I'm sorry, but this is the most appalling BS!

[Ackter]

As much as I hate siding with x42 (and I'm sure he feels the same way about me ), this is a bug.

[milnerpoint]

You can only really say that if your able to look at the code and if it was inteded to work this way, as the OP has not given SI anything to check up then i dont see how anyone can say its a bug. As much as i love these back and forths with X42 there is nothing in this thread that really says bug 100%, warrented it could be a bug, but i still think the OP's lack of domestic success has been his downfall, even if the new boards decision is questionable.

[Ackter]

Because I've worked in the industry for over half a decade, including on several FM titles

It's a bug.

[milnerpoint]

Well then get it fixed Mr!!

[Ackter]

I don't work there now

And even if I did, my job is to point at stuff and shout BUG! Someone else has to do the actual work

[Cougar2010]

So basically the same as you're doing now then except SI aren't paying you anymore

[Ackter]

Yeah... but... wait...

Shut up

[CityAndColour]

I could show you Man United fan sites that say Fergie is ruining their club and if United dont sack him right away they will become a mid table club by next year, does that mean they are correct? Not all Aberdeen fans wanted JC sacked, not even close, like i said before, you clearly have no clue about what happened up here.

Its actually a very good example in this case, JC was sacked because he could not deliver domestic cup success, the board knew he could deliver good european success at our level, which is getting into the group stages of the euro cup, they knew he could deliver top 6 finishes in the league, up here thats as much as we can aim for, but he never won a cup, so he was sacked, to the disgust of 90% of us up here.

You know at somepoint you are allowed to step back and say "ok i was wrong on that one"

If Calderwood had been sacked immediately by a new board then you may have a comparable example. Ditto if the same board who had overseen the OP's four year term had sacked him. Otherwise it's chalk and cheese.

[milnerpoint]

I don't work there now

And even if I did, my job is to point at stuff and shout BUG! Someone else has to do the actual work

Excuses, excuses.

[milnerpoint]

If Calderwood had been sacked immediately by a new board then you may have a comparable example. Ditto if the same board who had overseen the OP's four year term had sacked him. Otherwise it's chalk and cheese.

New board, old board, it still comes under a silly board room decision.

[CityAndColour]

New board, old board, it still comes under a silly board room decision.

Except Calderwood would have been told by his board, probably numerous times, that they wanted domestic cup success, if that is indeed the reason he was sacked. The OP has been sacked immediately by a new board with no explanation.

[milnerpoint]

You could be right, but from what we were told in the press and what JC has said in interviews is, he was not warned a lack of cup success would cost him his job, he was sacked and told the reason for his sacking was the lack of domestic cup success, two very different things really.

[x42bn6]

I could show you Man United fan sites that say Fergie is ruining their club and if United dont sack him right away they will become a mid table club by next year, does that mean they are correct? Not all Aberdeen fans wanted JC sacked, not even close, like i said before, you clearly have no clue about what happened up here.

Its actually a very good example in this case, JC was sacked because he could not deliver domestic cup success, the board knew he could deliver good european success at our level, which is getting into the group stages of the euro cup, they knew he could deliver top 6 finishes in the league, up here thats as much as we can aim for, but he never won a cup, so he was sacked, to the disgust of 90% of us up here.

You know at somepoint you are allowed to step back and say "ok i was wrong on that one"

I don't see how that's comparable to the OP. It sounds like Calderwood wasn't very good after all, not delivering on his aims, while the OP has delivered the hardest football trophy twice in four years.

But the OP situation CAN be justified. It may be completely wrong and a very bad decision by the board, but that doesn't make it a bug, and I still protest that it isn't!

The OP didn't deliver the EPL title in 4 seasons, thus the board decided that this wasn't good enough and took it upon themselves to establish the sacking. It may be the worst footballing decision in the world, but hey, this is football and doesn't make sense, but hey!

If AI Accrington Stanley beat AI Manchester United 50-0 in someone's game, that can be justified too ("Manchester United simply had a terrible day at the office"). Anyone who uses this argument to justify this scenario and claim it's not a bug would be rightfully laughed at.

You don't know that the OP's aims were to deliver the title, and either way, delivering a harder prize - the Champions League - twice in four years, for a team starved of recent success under Wenger - should be forgiven. He's won the hard prize several times - league success is inevitable. I'd argue that even if he doesn't win the league in 10 years, but delivers the Champions League 50% of the time with the odd domestic cup every now and then, wouldn't deserve a managerial sacking, because it is so hard to win the Champions League. Sure, Arsenal fans might be complaining a lot about how the OP doesn't build a squad that lasts 38 games, but if you are winning the Champions League every other year on average, that's still a great haul.

[Guest]

That post offered nothing new & has simply combined a number of comments that you've already made, this is not a competition on who can have the last word.

[x42bn6]

That post offered nothing new & has simply combined a number of comments that you've already made, this is not a competition on who can have the last word.

Why do you care about the posting quality of this thread?

[milnerpoint]

I don't see how that's comparable to the OP. It sounds like Calderwood wasn't very good after all, not delivering on his aims, while the OP has delivered the hardest football trophy twice in four years.

Its funny, your clearly one of those people who cannot accept they are wrong, even when you have barely any knowledge of the subject your arguing about. Surprising for someone who seems to have a bit of intelligence about him.

[FrazT]

Lets keep the personal comments out of the thread please

[Lawlore]

If it's a bug, it needs to go in the bug forum to get acknowledged as such and fixed. Until then, I'm still not convinced it should be considered as one.

Also, if you want to make the Accrington Stanley 50-0 Man Utd argument, I'll line up behind the "it could happen" brigade. The chances are infinitessimally small, maybe so unlikely as to happen once every few billion meetings, but that's not the same as impossible and shouldn't be treated as such.

"The ball is round, the game lasts 90 minutes, everything else is pure theory."

And I don't give two hoots about Jimmy Calderwood.

[x42bn6]

If it's a bug, it needs to go in the bug forum to get acknowledged as such and fixed. Until then, I'm still not convinced it should be considered as one.

Also, if you want to make the Accrington Stanley 50-0 Man Utd argument, I'll line up behind the "it could happen" brigade. The chances are infinitessimally small, maybe so unlikely as to happen once every few billion meetings, but that's not the same as impossible and shouldn't be treated as such.

If this is the case, then nearly every single gameplay bug can be gotten rid of. For example, most of the threads in here can be dismissed with "maybe one day the agent fell down the stairs and went into the meeting medically insane". Possible? Sure! Not a bug. Nuh-uh. This wouldn't be a bug, because it is possible that all AI managers suddenly decide to only teach their teams one formation and that AI corner delivery becomes so good consistently (hey, it's possible! A one-in-a-billion thing!). Heck, spelling mistakes in emails in this game could be dismissed with "not everyone writes emails with perfect spelling".

In some cases, the very occurrence of an event can be statistically significant. Therefore there is no need to hide behind this "it's possible, so it's not a bug" curtain.

[CityAndColour]

And I don't give two hoots about Jimmy Calderwood.

I'm still scratching my head as to how the likes of Calderwood, Ancelotti, Warnock, Allardyce and an end-of-contract Del Bosque are being compared to a manager winning the CL twice, and then being sacked IMMEDIATELY and without reason by a new board. There is no comparable real life example, just vague "this manager was unlucky to be sacked" themes.

[BiggusD]

If this is the case, then nearly every single gameplay bug can be gotten rid of. For example, most of the threads in here can be dismissed with "maybe one day the agent fell down the stairs and went into the meeting medically insane". Possible? Sure! Not a bug. Nuh-uh. This wouldn't be a bug, because it is possible that all AI managers suddenly decide to only teach their teams one formation and that AI corner delivery becomes so good consistently (hey, it's possible! A one-in-a-billion thing!). Heck, spelling mistakes in emails in this game could be dismissed with "not everyone writes emails with perfect spelling".

In some cases, the very occurrence of an event can be statistically significant. Therefore there is no need to hide behind this "it's possible, so it's not a bug" curtain.

Yes this is apologetism. It ignores that this is a game so everything that happens must be programmed to happen. In the case of the OP we know that SI has coded that it is possible to be fired after a board takeover, but I find it hard to believe that SI has intentionally coded in bad board decisions like what happened to him, since he had brought more success to Arsenal than what was expected of him. Therefore it is a feature that doesn't work properly, also called a "bug". The feature is also badly designed from a gaming perspective, since being fired because of a board takeover is fine for whoever plays the game in "career mode" but a game-ender for those who don't.

[Guest avine]

In some cases, the very occurrence of an event can be statistically significant. Therefore there is no need to hide behind this "it's possible, so it's not a bug" curtain.

this is correct,if its a bug there is no reason to getting "in a status between belief and disbelief" about it

[gingerbill]

must agree with the OP that's a very silly thing to put in a game. Made me laugh though.

Seems completely stupid to me. It should be an option you have to turn on if they really feel the need for it and some people want it.

[this_game_is_unrealistic]

Who did the new owners replace you with? If it was someone with a good resume, I could see it as being unfortunate, but not a flaw in the game. However, if they replaced you with some retread that has driven clubs into the ground like the game always seems to do (ie. Laudrup getting two clubs relegated then becoming Chelsea manager), then I think it needs to be addressed.

[Cycstorm]

They replaced me with some German guy whose name I didn't recognize - Jurgen something (no, not Klinsman).

[Mikke]

They replaced me with some German guy whose name I didn't recognize - Jurgen something (no, not Klinsman).

Jürgen Klopp maybe? Borussia Dortmund manager IRL.

[Gee_Simpson]

That's fine. Statistics and several other fans' opinions on an Aberdeen forum can't trump your assertion that "I can tell you that Jimmy Calderwood done a good job". Screw evidence.

I don't know everything that goes on in football. I'm just giggling at the lengths at which a fan will try to defend the game, comparing an Aberdeen manager whose fans all wanted him out to a user in FM who has won the Champions League twice in 4 years with an Arsenal side that haven't won anything before him...

You know, at some point, you are actually allowed to point at a bug and call it a bug.

Lol you don't give up do you? Calderwood was doing a fine job at Aberdeen and his budget was getting cut each year, that explains the dips in form. You didn't think of that though did you? If you look at Aberdeen's form over the past few seasons, you will see that form has declined since Calderwood left. You don't follow the SPL, me and milner do and yes, you do need to have knowledge of a league to judge on managers/players performances imo. Tbh I'm not really arguing about the bug, just this matter really. Sorry for going slightly off topic mods!

Its funny, your clearly one of those people who cannot accept they are wrong, even when you have barely any knowledge of the subject your arguing about. Surprising for someone who seems to have a bit of intelligence about him.

Exactly mate. This guy doesn't have much of a clue what he is talking about.

Calderwood was a good manager for you guys.

[Cycstorm]

Jürgen Klopp maybe? Borussia Dortmund manager IRL.

Yeah, that was him. I'm sure he is perfectly capable, but he didn't have anything close to my record.

[themadsheep2001]

I'm approaching the end of my 4th season as Manager of Arsenal. In those four years I've won 1 League Cup, 1 FA Cup, 1 Community Shield, 2 Euro Super Cups, and 2 Champion's League.

My team is rock solid, my coaches are all 4.5 stars and above, and my youth system is starting to yield some top quality fruit. I've also kept the club solidly in the black with a very sensible wage structure.

So, all of a sudden I get a message saying that there is a takeover pending and then I get the sack.

I really think this is a feature that should just be removed from the game. Just like the way that you can't ever die (which, let's be honest, really buries any argument that this is some kind of hardcore simulator), I don't think you should be arbitrarily removed from your chosen job based on anything other than your own merits and performance. I would never have been let go were I in really the manager of Arsenal and had delivered two Champion's League titles in 4 years. Regardless of that, this is a video game. I'll stop playing when I want to stop playing, thank you very much.

I think the feature should definitely stay, but it needs reworking for sure.

Firstly, i think if/when you are sacked, it should be made abundantly clear why you are sacked. In this case, perhaps it would be for the lack of league titles won. But in this case im not sure such a sacking should have occured. Perhaps a message from the new board saying "While we appreciate the cup success you have brought, the board has placed a greater focus on the league title, and will be looking forward to your success in this target, (ie we know you do cups well, but win the league, or you're sacked)".

My 2 cents anyway

[wwfan]

As much as I hate siding with x42 (and I'm sure he feels the same way about me ), this is a bug.

Likewise. I don't like siding with either of you () but I agree. Bug! Buggy, bugged, bug.

I suspect it relates to too much expectations on a team having to do well in all competitions, resulting in a new board over-emphasising the 'not winning the league' element when taking against 'winning CL twice'. I find it annoying to see the team expected to win the league, get to the final of the FA CUp and CL at a minimum. It's far too specific. It would be far better to have a plan for the length of the contract, such as:

We have awarded you a four year contract. During this time, the Board expects you to win at least two domestic trophies, including one EPL, comfortably qualify for the CL every season, and be a regular presence in the last eight of the European Cup.

Failure to qualify for the CL might result in the termination of your contract. Failure to qualify for any European competition will result in the immediate termination of you contract unless the Board is happy there are mitigating circumstances and the strong likelihood of immediate improvement. If the Board feels you are unable to deliver on its minimum requirements during any stage of this four year period, your contract is highly likely to be terminated. If you exceed these requirements, the Board would be willing to renegotiate your contract after three seasons.

This could be compared to a less ambitious / glamourous club, which might state:

We expect to gain promotion to a higher division during the course of your three year contract. We expect to turn a small profit every season, either through player sales or cup runs. If at any stage of your contract the Board feels you will fail to achieve these aims, we will strongly consider termination.

or:

The Board hope you will be able to turn the club into a promotion challenger during your three year contract. We are also hopeful of at least one good run in the cups during this period. Of prime importance is the financial security of the club, and it is imperative you do not overstretch the budget.

or:

The Board expects you to reduce the average age of the squad and the the club's expenditure on wages. We are hopeful you can do this while still remaining competitive at the current level.

[The Welsh Lad]

Likewise. I don't like siding with either of you () but I agree. Bug! Buggy, bugged, bug.

I suspect it relates to too much expectations on a team having to do well in all competitions, resulting in a new board over-emphasising the 'not winning the league' element when taking against 'winning CL twice'. I find it annoying to see the team expected to win the league, get to the final of the FA CUp and CL at a minimum. It's far too specific. It would be far better to have a plan for the length of the contract, such as:

We have awarded you a four year contract. During this time, the Board expects you to win at least two domestic trophies, including one EPL, comfortably qualify for the CL every season, and be a regular presence in the last eight of the European Cup.

Failure to qualify for the CL might result in the termination of your contract. Failure to qualify for any European competition will result in the immediate termination of you contract unless the Board is happy there are mitigating circumstances and the strong likelihood of immediate improvement. If the Board feels you are unable to deliver on its minimum requirements during any stage of this four year period, your contract is highly likely to be terminated. If you exceed these requirements, the Board would be willing to renegotiate your contract after three seasons.

This could be compared to a less ambitious / glamourous club, which might state:

We expect to gain promotion to a higher division during the course of your three year contract. We expect to turn a small profit every season, either through player sales or cup runs. If at any stage of your contract the Board feels you will fail to achieve these aims, we will strongly consider termination.

or:

The Board hope you will be able to turn the club into a promotion challenger during your three year contract. We are also hopeful of at least one good run in the cups during this period. Of prime importance is the financial security of the club, and it is imperative you do not overstretch the budget.

or:

The Board expects you to reduce the average age of the squad and the the club's expenditure on wages. We are hopeful you can do this while still remaining competitive at the current level.

Wasn't FM like this before can't remember which one it was but I remember that the expectations at Villa was Lerner wanted me to challenge for the Title in 2 years or something along that line.

[smallclone]

V Interesting thread. I have to side with the opening poster. This is a computer game. If it was meant to imitate real life as closely as possible then we wouldn't be able to get anywhere enar jobs managing football clubs! There has to be a happy medium.

It's supposed to be enjoyable and based on our merits at playing this game. The scenario that happenend doesn't seem so.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

V Interesting thread. I have to side with the opening poster. This is a computer game. If it was meant to imitate real life as closely as possible then we wouldn't be able to get anywhere enar jobs managing football clubs! There has to be a happy medium.

It's supposed to be enjoyable and based on our merits at playing this game. The scenario that happenend doesn't seem so.

There should be an "unsackable" option. The arguement against this is it would be "unrealistic". here's realistic for you, after 2 seasons you get a news item saying you died from a heart attack and the game is locked as game over. Why is that not in the game if realism is all-so-important? It happens you know.

[TeeWee]

There should be some balancing between fun and realism in this. As such, I'd support a "unsackable" or at least a "unsackable by board takeover" / "no takeover" option for player controlled clubs. At least some sort of control over the sackability would be nice to help players get the type of game they want.

As for realism: I think there is a large perception bias in favour of long term managers. In fact, long term managers like SAF and Wenger are huge exceptions. Managers leave clubs all the time, for all sorts of reasons, from the mundane underperformance to more exotic reasons like:

- You've brought us success, but we don't think you fit the profile to bring us to the next level

- Your contract is up and we feel we need some new blood in our staff. Sorry.

- We want a different brand of football (more attacking, fewer soft goals given, more youth players breaking through, a more marketable name, etc) and feel a change in management is the way to get there.

- Your contract is up and it just happens that Mourinho is a free agent right now, so we won't extend your contract.

- Mourinho is a free agent now. Sucks to be you.

- The new owner worships Hiddink so you're out of luck

- The owner dislikes your taste in ties and can't stand to have you around any longer

I think sackings (and non-extensions of contracts) actually don't occur often enough for players (compared to reality) and that all sackings seem to be related to either performance or takeovers. If you meet the performance, extensions are almost guaranteed unless a takeover happens. The simple "contract ran out, you did a perfectly reasonable job, thank you goodbye"-non-extensions just don't seem to happen to a player.

Not that I want those types of non-extensions per se, as the game should stay fun and this would make the game unenjoyable for many people.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the OP experienced bad luck or a bug. I can imagine a new owner wanting "a different brand of football" or "Just bring me Mourinho, whatever the cost". And if I can imagine such a situation, and SI thinks it should on occasion happen, then it might be weighed into the game, though with a very low probability. Which would make it near certainty that at least several players, including some forum members (like OP) have experienced such a thing just due to the large numbers involved. So then it's not a bug per se, though perhaps it's a mis-specification (the software does what was intended, though the intention is wrong). If SI doesn't think it should on occasion happen, it's a bug (the software doesn't do what was intended)

[x42bn6]

Lol you don't give up do you? Calderwood was doing a fine job at Aberdeen and his budget was getting cut each year, that explains the dips in form. You didn't think of that though did you? If you look at Aberdeen's form over the past few seasons, you will see that form has declined since Calderwood left. You don't follow the SPL, me and milner do and yes, you do need to have knowledge of a league to judge on managers/players performances imo. Tbh I'm not really arguing about the bug, just this matter really. Sorry for going slightly off topic mods!

Maybe Calderwood set the rot going?

In that Aberdeen forum, I see a lot of fairly annoyed comments towards him... At best, he certainly wasn't a fantastic manager, as the OP apparently is (in fact, as a two-time Champions League winner, he would be ranked as one of the best in the world).

[roejowland]

Just like the way that you can't ever die (which, let's be honest, really buries any argument that this is some kind of hardcore simulator)

=\ this made me laugh

[Gee_Simpson]

Maybe Calderwood set the rot going?

In that Aberdeen forum, I see a lot of fairly annoyed comments towards him... At best, he certainly wasn't a fantastic manager, as the OP apparently is (in fact, as a two-time Champions League winner, he would be ranked as one of the best in the world).

No he didn't. The Chairman & Mark McGhee set the rot going.

You aren't in a position to comment on this really as you obviously don't follow the SPL. He wasn't a fantastic manager no, but then again it's the SPL we are talking about. He done a good job at Aberdeen, if you ask most Aberdeen fans nowadays they will realise Calderwood did a good job for them compared to where they are now.

[x42bn6]

No he didn't. The Chairman & Mark McGhee set the rot going.

You aren't in a position to comment on this really as you obviously don't follow the SPL. He wasn't a fantastic manager no, but then again it's the SPL we are talking about. He done a good job at Aberdeen, if you ask most Aberdeen fans nowadays they will realise Calderwood did a good job for them compared to where they are now.

Hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

Did they think that at the time? According to that forum link I posted above, it doesn't look like it.

[milnerpoint]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Gee_Simpson]

Hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

Did they think that at the time? According to that forum link I posted above, it doesn't look like it.

Yes because Aberdeen fans have high expectations. Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing but the fact is that Jimmy Calderwood done a good job at Aberdeen. You are saying he didn't, even when you don't follow the SPL and don't really know what you're talking about.

[Gee_Simpson]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Tell me about it!

[FrazT]

This thread has been going for a while so keep it on topic please guys.

[x42bn6]

Yes because Aberdeen fans have high expectations. Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing but the fact is that Jimmy Calderwood done a good job at Aberdeen. You are saying he didn't, even when you don't follow the SPL and don't really know what you're talking about.

At the time of his sacking, Calderwood was not perceived to have done a good job (as supported by that thread I've posted above). It is only with hindsight that he did a good job.

With respect to the OP's situation, we are talking about at the time of his sacking. That a manager is sacked despite being perceived to be doing well. I'm arguing this does not apply to Calderwood.

Tell me, what was so good about Calderwood that he is comparable to the OP, who has won the Champions League twice with a club that has had a barren trophy run immediately prior to his arrival?

Oh, and: "One does not need cancer to analyse its symptoms."

[Gee_Simpson]

At the time of his sacking, Calderwood was not perceived to have done a good job (as supported by that thread I've posted above). It is only with hindsight that he did a good job.

With respect to the OP's situation, we are talking about at the time of his sacking. That a manager is sacked despite being perceived to be doing well. I'm arguing this does not apply to Calderwood.

Tell me, what was so good about Calderwood that he is comparable to the OP, who has won the Champions League twice with a club that has had a barren trophy run immediately prior to his arrival?

Oh, and: "One does not need cancer to analyse its symptoms."[/b]

Yes I do agree with you. I thought you had meant he hadn't done a good job at all with hindsight. A bit of miscommunication there between us I think. That was 1 thread though really, there is a lot of Aberdeen fans that thought he done a good job and even at the time of his sacking, he had done a good job overall and it was an unfair sacking imo.

Tbh I was never comparing Calderwood's reign to the OP's, I was just arguing about the fact he done a good job at Aberdeen!

As for your ending comment, imo that doesn't apply to football. You NEED to have good knowledge of that league to form a worthy opinion.

[Johnjo]

Imagine that you are playing Call of Duty, and in the middle of the game you get a message pop up telling you that your unit is being recalled and that you are being transferred to a logistical supply company as their new head inventory clerk. Not because you were bad at killing people. Just because transfers happen in the military all the time and it is not in any way an inaccurate depiction of life as a professional soldier. Would kind of suck all the fun out of the game you had been playing though wouldn't it?

Ahaha yeah I kind of get what your'e trying to say. You shouldn't have been sacked after winning champions league twice. Just reload an old save until the takeover fails.

[silv3rf0xx]

it is a sim look at ranieri at chelsea only got the 1 season under abramovich as he was waiting for a manager he wanted. ranieri finished second only to arsenal invincibles so not that bad a job

[arsenalthebest]

No way should they remove this feature.

Take over can and do happen, and at times the new owners do sack the Manager. That is life, you can cry about it or go manager a real team like Liverpool.

Liverpool a real team

[Ackter]

Old thread is old.

And closed.