We Need Worse Chairmen!!!

In the wake of Keegan and Curbs' resignation i realised that our FM chairman arent bad enough. Not all of them obviously. I know in the game they will accept bids for players if they are high enough but in real life they are worse. Abramovich doesnt just say, buy a big name, he says 'im buying shevchenko.' could/should certain chairman be worse to reflect real life?

In the interests of realism, I suppose so - It wouldn't make playing these teams that much fun though.... How about having some chairmen who regularly go over the head of a low reputation manager but are less intefering with managers of higher reputation?

And maybe if you are doing badly the chairmen might try and do things more his way, but if you are doing well he'll be more likely to leave you to it.

I think that would be a good idea to be honest. I mean having the chairman taking matters into his own hands might force you to make decisions that at a later stage you will regret, which is very close to real life. So yeah, it definately gets my vote.

thats actually a really good call, as a leicester fan theres always been a question mark over Milans involvment in the clubs transfer policy. Not that im slating him cause we may not have a club if it wasnt for him.

Up the foxes

There must be quite a few managers out there that turn up to training and find new players on the field or worse still others gone. I dont think this would happen at the top clubs cause the Fergies n Wengers of this world wouldnt stand for it, but the lower half of the prem and championship would have this happen.

Dr Syndrome

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with what you're saying, but given the amount of complaints on these forums about interfering chairmen in the current game, I don't think it should be added. Too hard to please everyone.

I think the complaints are mainly about unrealistic interference, so as long as this was implemented realistically then I think it would work.

No no no. Fun over realism. If my chairman started doing all my transfers.. I doubt I'd play.

The problem with it being "implemented realistically" is that everyone has their own interpretation of how realistic the feature is, so you're going to annoy people if it's as harsh as described and you're going to annoy people if it isn't as harsh. IMO the way the OP described it will be considered over the top by a majority of users, so it shouldn't be added. Leave it the same as it is, but make sure it works.

Whatever about realism, if I got treated in FM the same way that Kevin Keegan got treated in real life I'd hurl my FM CD into the North Sea and my laptop after it (and preferably Dennis Wise too!)

It is a tricky one. I'd enjoy a little bit more conflict and drama over 08's feel of accountancy software at times. But would I want someone taking over the team I manage, selling off my top players who I ddin't know we had offers on, selling the traning facilities off and telling me I had £10m to win the premiership with or I'd get sacked?

To be honest, I kind of would like chairmen like this. If you didn't want to interact with them, then don't take on jobs managing at clubs they own. If your favorite club had one, maybe you could comment on the chairman/club saying how poor it was run, or wait out another buyer to come in.

If you want to see the worst kind of ownership in recent history check our Arkaga and Cork City. They came in as an investment company, promised a new stadium and big things, which apparently immediately ment sacking people. Then when they didn't get a quick turn around they decided to partake in what can only be called 'asset stripping', selling all the clubs top players while investing little back. The next thing you know the club's in examinership, having to release it's players, it's reduced to two members of staff and a million in debt, despite the owners being worth a hell of a lot of money.

I know people have feared this kind of situation for a long time, but this seems to be the first example of it. Maybe the same as we currently have rich foreign owners taking over, we could see similar happening in FM? Where a new owner walks in the front door, cashes his chips in, then sells the club on once it's been savaged?

Maybe the same as we currently have rich foreign owners taking over, we could see similar happening in FM? Where a new owner walks in the front door, cashes his chips in, then sells the club on once it's been savaged?

It would only happen once in a blue moon, an given not everyone plays long career games lots of people would never see it, so would it really be worth adding?

It would only happen once in a blue moon, an given not everyone plays long career games lots of people would never see it, so would it really be worth adding?

As worthwhile as adding the rich foreign owner who comes in and buys clubs, giving them open cheque books I guess? Or having Abramivich getting bored and leaving Chelsea. I've only seen either happen once or twice.

If you really want realism, how about bigger roles for Director's of Football? At some clubs e.g Tottenham the manager only coaches, while the DoF signs players. In FM this could be translated by at certain clubs you getting 'head coach role'. You wouldn't sign players But could make recommendations/requests, but set up training and tactics. You could also be hired as a DoF, in which case you would be in charge of transfer policy, but would have to hire a head coach (who you could sack) to train players, sort out tactics etc. I know a lot of people would hate this, but how long can FM, which always chases realism, keep with its current all powerful manager model when more and more clubs in England (West Ham, Newcastle, Southampton etc.) plus the vast majority of European clubs are run in this way?

Maybe SI should consider leveraging chairman/men just like Hicks and Gillette!

If you really want realism, how about bigger roles for Director's of Football? At some clubs e.g Tottenham the manager only coaches, while the DoF signs players. In FM this could be translated by at certain clubs you getting 'head coach role'. You wouldn't sign players But could make recommendations/requests, but set up training and tactics. You could also be hired as a DoF, in which case you would be in charge of transfer policy, but would have to hire a head coach (who you could sack) to train players, sort out tactics etc. I know a lot of people would hate this, but how long can FM, which always chases realism, keep with its current all powerful manager model when more and more clubs in England (West Ham, Newcastle, Southampton etc.) plus the vast majority of European clubs are run in this way?

Bad idea. Its taking the focus away from a managing game. Fun should always be put over realism

If you really want realism, how about bigger roles for Director's of Football? At some clubs e.g Tottenham the manager only coaches, while the DoF signs players. In FM this could be translated by at certain clubs you getting 'head coach role'. You wouldn't sign players But could make recommendations/requests, but set up training and tactics. You could also be hired as a DoF, in which case you would be in charge of transfer policy, but would have to hire a head coach (who you could sack) to train players, sort out tactics etc. I know a lot of people would hate this, but how long can FM, which always chases realism, keep with its current all powerful manager model when more and more clubs in England (West Ham, Newcastle, Southampton etc.) plus the vast majority of European clubs are run in this way?

This is what a lot of people have wanted for a long time in regard to transfers. A more realisetic version where you present the board with a list of players you want, or having found someone suggest it to them and you get who they manage to sign with little control over the cost spent.

In a similar way a club could bring in a director who did that job for you but you could suggest players to, if they're controlling or had a bad relationship with you however they could ignore you completely.

I'm not too sure many people would go with you being hired as a DofF who's in control of the signings rather then the day to day managing, but it could add a new dimension to the game. I'm not sure I'd enjoy the long periods of not really doing much (and certainly not having anything to do with the team), but if others enjoyed it, then why not?

If SI were to build more realism with chairmen, I think there should be more interraction when negotiating your contract, either at the point of the offer or during the renewals. If you've got a good track record already you should have more say over transfers, ie, a couple of options such as: 1. Complete control for manager; 2. Board will step in if club is under-performing; 3. Board will initiate transfer if a quality player becomes available.

I remember in 07 Abramovich demanded world class players every couple of years and if you didn't deliver he'd do it himself, even if you thought your sqaud was good enough (and buy someone useless for a position you already have cover for). I can see this happening with Man City.

Re the selling of players, if the club is a PLC, or owned by a money-grabbing scumbag, it most definitely SHOULD sell players if a good enough offer comes in. But if you want it to be realistic, the club should keep a good chunk of that money, otherwise it hasn't profited. If you bought Joe Blogs for £1million and they sell him for £10million, they need to keep the original transfer fee PLUS a little more (maybe as much as £3-4million) to show a decent profit. People who complain about this feature have two issues: 1. it takes some of the fun out of the game and 2. they (we all) are playing as FANS not managers, and that's how we think. If our 30-goals-in-20-games striker is sold, we'll never be happy, no matter how much money we get -- would the Man U fans have been happy at receiving even £200million for Ronaldo?

In addition to the basic mechanics of how chairment interract with managers, there needs to be fan reaction. If your star player is sold without your consent, you should face the media with the options to say this, and perhaps there should be fan pressure on the board as well as the manager. There may be issues with this, as SI would then have to profile fans -- Newcastle fans seem to protest a lot more often than, say, Leeds fans when the board start to wreck the club.

This is what a lot of people have wanted for a long time in regard to transfers. A more realisetic version where you present the board with a list of players you want, or having found someone suggest it to them and you get who they manage to sign with little control over the cost spent.

In a similar way a club could bring in a director who did that job for you but you could suggest players to, if they're controlling or had a bad relationship with you however they could ignore you completely.

I'm not too sure many people would go with you being hired as a DofF who's in control of the signings rather then the day to day managing, but it could add a new dimension to the game. I'm not sure I'd enjoy the long periods of not really doing much (and certainly not having anything to do with the team), but if others enjoyed it, then why not?

I wouldn't particularly mind this if I could make a realistic list of transfer targets in priority order and pass them on to the chairman, director of football, tea lady or whoever it is who handles all that in real life, just not the situation where the manager gets players thrust upon him by some imbecile in a suit with no footballing experience - that would spoil the game.

Jose Mourinho's comments this week were quite interesting regarding Inter Milan's method of transfers (no great revelations, but something that would be acceptable in FM) - he said he told the board he wanted Quaresma, Lampard and Mancini and the board went out and got him Mancini and Quaresma, did their best to get Lampard and then when they couldn't they bought Muntari (whom I assume Mourinho pinpointed as his next choice).

I wouldn't mind this as there doesn't seem enough pressure from the board over transfers just seems that the fans care about transfers. On FM05 I think, Abramovich made you sign two world class players if you managed Chelski, that was fun as he gave you basically unlimited cash to secure these big name players to put Chelsea on the map. I think a feature like this should be used on clubs with big investors behind them or clubs with big stature in the footballing world - Newcastle, Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, West Ham, Tottenham etc

I think such a feature would be good - provided it is well reported. For example, I am managing Man City. Just as an example. A message pops up in my inbox saying my Chairman has placed a bid of £x for x. You then have three options:

1) Do Nothing. This is, for example, if you are happy with the option.

2) Complain. This option represents the manager ringing the chairman up and whining until he's blue in the face. This option in itself has three possible consequences:

a) Transfer is Aborted - No extra consequences beyond this occur.

b) Chairman ignores complaints - signs player.

c) Chairman sacks you.

3) Resign. You resign - your reputation is increased by your stand against interfering chairpeople.

If you complain, the option which is most likely is determined by the chairman's personality. He may also appoint someone to be director of football - this simply increases the chances of the chairman buying players above your head and maybe their readiness to sack you.

We do need more worse chairmen!!

They need personalities on the game if people get me??

Like for example the chairman is just a name on the staff screen....

Certain clubs who have had problems in past with chairman and manager should be taken into account (eg Newcastle!)

simon07

That's what happens at the minute, there are certain chairmen who do get involved more than others and they do have hidden attributes such as interference etc IIRC.

simon07

That's what happens at the minute, there are certain chairmen who do get involved more than others and they do have hidden attributes such as interference etc IIRC.

But it works silly, I don't see chairmans blocking transfers, I don't see chairmans bringin' in players, they just sell them as soon as first decent offer comes in and you can't do anything about, which is unrealistic and therefor lack of fun.

You could go further with the chairman not only buying and selling players with no input from the manager ,but also making suggestions who to play on match days, as is alledged at some clubs. It would be very tough to manage a club like this, also at rich clubs if the chairman had spent a lot on one player he wanted, he could tell you to always play him or else!

AI chairman bringing in unknown managers which happens IRL (soton, hearts) rather than the same managers as always happens in the game

Don't implement this it just will make peopel not manage specific clubs which is pointless! Ok to accepting big bids when your coffers are empty, ok to saying the club need a big name player when you have a lot of money and arent the top team in the land. Its not about realism, who knows which clubs do or dont get involved, we cant say fo rcertain how it i sa Newcastle/west Ham we onyl have say so from a couple of individuals. So implement how it is supposed to work now but do it properly that is what I expect FM2009 will be like, the cairman shoudl base his interfering with how well you have been doing/your bank ballance

Don't implement this it just will make peopel not manage specific clubs which is pointless! Ok to accepting big bids when your coffers are empty, ok to saying the club need a big name player when you have a lot of money and arent the top team in the land. Its not about realism, who knows which clubs do or dont get involved, we cant say fo rcertain how it i sa Newcastle/west Ham we onyl have say so from a couple of individuals. So implement how it is supposed to work now but do it properly that is what I expect FM2009 will be like, the cairman shoudl base his interfering with how well you have been doing/your bank ballance

To be fair IRL some chairmen don't seem to just inferfere based on when the bank balance is low or when mangers are doing badly, they just seem to interfere, even when things are doing well because its simply in their nature (rupert lowe at southampton selling wayne bridge after saints best ever season in nearly 20 years!)

which is unrealistic and therefor lack of fun.

Realism does not mean fun will be had. I don't like this argument about things being realistic because we all only use it when it suits us, do you want to just draw up a list of players and hand it to the chairman and so basically remove the transfer system from the game? I doubt it, but that would be realistic and not much fun.

The instances that people have used in this thread are loosely based on the past weeks goings on, and I find that this normally happens when something out of the ordinary happens e.g. a player buys out his own contract and suddenly it should be a key feature of the game because it's realistic, yet it didn't happen quite as often as people thought it would.

Anyways one persons interpretation of realistic fun is another persons game ruiner, and until there is a majority of people who think these additions should be made, it shouldn't be introduced.

An option to disable chairman whining and interfering would be a better option, actually.

My Bolton chairman sold four first teamers over my head during my two seasons in charge. So when he offered me a new two year contract I refused to sign it and left when it ran out.

Worst chairman I've ever had. Realistic though, it does happen.

I'm well with Nomis on this issue - there's a definite balance between "realism" and "fun", and a shift in the direction that the O.P. is suggestion sounds like it would reduce the "fun" for those players who chose to manage the teams impacted by said chairmen.

I'd much rather see chairmen given a broader scope of goals: for example, one chairman might be very financially driven. "I don't care if we never promote out of League 1 as long as we make a profit every year." Another might be focused on qualifying for Europe .. "Disappointed that the club is sitting in ninth in the E.P.L." or "Delighted that the club qualified for Europe via the F.A. Cup." ... while another might be entirely focused on silverware, even in lower-prestige competitions like the League Cup.

I think the FM'08 Confidence system was a step towards that, but it still felt like the same AI was behind each chairman, and that League performance was really the key attribute that impacted firing decisions.

I'd really like to see that expanded on!

Realism does not mean fun will be had. I don't like this argument about things being realistic because we all only use it when it suits us, do you want to just draw up a list of players and hand it to the chairman and so basically remove the transfer system from the game? I doubt it, but that would be realistic and not much fun.

I want it to be an option. How much hands on approach do you want to have.

The instances that people have used in this thread are loosely based on the past weeks goings on, and I find that this normally happens when something out of the ordinary happens e.g. a player buys out his own contract and suddenly it should be a key feature of the game because it's realistic, yet it didn't happen quite as often as people thought it would.

Anyways one persons interpretation of realistic fun is another persons game ruiner, and until there is a majority of people who think these additions should be made, it shouldn't be introduced.

I agree but if chairmen were more realistic it would be more fun than it is now, at least to me.

I think you should be able to talk to your chairman more, like say specific things too him like if you sell this player i'll resign and the fans should respect you more. like if the chairman says like he's thinking of sacking you they should have a go at the chairman (becos they allways have a go at us)

I think an underlying issue is that we (as gamers) look at the money at our disposal as exactly that, ours. I'm sure IRL Alex Fergerson doesn't really mind if the Glazers paid £30 Million or £25 Million for Berbatov so long as he got his man, since it is not his money its the Glazers/Manchester Uniteds. As gamers we can get attached to the money side of the game. You find yourself saying "I'm not paying that" for a player even if you have the money to do it, because it doesn't represent value for money, or you pay over the odds for a player because he is one of the best on the game.

The majority of football managers today are ex-proffesional footballers, not bussiness men. So in reality people should not expect them to negotiate mega deals for millions of pounds. You certainly wouldn't find Gareth Southgate sat in a merger deal between say Google and Yahoo, so why would he have anything to do with a 12 million pound deal for Alves?

I think drawing up a list of targets with director of football/chairmen stating the priority you would prefer each player. They then go off and sign players (depending on how well your doing) they come back with listed players or unwanted players. You would still sit in contract negotiations with players tho (as most managers do, as said before they are ex-pros, so they know alot about contract negotiating). Your Chairmen might also say something like this:

You have outlined your desire to bring Player X to Manchester United. In order for this transfer to have any chance of taking place we would have to lose Player Y or Player Z to help fund the deal.

Altenativly we can sign your 2nd preffered target Player A. This could be done without the sale of any members of our current playing squad.

Just some thought, but like alot of people, for next years or even FM 11 I think something needs to change (with regards to how transfers work) as football has already changed and we are playing catch-up.

Ive mentioned this before, but i'll go over it again

I would like to see chair(wo)men do the following

1) Sell players (too good to refuse chair-comment)

2) Buy players (too good to pass up chair-comment)

3) Block Purchase of player (no value to club/does not enhance club rep chair-comment)

4) Block Sale of player (to valuable to club chair-comment)

there are several manager responses that could be done here too

pleased with clubs ambition

happy with clubs loyalty

angry at interference

+ a few others

covering both player-morale AND board-confidence

Obviously I dont want to see it happen every transfer window, but it would make chairmen a little more lifelike and less like scenery.

With the DoF ideas, a lot of clubs have thier A-list of targets, and then thier B-list, with usually around half a dozen players on each list. A feature like this could be handled in the same way as contract negotiations with a checkbox in the manager-options screen "Director of Football handles Transfers []"

As Hamenaglar said: "Make it an option"

We need more game setup options and this is a perfect situation for one.

No no no. Fun over realism. If my chairman started doing all my transfers.. I doubt I'd play.

Seconded. We play this game for entertainment, I rekon this will just ruin it.

Hopefully there are more forced takeovers for English Premiership clubs in FM 2009 to make it more realistic. Sometimes you get a bad one that puts the club in debt, sometimes you get a tycoon sugar daddy who gives you obscene amounts of transfer funds, but HIGH expectations like win the league within 3 years if you're a mid-table club. And yes, they should interfere more often and give you a shopping list of players they want to see signed (instead of just wanting one player, they should give you a list you could choose from, just like feeder club suggestions). These "mini-objectives" would make the game so much more interesting than just clicking Continue and waiting for the next match.

Seconded. We play this game for entertainment, I rekon this will just ruin it.

You could just use a DDT file that disables hostile takeovers. FM is a simulation not just a game, you sound like a FIFA Manager type of fan.

i like realism.....

realism is the fun for me!!

tbh i rather see all these little ideas in the game then a 3D match engine....

I think the FM'08 Confidence system was a step towards that, but it still felt like the same AI was behind each chairman, and that League performance was really the key attribute that impacted firing decisions.

I'd really like to see that expanded on!

Good point there!

realism is the fun for me!!

Likewise, i'd certainly like to see the whole chairman/director of football fiasco which has dominated English football over the past few days implemented into the game somehow. I don't buy the argument that it ruins it for the people that play as these clubs, they know the risk and they know that chances are they'll get some interference, if they can handle it then fair play to them but if they can't then he/she knows where the resign button is.

It could also work in your favour and you could build an excellent relationship with your DoF as Tony Pulis has done at Stoke, your DoF could be working in tandom with your scouting network and could provide you with some potential transfer targets.

The setup could then be worked in with the media interaction where the slightest hint of a rift between you and the DoF could is pounced on and you get questions relating to the DoF.

You saw the Geordie reaction to the fiasco at Newcastle and you could have fans reacting to any departures, be it you or the DoF.

There's something quite appealing about walking out on a club after they f**k me off, and then have the fans baying for the board's blood.

This is not a rant about how much Chairmen annoy me (even though they do)

I've got two ideas, which may be hard to implement into the game, but would be very useful in terms of realism.

We've seen recently with Curbishley and Keegan the effects of chairmen interfering with transfers etc..., and I think that there is no real way to sort it out except to resign. It's happened 3 times to with Lyon in 4 years, and it has annoyed me, but I have never had the bottle to leave. What would be useful is if you could issue a warning/ultimatum saying that if the chairman ever accepts a bid over my head again, I will leave. They can either then sack me, do it and risk me leaving or never do it again. This would add to realism hugely.

Also, I'd like it if we could have a chairman interaction, which can only be used in certain circumstances, for example transfers, in which the chairman could approach you and say that they would like you to accept the incoming offer, as they feel it is a good offer. You can then respond saying that a) you will accept it, b) they will negotiate it to a better offer and then accept that offer, c) delay the decision for a week and try to prove to the chairman that this player is worth keeping (through matches - obviously in the summer it would be impossible to do and this would not be an option), or d) say that you will not accept the offer and risk being sacked due to difference of opinion or the chairman accepting it anyway, and he risks you leaving.

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, but try to give feedback any way

I love it when those dogs accept bids above my head for players, adds too much realism to the game, wouldn't change it for the world.

I love it when those dogs accept bids above my head for players, adds too much realism to the game, wouldn't change it for the world.

Yeah but you can't influence them or anything and you can't resign because of the transfer(s) (like Curbs and Keegan have)

True, too true man, deep thinking.

Id quite like to be involved in a fiasco. EG. the newcastle termoil in real life. Do you stick it out and hope the fans force the chaiman out, do you argue and get sacked or resign quietly.

I wouldn't particularly mind this if I could make a realistic list of transfer targets in priority order and pass them on to the chairman, director of football, tea lady or whoever it is who handles all that in real life, just not the situation where the manager gets players thrust upon him by some imbecile in a suit with no footballing experience - that would spoil the game.

Jose Mourinho's comments this week were quite interesting regarding Inter Milan's method of transfers (no great revelations, but something that would be acceptable in FM) - he said he told the board he wanted Quaresma, Lampard and Mancini and the board went out and got him Mancini and Quaresma, did their best to get Lampard and then when they couldn't they bought Muntari (whom I assume Mourinho pinpointed as his next choice).

In fact, this is how 99% of the Dutch clubs are ruled. In Holland managers don't do transfers, Directors of Football (or Technical Directors as we call them) do. Managers are only allowed to make a "gift list" as it were.

That sounds pretty dull the gift list. But im all for realism.

These people who say i wouldnt play if chairmen sold your players, why quit the game? The point is you could quit your club

I know when I was playing FM07 as New England Revolution in MLS, my team got taken over and the chairman wanted me to buy some higher rep player. He gave me all the money I wanted to do it, but I could not do anything because of the salery cap in the league. A month or so later after ignoring the request he goes out and signs a player anyways. It got cancelled because it put me over the cap limit, but it was an interesting experience.

It was the only time it happened, and I do not know if it was a glitch or not, but it seemed to me that 07 had more stuff to do with the chairman going on than in 08.

Another thing is that IRL things are different now to a decade ago. Managers don't stay at clubs for long periods. If you fail to live up to expectations (at least in the top two leagues in England) you'll be gone in 16 months.

Just look at the turn over in managers in the last year or two in the prem and championship. How many were sacked because of bad results and how many left because of mess like interfearing chairmen or director of football rubbish?

Aston Villa - O'Leary quits after the players and himself criticise Ellis.

Blackburn - Hughes out, Ince in.

Bolton - Allardyce, Sammy Lee, Gary Megson, all in the last 12 months.

Chelsea - Jose walks, Grant lasts eight months, Big Phil next up.

Fulham - Coleman, Sanchez and Hodgson since 2007.

Man City - Pearce, Erikkson and now Hughes since last Summer.

Newcastle United - Six managers since 2006. Nuff said

Spurs - Jol and Ramos

West Ham - Pardew, Curbishly and someone new.

Wigan - Jewel, Hutchings and Bruce.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head (the Newcastle fact coming from the paper in front of me), but that totals almost fourty managerial changes between ten premiership teams in the last year or two. That's madness isn't it?

Of those at least eight have been because of the board/DofF messing about.