Got fired by new chairman

[mrw072]

This happened to me too in an earlier save game that I was playing. Basically, I started off unemployed with a pretty average starting rep (ex pro - regional level I think) and I was getting offers of interviews from League1/League 2 clubs in the main. Then all of a sudden I saw the Lokomotiv Moscow job available. They were struggling just above the relegation zone so I applied for it, not expecting to get the job. Anyway I landed it and my Chairwoman backed me really well in the transfer market and I did pretty well with the team. Getting them above mid table in the end. Then the second season I started off steadily when she decided to sell up and a new Businessman took over and fired me straight away. It was frustrating but I think it came down to my starting rep and the fact I should never have really been in contention for the job in the first place.

I quite like the feature if I'm honest but would recommend that anyone who manages a 'big' club really needs to start off with the corresponding reputation.

[Faultless]

I think it's a great feature and adds spice to the game.

I tend not to get attached to clubs or players and usually hop teams however.

[forameuss]

George Burley at Hearts is a prime example of how this sort of thing can happen in real life.

He won his first 8 games of the season and was sitting pretty top of the table then out of the blue he was sacked, and the chairman's son was put in charge.

Football is unpredictable and that's why we love it. Sure its really random and unfair but in the end it could happen.

Which is actually a very good example. The only time I've seen this mentioned in FM is when you get a tycoon or consortium owner. Now these are usually pumping a lot of money into the club, for little benefit in the short-term. They own the club. They own you essentially, and if they want to sack you they're perfectly within their rights to do so. Any time it's been mentioned in my saves, I've survived it. To not survive it, you're clearly not achieving as much as the new board believes you should be.

In the situation you mentioned, the chairman was Mad Vlad Romanov wasn't it? He was a tycoon owner, notably eccentric, and ended up coming close to ruining the club.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the feature. Realistic based on the whims of someone with so much money now being in charge.

[Federico]

Please, don't bring extreme border-line situations as something "that could happen". Everything could happen, but I think sometimes "reality" is confused with "game enjoyement" and this is something that scares me.

Where's the enjoyement to be sacked in such unfair way? Is it really fun to be fired in these unfair circumstances?

I'm sorry but I can't imagine you all jumping from the chair yelling "Yay I was fired by a mad chairman after 2 promotions in a row and now I'm unemployed and nobody his hiring me, but yeah I'm happy because it's realistic!!"

Seriously?

[Lenzar]

[video=youtube;sC75aU47GRk]

I think that sums it up perfectly.

[Earnie is God!]

I can see both sides of the argument here.

I think it's a decent addition because it does happen in real life and we all want this game to be as realistic as possible.

However, perhaps the parameters need to be tweaked within the game so it's not as harsh.

Not so much with the OP's situation but more so with the Orient manager as that seems far less realistic.

With the OP, it's possible that an ambitious board comes in and wants a much more experienced manager to take the helm and guide them to CL qualification rather than a manager with just 18 months worth of experience.

There have been a number of examples in real life where similar has happened; not perhaps for a surprise team in the top 4 but there are a few mentioned above such as Brentford.

[Hilly27]

Not sure if it fits the argument but Heynkes at Bayern got sacked, pushed, whatever, having won everything including the Champions League in his last season, so that Bayern could get Guardiola, who, of course, would win the Champions League for Bayern EVERY year!!! But of course Heynkes was a grey old bloke, and Pep is a young, swarthy, handsome type with a nice line in long coats. No doubt he will go to Man City and win the Champions League for them every year as well.

[Federico]

Jupp Heynckes resigned and retired. So no, this has nothing to do with the current situation

[Hilly27]

Jupp Heynckes resigned and retired. So no, this has nothing to do with the current situation

Not sure he actually wanted too. I think he was presented with a 'fait accompli', if that's the right phrase. My English isn't much better either

[Federico]

Mm you raised some doubts in me now

Anyway, this is a border line situation.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11890/8407221/bayern-munich-coach-jupp-heynckes-decision-to-retire-was-not-entirely-voluntary

According to skysport he eventually decided to quit after 1 year, so I think it was a kind of "mutual agreement".

[Hilly27]

"Look here Coach, Guardiola is the flavour of the month, so we're going to hire him, and as you are an old grey bloke nobody will give a toss".

Fast forward to 2016

"Look here Manuel, Guardiola is the flavour of the month, so we're going to hire him, and as you are an old grey bloke nobody will give a toss".

[Marabak]

For everyone saying that it is realistic and should be in the game, can you pay my contract termination clause as well, to make it even more realistic?

[louissiscool]

Im having to agree with a few people on here that this doesn't really add anything to the game potentially destroys a good save through no fault of your own.

[themadsheep2001]

For everyone saying that it is realistic and should be in the game, can you pay my contract termination clause as well, to make it even more realistic?

Why would anyone saying that pay your termination clause?

[CityAndColour]

And just like that - my very enjoyable Curzon Ashton save ruined by a board takeover/sacking, after getting them promoted and establishing them around the fringes of the playoffs (finishing 9th, 9th and 8th at time of sacking), despite being by far the smallest club in the Conference and working against financial constraints.

My first one!

[Marabak]

Why would anyone saying that pay your termination clause?

Evidently the winky face went woosh over your head.

My comment was a tongue in cheek referral that, in real-life when managers are sacked by incoming chairman, there is often a financial penalty to the club and the manager at least gets something out of it. The same issue in a game built for enjoyment doesn't reward the manager in any way, so if people want the game to be as realistic as possible, I should be given financial compensation when I am sacked

[El Presidente]

I have had this before. Gone up through the leagues with a rags to riches story only to be booted out by an incoming chairman on the verge of yet another league table.

Therefore I will never trust chairmen again and use the "Become Unsackable" cheat on the in-game editor. It's the only one I use but I wish I didn't have to. Never again will I put in 20+ seasons work only to be given a golden handshake and replaced by a nobody!

I should also point out that I have logged a few thousand hours in FM since this possibility was introduced and only ONCE did it happen.

[calcal]

Happened to me, Realistic to a point, but very unnecessary and stupid to put in the game, I'm sure nobody would even notice if it was taken out!

I was managing Corby Town on a previous version, Took them from the Southern Prem up to League 2, into the play offs...Won in the semi final and 2 days before the play off final, new chairman, Sacks me and hires Jens Lehmann lol Completely ruined my save and i didn't touch FM till the following version!

[themadsheep2001]

Evidently the winky face went woosh over your head.

My comment was a tongue in cheek referral that, in real-life when managers are sacked by incoming chairman, there is often a financial penalty to the club and the manager at least gets something out of it. The same issue in a game built for enjoyment doesn't reward the manager in any way, so if people want the game to be as realistic as possible, I should be given financial compensation when I am sacked

It didn't go over my head, it just wasn't relevant in any way. Asking the wrong people to compensate you

[smoelf]

Maybe future editions could add an option to turn it off, like with masked attributes? People enjoy a game in different ways, and for the people who do a one-club-one-save kind of game, it really isn't enjoyable to have it shut down by a random event you have no control over, even if it is realistic. For the majority of my saves it would be an unnecessary feature (and likely on I would try to circumvent with the editor (unsackable, anyone?)) but for some saves the realism it adds is absolutely essential.

[Majick]

I have had this before. Gone up through the leagues with a rags to riches story only to be booted out by an incoming chairman on the verge of yet another league table.

Therefore I will never trust chairmen again and use the "Become Unsackable" cheat on the in-game editor. It's the only one I use but I wish I didn't have to. Never again will I put in 20+ seasons work only to be given a golden handshake and replaced by a nobody!

Bumping and quoting this. I'm at Stevenage, and in 7 seasons have taken them from League 2 to the PL, won League 2, League 1 and the Championship, won the League Cup, qualified for the Champions League, reached 2 other League Cup finals and the Europa League final. In real life, I'd be regarded as a modern-day Brian Clough - untouchable for the incredible breadth and depth of achievements at a club where I couldn't spend money until season 4. In the game, I'm at the mercy of some no-name suit who's told me that "the intention was always to replace me as manager". I can't plan for next season, because I can't bring in players, because my position is under threat. The takeover took weeks to complete, the sword of Damocles is hanging over me, and all the decent released youth players are being snatched up, harming my ability to build for the future.

It may happen in real life, but so do doping, bungs, bribes, corrupt officials and chairmen using the manager as a puppet (at Real Madrid most obviously, but other clubs too) and none of them are in the game. FM is a simulation, but there still has to be a degree of enjoyment about it, and introducing a feature that isn't fun, is arbitrary, has little or no relevance to the real world and simply would never happen in real life... No, it's a nonsense. It's the equivalent of an end-game (or mid-game!) boss who can't be killed because the developers decided so, but you can't win unless you kill them.

I'm inclined to use the editor to become unsackable. If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. *That's* making the game more realistic - Rupert Murdoch wouldn't have sacked Alex Ferguson, the horse breeders didn't sack him, the Glazers didn't sack him; Why should Abdulla Al-Humaidi be able to sack me?

[thomit]

The ongoing debate between people who want a GAME and people who want a SIMULATION. I think eventually SI need to make 2 versions of FM if they want to keep both parties happy.

[HUNT3R]

Why should Abdulla Al-Humaidi be able to sack me?

Because the team is now in the CL and the board wants a more reputable manager in charge with CL experience. It was mentioned higher up. Now, if they didn't replace you with a higher profile manager - then there's a bug in there.

[Federico]

Because the team is now in the CL and the board wants a more reputable manager in charge with CL experience. It was mentioned higher up. Now, if they didn't replace you with a higher profile manager - then there's a bug in there.

So let's say if I bring a low profile side from north conference to Champions League preliminary rounds, and a new chairmain gets the control of the club, is it a bug if he doesn't sack me for a higher profile manager?

Sorry maybe I misunderstood your point.

[Spurs08]

The ongoing debate between people who want a GAME and people who want a SIMULATION. I think eventually SI need to make 2 versions of FM if they want to keep both parties happy.

Yes... it's called Football Manager Touch.

[thomit]

Yes... it's called Football Manager Touch.

Obviously, the "gamey" fraction are not entirely satisfied with FMT. They play the "proper" FM instead, and then come and complaint about it being too realistic. So it looks like FMT isn't good enough.

Edit: The best option would be - in my opinion - to let people choose their level of realism within FM, as one game, simply opting out of certain "realism" areas of their choice. But it is my understanding - from previous debates - that it is very difficult to make different parts of FM be totally independent of each other, making such a "pick and choose" option very difficult to acheive. A "no sacking at board takeovers" should be fairly easy to implement though, shouldn't it?

[loklokno123]

That's why i save when there's takeover.

However i rarely experienced successful takeover

[HUNT3R]

So let's say if I bring a low profile side from north conference to Champions League preliminary rounds, and a new chairmain gets the control of the club, is it a bug if he doesn't sack me for a higher profile manager?

Sorry maybe I misunderstood your point.

No. My point is that IF you get sacked, it'll be because they want a higher profile manager in charge. You know, a Guardiola type who has experience in the CL, winning it even, etc. If they don't higher a higher profile manager, then what was the point of you getting sacked? THAT would be the bug.

You getting sacked after a board takeover is rare enough, so the fact THAT it can happen isn't a bug.

[Federico]

Ok I understand now, but still in my opinion even the smallest chance to be sacked after a board takeover, regardless you're a successfull manager, is extremely harsh considering we're talking about a game. This is a bug for me.

Being sacked because of poor results is enough realism to me.

[HUNT3R]

It can't be a bug if it's working as intended.

[Federico]

You're right, I rephrase: this implementation should be defenitely removed in my opinion.

[Smaldini]

It almost happened to me a couple of weeks ago. After a very successful 4 seasons with United, a Consortium tried taking over halfway through the season & they were planning on replacing me with Giggs (who is still my assistant manager). It got to the stage where I was under transfer embargo, but fortunately it fell through just before the January window opened. I'm in March now and haven't heard anything about a takeover since.

If it had gone through I probably would've come on here and started my own thread complaining about it. However, it is realistic, so I don't think it should be removed from the game. In future games, I think a new owner who intends to replace you should talk to you first and give you the option to ask them to reconsider.

[Spurs08]

It almost happened to me a couple of weeks ago. After a very successful 4 seasons with United, a Consortium tried taking over halfway through the season & they were planning on replacing me with Giggs (who is still my assistant manager). It got to the stage where I was under transfer embargo, but fortunately it fell through just before the January window opened. I'm in March now and haven't heard anything about a takeover since.

If it had gone through I probably would've come on here and started my own thread complaining about it. However, it is realistic, so I don't think it should be removed from the game. In future games, I think a new owner who intends to replace you should talk to you first and give you the option to ask them to reconsider.

Note that at that stage it's just media speculation: far from guarenteed that it would have actually happened if the takeover had been successful.

[StevieWard]

I think its a realistic feature & it should be kept in. People have already mentioned Leeds.

At the end of the day - with modern football how it is, lets be honest: who would actually be a manager? The average life span of an EPL manager barring a few exceptions is maybe a season - a season and a half now the rate clubs change their managers. If a new owner comes in & doesn't like you or decides he wants someone different - he can just sack you & pay off your contract, if he has other plans or ideas your record doesn't come into it.

i could be wrong with the exact timing & details fo these but there are real life examples:

Jocky Scott years ago had Dundee top of the Scottish 1st diviosn, think they were unbeaten in their first 12 games & they just got rid. George Burley has also been mentioned.

Admittedly it wasn't straight away, but did the new regime at Man City not boot Mark Hughes out when he was still doing ok for them & replace with Mancini?

When Abramovich took over Chelsea & pretty much immiediatly sacked Ranierei & brought in Mourinho?

[thomit]

I have started several saves as a manager with Arsenal, and in many of these there's a change of owner and board after one or two seasons, and each time the board will "consider my position". A transfer embargo is the default then; they don't want me buy or sell any if they're not sure they're going to keep me. However, every time this has happened, I keep my job. Why? Because 1: I have done well AND 2: I chose the proper level of experience when I started managing Arsenal. They wouldn't have hired a guy that up to now only had experience in .... lorry-driving. When they hired Wenger, he was a total unknown in Britain, but still had plenty of experience, both nationally and internationally. He didn't come from managing pub teams. But Wengers rep and experience at the time was about as "low" as a club like Arsenal would have dared to even consider. I don't think they will consider anyone with less than top level rep and experience when he leaves.

All this is quite allright. If I had been sacked, I would either have gone on managing another club, started a new save, or simply added myself straight back as Arsenal manager in the existing save. I really can't see the big issue here, plenty of ways to cheat a little.

If you want to start at the bottom with very little experience and work your way up to be the greatest manager in history, then start with chosing a club that would have hired someone like you in the first place, as your first job. Then work you way up to one day (hopefully) managing the club you support, and then take that club to new heights of fame and fortune. That's how to play this game in a realistic fashion, a this is a game that is very much biased towards realism rather than fantasy. If you don't like that, the game allows you to play differently, but will sometimes be harsher with you if you stray away from realistic behaviour - like starting at a big rep club with virtually no experience. You are allowed to start with any experience you like, it's the game's way of offering people a harder challenge. But when the game once in a while dishes out the penalties for this harder challenge, don't run to mummy crying. Sometimes that will be in the form of a much swifter sacking if you're not doing that well, or sometimes a new board will be getting rid of the lorry-driver presently managing their club.

Getting scrutinized when there's a new board and owner is realistic, it happens to real managers from time to time, and it should therefore happen in the game. If you lose your job, go find another one. Playing FM, you are pretending to be responsible, grown up managers. Losing their job - sometimes very unfairly - is part of grown-up life. Now behave like that. If you can't or won't, the game plus it's pre-game or in-game editors gives you plenty of opportunities to cheat. If you think there's too much realism in the game, try FMT; it might just be more your cup of tea. Or play a football manager game that is more fantasy than realism. They exist, you know.

[CityAndColour]

Surely including a "can be sacked after a board takeover" tickbox when you start the game would be a good solution?

Those who don't want to potentially risk a long term save being ruined don't have to, those who want it there due to realism can. Everyone wins.

[Federico]

Nobody said it should be removed because it's unrealistic.

We're talking about the enjoyment of the game. What's the point on spending 10 years over a side to be unfairly sacked after a takeover? I'm sorry but in my opinion there's more frustration than enjoyment with this. So please no more examples on how this happens in real life, because we know it happens in real life and we know there should be a difference from real life and game at some point.

[brawler]

I have had this before. Gone up through the leagues with a rags to riches story only to be booted out by an incoming chairman on the verge of yet another league table.

Therefore I will never trust chairmen again and use the "Become Unsackable" cheat on the in-game editor. It's the only one I use but I wish I didn't have to. Never again will I put in 20+ seasons work only to be given a golden handshake and replaced by a nobody!

I should also point out that I have logged a few thousand hours in FM since this possibility was introduced and only ONCE did it happen.

Think i will be joining you on this one if i get the sack after a takeover. Do you need the in-game editor to select this or can you use just the standard editor?

[noikeee]

Surely including a "can be sacked after a board takeover" tickbox when you start the game would be a good solution?

Those who don't want to potentially risk a long term save being ruined don't have to, those who want it there due to realism can. Everyone wins.

Not a bad idea. Though there's a limit to how many of these settings you want to go through when setting up every game...

[Federico]

How many? 2 only:

No sack on board takeover

No press conferences

:):)

[grade]

It didn't go over my head, it just wasn't relevant in any way. Asking the wrong people to compensate you

You know he was being ironic, right?

Surely including a "can be sacked after a board takeover" tickbox when you start the game would be a good solution?

Those who don't want to potentially risk a long term save being ruined don't have to, those who want it there due to realism can. Everyone wins.

I think that is a solution for this issue.

However It can open the doors of other people suggesting other options as well.

It can't be a bug if it's working as intended.

It shouldn't be a bug, because I believe should not be in the game in the first place. You can't simply add features because they are realistic. You need to ponder if it adds to enjoyment of the game. As this thread shows to majority it doesn't like it, because many people that play the game want to play the team they love and many that means bring a team from a lower level leagues. Sure it is something that is rare to happen, but when it happens (and sometimes happens when you are more then 5 seasons in the save), it will not be something you will cheer on. In fact as shown here ruins the people's save games. Sure some people will move on, some don't. One friend of mine happen that on FM15, he quit the save and FM altogether. He says: "I will not waste my free time on game that adds features just because. If a game adds that level frustration to my live, it is not game worth my time."

[santy001]

I actually think that this feature is a good one but still a bit too clean cut in its current method.

I think if the incoming owner wants to get rid of you it should trigger more a case of ramping up expectations and philosophy demands, with a much more stringent measure of success against it. It's entirely reasonable that a chairman just may not like your style and if it conflicts with their own preferences should ultimately be looking for an excuse to get rid of you.

It's still far, far too easy to keep your job if a chairman wants to go in a different direction.

[themadsheep2001]

On the contrary, they can add things because they are realistic, because it's an aspect of real life that they want to replicate. Some aspects they dont, this they do.

What's often lost among users is that SI don't simply exist to create stuff at our whim. They get to implement their own ideas too. If someone can't move on because they get fired in a very rare, realistic manner, then I suggest they either save frequently or go play something else.

[themadsheep2001]

I actually think that this feature is a good one but still a bit too clean cut in its current method.

I think if the incoming owner wants to get rid of you it should trigger more a case of ramping up expectations and philosophy demands, with a much more stringent measure of success against it. It's entirely reasonable that a chairman just may not like your style and if it conflicts with their own preferences should ultimately be looking for an excuse to get rid of you.

It's still far, far too easy to keep your job if a chairman wants to go in a different direction.

Overall this game is far more easy going on you than real life would be.

[grade]

On the contrary, they can add things because they are realistic, because it's an aspect of real life that they want to replicate. Some aspects they dont, this they do.

What's often lost among users is that SI don't simply exist to create stuff at our whim. They get to implement their own ideas too. If someone can't move on because they get fired in a very rare, realistic manner, then I suggest they either save frequently or go play something else.

What is being said here, is simply not adding a feature just because it happens in real life. It is a simulation that mimics life, but it is a game nonetheless. if someone invest a lot of time in this game, to have their save game ruin by a rare feature, can be frustrating. I see the point my friend makes.

This I'm sure is very debatable, because I can see points for both sides, despite being on the side that this feature can hurt the people experience for this game. This is coming from someone never experience this, because, 1) I usually play in portugal, so no boards takeovers.

[santy001]

I don't think I've seen an official post from SI for what the FM game is meant to be. Ultimately though, it seems as though its meant to portray the footballing world and you are getting the chance to step into that. It means once you step into it, there isn't some great destiny before you, there isn't some prodigal son line you're meant to be going down. You aren't the chosen one to reshape the world of football, you aren't the downtrodden rising up against all odds. You are a manager, you are just as meaningful and just as meaningless as every other manager. You can have a 30 year save where you never win a thing, you can have a 30 year save where you win everything. There isn't any objective in FM as a game beyond what you set yourself, you get to quantify your own success and performance as you deem fit.

However, the situation is very much that others judge you as well, and that is what FM brings to pass in situations like this. You're navigating your way through a game world in which you see fit, but you don't dictate the terms of this game world. This means that despite being a great club players will get unhappy at your decisions, even if you win everything. This means that chairman can choose to get rid of you. These pitfalls ultimately contribute towards making it more enjoyable though.

[themadsheep2001]

What is being said here, is simply not adding a feature just because it happens in real life. It is a simulation that mimics life, but it is a game nonetheless. if someone invest a lot of time in this game, to have their save game ruin by a rare feature, can be frustrating. I see the point my friend makes.

This I'm sure is very debatable, because I can see points for both sides, despite being on the side that this feature can hurt the people experience for this game. This is coming from someone never experience this, because, 1) I usually play in portugal, so no boards takeovers.

It's game that bases itself on real life as santy001 said, with all the success and pitfalls that come with it.

[Neil Brock]

I think santy001 sums it up rather well, certainly from my perspective. If you do get sacked there is the option to make yourself unsackable or create a new manager though, so it's not like it's impossible to prevent this.

Everyone is entitled to play however they want, but given how many customisation options there are already in the game, the more we add, the more for a newcomer the game just looks too difficult to navigate. If possibly we'd need to start presenting less options for those casual users and perhaps have a secondary area for those who would consider themselves a bit more 'hardcore' who would look for an addition like the one raised above.

[eriktous]

This is coming from someone never experience this, because, 1) I usually play in portugal, so no boards takeovers.

Huh, since when? I've been playing in the Portuguese National Championship on FM15 and messages about board takeovers were forming the majority of my inbox.

[Federico]

It seems to me there's a little bit of confusion here.

I myself, as much as the others complaining for this feature I think, am not asking to be unsackable. Being unsackable means being in a muffled cage, ripping out that chilly at the back a game could give sometimes.

Being sacked after a Board turnover is total different thing in my opinion, that has nothing to do with you getting bad results or achieving nothing despise high expectations.

Answers like "go playing something else" don't help at all for the benefit of discussion. We're talking about something unfair. It happens in real life, but whatever! I want to enjoy the game and if I'm bad at it, ok I'm ready to accept the consequences. But throwing out 10 years of career just for a whim? This is not acceptable for me.

Neil, you can customize the game but:

1) You have to purchase the "unsackable" content

or

2) You have to unlock it

or

3) You have to use the editor in order to prevent any future frustration

or

4) Create a new... what? a new manager? Go away!

So we definitely need to work this out for some time... not a big help.

I wouldn't differentiate players from casual to hardcore in this case. I don't consider myself a casual player, but I was honestly done, I'm sorry for the terms I used and I'm going to use, with conversations, interactions and press conferences. Really, there's too much of them and I'm stressed enough at work already I then moved to FMT and at the moment I can count several hundreds of hours of play on FMT. Does this make of me a casual gamer? Mm, maybe yes compared to someone here around

It's great to simulate real life, but bring in game what's good from it.