Football "Chairman" and Football "Coach"

I've had this idea in my head for a while now...

Football Manager is based on the very British role of the Manager, who's in charge of pretty much everything. And that has a rather big impact on the game itself, making it very demanding in terms of time and committment (for those who want to play it right).

But in the rest of the football world, the role of the manager is a rarity, and there are separate roles.

So I was thinking, wouldn't it be interesting implementing the choice of playing as, e.g.

* Chairman/Sporting Director: you deal with the transfer market and can have a say on who should play, but training and matchday duties are performed by the manager/head coach.

* Head Coach: you're in charge of training and team selection. You can say which kind of players you need to be brought in, you can even sumbit a list of names, but ultimately it'll be the Chairman/D.o.F. who will operate on the transfer market.

and of course, the Chairman could just urge you to play with a given tactic or to field their favourite player (despite you finding him useless)

All of that could just be dealt with in the "Manager Profile", like it happens now with Reserve Team, AssMan taking care of training etc.

I think that would offer a new challenge.

It's one thing winning left and right with hand-picked players, but winning with a squad made by someone else, often in spite of your wishes and directions, and with the interference of an obnoxious chairman, is a whole different ballgame.

What do you think? Could it work?

''It's one thing winning left and right with hand-picked players, but winning with a squad made by someone else, often in spite of your wishes and directions, and with the interference of an obnoxious chairman, is a whole different ballgame''

I definitely agree with that, I would love to see intefering chairmen/presidents give you signings, particularly if they have made election promises; you would really have to think carefully and negotiate which aspects you would/wouldnt have control over before you agreed to sign on as manager of a club with a demanding, hands on president.

I'm not sure there is enough scope in either of those roles on their own to make them interesting enough to hold my attention. Not sure it'd be worth the extra effort to include it in the game.

I also wonder how long it'll take someone to trot out the tired old 'It's called Football Manager' arguement.

Yeah I dont think theres enough to be done as say a chairman that would make it interesting enough for me throughout a full season because the matchday is my favourite part, picking the tactics etc. It would be too hands off for me I think.

Would you as the chairman sit in the stand and watch having no influence? It is an interesting thought though.

very good idea. ive posted this idea before here. id like to see it in FM10

Of course it could work. Look at FIFA manager or any management game that was ever produced in Germany where this distinction is reality. Any game concentrating just on one of these two jobs would certainly be boring beyond belief which is why they always included both jobs, although of course it is unrealistic for someone to have both tasks (see the English model where the manager does a bit of both but not everything down to dealing with merchandising and the like).

SI have so far always stuck to the English model which is fine. Should they decide to switch to the continental approach one day we can be sure it would work. Yet, just filling out one of these two roles would be a self-castration option which would not appeal to many, I'm sure and thus not sell well.

Every year the suggestion to play as chairman is made and every year its shot down because the game's called "Football Manager" not "Football Chairman", stupid logic I know, I actually like the idea myself as well.

Every year the suggestion to play as chairman is made and every year its shot down because the game's called "Football Manager" not "Football Chairman", stupid logic I know, I actually like the idea myself as well.

I think the main objection is that being a football chairman = quite boring, whereas being a manager = quite fun and interesting. That's basically all there is to it.

I think the main objection is that being a football chairman = quite boring, whereas being a manager = quite fun and interesting. That's basically all there is to it.

Completely agree. Just being the chairman will not make for an interesting game so it would be an utter waste of coding time spent on that

However seeing how regularly people come here and say they are missing some options shows that the continental approach to creating football management games obviously appeals to many FM users as well. Should SI be willing and able to include a few more touches in that way in the kind of quality we are used to I'm sure it would do no harm to the game. Yet, being used to the format made by SI I have no objections at all to this being kept and continued.

I've had this idea in my head for a while now...

Football Manager is based on the very British role of the Manager, who's in charge of pretty much everything. And that has a rather big impact on the game itself, making it very demanding in terms of time and committment (for those who want to play it right).

But in the rest of the football world, the role of the manager is a rarity, and there are separate roles.

So I was thinking, wouldn't it be interesting ,implementing the choice of playing as, e.g.

* Chairman/Sporting Director: you deal with the transfer market and can have a say on who should play, but training and matchday duties are performed by the manager/head coach.

* Head Coach: you're in charge of training and team selection. You can say which kind of players you need to be brought in, you can even sumbit a list of names, but ultimately it'll be the Chairman/D.o.F. who will operate on the transfer market.

and of course, the Chairman could just urge you to play with a given tactic or to field their favourite player (despite you finding him useless)

.....

Note the use of the word choice, it means having the option if you'd like it, not a rebranding of the game. I for one think it's an excellent idea.

I've always wanted to be a chairman of a club, i was at Rotherham for ten seasons and then realised i had enough wages saved up that could actually afford the club and become chairman and i wish that i could. i'd love to have the power of hiring sacking managers, improving the stdiums and facilites. and once you fall when you go into debt the board of directors can vote no confidence and get you to stand down so you are never 100% safe in your role as chairman, unless you control 100% of the shares. and then it comes down to how interfering you are as well. maybe if your too interefering your manager ends up walking out. You can select your own board, the same way as selecting staff. A whole new world opens, staff members that have intefering, money, patience stats. personally i think it a great add-on and wouldn't harm the game and only add to it. i doubt it would get in the way for those who dont like it but fantastic for those who DO like it.

Note the use of the word choice, it means having the option if you'd like it, not a rebranding of the game. I for one think it's an excellent idea.

The thing is it would still require a lot of coding which consequently could not be spent on other areas of the game. Considering that this option is just miles away from providing an improvement od a degree which might justify the allocation of the necessary coding time to it. The other areas of the game would thus just suffer too much (including not being improved) to justify that investment.

Jayahr: I accept that you don't think it would be enjoyable. However, other people might! I agree too it would take a lot of coding, but in my opinion, the 3D match engine isn't worth the massive amounts of time that was spent on it, I still play in 2D anyway, so i think the time from that could've been spent on this!

Of course, I do not have the data to support my claim.

But knowing it would take lots of time and assuming the vast majority couldn't care less I'm sure I am right.

As far as the 3D is concerned as an example, of course there will always be people who would prefer the coding time spent on some areas to be spent on others instead. At last however the coding time spent on the 3D section will one day as well benefit you because it takes the engine further towards the point where you will actually prefer it to the 2D.

It is getting more common though, on the continent they use it all the time, with Kaka, Ronaldo and Benzema being Perez's choice and not Pelligrini's choices. Also Newcastle went that way last season, I know it didn't work, but its getting ever common. Someway of implementing it needs to occur, especially with this Notts County saga.

The only way to get around it would be the chairmen appointing you as say Director of Football or Heaad Coach, rather than having the choice, because I dont think that the new Notts County chairmen said to Sven you have the choice to be Manager or just DoF.

So with the inclusion of Director of Football/ Head Coach roles along with the common manager role it would bring the game to be more realistic and be more of a challenge when your the head coach, with a director of football buying players over your head, especially if they are all like Xisco for Newcastle.

I started a game once where I planned to just do transfers, and leave playing matches to my ass man. I got bored in less than an hour. Playing the matches is the best part of FM, and I wouldn't ever want to be in a position where I'm not doing that.

Implementing a head coach type of role in game would be a good idea though as an option. It'd provide an interesting challenge.

which ever role you took it would feel like you are only playing half a game.

''I would love to see intefering chairmen/presidents give you signings

Thats already in the game or at least it used to be. When Chelsea had the 'sugar daddy' option ticked and you didn't make any big name signings then Abramovich would go out and sign someone. Since Man City have this option ticked then I would suggest trying it with them.

which ever role you took it would feel like you are only playing half a game.

Because it was.

I'm a bit surprised so many complain about the game getting boring and/or too easy and then tend to dismiss an actual challenge as "it's just half of the game".

A more intrusive board who will not give a second look to your shortlist before bringing players in, or a board who'll just insist you to play that AMC you don't rate at all etc... all of that is a much more diffucult task (if implemented in a decent way) than being the boss of it all and calling all the shots at any Lower League club.

On the other hand I can see how the Chairman Only option would end up being a bit boring, but still... something new-ish won't harm

i would expect some people would complain because they keep getting the sack because they keep getting their transfer lists rejected by the chairman and dont play the players that he signs instead. Lets face it the AI makes some very odd signings at the moment and that might not change. would you really want to be forced to play half a dozen AI signed halfwits?

I think this would be a good idea, although not one i would want to use. However it should be a choice, and should only be implemented if it won't harm the other features.

Interfering chairman/board members/directors of football surely must be implemented soon.

It would annoy me but I would love the realism. If they did it right, it could be an extremely good aspect of the game. For example the chairman may waste your entire transfer budget on an overrated, lazy striker who the chairman forces you to play in nearly every game, while your promising 19-year-old goal poacher has to rot on the bench. Then he would get disgruntled, maybe even have an altercation with the prima donna, and like someone else said in this thread, a whole new level of possibilities would become available.

Then you would have a very interesting conundrum; either you keep picking the lazy striker, and ignore the potential future of your team, or you pick the young kid and risk the wrath (and potential sacking) from the board.

The best thing about these situations would be for them to occur regardless of your popularity and league position. Maybe you will be sacked by the board despite winning a treble or a double, leading to a fans' backlash, leading to a new board and you reappointed to the manager's job. It could be brilliant, and you would really feel part of the game world.

I'm not sure about actually being the chairman or DoF, but taking the 'Head Coach' role would be good. To be honest I just want my coaches to deal with training and then I'd be good at this game

something new-ish won't harm

tbf from experience in most cases it actually DID harm (with the odd pleasant surprise) when SI introduced a big newish feature.

Only in later patches or version it was tweaked and/or made far less important or annoying. Mind games are still there but could as well be taken out without anyone noticing for instance.

edit: wow, so much negativity coming from me in one morning. I'll get another coffee and then we'll see whether my post will see any positive side again.