"The minimum expectation is that you win the league this season"

Does anyone else think this is a bit illogical? You're given a minimum expectation from the board for each competition you enter, but if you're expected to win the league, then it can't be a minimum expectation because that implies that winning the league is the lowest in a spectrum of expectation. It also means that, if you do win the league, the board are only "pleased" because of all you've done is meet the bare minimum they expected in that competition.

What should happen is that, if you're expected to win the league, it should say "the only expectation here is that you win the league". Then, when you do win it, regardless of who you are, the board should always be delighted rather than just pleased.

Not really. The board will accept nothing less than winning the title, therefore that is the minimum.

Winning a cup competition will not be acceptable, they want the league, so I can see what they are saying.

On the other hand. There isn't the objective... "The minimum expectation is to win the champions league." Why not?

Not really. The board will accept nothing less than winning the title, therefore that is the minimum.

But that's not what it says. As I said, you can't make the maximum possible achievement a minimum expectation because when you have a minimum, it implies there is a possivility beyond it. But you can't go beyond winning the league. It's the maximum you can achieve in that competition. So if that's the board's demand, it should be their only expectation in that competition.

Winning a cup competition will not be acceptable, they want the league, so I can see what they are saying.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The board gives you separate expectations for each competition you enter on the confidence screen. They aren't saying the minimum expectation is that you win the league because they also hope you'll do well in other competitions. They give you a separate expectation for cups. But they can say that their minimum expectation in the league is to win it, which is daft because you can't then exceed it. I can't do better in the league than win it, and that means the board are never more than "pleased" if I do win it. But even a big club's board should be thrilled by bringing the title home because it's still the maximum you can do in that competition.

But that's not what it says. As I said, you can't make the maximum possible achievement a minimum expectation because when you have a minimum, it implies there is a possivility beyond it. But you can't go beyond winning the league. It's the maximum you can achieve in that competition. So if that's the board's demand, it should be their only expectation in that competition.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The board gives you separate expectations for each competition you enter on the confidence screen. They aren't saying the minimum expectation is that you win the league because they also hope you'll do well in other competitions. They give you a separate expectation for cups. But they can say that their minimum expectation in the league is to win it, which is daft because you can't then exceed it. I can't do better in the league than win it, and that means the board are never more than "pleased" if I do win it. But even a big club's board should be thrilled by bringing the title home because it's still the maximum you can do in that competition.

I agree with you here on this one. IRL, if Man City or Chelsea won the league this year, the board would be delighted, not just pleased.

IRL If Chelsea, Man Utd or Man City won the league, then the board would be delighted. Even the Barcelona board would be delighted with winning the league.

Look at real Madrid, don't they have a history or sacking managers for not winning the leage or the champions league? So I don't see a problem with the minimum expectation being to win the league. If you don't win, you should get sacked

It just really means they're saying "You better win the league or your outta' here"

Will people stop missing my point, please?

I agree that if the board want a title and you don't achieve it, the sack should at the very least be a possbility.

I'm not arguing for a lessening of board expectations or a reduction in the risk of the sack. I'm point out a failure of logic. It is illogical to make the maximum possible achievement the minimum expectation. For it to be the minimum, there needs to be the possibility of exceeding it, but you can't exceed it. And this leads to the board to only be "pleased" when you win, like they expected it all along and aren't that bothered when you achieve it. A league win is always celebrated and the board should be thrilled, whoever you are. After all, in that competition, you couldn't have done any better.

If the minimum is that, what's the maximum ?

I guess that even Barcelona board does not post this ultimatum, even if they expect a League win of course.

Will people stop missing my point, please?

I agree that if the board want a title and you don't achieve it, the sack should at the very least be a possbility.

I'm not arguing for a lessening of board expectations or a reduction in the risk of the sack. I'm point out a failure of logic. It is illogical to make the maximum possible achievement the minimum expectation. For it to be the minimum, there needs to be the possibility of exceeding it, but you can't exceed it. And this leads to the board to only be "pleased" when you win, like they expected it all along and aren't that bothered when you achieve it. A league win is always celebrated and the board should be thrilled, whoever you are. After all, in that competition, you couldn't have done any better.

I totally agree. It's no fun being a top team when the board are only ever 'pleased' with your achievements year in, year out. It should be a) worded differently, to "We except the title" and b) they should be delighted if you win it.

I'm not arguing for a lessening of board expectations or a reduction in the risk of the sack. I'm point out a failure of logic. It is illogical to make the maximum possible achievement the minimum expectation. For it to be the minimum, there needs to be the possibility of exceeding it, but you can't exceed it.

You can exceed the minimum by winning other competitions, but only if you win the league, winning everything except the league would leave you short of their minimum expectations. (maximum=win everything?)

And this leads to the board to only be "pleased" when you win, like they expected it all along and aren't that bothered when you achieve it. A league win is always celebrated and the board should be thrilled, whoever you are. After all, in that competition, you couldn't have done any better.

I agree with this.

In my current Norway game, Rosenborg have won the title for over ten years straight, and the double most years. I would imagine that this is a case of 'Come second, and you're sacked in the morning'

I'm not arguing for a lessening of board expectations or a reduction in the risk of the sack. I'm point out a failure of logic. It is illogical to make the maximum possible achievement the minimum expectation. For it to be the minimum, there needs to be the possibility of exceeding it, but you can't exceed it.

Actually it's perfectly logical. Just one example: The minimum number on a standard die that is greater than five, is six.

This number is also the maximum number on a standard die that is greater than five. The minimum happens to be the same as the maximum, but there is no requirement in mathematics or logic for them to be different.

You can exceed the minimum by winning other competitions, but only if you win the league, winning everything except the league would leave you short of their minimum expectations. (maximum=win everything?)

The board gives you expectations separately for each competition. I'm referring exclusively to cases where they set the maximum possible achievement as the minimum expectation only.

In my current Norway game, Rosenborg have won the title for over ten years straight, and the double most years. I would imagine that this is a case of 'Come second, and you're sacked in the morning'

Actually it's perfectly logical. Just one example: The minimum number on a standard die that is greater than five, is six.

This number is also the maximum number on a standard die that is greater than five. The minimum happens to be the same as the maximum, but there is no requirement in mathematics or logic for them to be different.

Even if your example disproves my suggestion that it's illogical (which I suspect you have done, to be fair), I still think there is something wrong in this context where a board refers to a title win as a minimum expectation. Basically, it's their only expectation in that competition, seeing as it's impossible to exceed it. If someone held a gun to my head and said the least I expect you to do to save your life is roll a six, I'd be pretty miffed that the maximum possible was the minimum I could do to appease my bizarre captor. So I guess my main complaint is that the achievement of winning the league is diluted by it only being a minimum expectation and therefore only "pleasing" the board, as if they'd have been happier with your league performance if you'd finished above 1st.

I could not agree more with Mike. I am with him on everything he has said. I have always thought this.

You know, when I get this far in my games, when the board will only give the option of winning the league, I pretty much know it's time to quit this team & get another. This requirement takes away the 'feel-good' factor of why a lot of us play. If changing teams is not on, then I just start a new game with some no-hoper in the BSP.

The board gives you expectations separately for each competition. I'm referring exclusively to cases where they set the maximum possible achievement as the minimum expectation only.

Yeah, I should have re-checked the OP when replying to your post. :o