For several seasons now, we've been earning far fewer points to increase our level.
We all know that a level 10 training centre is really the number one thing to boost your finances.
I propose lowering the level to 6 or 5 in order to reach level 10.
Putting myself in the shoes of the newcomers who have reached this level seems like an eternity for them.

hazard14: Depuis plusieurs saisons , on gagne beaucoup moins de point pour augmenter de niveau.
On sait tous que le centre de formation niveau 10 est vraiment la chose numéro une pour gonfler ses finances .
Je propose de baisser niveau 6 ou 5 afin d'atteindre ce niveau 10 .
Me mettant a la place des nouveaux arrivé niveau me paraît une éternité pour eux.

Want to climb to level 9 but level 6 is required

I would like to change this, for example
Level 1 up to 3
Level 2 up to 5
Level 3 up to 7
Level 4 up to 8
Level 5 to 9
And Level to get cdf 10

I think it would be enough if the victories brought more points, that would avoid revolutionising everything...
But I agree that it takes a long time to get to level 7 ...

I'm in favour, even if it concerns me more personally, but it would help my members.

Hello,

Yes, it takes a very long time (too long) to reach level 7.

There might be something to look into:
In official cups, particularly the League Cup, only the winner gets "bonus" points. Perhaps we could add a few points to each round?

Leguman: Bonjour,

Oui, c'est très (trop) long d'atteindre le niveau 7.

Une piste peut être à creuser :
En coupe de officielle, Coupe de la Ligue notamment, seul le gagnant gagne des points "bonus", peut être on pourrait bonifier chaque tour avec quelques points ?

Maybe offer bonus points for validating a sponsor more than necessary... like sponsors where you don't have to cash in, or score...

What about extra points based on results, say over the opponent's last 10 games, and independent of the VF index?

Also a bonus for beating the title holder?

Sun's: Peut être offrir des points en bonus lorsque l'on valide un sponsor plus que nécessaire... genre les sponsors où il faut pas encaisser,ou marquer

I think the sponsor idea is excellent
It would restore interest in certain sponsors (or challenges) depending on the needs of the club.
I mean, not all clubs are in financial danger. But some might prefer to move up the points table quickly.
And so, depending on the sponsor, it could be a choice to sacrifice financial gain in order to level up more quickly.

It remains to be seen, however, whether this will distort the rankings.

Magpie: Je trouve l'idée du sponsor excellente
Cela redonnerait de l'intérêt à certains sponsors (ou défis) en fonction des besoins du club.
Je veux dire tous les clubs ne sont pas en danger financièrement. Mais certains préfèreraient peut-être vite monter en points.
Et donc en fonction du sponsor, ça pourrait être un choix de sacrifier un gain financier pour monter en niveau plus rapidement.

A voir cependant pour que ça ne fausse pas les classements, peut-être

In the same vein... we could award points after series of various performances
5 points after a series of 10 victories, the higher the series, the higher the gain (of course, a penalty would have to be added if there were only friendlies)
Or a run without conceding, etc.
We'll see if Aymeric can find a way to add the points directly to the bag without them being counted in the ranking.

It takes a long time but you get there
Like I will in a few days
I'm all happy 😁

Above all, level crossings should be smoother and, above all, there should be no ceiling at level 10.

In general, this type of ranking is pyramidal (the number of clubs decreases as you move up the ladder).
At present, however, this is not the case at all: the 2 most represented levels are 1.... and 10!

And the over-representation of level 10s is even more glaring if we consider only active players.
348 level 10 clubs: #ranking?type=legends
when there are probably only just over 1,000 active members

There's obviously something wrong with the distribution.
It's as if there were more 1st series players in the French tennis rankings than players ranked 15-1 or 15-5!

I think the real debate concerns the fact that the reform of the way points are awarded (based on the VF index rather than the opponent's level) has not changed the levels at which players move up the ladder (at least not to my knowledge).

The gap between the current level 10s, many of whom will have benefited from the past award criteria, and levels 1-5 is enormous, and some managers may legitimately feel aggrieved by such a situation.

I think it would be wiser to focus the debate on reforming the levels rather than adding new ways of awarding points, because:
. managers who have already been involved in the game for some time would see their levels adjusted upwards,
. new managers would be able to plan ahead and invest more and better, because the points progression leading to levels 4-6 would be less discouraging,
. Top managers and/or current level 10s would not see their situation change fundamentally as they would not be affected by the reform (which would be based on the status of current level 10s in order to modify the lower levels, and not vice versa) and would therefore not suffer from the said reform.

However, such a reform would raise other debates centred in particular on the discredit perceived by top managers who, quite rightly, might consider their status weakened and their years of investment suddenly emptied of some of their substance.

However, this is also the impression that some managers may have today, but in the opposite direction, i.e. that many were able to benefit from a points allocation system that was much more favourable than the current one, and when we know the economic and structural impact that a level 10 has, this argument seems reasonable and, in my opinion, deserves to be considered.

Finally, I personally believe that a mixture of the two concepts (i.e. a reform of the levels and the addition of new ways of awarding points) is not incompatible. I hope that in-depth discussions, involving as many managers as possible who are sufficiently representative of the community as a whole, its history and its future, as well as members of the admin team, will enable progress to be made on a major issue affecting the feeling (both felt and tangible) of fairness when it comes to access to the infrastructures provided by the higher levels.

PS: I'm not working today 😄