FEEDER CLUB FEEDBACK thought id share.

I actually agree with Will. tbh portsmouth turned out pretty shit for me since paul changed the rules a week after i took them. I was going to use them simply as a place where i could sign players at Roma who have played in england (or seriously look like they might be moving to england) to then sell to portsmouth to play in the team and build them up. of course, the landscape changed and you couldnt sell players to feeder clubs anymore so its been a bit of a waste but i've carried on anyway and just spent the season building the club from the ground up (which has meant minimal spending on players).

I will be changing my feeder club between seasons in a couple of weeks simply cos there's no benefit in me having them really time but i don't expect to start with anything more than what portsmouth have (which is actually nothing money wise since i've invested all the money they brought in on buildings). the only thing i'm going to ask paul to do is that the building work i've done all season is transferred to my new club, which i think is fair since its taken me 16 turns worth of dealings to do in the most part. i'm not expecting to start with anything more than 2 million in my bank balance. the squad i'll have at my new club will be far worse than portsmouth's so technically i'm doing myself one in the foot a little but it'll atleast mean i can make the most of the benefits of having a feeder club. i really can't do that with portsmouth unless i want British players at Roma, which I don't.

I actually think sometimes maybe it would be better if the income feeder clubs made all went to the parent club. this sounds daunting but the parent club would then be responsible for all the expenses that the feeder club generated from wages to player purchases. and then when it comes to selling from feeder to parent the cost would be zero because the parent club would essentially already have paid for the player, only that he was registered to play for the feeder club firstly instead. this would be quite good then because if somebody signed a player for 20m at their feeder club then they wouldnt then be able to sell them to the parent for resell. it would basically just stop people potentially stitching their feeder clubs up.

Rich@Leicester wrote:

Also, quite agree...dont see how Phil can possibly be disadvantaged by having three feeder clubs.

I thought changing feeder clubs wasnt allowed anyway. Then Paul offered those in Italy a move away...which I took.

How come Phil, Stu etc have been allowed to switch feeders?

I was the first person in the game to have a feeder club and also Paul told me I needed to change from Palermo because it potentially would have meant i'd have two clubs in the same league. i'll be moving again cos the rules changed the week after i took portsmouth. i actually had more money and a better squad at palermo than portsmouth i should add so i've not had any significant gains or benefit by switching in the first instance. if anything i've worsened what i've had. and the same will be true next time around.

Will I can understand how u would come to that conclusion, but at lecce I started with the basic amount. And not one take over as they wernt permitted. Bought the few players I did. But when I moved to Brazil I went with my finances from lecce but not the players which i seemed fair due to moving. But last year when I didnt play for like 2 months I asked Paul to drop cruziero. Now this year I moved to lille n the 1mil as not as I thought it'd be is unfair but that's not what I'm bothered about I'm bothered that if I get paid over a year itl be another year till I get a decent amount of money.

oh and portsmouth never had a takeover cos its not worth doing outside the top division. neither did palermo for that matter.

anyway...i'm a bit puzzled as to how this topic came to a scrutinisation of people's individual management of a feeder club or just managing them in general. anyway, I agree with will's post that money feeder clubs earn should be based on final league position, though i also think they have to get some revenues for tv/sponsors so that they can compete with the other clubs in their division.

With that in mind I think maybe tv money/sponsors should be awarded to ALL clubs depending where they finished. the higher you finish then the more you get. seems reasonable i think.

i.e

top division tv revenue:

1st = 30m
2nd = 27.5m
3rd = 25m
4th = 22.5m
5th = 20m
6th = 17.5m
7th = 15m
8th = 12.5m
9th = 10m
10th = 7.5m
11th = 5m
12th = 2.5m

top division sponsor revenue:

1st = 7m
2nd = 6.5m
3rd = 6m
4th = 5.5m
5th = 5m
6th = 4.5m
7th = 4m
8th = 3.5m
9th = 3m
10th = 2.5m
11th = 2m
12th = 1.5m

top diviison prize money:

1st = 13m
2nd = 12m
3rd = 11m
4th = 10m
5th = 9m
6th = 8m
7th = 7m
8th = 6m
9th = 5m
10th = 4m
11th = 3m
12th = 2m

Some of you lot aint happy unless your bitching

partly right in what you say gaz...i suppose at the end of the day everybody is paying a turn fee so by right let them do what thet like and i certainly couldnt agree more with it. though part of what will mentioned is correct, teams should get money based on performance and not just be given a handout for nothing so he is definitely right in that assesment. Roma had a bad season this year so I should actually have less to work with than everybody that finishes above me. Why should Ancona or Cremonese have a smaller budget just because they're a feeder club? Jamie's managed that club well so should be rewarded atleast equally, if not more highly. A feeder club shouldn't be penalised just because its a feeder club.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/24/manchester-united-premier-league-tv?cat=football&type=article

If we adopted the real life approach to tv revenue with, obviously not at the same level, with a guaranteed amount then extra according to league placement and just have 1 payment a season in say week 23?

I think we shud make this more interesting and all meet up and add beer to the mix I believe this will help us do stupid deals n get a better understanding of people views n a few broken glasses and a few paper cuts ! Lol

Views?

im up for adding beer into it, Stu needs a good kicking and Rich a slap for the Guti deal

Gas, lmao!

rich....those levels are a bit outlandish tho imo. i mean....blackpool got 39m?! it'd be no good to this game if that happened, though its interesting that they only earnt 33% less than mun united did. so maybe in CF the top team got 30m then the bottom would get 10m then. also, the levels in the game basically carry england, spain, germany, italy, france tv revenues all under one umbrella. whereas i suspect in RL the gulf between what the english teams get for tv money is far greater than the rest of europe. not that it means the league is actually any stronger, there's just more ££ kicking about due to all these sheikhs and far eastern dodgy dealers owning the clubs. we don't have that kind of man city-esque fantasy football investment in the game in CF (thanks god) so there's no need for stupid tv money.

http://www.forzafutbol.com/2011/04/tv-revenues-comparative-view.html?m=1

Interesting stuff

But I digress, all we need to know is what level of money will be available for each club and the option to have that money in 1 lump sum or weekly, whichever will work best for that club.

yeah it is. english PL clubs get double the tv money than the next nearest though I suppose if you look at the economy situation in countries like spain and italy I suppose it's no surprise that they've fallen behind in the revenue stakes. england has ballooned cos of all the foreign ownership and investment.

worth remembering though that the leagues in CF are only 12 teams.....so you would probably have to say that the tv revenue should be less in any case.

Rich@Birmingham wrote:

we need to know is what level of money will be available for each club and the option to have that money in 1 lump sum or weekly, whichever will work best for that club.

yes. i think an option of weekly or annually would be best.

Will@Fulham wrote:

Gas, lmao!

Think you can get tablets for that!

'who they are' depends on what division you are in

I think Bar stu at pompy are we all in the top division for a nation?

Can u confirm Paul what monies and quantities of we can expect for our feeders?

Just so we know

I think Bar stu at pompy are we all in the top division for a nation?

Can u confirm Paul what monies and quantities of we can expect for our feeders?

Just so we know

Just thought I'd share this nugget of information that I received in my feedback this turn.

There is now a further restriction on English clubs regarding players. If a player is of a foreign persuasion then he has to have played for the 1st team of a real life club in England before we can sign them. This new "rule" has just screwed three transfers for me this week, Matej Delac (Chelsea), Souleymane Coulibaly (Spurs) and Serge Gnabry (Arsenal)........... it also makes me think whats the point in feeder clubs now? Certainly for English teams..... as you all know I enjoy picking up young talent (oo er missus) with the view to moving them on to Newcastle but how often does a young player get to play a first team game? Possibly not for years..... I'm all for progression with game rules etc but this changing of goalposts weekly is becoming irritating.

Did anybody else get advised of this change?

I certainly wasn't advised of it Mark, although to be honest, I doubt it will affect my plans much. If the player isn't good enough to get in the first team in England in real life...he won't get in my side earlier, and will stay at the feeder club anyway

Yeah I think Phillipino tried to sign someone a few turns ago and got told this, he would need to confirm that though as I might be chatting shit. I think that as long as the player is a confirmed signing and has played at any level for that club eg reserves, academy, then they should be attainable.

I was under the same impression as rich and Phil

Mark@Newcastle wrote:

There is now a further restriction on English clubs regarding players. If a player is of a foreign persuasion then he has to have played for the 1st team of a real life club in England before we can sign them.
?

I dont remember saying this ???

normally these guys would sign as AWP if you send the right paperwork to show theyve been signed as youths

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Mark@Newcastle wrote:

There is now a further restriction on English clubs regarding players. If a player is of a foreign persuasion then he has to have played for the 1st team of a real life club in England before we can sign them.
?

I dont remember saying this ???

normally these guys would sign as AWP if you send the right paperwork to show theyve been signed as youths

Yep, you did Paul.... and you also said that there were too many players AWP and you were clearing them out?

paul's been on the jazz juice again!