Really unfair sacking!!

Okay, firstly if this is in the wrong place or there is already a thread, accept my apologies i couldn't find anything, so please re-direct me.

Right, i am united manager. in 4 seasons i have won;

4 premierships, 4 fa cups and 2 champions league tropheys.

I launch United ahead of Madrid and Barca in the rankings.

I become a Man Utd "legend"

And i do all this making a PROFIT on transfers every year over the 4 years. Signing wonderkids for spare change and selling the likes of Nani, Young, Anderson, Vidic and Berbatov for £20m+ each.

My finances hit 'insecure' and i have a takeover. The new chairman vows to name Phil Neville - a man i hired as youth coach the second he retired from everton - as the new manager apon his arrival.

The new guy takes over and says "despite saying i would hire a new manager, i shall still consider you as manager"

I then get sacked after all that hard work and success. I turned that club into the best in the world and basically created a dream team. My win rate was above 80% and after all that i am sacked.

Has this happpened to anyone else? Why do they do that?

oh and just to add, coincidentally Chelsea, City, Liverpool, Tottenham and Arsenal ALL hired new managers the month before i was sacked. Mostly because they kept stealing eachothers managers.

It's unfair mate but unfortunately that can happen with a new owner.

Look in the news today, PSG are top of Ligue 1 yet current manager Antoine Kombouare is likely to be replaced by Carlo Ancelotti!

Also Venky's taking over Blackburn and sacking Sam Allardyce, unfortunately this stuff happens.

Who replaced you, just out of curiosity?

Happened with my on FM09 with Leeds. I lead them to promtion from League 1 despite starting on -15pts, and halfway through the second season my side was leading the Championship. New chairman comes in and decides he wants someone else - and I'm sacked.

Ok, not the same amount of time or success that you have had, but it's just tough.

life is so unfair at times...but it does happen with a new owner taking over!

if i was a billionaire owner and i bought a club i would bring in a new manager which i wanted to take control off me team.

It's unfair mate but unfortunately that can happen with a new owner.

Look in the news today, PSG are top of Ligue 1 yet current manager Antoine Kombouare is likely to be replaced by Carlo Ancelotti!

life is so unfair at times...but it does happen with a new owner taking over!

if i was a billionaire owner and i bought a club i would bring in a new manager which i wanted to take control off me team.

Sure, if the billionaire owner had a buddy whom he really wanted to take over the reigns, he would concoct an excuse, but that would be like a new Barcelona board firing Pep Guardiola, or a new Manchester United board firing Sir Alex Ferguson - it wouldn't happen, as it would be the quickest way to lose the fans and any sense of stability.

Billionaires aren't stupid. They want to see success. If the current club is successful, why fix what's not broken?

It's unfair mate but unfortunately that can happen with a new owner.

Look in the news today, PSG are top of Ligue 1 yet current manager Antoine Kombouare is likely to be replaced by Carlo Ancelotti!

Also Venky's taking over Blackburn and sacking Sam Allardyce, unfortunately this stuff happens.

Who replaced you, just out of curiosity?

Phil ******* Neville. I hired that guy.

Thanks for your replies so far people.

If you were a billionaire owner, you'd want to see your toy succeed, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to back the current very successful manager at the club.

Sure, if the billionaire owner had a buddy whom he really wanted to take over the reigns, he would concoct an excuse, but that would be like a new Barcelona board firing Pep Guardiola, or a new Manchester United board firing Sir Alex Ferguson - it wouldn't happen, as it would be the quickest way to lose the fans and any sense of stability.

Billionaires aren't stupid. They want to see success. If the current club is successful, why fix what's not broken?

Real Madrid sacked Del Bosque despite winning the Champions League and La Liga twice in 4 years. I'm not saying it's fair for the OP, far from it, all I'm saying is this stuff happens.

yeah it does happen. its just so annoying when you are so successful.

the most annoying thing i think is that i had to stick to a small budget and make profits every year and just before i'm sacked the new chairman comes in and gives the club £350m. I could have signed freakin Messi. Now P.Neville gets to enjoy that and i'm unemployed.

Real Madrid sacked Del Bosque despite winning the Champions League and La Liga twice in 4 years. I'm not saying it's fair for the OP, far from it, all I'm saying is this stuff happens.

There would need to be a huge political confrontation in order for a del Bosque-level sacking to occur, something that isn't in-game (political in-fighting).

And of course, every club is going to look at what happened with the del Bosque situation several years and realise that perhaps firing a successful manager is a stupid idea. In other words, I would be even more surprised if another "del Bosque" situation ever happens at a top-tier club again - because it didn't work.

Perhaps the OP is the exception then? If it happened in every save I would agree that it's absurd. I think he's just been extremely unlucky.

The thing to do now is pick yourself up and knock United off top spot in Europe!

Who knows, you may thank those trigger happy owners in the future!

Perhaps the OP is the exception then? If it happened in every save I would agree that it's absurd. I think he's just been extremely unlucky.

The thing to do now is pick yourself up and knock United off top spot in Europe!

Who knows, you may thank those trigger happy owners in the future!

Absolutely! I want to knock United off their f-ing perch! It's such a shame all the other top clubs just got new managers lol.

It was nuts. Wenger retired so they pinched Citys manager, City pinched Chelseas, Chelsea pinched tottenhams and then tottenham pinched Evertons and then Everton hired McClaren.

Perhaps the OP is the exception then? If it happened in every save I would agree that it's absurd. I think he's just been extremely unlucky.

Just because it is "ridiculous" does not mean that we shouldn't bat an eyelid if it happens in-game. It would be ridiculous if Accrington Stanley beat Barcelona 50-0 in-game - we don't give it the benefit of the doubt just because "it's possible". It is possible for a single event to be deemed "statistically significant".

I just don't see it as a rational decision. There is no advantage to sacking a manager who has proven medium-term success with the club, even more so given Real Madrid tried that "experiment" with del Bosque and it failed rather dramatically. Therefore I don't see why a board should sack the OP. It would be one of the easiest ways to upset the fans and players, leading to more instability and discontent. The OP is a Manchester United legend, so boycotts and protests wouldn't be out of the question.

Would this really be a sensible business decision by the board? I think it's a decision that would wipe a lot of value off their investments for very little upside, if any at all.

If you own a club, or partly own it, you want to see it succeed. If you are investing in a club, you will want to see a return. If you are a sugar daddy, you want to see your play toy beating the living daylights out of other clubs. In both cases, you want a very successful and very good manager at the helm. You already have a very successful and very good manager at the helm. You own the best club in the world, so likely have one of the best managers in the world. What's the benefit of sacking the OP? There simply isn't one.

Why would they fire him? Because it's the new owner's club. They're taking over and want autonomy, not some guy who calls all the shots. They want a Yes Man, which is why a club like Liverpool with a Champions League winning manager, and two-time finalist in 3 years gets the sack and replaced by eternal optimist Woy 'Odgson, mediocre mid-table manager, but one not likely to kick up a fuss about money, and do ok on a shoe-string budget.

His finances became 'insecure' so I'm assuming for all the success he had, he also wasn't acting in the club's long-term interests, slowly running the club into the ground. It's one thing to be successful, but another to be financially responsible.

Perhaps you are not in the mood for a challenge, but think about it, this could be a legendary save for you. What I mean is that you pick up the reins somewhere else in England and driven by hate and pride you make sure your new club becomes the ruler of Britain once and for all.

Happened me in FM11 I think.

Why would they fire him? Because it's the new owner's club. They're taking over and want autonomy, not some guy who calls all the shots. They want a Yes Man, which is why a club like Liverpool with a Champions League winning manager, and two-time finalist in 3 years gets the sack and replaced by eternal optimist Woy 'Odgson, mediocre mid-table manager, but one not likely to kick up a fuss about money, and do ok on a shoe-string budget.

Nothing to do with the fact that Rafa's tenure towards the end was rather rubbish, and that he was out of the title race by Christmas, then? Rafa can't be compared to the OP, who has had consistently excellent success for 4 years.

Look beyond authority - the reason for taking over the club in the first place is either to make a financial return on their investment, to have a fun toy to play with, or both. They would like a lot of authority, because they are successful themselves and therefore know how to make money. However, they know that in order to make money, you need a good manager. The OP is clearly one of the best in the world, so it is going to be difficult to better the OP. Besides, the OP could well be a "yes man" anyway!

Firing the manager simply has no benefit.

His finances became 'insecure' so I'm assuming for all the success he had, he also wasn't acting in the club's long-term interests, slowly running the club into the ground. It's one thing to be successful, but another to be financially responsible.

If the manager was running the club to the ground, this would show up on the confidence feature on finances, and it would be difficult to see why they would not have sacked him earlier.

The point is that there doesn't have to be a logical reason for a new owner to sack a manager, regardless of how successfull they are.

Why would Venky's sack Allardyce, who had Blackburn firmly in mid table and had reached the semis of the Carling Cup and replace him with his coach - Steve Kean? Allardyce was a proven manager and on Blackburn's terms, a success. Kean was unproven however. No logic but it happened.

Obviously to reflect the eccentricity owners can have, SI have implemented a feature which means a new owner can sack the current manager if they so wish.

It's not fair and it's not logical but football wouldn't be fun if it was would it? And as noted before, this could turn into a great save for the OP. If acfergie wanted to return to United I'm sure he could add a new manager as to replace Neville then retire that manager and apply for the vacant role. you never know, the owners may take him back.

The new owners could have been good friends with Phil, so sacked you and employed him instead?

Then there's the whole idea of them just throwing their weight around- sacking you sends a very clear message who's in charge. Chris Hughton at Newcastle comes to mind.

Person starts thread about being sacked in ludicrous circumstances? Check.

People respond with real life examples that aren't even in the same ball park? Check.

Good to see the forum is running as per normal.

Nothing to do with the fact that Rafa's tenure towards the end was rather rubbish, and that he was out of the title race by Christmas, then? Rafa can't be compared to the OP, who has had consistently excellent success for 4 years.

Not at all. My Rafa point was not of success absolutely but of a successful manager of a club that is about to enter administration, as Liverpool were. It's obvious that his Man Utd team were not making anything like a profit. For the financial status to have dropped to insecure, especially after such huge success, suggests that behind the scenes the club was in need of a massive overhaul. It also makes one question how that success was gained, as I'll touch upon in a moment.

Look beyond authority - the reason for taking over the club in the first place is either to make a financial return on their investment, to have a fun toy to play with, or both. They would like a lot of authority, because they are successful themselves and therefore know how to make money. However, they know that in order to make money, you need a good manager. The OP is clearly one of the best in the world, so it is going to be difficult to better the OP. Besides, the OP could well be a "yes man" anyway!

Firing the manager simply has no benefit.

If we do assume they're taking over the club for a return on their investment then the current manager wasn't the right choice. His team were losing lots of money. Whether he was abiding by the previous board's guidelines or not doesn't matter. Assuming he was aware of the club's financial situation, it seems he acted carelessly. The proper course of action given the club's financial state would have been to dump the super high wage players, and build a team that would challenge for the title, and do ok in the Champions League, not one who would walk to the title 4 straight years and manage 2/4 CLs. I would suggest that it is this part of the scenario which is the most unrealistic. If you are winning so freely, then it's starkly obvious that a few of those top earning players weren't necessary and he was perhaps playing for his own success rather than the well-being of the club. Ultimately he paid for it by losing his job when the club got into a bit of strife.

Manchester United financially are not in great shape, and I believe the debt in-game is treated as a loan, not a bond, which means they are paying more interest per year than reality... The OP makes a profit every year on transfers.

If the manager was running the club to the ground, this would show up on the confidence feature on finances, and it would be difficult to see why they would not have sacked him earlier.

It probably wouldn't because of how bad the previous board were running the club. The Chairman AI can be very irresponsible, which in this particular case when replicating the current Manchester United owners some might say is rather accurate. You read it on here often. They will give you a huge wage budget even if it means running a loss. And with all his success, the board would overlook any financial problems that were going on - until, ultimately they would have to sell as in this case.

My point is that no club should have a preference of success over their long-term survival. No more Leeds' betting on potential future successes. If he had a bad year, all of a sudden the club's not getting that extra 10-20 million+ that it was getting JUST to stay out of administration. It's not realistic to assume a club in such dire straits, needing to be saved via a takeover, would just say hey, "let's keep the successful manager and forget about returning the club to profitability because success and a slowly diminishing bank balance is more important. After all, we're somewhat poorly imagined characters in a video game whereby our complete loss of fortune is a-ok."

If anything this situation serves as a great lesson to a lot of people playing the game. There's a reason the player can look at the finances tab.

What about Chelsea recently? Mourinho fell out with abramovic and got sacked. Ancelotti won the double, finished 2nd the next season, sacked. If the chairman wants it to be his club he sacks em, regardless of who they are.

What about Chelsea recently? Mourinho fell out with abramovic and got sacked. Ancelotti won the double, finished 2nd the next season, sacked. If the chairman wants it to be his club he sacks em, regardless of who they are.

Yeah this ^^

The point is that there doesn't have to be a logical reason for a new owner to sack a manager, regardless of how successfull they are.

Why would Venky's sack Allardyce, who had Blackburn firmly in mid table and had reached the semis of the Carling Cup and replace him with his coach - Steve Kean? Allardyce was a proven manager and on Blackburn's terms, a success. Kean was unproven however. No logic but it happened.

They didn't like the style of football Big Sam played. Also, there's various rumours that Kean ousted Big Sam behind the scenes, and/or that it helped that his agent was the same person who was advising Venky's: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/dec/16/steve-kean-blackburn-rovers

Obviously to reflect the eccentricity owners can have, SI have implemented a feature which means a new owner can sack the current manager if they so wish.

It's not fair and it's not logical but football wouldn't be fun if it was would it? And as noted before, this could turn into a great save for the OP. If acfergie wanted to return to United I'm sure he could add a new manager as to replace Neville then retire that manager and apply for the vacant role. you never know, the owners may take him back.

I'm sure the OP found it fun, getting sacked for illogical reasons.

Not at all. My Rafa point was not of success absolutely but of a successful manager of a club that is about to enter administration, as Liverpool were. It's obvious that his Man Utd team were not making anything like a profit. For the financial status to have dropped to insecure, especially after such huge success, suggests that behind the scenes the club was in need of a massive overhaul. It also makes one question how that success was gained, as I'll touch upon in a moment.

It's obvious Rafa wasn't fired purely due to financial circumstances. Liverpool were in shambles both on and off the pitch that season, and part of it was down to Rafa himself.

Either way, why was he not fired beforehand, if he wasn't good financially for the club?

If we do assume they're taking over the club for a return on their investment then the current manager wasn't the right choice. His team were losing lots of money. Whether he was abiding by the previous board's guidelines or not doesn't matter. Assuming he was aware of the club's financial situation, it seems he acted carelessly. The proper course of action given the club's financial state would have been to dump the super high wage players, and build a team that would challenge for the title, and do ok in the Champions League, not one who would walk to the title 4 straight years and manage 2/4 CLs. I would suggest that it is this part of the scenario which is the most unrealistic. If you are winning so freely, then it's starkly obvious that a few of those top earning players weren't necessary and he was perhaps playing for his own success rather than the well-being of the club. Ultimately he paid for it by losing his job when the club got into a bit of strife.

The manager should have been fired long before that happened, however. Financial stability is part of the Confidence feature.

It is of course possible to be successful without breaking the bank - look at the insane goalscoring records that some people have had on this forum.

The profits of the club don't actually influence the value of the club that much. All Premier League sides barring a few have been losing money for years, but the value of these clubs has grown anyway, simply down to the fact that football is valuable. Manchester United report operational profits but losses after interest and taxes, but its value is arguably getting higher year-on-year.

It probably wouldn't because of how bad the previous board were running the club. The Chairman AI can be very irresponsible, which in this particular case when replicating the current Manchester United owners some might say is rather accurate. You read it on here often. They will give you a huge wage budget even if it means running a loss. And with all his success, the board would overlook any financial problems that were going on - until, ultimately they would have to sell as in this case.

Not true. The "Insecure" status happens when the club starts running out of money (bank balance). This is one of the bars in the Confidence feature.

Sure, the board does give you a wage budget that is too high, but you can keep that bar filled whilst destroying your bank balance - which should prompt the firing of the manager.

My point is that no club should have a preference of success over their long-term survival. No more Leeds' betting on potential future successes. If he had a bad year, all of a sudden the club's not getting that extra 10-20 million+ that it was getting JUST to stay out of administration. It's not realistic to assume a club in such dire straits, needing to be saved via a takeover, would just say hey, "let's keep the successful manager and forget about returning the club to profitability because success and a slowly diminishing bank balance is more important. After all, we're somewhat poorly imagined characters in a video game whereby our complete loss of fortune is a-ok."

Then the manager should have been fired earlier, before the club got into dire straits.

Not every manager is fired because of poor finances. It is entirely possible, for example, that they have financed a new stadium when they should not have, which has hurt their finances. There are also additional things like the board selling players above the manager's head.

If anything this situation serves as a great lesson to a lot of people playing the game. There's a reason the player can look at the finances tab.

IF the manager was fired due to circumstances, leaving out the silly bit where they should have fired him earlier as he hadn't met financial conditions, then there is clearly a need to mention why a manager is fired. In fact, this should happen regardless of whether it's a takeover or not.

The OP has made a net transfer profit every season and has developed young talent. There's probably a disconnect somewhere that we are missing.

What about Chelsea recently? Mourinho fell out with abramovic and got sacked. Ancelotti won the double, finished 2nd the next season, sacked. If the chairman wants it to be his club he sacks em, regardless of who they are.

He didn't win the Champions League - which was his aim. Ancelotti did not meet his targets - and was fired.

take over another team like city,arsenal,real,barca or liverpool and lead them to world domination

It's obvious Rafa wasn't fired purely due to financial circumstances. Liverpool were in shambles both on and off the pitch that season, and part of it was down to Rafa himself.

I sure it played a significant part though. October of last year Liverpool were an unfavourable Court verdict away from entering administration. I'm quite sure earlier, the then board would have seen Hodgson as a man able to provide suitable management for a penniless club, for I cannot envision a circumstance whereby Liverpool saw Roy as a manager who was going to be a huge success, certainly not anywhere near the level of the outgoing manager who had won in Spain twice, and European trophies in consecutive years. Hodgson was brought in as he was seen best fit to work with a club with no money.

Either way, why was he not fired beforehand, if he wasn't good financially for the club?

Because the previous board didn't care, and the new one did? It's clear that boardroom AI isn't up to snuff, and allows a lot of financial mismanagement to occur. That said, the OP does seem to suggest the takeover occurred soon after the finances changed to insecure. If that was indeed the case, upon 'realising' the financial situation, the previous board would have been rather daft to have sacked the manager, either a) regardless of any takeover, as it's better to be in debt with sound management that's winning things, or b) before an impending takeover, as you'd be silly to spend your own money on a severance package when you're trying to get as much money as you can for yourselves.

Not true. The "Insecure" status happens when the club starts running out of money (bank balance). This is one of the bars in the Confidence feature.

Sure, the board does give you a wage budget that is too high, but you can keep that bar filled whilst destroying your bank balance - which should prompt the firing of the manager.

And it did, albeit once a new board took over.

Then the manager should have been fired earlier, before the club got into dire straits.

Not every manager is fired because of poor finances. It is entirely possible, for example, that they have financed a new stadium when they should not have, which has hurt their finances. There are also additional things like the board selling players above the manager's head.

You'll get no argument from me here, on both points. We could argue that the board's AI should be made stricter sooner, and not ride out costly success until it starts to hurt. But then you don't have the risk/reward factor of the game some people might enjoy whereby they redline it for as long as they can.

IF the manager was fired due to circumstances, leaving out the silly bit where they should have fired him earlier as he hadn't met financial conditions, then there is clearly a need to mention why a manager is fired. In fact, this should happen regardless of whether it's a takeover or not.

Well, in most cases I imagine it would be pretty clear as to why you've been sacked. I've not been unlucky enough to have been myself (lower leagues with low expectations, then big teams with chairmen that love the club) but this case does seem to be one of those where all the things myself and others here have said, come into it. I certainly do not intend anyone to take any rebuttal of mine in this particular thread as definitive fact, rather an offering of suggestions that if viewed as a scenario in the real world would seem altogether logical. If the financial scenario doesn't suit you, that's fine. Like was mentioned earlier, maybe the new owners were good friends with Neville, or maybe like you yourself alluded to in the Rovers example, perhaps Neville ousted the manager behind the scenes! As the OP states he was a youth coach at the club at the time, perhaps saw the dollar signs and fame and went for it? Or like yet another said, it could be that the incoming board just didn't like the manager as a person. Virtual prejudices, you see.

That's what's great about the game. Anything can happen, and not everything in it has to be explained by a notification or message. That for one I'm glad about. There's underlying stories in every part of it; pick a reason that sounds good and get on with it. Could be the best save ever.

I sure it played a significant part though. October of last year Liverpool were an unfavourable Court verdict away from entering administration. I'm quite sure earlier, the then board would have seen Hodgson as a man able to provide suitable management for a penniless club, for I cannot envision a circumstance whereby Liverpool saw Roy as a manager who was going to be a huge success, certainly not anywhere near the level of the outgoing manager who had won in Spain twice, and European trophies in consecutive years. Hodgson was brought in as he was seen best fit to work with a club with no money.

It definitely played a part, but if Rafa had performed without spending money (well, considering Hicks and Gillett had no money, that wasn't hard), would he really have been fired? Rafa performed on a shoestring budget for years.

Because the previous board didn't care, and the new one did? It's clear that boardroom AI isn't up to snuff, and allows a lot of financial mismanagement to occur. That said, the OP does seem to suggest the takeover occurred soon after the finances changed to insecure. If that was indeed the case, upon 'realising' the financial situation, the previous board would have been rather daft to have sacked the manager, either a) regardless of any takeover, as it's better to be in debt with sound management that's winning things, or b) before an impending takeover, as you'd be silly to spend your own money on a severance package when you're trying to get as much money as you can for yourselves.

You are embargoed during a takeover, anyway. However, I'm talking way before the takeover happens, when financial storms loom.

Argument a) can be applied to the new board, too, who may enforce a more strict financial regime.

Well, in most cases I imagine it would be pretty clear as to why you've been sacked. I've not been unlucky enough to have been myself (lower leagues with low expectations, then big teams with chairmen that love the club) but this case does seem to be one of those where all the things myself and others here have said, come into it. I certainly do not intend anyone to take any rebuttal of mine in this particular thread as definitive fact, rather an offering of suggestions that if viewed as a scenario in the real world would seem altogether logical. If the financial scenario doesn't suit you, that's fine. Like was mentioned earlier, maybe the new owners were good friends with Neville, or maybe like you yourself alluded to in the Rovers example, perhaps Neville ousted the manager behind the scenes! As the OP states he was a youth coach at the club at the time, perhaps saw the dollar signs and fame and went for it? Or like yet another said, it could be that the incoming board just didn't like the manager as a person. Virtual prejudices, you see.

That's what's great about the game. Anything can happen, and not everything in it has to be explained by a notification or message. That for one I'm glad about. There's underlying stories in every part of it; pick a reason that sounds good and get on with it. Could be the best save ever.

I'm not a fan of inventing imaginary reasons behind the scenes. When a manager is fired, it is often followed by a public statement by the board and/or chairman why this action was taken. Insecure finances are not always the reason, since tons of professional clubs are in this situation.

I agree it's probably the most likely situation and we need information from the OP, really, but my view is that it's a symptom rather than a cause, the root causes being stupid wage budgets, boards who don't interact with you much when they should, and boards that cannot long-term plan at all.

For people saying its happened IRL, I dont remember Fergie being sacked at Man U when the glaziers took over.

Thats the only real life comparison you can make. I dont remember Fat Sam being as successful as the OP at blackburn.

I agree that his sacking was completely unfair and completely illogical.

Rafa is a bad example because liverpool were utter crap when he was sacked. The OP was the best team in the world and playing consistently well.

The sacking of big sam is also not very relevant because we are not talking about a mid table team trying to move up in english football, we are talking about the most successful club on the planet in recent years within his save. I'd say the same thing about Hughton sacking.

I also don't think that Mourinho's sacking is relevant because he didn't have a falling out with the owner. The owner didn't even give him a chance to 'prove himself' (a dumb statement seeing how he has proven himself to be the best on the planet over the last 4 seasons).

In what world would a the manager, who has won the domestic league 4 years running and picked up 2 champions league title in those 4 years, be sacked by a new owner? And then replaced by not by another world class manager, but a youth coach?

There is no discernible benefit to doing so. The OP is already doing all the winning and making all the money. There is no financial benefit. The new owners must have cleared a good chunk of the debt that united had and if they just let the OP continue to do what he was doing well, they would easily be making a killing.

And there were no other logical reasons for him being sacked. They can't say they didn't like him. They never even gave him a chance to work for them.

It would be like the Glazers sacking Sir Alex after they had taken over.

kostako I'm sorry I just can't buy the financial argument because the OP was making money and winning titles.

And I doubt phil neville got him sacked behind the scenes

Oh and if this were to happen in real life the amount of riots and protests that would result would be substantially worse that what kean has been facing.

The Glazer takeover is an entirely opposite scenario, whereby they saw a profitable club with little to no debt and took on a substantial amount to fund the takeover.

In this case the takeover is more likely to have been to bail out a club on wobbly financial footing. So no, not like the Glazer takeover at all.

Haha, i know I've jumped on this sinking ship of an argument and I'm willing to go down with it!

See, that's what doesn't make sense. How could the clubs finances have dipped into insecure if he's won all those titles, and sold off players for millions, and brought through cheap youngsters? :confused:

The Glazer takeover is an entirely opposite scenario, whereby they saw a profitable club with little to no debt and took on a substantial amount to fund the takeover.

In this case the takeover is more likely to have been to bail out a club on wobbly financial footing. So no, not like the Glazer takeover at all.

But to say that the OP was basically sacked in relation to United's finances being insecure isn't really right. United's finances have been pretty crappy before the OP started his save. Heck he was doing the glazers a huge favour buying constantly winning and thus bringing large cash prizes.