment as much as actual hate.

[milnerpoint]

its one of those little things im afraid, annoying to a point but really not game breaking for me really. as long as the financial things works to the extent its suppose to then i can live with it.

[Adam.S]

Considering going back to FM10....

[sperlz]

well it can be considered an achievement for a small club to start getting televised games, or its enjoyable to think that a huge rivalry match has been moved to a Sunday to be broadcast on super sunday. Its just so random now that the whole televised game thing is void. I can totally understand why it may not bother some people, they obviously play the game and enjoy different aspects to what I do. But I enjoy the whole realism aspect and without these bugs the game really is close to being outstanding.

I even go to the extent of removing all authentic kits from the game as no team has the same kit two years in a row, so just to have default kits suits that theory better. Its the way I like to play the game and such 'cosmetic' issues are really important to the realism aspect of the game for me.