More options in manager contracts for future versions

Manager contracts are very basic at the moment in my opinion. While there were a couple of options in FM 07 (like expanding the stadium or training facilities), the only options available for negotiations in FM 08 are increasing the wages (which is useless) or the time of the contract.

What i would like to suggest is more flexibility while negotiating in terms of the investment and long term ambitions of the club.

If possible, there should be six options available in the contract screen:

1) The type of contract (regular or rolling)

2) Contract commencement (immediate or end of the season)

3) Wages

4) Contract period

5) Investment (low, medium, large, huge)

6) Long term ambitions (options from fighting bravely against relegation to winning the league)

Now the 4 and 6th option should be inter-connected. So if i ask a five year contract then the board should be more ambitious. For example, if i was offered a two year contract by a Wigan Athletic or a Derby County, then the long term ambition should be to stay in the EPL. But if i ask for a five year contract, the the long term ambition should be to finish in a safe midtable position (above 13th-14th) place.

The contract period should also be linked to the type of investment. If the investment option chosen is low, then the transfer budget should be limited to under 5 million every year. Likewise medium means 10 million, large 20 and huge above 20. If the board has agreed to medium/large/huge investment, then it should make sure that it will offer the promised funds even if it has to take a loan (with the obvious exception being if the club's financial condition is very insecure).

The board should be willing negotiate the investment depending on the reputation of the manager in question. So the huge investment option should only be acceptable if the manager's reputation is at least continental and his personality is ambitious (or if the club's financial status is excellent).

Now there should be cases where in the last three options are not always negotiable. For example if you are offered a contract from a top level club (the man utds, real madrids or the milans of the league in question) then, depending on their performances in the league in the last three years, the long term ambition should be set to winning the title. More ambitious boards should also demand the ECC title by the end of the period but it should not be set in stone with the league performance being more important. The investment option too will be negotiable depending on the financial status of the club. So the board should have an option of going back on their word if the financial condition worsens a couple of years down the line.

The advantages of such a feature will be many. The manager will have some say in the long term ambitions of the club (needed especially for midtable clubs), assurance of funds being available during the period of the contract (i have often accepted bids from clubs offering a good transfer budget when i was offered a contract only to see that the club is already in the red or just a couple of million above).

The feature will also offer a realistic time frame for the managers to achieve the long term ambitions. For example, though Aston Villa/Newcastle United offer large amount of transfer budget in the first season, its not possible to achieve their long term ambition of challenging for the league title (especially in the former's case) if the manager in question is not tactically that brilliant

Excellent excellent excellent! i love this, i hope fm take this into consideration, can you forward this to them by email please....

sometimes the reasons why i dont take on teams i like to take on is because their ambititons is ridiculous, is not easy to turn a midtable team to title challengers in 2 seasons! if someone can congrats to them, i probably too could but it kind of demotivates you because you are worried, you wont get that job done by the timeframe.

love the investment/long term ambitions part

Great! This was a brilliant idea.

And like FMFanatic said, email it to SI.

this is an excellent idea bro.

You could go one further, and link this into when people leave the club they could comment to the media 'Mr x was sacked as he failed to acheive the clubs long term goals' or 'Mr x says he left the club as promised funds were never delivered' or something along those lines.

Originally posted by tingting:

Now the 4 and 6th option should be inter-connected. So if i ask a five year contract then the board should be more ambitious. For example, if i was offered a two year contract by a Wigan Athletic or a Derby County, then the long term ambition should be to stay in the EPL. But if i ask for a five year contract, the the long term ambition should be to finish in a safe midtable position (above 13th-14th) place.

I think changing from the current season/2 season ambition system is dangerous because it would not necessarily take into account positions throughout that time i.e. 1st season finish 5th and 2nd seaosn ambition is respectable position atm, the ability to finish 5th then finish 15th, then 16th, 4th and then try for the ultimate goal isn't realisitic because the in the current managerial climate most chairmen wouldn't settle for this.

The contract period should also be linked to the type of investment. If the investment option chosen is low, then the transfer budget should be limited to under 5 million every year. Likewise medium means 10 million, large 20 and huge above 20. If the board has agreed to medium/large/huge investment, then it should make sure that it will offer the promised funds even if it has to take a loan (with the obvious exception being if the club's financial condition is very insecure).

Like the idea, but having the club forced to take a loan is unrealistic, IRL they would simply say that the money promised isn't available anymore and if you don't like it leave.

The advantages of such a feature will be many. The manager will have some say in the long term ambitions of the club (needed especially for midtable clubs), assurance of funds being available during the period of the contract (i have often accepted bids from clubs offering a good transfer budget when i was offered a contract only to see that the club is already in the red or just a couple of million above).

Agreed re: clubs saying they have a budget, but not really having it. With regards to managers having a say in the ambition of the club, we already do. If we want to make signings to challenge for the league then we can, if it backfires then on our heads be it and quite rightly so.

The feature will also offer a realistic time frame for the managers to achieve the long term ambitions. For example, though Aston Villa/Newcastle United offer large amount of transfer budget in the first season, its not possible to achieve their long term ambition of challenging for the league title (especially in the former's case) if the manager in question is not tactically that brilliant

That's realistic though, clubs these days expect results straight away and if you aren't up to scratch you're sacked. Newcastle are a bit like that IRL so why shouldn't they be like that in game?

Originally posted by Nomis07:

I think changing from the current season/2 season ambition system is dangerous because it would not necessarily take into account positions throughout that time i.e. 1st season finish 5th and 2nd seaosn ambition is respectable position atm, the ability to finish 5th then finish 15th, then 16th, 4th and then try for the ultimate goal isn't realisitic because the in the current managerial climate most chairmen wouldn't settle for this.

You already have clubs outlining long term plans with the boards giving the manager more than two years to achieve them. If i am not mistaken, then at the start of the game, QPR board gives a three year contract with the long term aim of being a major player in the Championship. 14 seasons into my latest save game, man utd has offered me a four year contract with the aim of winning the league title.

And your reasoning is applicable to the current system as well. Chelsea offers me a two year contract to win the league and if in the first season i am struggling to finish in the top half of the table, i will be sacked...simple as that.

Like the idea, but having the club forced to take a loan is unrealistic, IRL they would simply say that the money promised isn't available anymore and if you don't like it leave.

Its not at all unrealistic. Not all clubs in the EPL are making profit by the millions. Sunderland board will have to take out a loan in order to provide Roy Keane with the funds that he needs. So do Everton with Moyes pressing to more funds to buy quality players to break into the top four.

With regards to managers having a say in the ambition of the club, we already do. If we want to make signings to challenge for the league then we can, if it backfires then on our heads be it and quite rightly so.

I dont think we have a say in the long term ambition for the club. Short term..yes..we do have it..but even then the options are limited. Using the example of my man utd save, i finished 5th in my first season after the board had chalked out a minimum expectation of finishing in the top half. My transfer budget for the next season was 2.49 million with the minimum expectation of qualifying for the Euro Cup. Even when i selected the current season ambition of winning the league title, my transfer budget was increased to just 4.49 million. My point here is..if the board has chalked out ambitions which are tough to achieve for the manager, then he should be given some flexibility in terms of the time frame or the investment.

That's realistic though, clubs these days expect results straight away and if you aren't up to scratch you're sacked. Newcastle are a bit like that IRL so why shouldn't they be like that in game?

Is it realistic? Not all clubs demand instant success. Newcastle is a perfect example of this. Keegan demanded a very big transfer budget if the club wants to close down the gap between themselves and the top four but the owner refused saying that he will not push the club into debt in chasing champions league football. Martin O'Neill will not be sacked if Villa fail to finish inside the top four while Curbishley will not be sacked even if West Ham fail to qualify for Europe next season. Liverpool were no where near to winning the league title in the five-six years that Benitez has been in charge but there are no talks of him being not given a new contract when his current one expires.

However there is the case of Frank Rijkaard being dismissed with Barcelona not winning a trophy in the last two seasons.

In all my suggestions, the attributes of the chairman plays a major part in the way each club operates. Some are willing to break the bank to get instant success while others are willing to wait for more time to achieve their ultimate success while some others are willing to set their sights low, consolidate their position and then move to the next step.

All the last three options should be negotiable. So if you ask a Abrahimovic or Shinawatra to give more time or negotiate on the long term ambitions, then they should withdraw their offer while a bolton or blackburn should be perfectly willing to negotiate their long term ambitions or the time frame to achieve them in to to avoid pushing the club into debt

Originally posted by Fabregas18:

Great! This was a brilliant idea.

And like FMFanatic said, email it to SI.

Umm...u can do that??