Dougiefresh

So, I've decided to go for a great escape type of challenge in the Norwegian league with Tromsø IL. This is currently the standing. I just took over the club, and have'nt played a game yet. As you can see, its quite the challenge. Bottom of the table, 8 points just to make the qualifier; even catching that would be difficult, let alone the 12 points needed to make safe ground. So this challenge is pretty straightforward: survive relegation. Therefore, I would just assume that board expectations are reflecting that. Tromsø is also a club that are tipped as nr 12, and with the 2nd lowest wage budget in the league. In other words, avoiding relegation should pretty much be the expectation to begin with. But no - they are not expecting me to avoid relegation. Thye are demanding that I end in a mid table position??? Which is.. not only a huge overachievment for a club like Tromsø to begin with, but almost mathematically impossible in this situation. So my question is really; is there even a point playing this save? Lets say I actually pull this through and finish 12th-13th. Wouldnt I probably get the sack anyway? Or is this just some sort of bug'ish thing that happends when you take over a club mid season, and I shouldnt bother giving it any attention? I honestly cant think of another logical explanation than the latter.

So ever since mentoring replaced the old tutoring system, i've never quite understood it. I mean, on the surface it looks pretty simple - you put some players in a group together and they adapt personality traits and abilities from each other, mainly younger players are supposed to learn from more experienced ones. But still, i never felt i really got it, so i usually just let my assistant deal with it. Recently, i started to read the mentoring reports more thorough, and i realized that they are for the most part negative. That means most of the traits my younger players tend to pick up from these groups are negative. I figured it might have to do with my assistant manager picking players for the group that simply isnt up to the task or isnt a good fit, so on my current Spurs save i tried to do it myself. One of the groups i've put together is Harry Kane, Troy Parrott and the norwegian youngster Andreas Schjelderup. Now, Kane would on the top of my head be the perfect person to lead such a group. His personality is "model professional", he has 19 in determination, is club captain, an generally has fantastic mental attributes. Yet, under his influence, Schjelderup has fallen in pretty much every aspect, as you can see from this picture: So my question is really; how is this possible when he is under the influence of one of the most model professionals in this game? Schjelderup has rather good mental attributes for his age, and has a "fairly professional" personality, whereas Parrotts mental attributes are ok/average, and he has a "fairly ambitious" personality. Is it that Parrotts would sort of "nullify" Kanes influence on Schjelderup, and even drag him down his level? That would make little sense to me, given that Kane has a "significant" influence over the group, and Parrotts influence is "light". Although Schjelderups effect from the group is "significant", and thus he could pick up a negative trait or two, it doesnt make sense to me that its this negative. Or is it simply that for a wonderkid of Schjelderups calibre, mentoring is a waste of time, and therefore it has a negative impact on him? Really struggling to get what lies behind the whole thing, so would love some input. I think the old tutoring system was say to simple, so its not a bad thing that they replaced it, but for med right now, mentoring is just something im very wary of using at all in fear of "ruining" youngsters rather than help them.