sosasoser Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Am I the only one who laughed at OP's story? I mean I feel for the guy, but I find it funny and awesome that it happened. In this version of FM my interactions with the board have been nothing more than a yearly meeting with me asking them to do things that they always agree to do. A little bit of back and forth with the board from time to time would be interesting. I've put star players in the U18s just to let them rot because they refused to fire an agent who pissed me off in contract negotiations. In real life, I think a board might question that a bit. As for what is in it for the player: realism and entertainment value. I do think there should have been a little bit more interaction for the OP. He should have had a chance to talk to the board and convince them to let him do what he wants. Maybe options that include: -I'm the manager. I demand to pick my on team. -I need to play the player so he'll return to form. -I need him to give a rest for the first 11. -I'm try to showcase him a bit so he can be sold off. -I quit, you interfering twit. You get the idea. Generally, I think it's a nice little feature. It's always so easy to get the board to do what you want that a little bit of occasional push back is welcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUNT3R Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 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. I don't know if it's what everyone wants, but I want it. The key issue for me is, does it happen too often? I've played over 2000 hours for more than one chairman. Not once have they interfered. If they interfered like this often, the forum would have had a meltdown, but I don't see anyone even mentioning being asked to play/not play someone. Based on that, I'm going to have to assume that it's rare and I'm happy with it then. It would be nice to get a warning that he might fire you, but if the chairman is that interfering that he forces you to play/not play someone, I'm going to assume he's like an Abramovich - not always rational and quick to pull the trigger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
krillon007 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Am I the only one who laughed at OP's story? I mean I feel for the guy, but I find it funny and awesome that it happened. In this version of FM my interactions with the board have been nothing more than a yearly meeting with me asking them to do things that they always agree to do. A little bit of back and forth with the board from time to time would be interesting. I've put star players in the U18s just to let them rot because they refused to fire an agent who pissed me off in contract negotiations. In real life, I think a board might question that a bit. As for what is in it for the player: realism and entertainment value.I do think there should have been a little bit more interaction for the OP. He should have had a chance to talk to the board and convince them to let him do what he wants. Maybe options that include: -I'm the manager. I demand to pick my on team. -I need to play the player so he'll return to form. -I need him to give a rest for the first 11. -I'm try to showcase him a bit so he can be sold off. -I quit, you interfering twit. You get the idea. Generally, I think it's a nice little feature. It's always so easy to get the board to do what you want that a little bit of occasional push back is welcome. No, you're not the only one. It did make me smile but I have never seen anything like this in FM. I do get warnings (not that I could get the sack) when a player plays particularly badly but I still keep him in the team. In fact, whenever a player is playing exceptionally badly or I've made a poor signing, the media also questions me on whether the situation will get better. That and it turns up in the monthly confidence update. I just consider them as warnings, drop the player for a couple of games and get on with the game. Maybe the Oldham chairman was just having a bad day, and thought it'd be fun to fool around with the manager... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChelseaFan Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's the other way around, but the words "Fernando", "Torres", "Roman" and "Abramovich" spring to mind. Classical example of someone who reads too many back pages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavo01 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Personally I would like to see this option implemented more often in real life. Maybe, just maybe, Man Utd might ditch that cart horse called Ashley Young!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjohn1947 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 let me close the thread now, thanks for all the replies. I was given a warning at the start of the season , the player wasn't playing to bad. and I was down to bare bones at one point so I had to play him, I will go back and start again, will listen to the chairman next time and see if I get sacked for not winning. cheers everyone... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norfair Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 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 bs that it's even coded into the game, stealing valuable dev time that could have been used in a much more productive way. It's the same with the insta-sacking upon a board takeover. It might be something that could happen irl but you know what? There are a million things that could and do happen irl that arent coded into the game simply because it wouldnt add any, or very little, to the gaming experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameuss Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's bs that it's even coded into the game, stealing valuable dev time that could have been used in a much more productive way. It's the same with the insta-sacking upon a board takeover. It might be something that could happen irl but you know what? There are a million things that could and do happen irl that arent coded into the game simply because it wouldnt add any, or very little, to the gaming experience. ^^^ Has been "insta-sacked" upon board takeover before Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUNT3R Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's bs that it's even coded into the game, stealing valuable dev time that could have been used in a much more productive way. It's the same with the insta-sacking upon a board takeover. It might be something that could happen irl but you know what? There are a million things that could and do happen irl that arent coded into the game simply because it wouldnt add any, or very little, to the gaming experience. This doesn't add to the gaming experience? It does for me. Anyway, we've had a few worried people creating threads about them possibly getting fired after the board takes over, but they all been fine because they haven't been doing badly. So getting the sack is also rare, imo, and therefore in line with real life and perfectly fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.