Sacked in FM2010

[dafuge]

I don't see why people are so against not being sacked aslong as it is an option that can be toggled on and off. There are already options that change how realistic your game is in place such as being able to use your transfer budget in the first season, making it so you can see every players stats or using the database editor. Allowing the game to become easier so that people can come to terms with the game and ultimately learn from making mistakes is not a bad thing. It will allow to game to appeal to a lot more people. If you don't like it you don't have to to use it.

That is exactly my issue, I don't think it would make the game easier. In my opinion, staying on managing a team beyond the normal point of being sacked (assuming it is results based and justified) and trying to turn things around would be extremely challenging, I don't think I could do it.

[AcidBurn]

That is exactly my issue, I don't think it would make the game easier. In my opinion, staying on managing a team beyond the normal point of being sacked (assuming it is results based and justified) and trying to turn things around would be extremely challenging, I don't think I could do it.

Exactly the way I feel, people are saying no because its not realistic but there are a few things already in FM that are not realistic at all. Its an option so why are people against it? It would not make any difference to their game at all.

[Elrithral]

That is exactly my issue, I don't think it would make the game easier. In my opinion, staying on managing a team beyond the normal point of being sacked (assuming it is results based and justified) and trying to turn things around would be extremely challenging, I don't think I could do it.

The assumption is that you've reached disaster point though. A majority of new users will start with the United and Barcelona's of the world, where sacking point isn't necessarily disaster point, but mid table mid season.

[dafuge]

The assumption is that you've reached disaster point though. A majority of new users will start with the United and Barcelona's of the world, where sacking point isn't necessarily disaster point, but mid table mid season.

I was thinking of disaster point in terms of manager/player relationships. You'd have 'has lost confidence in the manager's ability' messages from just about every player, along with all kinds of other negative messages. Your powers as a manager would be limited since most of your squad won't like you or listen to you.

[Ikoru]

The assumption is that you've reached disaster point though. A majority of new users will start with the United and Barcelona's of the world, where sacking point isn't necessarily disaster point, but mid table mid season.

I believe most people will play the team they support first so that doesn't make Manchester United and such the place where the majority of the new starters will go. That doesn't mean at some point they will not play a team such as Manchester United because it's always fun to have huge amounts of cash and world class players. Also playing a top level team and a lower level team is completely different.

[kevin_chn]

I would like to see such thing.

For someone who only manages his favorite team and gets sacked after 20 seasons, the only way for him to continue is to load the game from last save. This is unrealistic anyway. Or even more weird, add a new manager.

[dafuge]

For someone who only manages his favorite team and gets sacked after 20 seasons

I'd be interested to hear if anyone has been in this position with FM09

[deltablue]

Personally it seems a little odd having that in FM, however if it was introduced I'd hardly mind having a little tick box I don't have to use. Not necessarily a good thing though, aside from the 'how will they learn' debate, when things aren't going too well some people wouldn't mind the release and opportunity to start afresh with a clean slate and a new challenge at a different club. I know I'm one of them, though for me things have always improved so I never have been at that big a risk of being sacked it doesn't stop the lack of motivation when a bad patch comes. For many people it wouldn't be fun being trapped in a situation where things are constantly going wrong without the release a sacking would bring.

[Kenco]

I'd be interested to hear if anyone has been in this position with FM09

I did in FM08 after 22 seasons of success, one poor season and I was out.

But not in FM09, like you say, there doesn't seem to be the unfair sackings of previous versions.

[x42bn6]

It teaches you that you did something wrong consistently over a period of time, therefore you try again and work out where you went wrong. Ever heard the expression "If at first you don't succeed? Try and try again."

Surely if they keep losing they will eventually plummet down the table/get dumped out of the cups which is punishment enough?

People will know if they are doing something wrong. The game is not meant to punish you - it's meant to entertain you, right?

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

But by going beyond the point of sacking, the new user could be playing the game in a more difficult environment than any of us have ever experienced. Testing tactics with a squad who have all lost confidence in you would be very hard work and far harder than starting a new game. I'd imagine this situation to be pretty demoralising for the new user.

It would really need a morale/happiness reset for it to be beneficial.

For many it would be their preference to carry on, adding in as a new manager loses all the manager history which is annoying. Perhaps (as morale reset would be essential) a ticked box for "unsackable" could lead to key effects kicking in when the board get unhappy eg a "friend" in the game with a high profile (Fergie, Arsene etc) could publicly back and support you uplifting Board opinion & club morale?. This would feel less of a fiddle I think. Or maybe you are called Head Coach if the option is selected working beneath a Director of Football and is the DoF who get the blame, sacked & replaced each time with morale readjusted come P45 days? Its not a hard work around.

There are plenty of examples of real life managers who faced the sack only to turn everything around, FM09 seems to be a bit harsh when you reach the "point of no return", a point from which real life returns have been made (think Fergie vs Forest FA cup 1990-ish)

A lot of games now have a "free run" mode and this to me is the same thing, its good for the game.

I hate the negative responses to this suggestion especially the gumby "go play fifa" stuff.

[jdlovesunited]

id love to have this option, sometimes you just want to stick to the one club through the good and super bad times Usually when i get fired i just start a new game. I guess maybe the hardcore fans are upset with this option because maybe they feel people will omit the fact they have this option set on when they post their 80 years with the same club threads?

[bigdunk]

For many it would be their preference to carry on, adding in as a new manager loses all the manager history which is annoying. Perhaps (as morale reset would be essential) a ticked box for "unsackable" could lead to key effects kicking in when the board get unhappy eg a "friend" in the game with a high profile (Fergie, Arsene etc) could publicly back and support you uplifting Board opinion & club morale?. This would feel less of a fiddle I think. Or maybe you are called Head Coach if the option is selected working beneath a Director of Football and is the DoF who get the blame, sacked & replaced each time with morale readjusted come P45 days? Its not a hard work around.

There are plenty of examples of real life managers who faced the sack only to turn everything around, FM09 seems to be a bit harsh when you reach the "point of no return", a point from which real life returns have been made (think Fergie vs Forest FA cup 1990-ish)

A lot of games now have a "free run" mode and this to me is the same thing, its good for the game.

I hate the negative responses to this suggestion especially the gumby "go play fifa" stuff.

It's not a hard workaraound, but something like that is still a fairly significant chunk of work, not to mention a lot of new text to translate etc. And that would certainly start taking coding time away from other features which in my mind makes it an instant no. I'd rather they spent time working on something that's of use to everybody.

[bearsy]

The 'unsackable' option is completely unworkable. Now let me paint a picture as to why. You start up a new game running just english prem. Now lets say you start as Hull and lose every single game. What happens next? You are relegated, yet have not selected the Championship to run. Therefore you have no league to play in, and you HAVE to be sacked. Therefore you cannot have an unsackable option.

Yes, some idiot is going to suggest, well just start with the Championship running, and before you do what happens if you then go on and lose every game then and are relegated? Eventually you will run out of leagues to play in.

It doesnt work, it goes completely against the idea of the game, now give it up. The idea sucks.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

It's not a hard workaraound, but something like that is still a fairly significant chunk of work, not to mention a lot of new text to translate etc. And that would certainly start taking coding time away from other features which in my mind makes it an instant no. I'd rather they spent time working on something that's of use to everybody.

But I felt like that about the "waste of time" coding editors for leagues that I shall never use!, so that clearly not for "everybody". Its all a matter of opinion and mine is, I would like a non sacking option. Looking forward very much to FM10, expect we can agree on that.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

The 'unsackable' option is completely unworkable. Now let me paint a picture as to why. You start up a new game running just english prem. Now lets say you start as Hull and lose every single game. What happens next? You are relegated, yet have not selected the Championship to run. Therefore you have no league to play in, and you HAVE to be sacked. Therefore you cannot have an unsackable option.

Yes, some idiot is going to suggest, well just start with the Championship running, and before you do what happens if you then go on and lose every game then and are relegated? Eventually you will run out of leagues to play in.

It doesnt work, it goes completely against the idea of the game, now give it up. The idea sucks.

Hopeless arguement bearsy, if you are not good at the game (likely to get relegated) and you have not selected the lower league as playable then you are a fool, of course you could not continue the game. Likewise if you start in the lowest posible league and get relegated....nuff said. I imagine that 3 - 4 consecutive relegations would render your interest in the game somewhat tarnished, and anyway by then the Chairman would sell your overpaid squad from around you posibly giving you a new, interesting and somewhat better suited challenge of getting promoted back up again by default...... Actually, the more I think about it the more your "reasons" for non inclusion of "unsackable" are very good arguemnets for its inclusion. Thank you.

[Müller1469564937]

Lol wtf, of course not. And if they do it, they should also add a 'Get this player for no fee' option.

Lmao.

10101

[aemud]

As Neji has said it would allow first time users or people who don't know about football the opportunity to get to learn the game without getting fired every few months and having to start again.

Maybe not managing at the top level and setting themselves more realistic goals, like the unexperienced managers they are, such as surviving BSN/S would be a better approach

[Spart]

Maybe not managing at the top level and setting themselves more realistic goals, like the unexperienced managers they are, such as surviving BSN/S would be a better approach

Some people play FM to manage their favorite team though. Not everyone wants to play in the lower leagues.

Would one single tick box really matter that much? It wouldn't effect those of us that actually play the game in full.

[Dekker2]

Some people play FM to manage their favorite team though. Not everyone wants to play in the lower leagues.

Would one single tick box really matter that much? It wouldn't effect those of us that actually play the game in full.

I'm repeating what has already been said, but here goes:

If you reach the point of sacking, you will have players who don't like you, their morale will be shot to pieces, they'll give up in games as soon as they go behind (they get "playing without confidence" on their motivation screen) and they'll "lose faith in their manager's ability".

At this point, they are pretty impossible to turn around. It would be better for a new player, who wants to figure out how to make tactics work, to start again on a team with some semblance of morale so that the tactics actually work. When you're in a Hull-esque free-fall, it is perfectly possible for sound tactics to fail - so a new player would be getting completely the wrong idea about what works and what doesn't.

As soon as SI have to come up with workarounds for this (Wenger/Fergie issuing public message of support etc.) then they are diverting their time from other more valuable pursuits - the features already in the game are always in need of refinement/improvement.

New players can either get an editor and restore their team's morale and fitness, and turn their chairman into a more patient guy, or they can do what people new to FM have always done - save before matches an re-load them until they figure out what works.

That way they'll never get sacked, and once they know what they're doing they'll be able to continue playing the game as normal.

The tickbox wouldn't be the end of the world, but it's not really necessary.

[bearsy]

Hopeless arguement bearsy, if you are not good at the game (likely to get relegated) and you have not selected the lower league as playable then you are a fool, of course you could not continue the game. Likewise if you start in the lowest posible league and get relegated....nuff said. I imagine that 3 - 4 consecutive relegations would render your interest in the game somewhat tarnished, and anyway by then the Chairman would sell your overpaid squad from around you posibly giving you a new, interesting and somewhat better suited challenge of getting promoted back up again by default...... Actually, the more I think about it the more your "reasons" for non inclusion of "unsackable" are very good arguemnets for its inclusion. Thank you.

How can your interest be tarnished, and be presented with better suited challenge? Somewhat contradicting yourself there.

And if you are forced to sell your good players by your chairman, then the chances are that you are likely to continue to suffer further relegations, and as I said you will eventually run out of leagues to run. It is unworkable. Simple as that. A very poor idea i'm afraid.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

How can your interest be tarnished, and be presented with better suited challenge? Somewhat contradicting yourself there.

And if you are forced to sell your good players by your chairman, then the chances are that you are likely to continue to suffer further relegations, and as I said you will eventually run out of leagues to run. It is unworkable. Simple as that. A very poor idea i'm afraid.

Wrong again Im afraid. The "tarnished interest" comment is valid I think, the "better suited challenge" naturally follows on in what is clearly a "stream of thought" post. I would hope that perhaps a thrice relegated manager may enjoy the challenge of rebuilding on a budget (un sackable opton ticked of course!), though that is understandably open to debate. With hindsight I should have stated that these are "my opinions only" which indeed would be a comment that would not harm your own declaration that its a "poor idea". "In my opinion" it is not a poor idea, to quote you, "simple as....". Blinkers off time I would suggest, dont you think?

[craigcwwe]

this is not a realistic option mate, FM intends to be the most realistic football sim on the market, and this option just would n `t look good.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

this is not a realistic option mate, FM intends to be the most realistic football sim on the market, and this option just would n `t look good.

This aspect of the issue has been argued positively in a far more elloquent manner than I could manage, earlier in the thread. However, "realism" could I feel be sacrificed:

a/ purely as an option

b/ at the gain of improved gameplay for some (especially those that need help).

I really do have an issue that "as an option" it is those that would not use it who so argue its negative aspects. Surely it is not of your interest if you'd never use it but dont like it?

For what it is worth I would not use it either, but I feel it would be a good option for those that need / desire it.

As for "not looking good", I dont feel that phrase applies to the unsackable option, it does apply to DC's scoring 20 + goals per season from corners, it does apply to teams scoring more than 1 goal per game from identical blind backpasses, it does apply to match-odds underdogs constantly overachieving...etc.

As I have said before, I have high hopes for FM10. Hoping the new Tactic UI is so intuitive that we all become successful virtual managers from November onwards - then we wont even consider needing an unsackable option, until the next badly coded "Takeover".

[jesusismyairbag]

ROFL what would be the fricken point.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

ROFL what would be the fricken point.

Who is Rofl ?

[pdbravo]

Who is Rofl ?

Apparently the suggestion filled him with such mirth that he was rolling on the floor laughing

I'd say he needs to get out more.

[bearsy]

Wrong again Im afraid. The "tarnished interest" comment is valid I think, the "better suited challenge" naturally follows on in what is clearly a "stream of thought" post. I would hope that perhaps a thrice relegated manager may enjoy the challenge of rebuilding on a budget (un sackable opton ticked of course!), though that is understandably open to debate. With hindsight I should have stated that these are "my opinions only" which indeed would be a comment that would not harm your own declaration that its a "poor idea". "In my opinion" it is not a poor idea, to quote you, "simple as....". Blinkers off time I would suggest, dont you think?

You havent counter my argument in the slightest, or even put up a convincing counter argument. The facts remain that if you run out of leagues to play in, due to the player being consistently poor and relegated frequently then the 'unsackable' option doesnt work. It is as simple as that. Hope that makes it perfectly clear.

Whether or not they would enjoy the challenge of playing in the lower league with their team is not the point, nor is it even a consideration. The whole point of the unsackable option is to provide players the chance to build and create a team of their own without losing their job mid game, yet if they run out of leagues to play in then they will be automatically sacked. These arent my opinions. They are fact.

The only people the unsackable option would be useful for would be those taking over top ranked teams, where immediate success is necessary, and where relegation is highly unlikely despite the ability of the player. However, for every other team where relegation is possible then the unsackable option is not feasible in FM until they create a game where you can run all the leagues in the game at a sufficiently high speed.

IN MY OPINION it is a daft idea that is completely unworkable. You are of course entitled to yours, who just be nice if you could back them up with a coherant argument. I mean did you even reread that last couple of sentences before posting it?

[x42bn6]

If the player drops unto an unplayable league then of course we run into problems. You want solutions? Of course, let me present two: The player continues irregardless or the player is automatically sacked anyway, after being told they are in an unplayable league.

That said, constantly losing until they are relegated below the bottom is a very extreme scenario. You'd have to be a pretty awful player to do that in a short amount of time even with the unsackable option ticked. The odds are that the poor newbie will bounce between perhaps 1-2 leagues up and down.

And eventually the newbie will be competent enough to start a new, fresh game without the unsackable option.

[J.W.]

to be fair i bet most players click "enable budgets in first window" even though this is cheating, as the window has essentially already happened because you have the new players, so i see no problem with a "cant get sacked" button, although i wouldnt use it

[bearsy]

to be fair i bet most players click "enable budgets in first window" even though this is cheating, as the window has essentially already happened because you have the new players, so i see no problem with a "cant get sacked" button, although i wouldnt use it

Its not really cheating as we have to play through the months when the window is open. Is it realistic, no. But is it cheating, I dont think so at all. I guess it depends on your definition of cheating. Mine would be looking to gain an unfair advantage on the other teams. But as all teams are able to buy players in the window, I don't really see how having transfer budget is cheating.

[Johnyboy]

This feature would be good for some and personally i would use it but i think some would say its unrealistic

[bearsy]

If the player drops unto an unplayable league then of course we run into problems. You want solutions? Of course, let me present two: The player continues irregardless or the player is automatically sacked anyway, after being told they are in an unplayable league.

That said, constantly losing until they are relegated below the bottom is a very extreme scenario. You'd have to be a pretty awful player to do that in a short amount of time even with the unsackable option ticked. The odds are that the poor newbie will bounce between perhaps 1-2 leagues up and down.

And eventually the newbie will be competent enough to start a new, fresh game without the unsackable option.

Yeah that was the extreme scenario of the game. Chances are though that most people, and i obivously dont know this for sure, would only start with the league they are playing in, plus others above, should they start in a league not the top in that country. For the unsackable option to even have any chance of working the player would need to select at least one extra league to play in beneath where they are starting. Otherwise, should they get relegated, which for a newbie is a possibility, then the unsackable option becomes completely pointless.

I mean in my experience, I start off by choosing a selection of top leagues across europe, unless of course im starting with the intention of completing a lower league challenge etc. Now if I had to select extra divisions, in case I got sacked, that would limit the number of leagues I could choose to run.

I quite agree that the likelyhood would be that the newbie would bounce between the two leagues, but he/she would have to be aware that the 'unsackable' option would only really work should they select the extra leagues.

[x42bn6]

Yeah that was the extreme scenario of the game.

So let's deal with the more common scenarios, eh?

If a newbie is truly bad at the game there is a good chance they will simply restart the game after relegation, as they wouldn't like to see their team doing so badly. Or it might not get that far. An unsackable option would simply allow the newbie to finish the season without being sacked halfway because their mentality is 2 notches short.

Chances are though that most people, and i obivously dont know this for sure, would only start with the league they are playing in, plus others above, should they start in a league not the top in that country. For the unsackable option to even have any chance of working the player would need to select at least one extra league to play in beneath where they are starting. Otherwise, should they get relegated, which for a newbie is a possibility, then the unsackable option becomes completely pointless.

Why?

I don't think there needs to be a change. The game could throw a warning if they start in a league where relegation results in an automatic firing/no games even if they are unsackable. If they reach an unplayable league they are sacked. Why would they need to add an extra league?

[bearsy]

If the player drops unto an unplayable league then of course we run into problems. You want solutions? Of course, let me present two: The player continues irregardless or the player is automatically sacked anyway, after being told they are in an unplayable league.

That said, constantly losing until they are relegated below the bottom is a very extreme scenario. You'd have to be a pretty awful player to do that in a short amount of time even with the unsackable option ticked. The odds are that the poor newbie will bounce between perhaps 1-2 leagues up and down.

And eventually the newbie will be competent enough to start a new, fresh game without the unsackable option.

So let's deal with the more common scenarios, eh?

If a newbie is truly bad at the game there is a good chance they will simply restart the game after relegation, as they wouldn't like to see their team doing so badly. Or it might not get that far. An unsackable option would simply allow the newbie to finish the season without being sacked halfway because their mentality is 2 notches short.

Why?

I don't think there needs to be a change. The game could throw a warning if they start in a league where relegation results in an automatic firing/no games even if they are unsackable. If they reach an unplayable league they are sacked. Why would they need to add an extra league?

I went on to discuss the more likely scenarios, if you just read a little further.

And as for the bit you highlighted, surely its pretty obvious that you the whole point of the unsackable option is that regardless as to how poorly you do, you cannot be sacked. Now, to me, the worst thing that you could do is to be relegated. Now, again, fairly obviously to me, if you are to not get sacked after relegation then you need to be running the league below that which you started.

[x42bn6]

I went on to discuss the more likely scenarios, if you just read a little further.

And as for the bit you highlighted, surely its pretty obvious that you the whole point of the unsackable option is that regardless as to how poorly you do, you cannot be sacked. Now, to me, the worst thing that you could do is to be relegated. Now, again, fairly obviously to me, if you are to not get sacked after relegation then you need to be running the league below that which you started.

That makes no sense. Having 100 leagues below you won't stop you relegating beyond league 101 and therefore running into an unplayable league. You will inevitably run into a problem, which is why there is no need to start with one league below you if you are unsackable.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

You havent counter my argument in the slightest, or even put up a convincing counter argument. The facts remain that if you run out of leagues to play in, due to the player being consistently poor and relegated frequently then the 'unsackable' option doesnt work. It is as simple as that. Hope that makes it perfectly clear.

Whether or not they would enjoy the challenge of playing in the lower league with their team is not the point, nor is it even a consideration. The whole point of the unsackable option is to provide players the chance to build and create a team of their own without losing their job mid game, yet if they run out of leagues to play in then they will be automatically sacked. These arent my opinions. They are fact.

The only people the unsackable option would be useful for would be those taking over top ranked teams, where immediate success is necessary, and where relegation is highly unlikely despite the ability of the player. However, for every other team where relegation is possible then the unsackable option is not feasible in FM until they create a game where you can run all the leagues in the game at a sufficiently high speed.

IN MY OPINION it is a daft idea that is completely unworkable. You are of course entitled to yours, who just be nice if you could back them up with a coherant argument. I mean did you even reread that last couple of sentences before posting it?

I dont need to counter your "arguement" as I am not argueing, just showing a difference of opinion, a concept which some in the forums find soooo hard to accept!. The point regarding not being able to manage below the playable lowest league does not even need a response, it is self explanitary* but if you want to go "unsackable" you would be wise to select all leagues posible, clearly.

*So obvious I didnt really think it needed stating to be honest, but as you insisted on clarification of the obvious I now have.

The challenge of rebuilding in a lower league is very much the point and is certainly a consideration - whether valid or not is not for you or I to "decide" those merits in such a final manner as we neither would select "unsackable".

"The only people the unsackable option would be useful for...." - please stop offering opinion as fact, it adds nothing to the debate. Whilst unsackable would make more sense to those starting at the highest level it would be just as valid at a lower level, if not the lowest, where the learning curve may be shallower and the Boards maybe more forgiving. I play England & France, ALL levels playable and although my PC is not "state of the Art" it does the job with no lag of concern. So maybe your issues are more with the performance or lack thereof of your own PC?. Apologies if I touched a nerve there.

As you asked, yes I do read my posts before posting and am confident they make the points I wish to make in an fair & (relatively!) coherant way, not always to everyone elses agreement sure, and sometimes I should spell check them better! LOL

I am still confused why someone who wouldnt use the option and dislikes it would find it so necessary want to impose their way of playing on those that would like this option (and that does not include me, as I stated). This is an ugly way of participating in these forums, in my opinion.

[rancer890]

I wouldn't mind the option being in the game, but I wouldn't use it.

I got unfairly sacked twice in FM08, but have had no sackings in FM09.

I used the no sackings option on EHM07 when I just bought the game, and it did mentally help me a bit, since I didn't have to worry about getting sacked, and only worry about the on-ice performance, even though I was really really bad.

It might help a new player, so I personally have no problem if the option is in the game.

[Grand]

I actually like the idea for new players of the FM games. FM isn't the simplest game in the world, so it would allow new players to pick their favorite team (even if it's a crappy team) and have fun with their favorite players while learning. I would not use it but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good idea for new players.

I don't understand why the naysayers care though. It reminds me of the American prop 8 thing all over again tbh. If it doesn't affect you in any way, don't ruin things for others. It's that simple really.

[Saevel]

I can't see any reason not to have this option in the game. I'm sure enough people would like it, and those who don't like it can just keep it turned off. Everyone win ;p

[SCIAG]

I think it would actually be bad for new players tbh. If you can get sacked you have to adapt to the game and get better, if there's no fear of that you'll improve slower, or maybe not at all.

This, again and again.

And of course, what happens if you get relegated out of the leagues you've loaded?

[dafuge]

I don't understand why the naysayers care though. It reminds me of the American prop 8 thing all over again tbh. If it doesn't affect you in any way, don't ruin things for others. It's that simple really.

I'm against it because I just don't think it would work.

In my opinion, the sorts of people who are good enough and patient enough to recover a team from beyond the point of sacking are the sorts of people who wouldn't have chosen the unsackable option in the first place.

[thebigman1985]

it should definitely be a tickable option when creating a new game, it makes it easier for new players to adapt

[Flemming1966]

Well, what I'm really tired of is this:

Me and my brother love to play network game against each other.

(we have tried FMlive, but we are not online enough to enjoy it very much )

We like to play the big teams. Great players, lots of money, and great fun.

ex.

He is Real Madrid, I'm Barcelona.

Let's say he wins the league. I do... Well, not good for Barcelona point of view. I come in second.

BAM, I'm fired.

One season, and we have to start all over again.

Plz don't flame me again. ;-)

I know. Choice lower teams. Play better. Get a job at Celta and make a comeback in 3 or 4 seasons. and so on.

It's not like we are going to get relegated, but it would be great fun to play like 10-20 seasons. He will win some and I will win some.

An 'unsackable' option would be great here. ;-)

[dafuge]

Did you get sacked from Barcelona for finishing 2nd with FM09? At the start of the season did you tell them you would win the league?

[aemud]

Why hasn't anyone suggested yet the 'unbeatable option', whereas you never lose a game?

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

Why hasn't anyone suggested yet the 'unbeatable option', whereas you never lose a game?

Has been mentioned quite a lot actually but the Posts have all been ignored as they are not relevant to the debate and are so pathetic.

[x42bn6]

This, again and again.

And of course, what happens if you get relegated out of the leagues you've loaded?

What's wrong with not improving quickly? A first-time player may finish 4th with Barcelona getting him fired - will the first-timer be happy? Everyone should be free to develop at their own rate.

As for dropping out of the last playable league, there are some options: Carry on through the game and the game could positively discriminate to promote the team back the next season, or be fired anyway. Or give the option to do both. Options do exist.

And as mentioned before, relegation below the bottom is an extreme scenario if the player loads enough leagues and usually they would. Realistically players who use this will be restarting the game before the first relegation.

[Elrithral]

I was thinking of disaster point in terms of manager/player relationships. You'd have 'has lost confidence in the manager's ability' messages from just about every player, along with all kinds of other negative messages. Your powers as a manager would be limited since most of your squad won't like you or listen to you.

What if disaster/sacking point is Euro League qualification with Manchester United or Barcelona? There's a chance that "lost confidence" will show up, but imo it's not disaster point int he strictest sense.

You take over Bayern Munich at the start of the game and there is no option to tell the board what you might achieve, they expect you to win the league. What if a new player comes to the game and isn't good at it, but isn't awful, they finish 3rd and exit at the group stages of the CL? They will get sacked, but the players won't necessarily have lsot faith in the manager's ability.

[chopper99]

While i understand that this may be an option that people imagine would help newer players out, I don't think it's a good idea.

One of the addictive things about FM over the years is it's ability to make you cling on to your chair and shout at your monitor. This comes in part from the fact that it's difficult, has a steep learning curve, and can result in a sacking. We've all been sacked at some point and have all probably learned from that and gone on to be better at the game, but at the same time the game has still remained just as exciting. Whether it's optional or not, make the game too easy for some people and it will lose something.

I'd much rather new users were helped by the game being more intuative and realistic, rather than taking the easy option of allowing the user to be invincible.