Subject: [change] Sponsorship between countries

With 41 953 spectators you got 128 125 € in final ? You really want me to believe that ?

And the figures you wrote about my incomes are not correct.

You want more even sponsorship ? So let's take all the incomes into consideration, especially the ones from your cup games, if you really want to find a fair solution for everybody.

I already told you the Luxembourg, with one user, won the CC.
So instead of spamming for your own interest you should maybe rather improve the way you are playing this game.

And would you also like to post all the incomes from your league matches and compare? Or compare those that are more like for like with new users?

Seriously your points are failing, and my calculations are pretty close to correct without being exact because its easy to calculate spectators x average seat price at the stadiums. So don't try to lie to make your point.

And you too could have made another round if you spent what I have recently to move forward which would have awarded you another 312 500 $

Should we also calculate how much you earned up until round 4 of the cup compared to my round 4? or would that also destroy your rhetoric?

As I said, MODs have already warned people from what you are doing now, so I suggest you move along now that you have been proven wrong, and stop whinging about a system in your favour being fixed to make fair

Out of how many CC was that? And isn't it interesting how that user no longer exists, so that team was not sustainable for a team in such a small country due to poor income and sponsorship.

And being the winner of the CC he should have one of the highest sponsorships in sokker, but I can guarantee he did not, because of the way the system is written.

There are a lot of teams out there who could win the CC if they were planning on quitting the game, because after 15yrs in the game, even from a small country you can save up a lot of money, but if you are receiving less money, it isn't sustainable which is why we have not seen another team like that, yet large countries can sustain it.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, doesn't mean the clock isn't broken

Don't worry, I will not try to have the last word with you... _james already tried and failed miserably for not having share your fixation and obsession.

EDIT : I and other keep saying the solution is to increase the number of users in your country but you don't hear that.
(edited)

LOL righto mate. Maybe if you tried to be more constructive rather than walk in being all sarcastic and attempting to use that instead of evidence to counter the original post, then the reception you would get would be more pleasant too.

But it's hard to use facts when your point is wrong and you just want to keep the advantage you have purely because you signed up to the right country.

Come start a new team in Australia and see how far that gets you

Come start a new team in Australia and see how far that gets you

No problem, I cannot wait to :

- Train my youngster more effectively
- Not see any fan mood drop because I am not loosing game after game once I get promoted
- Quickly be able to play for the CC qualification
- Not have to buy so much old players for nothing and just avoid relegation

Come start a new team in France to see how it is to play in a medium size country instead of speculating without knowing anything about what you are talking about.

If you want to play the CC, better staying in Australia dude !

Well come do it then if you think that's how it works. Instead you will find you will:

- Not be able to buy any useful juniors because you receive less money than other countries which means a lot less expendable money for juniors
- Not see a fan mood rise because the other teams are bots, but you may see some fan mood drops after a win
- Never be able to play the CC because there is only one spot up for grabs and it's taken by one dominant team which you can't catch because the other teams are bots and therefore can't rise your members or income with matches (and the dominant team made their money when there were 100+ users in Australia)
- Will have to buy old players because you can't afford non-old players because you get less income than large countries who you are forced to bid against.

I would love to play in France if the DEVs let me. I have also played in a country with over 100 users and I was earning more back then than what even the top team is now.

And given France is in the top 10% of countries in size, I'd say that makes them a Large size country

So if you want to talk about speculating, I have played in a country almost as big as what you are in now, you have never played in a country as small as what Australia is now, and definitely not as small as most of the countries I am speaking up for

(edited)

You keep thinking that you cannot buy useful juniors and non-old players because of the small countries specific economy but most users who reach the top get their money by trading rather that sponsorship or ticket income. This is hilarious.

About the CC, you almost made it, losing 1-2 in cup final. You really want me to cry about you never being able to play it ? You will soon !
(edited)

Training is easier when you have extra 100k per week, that is equal to a full youth academy, a brilliant coach, or two times Full the 3100 benches stadium...

Only thinking about initial conditions...

You keep thinking that you cannot buy useful juniors and non-old players because of the small countries specific economy but most users who reach the top get their money by trading rather that sponsorship or ticket income. This is hilarious.

About the CC, you almost made it, losing 1-2 in cup final. You really want me to cry about you never being able to play it ? You will soon !
(edited)

Actually, he wouldn't make it because our NT isn't ranked high enough due to guess what not enough users. So we'd only have the 1 place, that being from winning the top league. (Unless anything has changed in this space).

As for trading, if you read my post about this, in theory that is one way, in practice here in Australia it's impossible due to time zones and once again because lack of users in our timezone. One may argue that we can pick up the early ones when it favours our time zone but nobody lists there. If it was even profitable to do so, why isn't everyone listing at those hours? They're not, so we get fed another disadvantage.

You keep thinking sponsorship plays such a tiny role in money, yet fight tooth and nail to make sure small countries do not get a fair amount based on their skill in the game, and not just on the others in their league.
This is hilarious.

And all those players I just bought will be sold because it is not sustainable to keep them, plus a cup win doesn't get you in to the CC when you are in a small country, only the league winner does. And the only reason I could even come close to the top team is because he is having a massive rebuild and only training Australian players until more people get to his skill where he needs to start spending more money again.

Plus going to the CC really means nothing when you are already being so hugely disadvantaged with income, which is why in nearly every edition of the CC, the winner has been from a large country (and it's not hard to see when at every single level, from start to end, they receive an extra 56 250 $ to 93 750 $ per week just in sponsorship).

It's also why there are so many new teams in large teams rating in the 40's-50's very quick whilst small nation users take 2-3 times as long to get the same ratings

They're not, so we get fed another disadvantage.

Cometer points out another point, And we aren't even complaining about this one, it's just the way it is, and always will be (even if we get offered a bidding agent, we still won't be up to get that one extra bid once someone gets the one bid over our agent).

But disadvantages written in to the game, like the sponsorship one, we will fight against, because no game should be made that way. Every manager should be rewarded based on their skill and not based on others around them. Agbell constantly gets a couple of wins in the CC, proving he is one of the top sides (until his recent rebuild and decision to only train Australians), yet his sponsorship is just 2/3 of those who he often beats
(edited)

Training is easier when you have extra 100k per week, that is equal to a full youth academy, a brilliant coach, or two times Full the 3100 benches stadium...

Only thinking about initial conditions...

Are the opponents part of the initial conditions? There is a big difference when there are only bots in your league and when there are 5 humans for example.

Return from your investments is much greater if you are able to train 16-17yo players. You can do that when you are playing just bots.

When you have a strong competition in your league, then it is hard to invest those 250 000 $ in very young players.

Both situation have their challenges, situation with bots is for sure more boring, but is it fair? I don't know. I don't want the system to be unfair, but there is no proof that it is. Teams who get more from sponsors also invest more in old players, and investing in old players is basically losing money.

One thing that is completely ignored, and it is definitely a good side of the current system, is how the system treats leagues on the same level in one country. If B1 league has only one strong team, and B2 is packed with competition with 5 strong teams, it would be unfair for that one strong team in B1 to get the same sponsorships as teams in B2 because they are spending more money to be competitive.

- Train my youngster more effectively
- Not see any fan mood drop because I am not loosing game after game once I get promoted
- Quickly be able to play for the CC qualification
- Not have to buy so much old players for nothing and just avoid relegation

Great in theory, but not how it would work.

1- How so? Please explain how? You can't afford any decent players from the transfer lis as you have no money. You can't really develop a great youth academy as you can't afford high end coach wages (at least for a number of seasons). You can't afford coaches salaries in general as you don't get the money to do so.

Also you play over half your matches on the worst pitch conditions leading to more injuries then on better quality pitches. You can't play corner tactics in the league or cup either.

Sure you could probably use trainees as you wouldn't have to worry about both cup and league and you can juggle around teams because sides are weaker, but there's more cup matches where you get next to no income as there are more bots then users. I'd be better off losing the cup to play friendlies

2. Ok, so you're partially right here but only to a point but you're still off with the fairies if you think it makes a difference. As a lot of the bot sides have been around for a while and have larger size supporters then when you initially start with 200 say, you do get to keep supporter mood up. Not that it makes any difference because even in best supporter mood I'm still not earning anywhere near what others are earning getting belted every week. However, that quickly works against you as you become more experienced to the point that winning by less than 20+ results in you losing supporter mood. Supporter mood equation whilst annoying is at least consistent regardless of where you play.

3. Doubt it. You can't improve to 50-60 avg ratings as quickly when you only earn 1/3 to 1/2 of what others earn elsewhere. Think of how long it took you to get your club to 60 avg ratings and then double or even triple that. That's how long it would take. Then what's the point of the CC, you get knocked out first or second round because you don't get the same opportunities for money as everyone else in that competition.

4. True to some extent but you also don't get to work your way through teams whilst improving. You basically sit stuck with a fixed sponsorship (as bots don't improve), finishing 1st only to get flogged in the qualification match for seasons on end. On the other hand, you continuously have to buy older players to improve your side because you don't have the money to afford buying the 25/26 yo's you need to keep your squad. If training is changed to be able to train any position this probably becomes less of an issue, but you still don't have the funds you'd expect to be able to build the team as quickly as you're thinking.

Ultimately, you haven't experienced our side, we haven't experienced yours. I'd personally like to try yours (I've stated it several times here). We are handicapped (as all small nations are, not just ourselves), and if you'd really followed my posts especially surely the logic would make sense by now. I've stayed away from the insults/attacks and focussed simply on raising the issue.

The thing about France is yes it's more competitive to get to the top but you're rewarded for it as teams get stronger (since they're human users) you'll earn significant more sponsorship, have fewer issues on playing with pitches that hand out a large number of injuries, earn much more money from gate takings even in the cup (I'm sure if we did a total of income from gate receipts from Australia from a side that made the final but never had a home game, against someone from France who got knocked out at say round 3-4 you'd see that despite the fewer rounds made the income is still greater).

It's easy to miss this when you haven't experienced it but it's so easy to prove this. These fairytale ideas are just that, you think you can do that, but you actually can't due to how many factors work against you.

Sponsorship, Gate Receipts, Pitch Conditions, Stagnant Bot Sides that prevent supporter mood from rising after the early stages, bot sides getting replaced with others that go bot inside a month (meaning an even bigger hit to sponsorship, supporter moods etc). Less income from cup matches because you play bots the first 3 rounds etc. It just doesn't add up.

If you want to join us, feel free. We'd happily take you, as it gives us 1 extra user and every extra user goes a long way but you won't find it as rewarding as you think it will (unless your only goal is to get to the top division).

Return from your investments is much greater if you are able to train 16-17yo players. You can do that when you are playing just bots.

IF is the key word here.This isn't clear cut that you'd do better as you could train more. Maybe, maybe not. Remember you play over half your matches on beat up pitches and so have a higher chance of injury. You may get lucky, you may not. You also need to get a 16-17yo and have the money to do so. You then need the coaching staff and that's really expensive early on. You also continuously get less income from every possible source and as it stands currently you can only train one position, so you still need to fill out the rest of your team with the scraps you'd have left if you spent everything on coaches wages.

You could do the same thing in your country by relegating down to the lower levels where you could do the same and you'd still earn more sponsorship then what we do.

Both situation have their challenges, situation with bots is for sure more boring, but is it fair? I don't know. I don't want the system to be unfair, but there is no proof that it is. Teams who get more from sponsors also invest more in old players, and investing in old players is basically losing money.

Because no one is willing to admit that or even investigate it. It would be dead easy to prove. I've already said what would happen and Achmid has backed it up with figures (whether you choose to believe them is up to you). Heck, I even asked if I could get permission to create an additional side in a foreign country with large numbers to show how quickly I'd surpass my current side here. They could prove this if they wanted to on their test servers. Would be sooo easy, it's just that it's easier to turn a blind eye and make comments such as oh its more competitive or get more users.

The system is unfair as it stands because there's too high a weight on avg league prestige (whether thats supporters/ranking whatever mechanic it is) and not enough on individual prestige. It will always end up favouring those with more users under this system because bots do not improve, do not have a decent tactic and are entirely exploitable thus never gain the supporters etc needed to boost the avg league prestige. Anytime one does start to gain supporters they get replaced by some other user who then goes bot within a month and you're back to square one.

edit: It's incredibly frustrating you say there is no proof. We've been posting more evidence that it is unbalanced then those proving it's fair. Everything saying about it being fair is artificial and full of opinions/beliefs that aren't in fact accurate. They're pipe dreamed assumptions because they are assuming that because they benefited by a system that the same must be the case for those in smaller countries when it isn't. It's easy to play the role of oh it would be so easy you're only getting 50 ratings etc etc because you can get a 50 rating with excessive money. Try halving that money and then see how long it takes to get to 50. If bots improved like users, if bots had decent tactics and it wasn't the case the highest bot gets replaced first, then it might be fairer but as it stands anything that has any significant weighting towards league prestige (e.g supporters/ranking/avg ratings whatever) will has a huge bias towards those with human users who actively improve their squads over time. In theory that sounds fine, but it then allows them to get more money to in turn improve even further faster and this process accelerates the unfairness of the situation. In the time it takes you to make 1 million you can bet it will take us up to 8 times (depending on bot numbers) as long even doing the exact same thing simply because bots don't do those things to improve.
(edited)