Not realistic

i am playing in league 1 with Oldham ath. played 5 won 5..and get sacked for playing a player the board don't like..dos that ever happen in real life..i think no

Managers in real life don't get sacked, because they listen to their boss and not play that player.

i am playing in league 1 with Oldham ath. played 5 won 5..and get sacked for playing a player the board don't like..dos that ever happen in real life..i think no

I can't imagine it was a simple as that. What happened exactly? What boardroom conversations did you have in the buildup to the sacking, what messages did you get before and after the sacking.

the board stated at the start of the season not to play the player aas he was not playing well, I ignored them and played him, and got sacked no other explination..

the board stated at the start of the season not to play the player aas he was not playing well, I ignored them and played him

Well there's your answer.

Whether it's a worthwhile feature to have in a management sim (especially when you're five wins from five) is a different debate altogether. Personally I'd prefer to see a message like "we are disappointed you continued to play Joe Bloggs however the team results show that you know what you're doing", or even have it like the team philosophies which the board don't tend to hold you to account for when you're winning anyway.

i am playing in league 1 with Oldham ath. played 5 won 5..and get sacked for playing a player the board don't like..dos that ever happen in real life..i think no

Have you ever heard of a Scottish club called Hearts?

[Edit]

I know this is rubbish for you, but I think it's a brilliant feature and yes it's entirely realistic that there are some complete eegit Chairmen out there. I personally love this, just happy that my chairman isn't like this. It's adding more depth to chairmen rather than making them all the same. Your guy is just the extreme.

the board stated at the start of the season not to play the player aas he was not playing well, I ignored them and played him, and got sacked no other explination..

That IS the explanation, John. You were fired for not doing what your employers told you to do.

Not sure if it's a part of the game that's been patched, but in a very early save, this happened to me too. The thing is, it was at the time when your fullbacks (leftbacks in particular) had appalling ratings no natter how well they actually played. My chairman insisted I no longer played this player, but for the next game, I didn't have another single fit left back to play, so I played him, and despite winning the game, was fired straight after it.

I know there are wild chairmen out there, but surely if you had no other fit player to play in a certain position, they'd give you at least a bit of leeway until that situation resolved itself.

Not sure if it's a part of the game that's been patched, but in a very early save, this happened to me too. The thing is, it was at the time when your fullbacks (leftbacks in particular) had appalling ratings no natter how well they actually played. My chairman insisted I no longer played this player, but for the next game, I didn't have another single fit left back to play, so I played him, and despite winning the game, was fired straight after it.

I know there are wild chairmen out there, but surely if you had no other fit player to play in a certain position, they'd give you at least a bit of leeway until that situation resolved itself.

"Change your tactics, Dave. Under no circumstances do I want you playing that player!"

What can you say, some bosses are idiots!

what I am trying to say is it wouldn't happen in real life.

what I am trying to say is it wouldn't happen in real life.

What wouldn't happen????

I think the board should give you warnings instead of just sacking you on the spot to be honest. It seems like a trivial thing to sack someone over, especially if you're winning.

I think the board should give you warnings instead of just sacking you on the spot to be honest. It seems like a trivial thing to sack someone over, especially if you're winning.

If this isn't a warning, then what exactly is?

the board stated at the start of the season not to play the player aas he was not playing well, I ignored them and played him, and got sacked no other explination..

Did it have to have to have *****WARNING***** in the subject header? :confused:

[Edit]

Just to expand on this a little.

This wasn't the full chain of events.

The full chain of events would have been something like this.

1. You sign the player or you promote him from the academy or you inherit him or whatever.

2. You decide to play him.

3. He plays poorly.

4. The fans react to him poorly on the Boardroom confidence screen.

5. The fan reaction is noted, (and possibly shared), by the board.

6. The player continues to play poorly.

7. The fan reaction grows poorer.

8. The board react to that and mention it to you. (I have never had a board talk to me about a player like that and I have been relegated).

9. You continue to play the player.

10. They sack you for not doing what the board/fans want.

The fans gave you a warning, (granted you might not have been aware of it unless you looked).

The Board confidence would also have noted this if you had looked.

The situation worsened and the club chose to actually raise the issue with you.

They then sacked you when you ignored them.

I personally think this is spot on, with the exception that you should be able to make an ultimatum that you pick the team and if they don't like it then you will leave.

Really is all about a harsh chairman and the op not being aware of fan/board feedback I think.

Agree with OP for this one, thats absolutely ludicrous that you can get sacked for something like that, esp. when youre winning. Out of all bs sackings in the game this has to be the most outrageous I've heard of.

I would certainly file a bug report. Sorry that's happened to you. Keep the save-game file as SI will need to analyse it.

Probably in this sub-section.

http://community.sigames.com/forumdisplay.php/364-Interaction-Conversations-Team-Meetings

Agree with OP for this one, thats absolutely ludicrous that you can get sacked for something like that, esp. when youre winning. Out of all bs sackings in the game this has to be the most outrageous I've heard of.

Is it a bs sacking because it's unrealistic or just because it's bs that the Chairman has the power to do this sort of thing if he wants?

I totally agree that it's bs, but I don't agree at all that it's unrealistic, (even with the team winning).

It's the other way around, but the words "Fernando", "Torres", "Roman" and "Abramovich" spring to mind.

I have already mentioned Hearts but it seems it was ignored.

In the early 2000's Romanov took over as owner of Hearts and after 10-12 games he sacked George Burley with Hearts sitting on top of the league unbeaten. The reason was that he basically wanted to pick a certain team to play and Burley continued to pick who he wanted.

Isn't this exactly the same? (except that it's a smaller club with not quite as long an unbeaten run).

It's the other way around, but the words "Fernando", "Torres", "Roman" and "Abramovich" spring to mind.

Yeah but y'know two things.

1. How likely is this at Oldham?

2. Is this kind of erratic AI decision-making really what you want to happen in a game that people have paid money for and then invest a great deal of time in?

I do think it is too often the case (and btw maybe I've been guilty of it myself on these forums), that people pull out a real-world example that lies way outside the norm and then use it to justify erratic behaviour on the part of the game.

It's not normal in the game! You get the odd nut-ball chairman in-game (but they're rare from my experience) who does it, just like you do IRL. Point is, he's the boss. You don't listen to the boss? You're out. Some chairmen are harsh, others don't care who you play.

I have never seen this issue mentioned by anyone before and I have never experienced it myself. I think it's reasonable to suggest that it is not common at all. If this was happening regularly, this forum would implode!

I have already mentioned Hearts but it seems it was ignored.

In the early 2000's Romanov took over as owner of Hearts and after 10-12 games he sacked George Burley with Hearts sitting on top of the league unbeaten. The reason was that he basically wanted to pick a certain team to play and Burley continued to pick who he wanted.

Isn't this exactly the same? (except that it's a smaller club with not quite as long an unbeaten run).

I'd argue what happened at Hearts ended up being more harsh than here.

If this isn't a warning, then what exactly is?

Did it have to have to have *****WARNING***** in the subject header? :confused:

That wasn't a warning though as they never said "If you play this player we're going to sack you." They just said not to play him. Now I know not obeying your bosses wishes never goes down well, but unless it was something major they would not sack you for it. They would discipline you though.

Dave. Come on now. Don't take the pee. Football managers do not get disciplined unless they head-butt someone. It's not the same as other industries. There is nosuch thing as a verbal and then a written and then a final written warning and then a p45. They just show you the door and then pay you about 30% of what your contract says they should pay you. It's just how it is.

They would not show you the door just for playing a player they didn't want you to, that was the point I was making, why on earth would they give someone a pay off for that? So of course they would give the manager a warning instead. Then if the manager continued to ignore the board, they would eventually sack him.

They would not show you the door just for playing a player they didn't want you to, that was the point I was making, why on earth would they give someone a pay off for that? So of course they would give the manager a warning instead. Then if the manager continued to ignore the board, they would eventually sack him.

George Burley would beg to differ.

The manager was given a warning. When you get a message telling you not to play a player from your boss, (after you have chosen to ignore both the fan and board reaction on the confidence screen), then that's a warning. It doesn't matter that you "never chsck the confidence screen if you are winning, or you only check it at the end of each season, or whatever your reason is. The feedback is there and all you have to do is click on it and view it. The OP chose not to do that so he wasn't aware that there was an issue initially. Then when the board approached him to tell him straight, he still ignored them.

It seems you really do want *****WARNING***** in the subject line.

Right, so let's take alan pardew's headbutting as an example, Now let's take the OP's example. Alan Pardew was disciplined by the club and also warned of his future actions. So you're sayin that isn't an instant sackable offence but playing someone the club has on it's own wage bill is?

Right, so let's take alan pardew's headbutting as an example, Now let's take the OP's example. Alan Pardew was disciplined by the club and also warned of his future actions. So you're sayin that isn't an instant sackable offence but playing someone the club has on it's own wage bill is?

A different chairman might have fired Pardew. They're all different people with differing personalities.

That is actually a perfect example Dave.

Let's look at the Pardew case.

He was caught on camera and in front of tens of thousands of fans head-butting, (or attempting to at least), an opposition player.

Did pardew get sacked? No. Do you know why he wasn't sacked? Because the owner didn't want him sacked.

Now let's look at the OP's case.

He continued to pick a player that the owner had specifically told him not to pick.

Did the OP get sacked? Yes. Do you know why he was sacked? Because the owner wanted him sacked.

can you see how this works yet?

The oner can do absolutely what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, for no other reason than ge wants to do it. There is absolutely nothing that can be done about it because he just then pays off the manager, (at significantly less than the outstanding value of his contract).

We don't know the inner workings, but I would assume this situation is an exception to the norm. I don't see it happening more than once in a long while, but what's notable is that you won your first 5 matches, because chairmen are often very sneaky about sackings. They wait until the team's on a losing run or a while after the end of a successful season when everyone's calmed down before sacking someone for personal or stupid reasons, and cover it up as the team needing new direction yada yada.

Look, I know you are not having this, but it's not just the Craig Burley case. That was just the first one that sprang to mind. There are loads of them.

The fat little Italian at Leeds sacked McDermott BEFORE he even bought the club.

How many managers declined the Forest job because they knew the interference that would come from the board?

Stan Flashman used to sack Barry Fry a couple of times every week.

I've already mentioned Romanov and Burley.

What about Clough being sacked by Derby?

There was a Racing Santander owner, (forget his name), and he employed puppet managers and he did everything.

Briatore at QPR went through how many managers who wouldn't let him pick the team?

I'm not sure if it's Steua Bucharest or Partizan Belgrade, (one of the B's anyway), but they are owned by the political leader over there and he does what he wants and everyone just ignores it. You pick who he tells you to pick or nobody sees you again.

I haven't even mentioned Abramovic.

The owner wanted him sacked for making one mistake. A manager that has been in the job for only a few months if he's only played 5 games. You're saying that an owner wouldn't let a new manager any lee way at all? Not only that but he had won every match. In the real world, owners are all about money. I'm sorry but that's just how it is. They would rather have a manager that leads the team to bigger and better things than sack him over something as ridiculous as this.

Dave.

Do you believe that there are idiots in the World who do stupid things?

Do you believe that some of the people might hold important positions despite that fact that they are complete idiots?

Do you think that some of these idiots in important positions might be within the football industry, (please ignore Mr Blatter for now).

Do you think that some of these idiots in important positions within the football industry might be owners or chairmen?

So what's the problem then?

Nobosy is saying this is a reasonable sacking or a correct sacking. We are just saying that unfortunately poo happens and this is the way of the World, (especially the football World).

[Edit]

Now I just give up. It's clear you just want to argue so you will have to find someone else.

Look Jim, it's a game that's meant to be as realistic as possible, I get that. However there's a line where you have to ask yourself what benefit would sacking the fm player over something that's incredibly stupid?

I'm not arguing, it's called a discussion and last time I checked you replied to me.

Last comment Dave.

Does this happen in real life? Yes. I have given you a high profile example where it was an even more extreme case. (Burley/Romanov at Hearts). If it happened there in real life, why is it not allowed to happen ever in the game?

Right so by your logic you wouldn't mind match fixing happening? Hey it happens in real life we might as well put it in the game.

There are people who want match-fixing and doping and all sorts in the game. I don't agree with them. having realistic Chairmen seems reasonable to me. If you get sacked, suck it up and move on.

I rage-resigned as manager of Partizan becaise we lost 1 game and were not going to go the whole season undefeated. Is that realistic? Are you suggesting that I shouldn'ty be allowed to resign just because I want to?

You're perfectly entitle to resign, as that benefits you. Getting sacked over a trivial matter such as this has no benefit to player whatsoever. How many people would even want to continue playing?

You're perfectly entitle to resign, as that benefits you. Getting sacked over a trivial matter such as this has no benefit to player whatsoever. How many people would even want to continue playing?

Might as well turn off sacking completely then.

Might as well turn off sacking completely then.

Well no because then there wouldn't be a realistic challenge, which again would have no benefit to the player.

Right so by your logic you wouldn't mind match fixing happening? Hey it happens in real life we might as well put it in the game.

Slightly different scenario of that being illegal IRL and therefore having no chance of getting in past the legal team.

Slightly different scenario of that being illegal IRL and therefore having no chance of getting in past the legal team.

Even if it was legal, I'd highly doubt SI would even consider adding it, because if they did, there'd be no end to what they'd add. The point is though at the end of the day there has to be a balance between realism and an enjoyable experience. Getting sacked because of poor results can have an enjoyable journey leading up to it because of the challenge. Getting sacked for the most ridiculous thing is not enjoyable. Which leads to players not wanting to play.

Even if it was legal, I'd highly doubt SI would even consider adding it, because if they did, there'd be no end to what they'd add. The point is though at the end of the day there has to be a balance between realism and an enjoyable experience. Getting sacked because of poor results can have an enjoyable journey leading up to it because of the challenge. Getting sacked for the most ridiculous thing is not enjoyable. Which leads to players not wanting to play.

This point doesn't really follow up, because something like match fixing would never be legal. it's moot.

End of the day, it's a rare but viable thing to be sacked for. Which is exactly how it's implemented in game. The only issue would be it happening far more in-game than it does in real life. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. Ergo no real issue.

Even if it was legal, I'd highly doubt SI would even consider adding it, because if they did, there'd be no end to what they'd add. The point is though at the end of the day there has to be a balance between realism and an enjoyable experience. Getting sacked because of poor results can have an enjoyable journey leading up to it because of the challenge. Getting sacked for the most ridiculous thing is not enjoyable. Which leads to players not wanting to play.

You're given a warning beforehand though. In my example, I was foolish enough to think they wouldn't go through with it as I had no other players to play in his position. I was extremely annoyed, but I just moved onto another save.

The situation will very rarely happen now, as most managers will be proactive enough to see when a player's not performing and take action long before the chairman intervenes. Again in my example, my player was the victim of the ratings issue. He was am extremely good player for the level he was playing at, simply let down by an issue with the game. This shouldn't happen now.

You're perfectly entitle to resign, as that benefits you. Getting sacked over a trivial matter such as this has no benefit to player whatsoever. How many people would even want to continue playing?

To the best of my knowledge, this has happened to just 1 single user. It is in fact very rare.

I would like to place a bet with you that despite being really gutted, (and probably pretty angry), that the OP is actually already playing again.

Let me give you another similar example. You have not been around here for that long so you might nor know him, but there is a MOD/long-term poster with the username dafuge. He created a challenge that was named after him and the basis of the the challenge is that you holiday for a year at the start of the game and then take over a team that was just got promoted into the Conference North/South, (so they were previously too low to even manage). You are then tasked with taking them to the Premiership and Champions league glory.

Well dafuge was managing Staines and he took them all the way to the Premiership and then there was a takeover at board level and for whatever reason the board decided gthat despite dafuge taking them from unplayable to the Premiership, he was not the man for the job and they sacked him. It didn't matter that he had won loads of stuff. he was gone.

Why is that any different to this?

Don't we currently have a Chairman saying that such and such cannot play becaise his Birthday is on an unlucky number or something> lol

Do you know what he did? Started again and went all the way back to the top. Look, if you don't like stuff like this then you can just immediately add a new manager and install yourself back in the same role if you really want. You are only sacked if you want to be sacked.

I don't know why I am even talking about this. It's a pain in the bum annoying nothing event.

If there wasn't an issue there wouldn't be this thread. The OP is clearly an unhappy player because of this and I highly doubt anyone who's been sacked for this is jumping for joy. I'm not trying to stir things up, I'm sorry if I'm coming across that way but if we allow this to stay in the game how long before more ridiculous things start to come into the game? At the end of the day this is a brilliant game however games are played for fun, not for frustrating experiences. If someone was to come onto this forum and suggest this idea if it wasn't in the game already, I doubt it would gain much support.

To the best of my knowledge, this has happened to just 1 single user. It is in fact very rare.

Damn, didn't know I was on your ignore list along with everyone else.

Yeah but y'know two things.

1. How likely is this at Oldham?

2. Is this kind of erratic AI decision-making really what you want to happen in a game that people have paid money for and then invest a great deal of time in?

I do think it is too often the case (and btw maybe I've been guilty of it myself on these forums), that people pull out a real-world example that lies way outside the norm and then use it to justify erratic behaviour on the part of the game.

It's not normal in the game! You get the odd nut-ball chairman in-game (but they're rare from my experience) who does it, just like you do IRL. Point is, he's the boss. You don't listen to the boss? You're out. Some chairmen are harsh, others don't care who you play.

HUNT3R - I don't know if your post was meant as a reply to mine (above) or not.

But, either way, it doesn't address point no. 2 that I made.

Haha. Nah, I'm still looking for an excuse for you. I must just be blind.

[Edit]

76 and counting. (just checked).