Pretty Harsh Sacking!

I started a game as Bournemouth, as always, and of course we have a -17 point deduction this season. I managed to save a club from relegation that had the following issues:

1) NO money. And I mean none. Most league clubs at least have a little lee-way with the wage budget, or even a paltry £20k transfer budget, we have nothing. Nada. Zilch. All my signings were free transfers or loans. We also have a colossal loan which basically strips out any money you make each month and gives it away in interest payments.

2) A truly awful squad, in my opinion one of the worst in the division. Bournemouth start the game with no left midfielders, terrible centre-backs, and truly awful strikers. This is all accurate, but it's also very, very tough.

3) That -17 point deduction.

Given these factors, is it reasonable for the board to sack me after I've basically saved the club from relegation to non-league and in likelihood total extinction? They expected a mid-table finish, fair enough we finished 20th, but shouldn't clubs at this level be a little bit more forgiving? I'm working with absolutely nothing here!

I was also surprised to see that my team was generally favourite for each match, and the press reports would say things like "this loss will have hurt Bournemouth who will have expected a win here" but that's when we're second from bottom with no decent players against a side like Wycombe who are in second and flying. This meant that going into every match, the board were getting more and more ****ed off despite the fact that we were doing the best with what we had (not a lot!). They were also upset at several of my signings, including a guy who was our top scorer for the season. He's no world-beater, but he scored 15 goals and basically kept us up! The guy is clearly our hero!

Just wondered if this kind of thing needed tweaking a bit. Boards and fans should really take a lot more into consideration than just reputation since although we're a 'big' club for the division having been relegated the season before, we're a terrible team in every regard, with no money and no players.

That is harsh . Bug ?

I'd say that their rep could do with a a little lowering so they don't expect a mid-table finish. With a -17 deduction, they should expect a fight against relegation and survival at best.

Leeds have a similar situation where you're given no choice about reasonable expectations - you win the league, that's it - oh and you get to the fourth round of the FA cup and fourth round of the League cup too.

Funnily enough though I'm favourites in matches against teams such as Ipswich and Burnley who are both flying high in the Championship. It must be the entire reputation thing with the board being very demanding and more than a little unfair, especially in that scenario

If your board is expecting a mid-table finish and you finish in 20th position, the sack is completely normal.

A board may always overestimate the strenght of the squad.

Didn't you get a news item where you could confirm or alter (in this case 'lower') the expectations of the board, telling them saving the team from relegation would be an achievement?

Did you get sacked at the end of the season, or during the season?

The true issue here might indeed be those ridiculous expectations.

If your board is expecting a mid-table finish and you finish in 20th position, the sack is completely normal.

Correct but starting with a -17 points deduction, shouldn't the expectations be lower?

So would I be right in saying that you can no longer alter the season expectations at the beginning of the season?

So would I be right in saying that you can no longer alter the season expectations at the beginning of the season?

You can, but the board always give you their minimum expectation - you can't lower it.

You can, but the board always give you their minimum expectation - you can't lower it.

Exactly right. The board's MINIMUM expectation was that we would finish mid-table. I also think that you need to take into account the division we're in. Most clubs in our position don't sack their managers unless things get really bad. Last season (in real life, no less) Kevin Bond got us relegated, but we had a 10 point deduction and the board figured we should stick with him. We did, but unfortunately for him we started the season so terribly that he did get sacked in the end.

I don't mind getting sacked when we horribly underperform, but the fact the bare minimum the board wants is mid-table tells me that they are basing their expectations on our REPUTATION rather than our current situation.

this isnt as bad as a sacking but i find boards are pretty harsh, on a monthly board assessment thing i was told i should be performing better despite the fact i had won 4 0ut of 6 games that month and drew the other 2 and won manager of the month award and hadn't been bad the moths before