Got fired by new chairman

[Maw74]

I can see why this is a big problem for some especially if they are doing a one club save, yes they could just make another manager and take control of the club again or use editor or unlockable, not really a great idea to push something people have to pay for to get around the issue of a harsh sacking though.

I can also see the reason it has been included in the game and if doing a journeyman type save it could give good incentive to try and get one over on a club that sacked you like that.

Can somebody please define the difference between Casual and Hardcore?

[forameuss]

Can somebody please define the difference between Casual and Hardcore?

It's just a way for not very interesting people to feel better about themselves. Oh, don't listen to him, he's just a casual, not like us hardcores! You either play the game or you don't, no need for any labelling.

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.

It's not unfair. If we're going down that route, then I can say that every sacking I've had is unfair, because I disagree with them.

Every time I've had a board takeover, I've had the news item saying I might be let go. And I can honestly say that not once have I been sacked because of it. It seems a perfectly fair mechanic to me - if there's more negatives to your management than positives, whether that be from a rep perspective or performance or promises, then you'll probably be let go. And why shouldn't you be? If there's more positives then you'll be kept on. I get that it might be frustrating, but it's hardly "unfair". Unfair would be having no reason behind it whatsoever. Given that some people don't get sacked and some do, then there's clearly a function in place - you fell on the wrong side of it.

[santy001]

I don't think its wrong or a negative thing to label yourself as hardcore or a casual. I swing between both depending upon what I'm feeling.

For me a network game needs to be casual, this means using FMT, not having to worry about squad registration rules, not having to worry about FFP etc. At the same time, quick games that are just for messing around with tactics and such also need to be casual.

For my much slower paced solo-play game I'll be much more in the hardcore side of things taking the game in full and dealing with the bumps and challenges that come with it.

The main differentiation is that a hardcore player tends to want the full challenge of the game for better or worse, a casual player tends to want the game but with a little more cushioning. If you don't want the game to frustrate you, if you don't want the game to get you annoyed then in general with any game you tend to fall into the casual mindset. Having all the frustrations and set-backs in your way but still overcoming them can be equally enjoyable if you're into a hardcore approach to the game.

I would actually say trying to deny there is multiple mindsets and preferences for approaching a game is more of a negative in this regard.

I made a suggestion on the FMT board in the wishlist thread that I think it needs to become a modular element that essentially lets you pick and choose what elements you want as full-fat, FMT or FM-mobile. It's a hell of a huge job almost certainly, but I think the cherry-picking of aspects enables SI to create a game that can be more tailored to individuals wants and preferences.

[forameuss]

I don't think its wrong or a negative thing to label yourself as hardcore or a casual. I swing between both depending upon what I'm feeling.

For me a network game needs to be casual, this means using FMT, not having to worry about squad registration rules, not having to worry about FFP etc. At the same time, quick games that are just for messing around with tactics and such also need to be casual.

For my much slower paced solo-play game I'll be much more in the hardcore side of things taking the game in full and dealing with the bumps and challenges that come with it.

The main differentiation is that a hardcore player tends to want the full challenge of the game for better or worse, a casual player tends to want the game but with a little more cushioning. If you don't want the game to frustrate you, if you don't want the game to get you annoyed then in general with any game you tend to fall into the casual mindset. Having all the frustrations and set-backs in your way but still overcoming them can be equally enjoyable if you're into a hardcore approach to the game.

I would actually say trying to deny there is multiple mindsets and preferences for approaching a game is more of a negative in this regard.

I made a suggestion on the FMT board in the wishlist thread that I think it needs to become a modular element that essentially lets you pick and choose what elements you want as full-fat, FMT or FM-mobile. It's a hell of a huge job almost certainly, but I think the cherry-picking of aspects enables SI to create a game that can be more tailored to individuals wants and preferences.

Maybe it's more the use of it I disagree with. It's not an FM only thing, gaming in general really. It's used as a way to separate people, and make the less interesting ones feel more important because they're playing the game the "right way", and the others are playing it the "wrong way"

[Neil Brock]

Neither a casual player or hardcore gamer is 'right or wrong'. How I'd distinguish them is a casual gamer will generally pick up and play. Won't make too many customisations, will pick a team and away they go.

A more 'hardcore' gamer is more likely to use say editor files, custom add-ons and tweak numerous settings via the in-game preferences. They're more likely to engage with challenges (such as dafuge's) or put rules on themselves about how they play the game (such as LLM).

That's how I see it. In my opinion people who generally frequent these forums are far more likely to fall into the a hardcore group. They are more likely to engage in a 100+ post discussion about whether whether a manager getting sacking post board-takeover should be in the game or not.

[samuelawachie]

But Mr Neil, even though I'm all for realism, I would be genuinely mortified if post takeover sack happens in my save. I rarely go past 5 years, but due to my dislike of FM 2015 and 16, I stuck with 14. I'm now nearing the point where it's all newgens.. And I'm so invested in that save. I've skipped work for it, class, church, feigned sickness, etc. It's like my escape. I take the game so seriously, never cheat, watch every match in full.. Like i could go on, but you get what I mean. I've already had one takeover, of course they loved me and I'm still at the helm. That is now my team. I bought those players. The club is built in my image. If I were to lose all that coz of a takeover sack not related to performance.. Oh,.. The consequences would be too devastating, ghastly and unbearable to discuss.

Additionally, I've got the editor and I view adding myself back as manager, would be less realistic than a tick box when starting up the save. Given the two choices, I'd choose the box. Just something to note for future versions.

[HUNT3R]

But Mr Neil, even though I'm all for realism, I would be genuinely mortified if post takeover sack happens in my save. I rarely go past 5 years, but due to my dislike of FM 2015 and 16, I stuck with 14. I'm now nearing the point where it's all newgens.. And I'm so invested in that save. I've skipped work for it, class, church, feigned sickness, etc. It's like my escape. I take the game so seriously, never cheat, watch every match in full.. Like i could go on, but you get what I mean. I've already had one takeover, of course they loved me and I'm still at the helm. That is now my team. I bought those players. The club is built in my image. If I were to lose all that coz of a takeover sack not related to performance.. Oh,.. The consequences would be too devastating, ghastly and unbearable to discuss.

Sounds like you have the reputation to stay anyway. There's no reason to sack you to chase bigger dreams with highly rated managers, because you are one of them.

[samuelawachie]

Sounds like you have the reputation to stay anyway. There's no reason to sack you to chase bigger dreams with highly rated managers, because you are one of them.

But being human, I can feel the pain of those this has happened to. Especially if they were that into the save like me..

[Federico]

Every time I've had a board takeover, I've had the news item saying I might be let go. And I can honestly say that not once have I been sacked because of it. It seems a perfectly fair mechanic to me - if there's more negatives to your management than positives, whether that be from a rep perspective or performance or promises, then you'll probably be let go. And why shouldn't you be? If there's more positives then you'll be kept on. I get that it might be frustrating, but it's hardly "unfair". Unfair would be having no reason behind it whatsoever. Given that some people don't get sacked and some do, then there's clearly a function in place - you fell on the wrong side of it.

Ok this is what happened to you, but you're forgetting what's happened to the OP

[Delvi]

SI should keep the things as they are now, it's enough to fix mechanisms related to manager reputation and job offers.

If you're skilled enough to bring for instance Wycombe Wanderers from League 2 to Premier League, than your reputation should increase enormously: no new board should have the wish to sack a legend of the club with such results obtained during the years.

On top of that, managers like Ancelotti or Guardiola should ask wages out of reach for a club like WW, even if they would play in PL.

The real problem is that reputation and transfer market for managers are broken and this not only in FM 2016, but also in previous games.

[ac13]

Bayern Munich are the best team in the league and hearts were second best. So both were pretty much doing as expected. That's not the same as someone doing way better than expected for 18 months and getting sacked.

[grade]

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.

In Portugal, there aren't any board takeovers like in England. There isn't owners, but presidents, that are elected by the associates (is the right term?) of the club. How many times the president is elected depends on each club and their electoral regulations, but normally there isn't a limit. The financial aspect of the club normally needs to be approved by the associates on an assembly, which also depends the regulations of the club.

So there shouldn't be any owners who buy the club and the owner do what they like. Here most things (aside from managerial stuff of the team) needs to be approve by the associates. for example SL Benfica needed the approval of the associates to build the new stadium in 2002ish for 2004 Euro.

Who are the associates? Well everyone who is willing to pay a monthly fee to be an associate. But what you might have seen, is not aboard takeover, but an actual election process of new list (president and his board) being elected.

[grade]

Neither a casual player or hardcore gamer is 'right or wrong'. How I'd distinguish them is a casual gamer will generally pick up and play. Won't make too many customisations, will pick a team and away they go.

A more 'hardcore' gamer is more likely to use say editor files, custom add-ons and tweak numerous settings via the in-game preferences. They're more likely to engage with challenges (such as dafuge's) or put rules on themselves about how they play the game (such as LLM).

That's how I see it. In my opinion people who generally frequent these forums are far more likely to fall into the a hardcore group. They are more likely to engage in a 100+ post discussion about whether whether a manager getting sacking post board-takeover should be in the game or not.

In my view, there is no casual player or hardcore player. There is no definition of the both. My definition is not your definition and seriously it should be dropped. In your view i should be hardcore gamer, but i'm not... by very long shot. Yes I use the editor a lot and in the game I'm very minimalist and even going against many of suggestion and indications what should be do in the game. I'm very, very plug and play on this game. I'm frequent lurker of these forums and occasionally post here and I consider myself a casual gamer.

No, those who play FMC/FMT are not more casual gamers then those who play Full FM. An FMT player can have more hours of play then a lot of people playing full FM. Does that make him casual player or hardcore player? I think this sort of labelling should be stopped immediately. We are all gamers, period! The only definitions that should exist is gamers and pro-gamers (who are these? for me are those that make a living playing games, those that go to national and international competitions).

As for the focus of this thread. This feature should not be in the game. But since it is, it needs to be tweaked out. I for one agree that manager should be replaced, if he is doing badly and its hurting the position of the club and the maintain on the current division is in jeopardy. But if manager like the OP said, he is able to bring a team from the Championship and on the second season he is in 4th place when this happens, and being replaced by a more reputable manager, it defies any logic. The philosophy of new board and the current manager, should not matter in this case. Why? Because any board would maintain a manager that is being successful. All boards care for one thing, being successful on main division, which in terms means one thing, more money for them. The new board cannot see the future, so the benefit of the doubt should be in place. Either put the new board give the manager an period of experience or wait for the season to end or the fans boycotting the new board in favour to maintain the manager at the club.

As it is, is not okay, not by a long shot. It is one of those features that should be really thought out if this can potentially lose a costumer, for the sake of realism or not. I'm also not for the removal of a feature (the exception is Press Conferences... hate it), but this needs to be corrected for the benefit of gaming experience of this game.

Again there should be a balance between realism and gaming experience.

SaveSave

[thomit]

There is a balance. You just don't agree with it.

[themadsheep2001]

There is a balance. You just don't agree with it.

Pretty much this. There are so many other aspect of real life management that could make the game infinitely harder (and frustrating) SI choose not to implement those as closely, or at all.

If someone is going to quite because they don't like a feature, then let them quit.

You will never please everyone with a development, so you go for best case scenario inline with what you want to achieve.

[Robioto]

This is something I wouls reload the game for, yes it's realistic, but to me it's not what I call fun, in anyway at all.

[grade]

Pretty much this. There are so many other aspect of real life management that could make the game infinitely harder (and frustrating) SI choose not to implement those as closely, or at all.

If someone is going to quite because they don't like a feature, then let them quit.

You will never please everyone with a development, so you go for best case scenario inline with what you want to achieve.

All I'm saying is stating my opinion and giving an example. My opinion is not the law.

I'm here to share that opinion and have a conversation about a feature, that in my opinion believe can ruin the gaming experience. If you don't agree, well that is your opinion. Can't do anything about it. It is what civilize people do, agree there other opinions are different from our own.

Thomit, yes i believe there isn't a balance between realism and entertainment in the game, at this moment. But if you think there is, CHEERS! It means you can enjoy the game. I enjoy it to, but i think the game can be better then as is.

[Delvi]

The point is that 90% of us likes to take a team from lower league, improve squad, staff, training facilities etc. through the years (which means playing hundreds of hours) until the team is strong enough to compete with best teams in the world...

IMHO the perfect solution would be to have a "realistic" version (same as now) plus option to be unsackable because you are manager and also chairman at the same time.

You could decide how to use the budget and when to start building stadium, improve facilities, you would decide name of new stadium and so on. Not realistic but lot of fun for sure...

[HUNT3R]

IMHO the perfect solution would be to have a "realistic" version (same as now) plus option to be unsackable because you are manager and also chairman at the same time.

This option exists in FMT and the editor for the 'fat' version.

[forameuss]

The point is that 90% of us likes to take a team from lower league, improve squad, staff, training facilities etc. through the years (which means playing hundreds of hours) until the team is strong enough to compete with best teams in the world...

The point is that you've completely made up a statistic there to suit your argument.

[Federico]

The funny thing is, if they remove this feature nobody would complain. Probably nobody would even notice they removed it, and everybody would be happy.

Keeping it would mean to upset some people instead.

So yeah keep it for the sake of realism!

This is out of logic for me.

[santy001]

The point is that 90% of us likes to take a team from lower league, improve squad, staff, training facilities etc. through the years (which means playing hundreds of hours) until the team is strong enough to compete with best teams in the world...

IMHO the perfect solution would be to have a "realistic" version (same as now) plus option to be unsackable because you are manager and also chairman at the same time.

You could decide how to use the budget and when to start building stadium, improve facilities, you would decide name of new stadium and so on. Not realistic but lot of fun for sure...

But this is the problem now, who has the right "perfect solution" your solution is to be completely unsackable by virtue of being the chairman, others are still wanting the prospect of being sacked on the basis of poor performance. However, what if you have a very impatient chairman who sacks you for very few poor results? Is that also a problem then in the scope of unfair sackings when the manager hasn't done much wrong?

It's easy enough to understand people being frustrated by it, but the aim isn't for it to be "pick the ways in which you can or cannot be sacked 2017" because all these potential solutions and options require testing, they require development and if you're going to offer one solution on the basis of fun others will expect their solution as well as that is their 'fun'.

Just above we have grade who feels there shouldn't even be a label to distinguish different spheres of players, purely because of likes/dislikes for the terms. It might not be fine with some of you, but I'm completely in the camp that it should stay, and, if anything in full FM mode it should be ratcheted up further.

I'm not going to look into the facts/figures but more often than not I believe a change in ownership leads to a change in management. There are a few cases where it hasn't like Arsenal and Man Utd, but at Stoke each time we've had a takeover in the last 20 years (only twice to be fair) there have been pretty prompt changes in management. Gary Megson despite having Stoke competing strongly in League One at the time was sacked for Gudjon Thordason who was an Icelandic national, as were the new owners at the time. When Peter Coates bought the club Johan Boskamp was sacked, despite having a reasonable season of steadying the club and Tony Pulis was brought in. Countless clubs do actually do it. Sometimes the manager gets more time, say to the end of the current season, but even then its not always the case.

[Federico]

You keep bringing examples on how this happens regurarly in real life. I said already, we know that. Stop with examples. We all agree it's realistic. What we disagree with is keeping this feature in a game which the main objective is to enjoy the player and not pushing him away from it.

The OP didn't enjoy that much since he was sacked after a takeover despise his pretty decent results, and I understand why.

[forameuss]

You keep bringing examples on how this happens regurarly in real life. I said already, we know that. Stop with examples. We all agree it's realistic. What we disagree with is keeping this feature in a game which the main objective is to enjoy the player and not pushing him away from it.

The OP didn't enjoy that much since he was sacked after a takeover despise his pretty decent results, and I understand why.

Ever think that some people might enjoy the realism of it? That they might just think it adds to the story they're playing through? Or are they "wrong"?

[santy001]

You keep bringing examples on how this happens regurarly in real life. I said already, we know that. Stop with examples. We all agree it's realistic. What we disagree with is keeping this feature in a game which the main objective is to enjoy the player and not pushing him away from it.

The OP didn't enjoy that much since he was sacked after a takeover despise his pretty decent results, and I understand why.

So if you enjoy winning, and you lose a game on FM you are being pushed away from it?

If you want to win the champions league on FM, but you aren't able to you are being pushed away from it?

This isn't a game on rails where if you spend enough time playing it you will get to the end and be all-conquering, victorious and get a happy-ever-after cutscene.

Does anyone actually enjoy losing a match on FM? Does anyone enjoy losing a play-off final? Does anyone enjoy going out on away goals in cups? Does anyone enjoy their top player handing a transfer request? Does anyone enjoy an AI club rejecting their transfer bid? Does anyone enjoy a player choosing to sign for another club over them?

If your argument boils down to purely being one of enjoyment, then none of these things should happen either. Now if you happen to agree, then by all means push for that and make the compelling arguments for SI to develop these areas for you.

[Delvi]

I suggest to make a poll: who is playing taking on team from lower divisions and bringing it up to play international tournaments vs who plays in a different way...

I mean, not to hurt anyone's feelings, but it's a game, it's not a football manager simulation. It's a game where Del Piero signs a contract of 80000€ per year with an obscure team from Italian third division and where right backs are costantly best league players and are competing every year for golden ball. ?

Gameplay is way more important than "realism".

[Kenco]

The point is that you've completely made up a statistic there to suit your argument.

60% of all statistics are fabricated.

[Delvi]

If you don't manage the same team for many years which is the point of improving training facilities, stadium, grow youth players etc?

I think that work on all this and then get sacked because of a board takeover may be realistic for someone, for me it's just frustrating...

[Kenco]

Yes, it's frustrating, but it's also frustrating when you lose a cup final on penalties, or your star player who you've developed since he was 16 decides he wants to leave you for a rival.

Frustration is part of the game, part of being a manager.

[Delvi]

Yes, it's frustrating, but it's also frustrating when you lose a cup final on penalties, or your star player who you've developed since he was 16 decides he wants to leave you for a rival.

Frustration is part of the game, part of being a manager.

I agree, I think are just different approaches to the game.

[HUNT3R]

I definitely won't be happy if I was fired after a takeover. I'd be pleased that the simulation is that deep that it considers different boards, some who are more trigger happy and ruthless and others extremely patient, and I'd want to take another team, poach a few stars and youngsters and knock them off their perch, to use famous words.

[thomit]

If you don't manage the same team for many years which is the point of improving training facilities, stadium, grow youth players etc?

I think that work on all this and then get sacked because of a board takeover may be realistic for someone, for me it's just frustrating...

The club does all that, not the manager. The club invests the money and resources for the sake of the future of the club, not for the sake of their current manager. As a manager, you can suggest improvements to the board, because it's in your own interest too, particularly if you acheive to stay as manager for a long time. But it is not your club, you are just hired by it. For how long, nobody knows. The owners and the board decides that, whether it's the old or a new board. Do a good enough job, and the old board will probably not sack you. Do a good enough job AND reach a high enough reputation, and a new board will probably not sack you either. A new board will probably be a bit more demanding and less impressed by you than the old one, immediately after a takeover, that's really the only difference.

If you want guarantees that you're not sacked, you can use the editor(s). If SI wants to include a "no sacking" button in future FM's, it is fine by me. I won't use it, but if you do, that's no concern for anyone. But there isn't one at the present, so ... just live with it, or use other means to get around it.

[eriktous]

I'm just wondering if all the people defending the realism of this event are also in favour of locking most options in the staff responsibilities screen? For most clubs it's completely unrealistic that a manager can take full control over hiring and firing of staff, including a director of football, and all aspects of transfer and contract negotiations. If you want realism, different clubs should allow more or less power for the manager, and the extent of it should be part of the initial contract negotiations.

Easiest solution would just be to add a check box to this screen with an option "chairman has power to fire manager, yes or no". Everybody happy.

[themadsheep2001]

I'm just wondering if all the people defending the realism of this event are also in favour of locking most options in the staff responsibilities screen? For most clubs it's completely unrealistic that a manager can take full control over hiring and firing of staff, including a director of football, and all aspects of transfer and contract negotiations. If you want realism, different clubs should allow more or less power for the manager, and the extent of it should be part of the initial contract negotiations.

Easiest solution would just be to add a check box to this screen with an option "chairman has power to fire manager, yes or no". Everybody happy.

As I said, there are parts of real life SI wants to replicate and some they don't. This happens to be one of them. Again as devs they are allowed to make choices and choose the kind of game they want to make.

[forameuss]

I'm just wondering if all the people defending the realism of this event are also in favour of locking most options in the staff responsibilities screen? For most clubs it's completely unrealistic that a manager can take full control over hiring and firing of staff, including a director of football, and all aspects of transfer and contract negotiations. If you want realism, different clubs should allow more or less power for the manager, and the extent of it should be part of the initial contract negotiations.

Easiest solution would just be to add a check box to this screen with an option "chairman has power to fire manager, yes or no". Everybody happy.

Personally, yes. I always leave those parts aside for the chairman or Director of Football to do.

[eriktous]

As I said, there are parts of real life SI wants to replicate and some they don't. This happens to be one of them. Again as devs they are allowed to make choices and choose the kind of game they want to make.

Of course they are, but don't be surprised to get mixed reactions if those choices come across as rather random, instead of inspired by some overarching vision for the direction of the game.

[eriktous]

Personally, yes. I always leave those parts aside for the chairman or Director of Football to do.

Lol, I've tried it myself on a couple of occasions, but quickly turned it off after the DoF signed a couple of muppets as coaches, gave 50% wage increases to mediocre players, and started signing new players without any regard for the wage budget.

[forameuss]

Lol, I've tried it myself on a couple of occasions, but quickly turned it off after the DoF signed a couple of muppets as coaches, gave 50% wage increases to mediocre players, and started signing new players without any regard for the wage budget.

I keep myself with final say on the confirmation of transfers usually, so if he comes to me with dross, I'll cancel it. But they've gotten better in more recent versions. Sometimes they get good deals, sometimes they get bad. Just see it as part of the game, can't expect the AI to get it perfect, nor would I want them to.

Plus I find hiring staff deathly dull.

[Delvi]

To be honest is weird to speak about realism: it's just a game, realism is to leave the PC and to start to manage a real team. It's a game which has to represent football and the job of a manager, however it should give to the player the ability to shape the gaming experience. Many of us would like to be chairman, director of football and manager at the same time, they couldn't care less if it's not "realistic". If I want realism I go out and play football with friends. ?

[thomit]

I'm just wondering if all the people defending the realism of this event are also in favour of locking most options in the staff responsibilities screen? For most clubs it's completely unrealistic that a manager can take full control over hiring and firing of staff, including a director of football, and all aspects of transfer and contract negotiations. If you want realism, different clubs should allow more or less power for the manager, and the extent of it should be part of the initial contract negotiations.

Easiest solution would just be to add a check box to this screen with an option "chairman has power to fire manager, yes or no". Everybody happy.

Yes, I'm for all kinds of realism as long as it can be implemented in a form that feels realistic. Some times adding a realistic feature ends up feeling more "gamey" because it's implementation isn't done or can't be done properly. I'd rather not have those. Having what a manager can or can not do when signing a contract as a new manager is a good idea. But I would like the board to be more willing to let the manager get more control the higher his rep is. And when he's hired, he should be granted more control with the growing of his reputation and status, finally getting a say in most things concerning the club, e.g. a Ferguson/Wenger kind of status. It's a good idea.

[Cougar2010]

I'm just wondering if all the people defending the realism of this event are also in favour of locking most options in the staff responsibilities screen? For most clubs it's completely unrealistic that a manager can take full control over hiring and firing of staff, including a director of football, and all aspects of transfer and contract negotiations. If you want realism, different clubs should allow more or less power for the manager, and the extent of it should be part of the initial contract negotiations.

Easiest solution would just be to add a check box to this screen with an option "chairman has power to fire manager, yes or no". Everybody happy.

I wouldn't be against different boards locking different options for the manager.

SI could maybe work towards them under one umbrella and then add a tick box on the advanced options when setting up a save so you can choose whether to have board options on or off.

[eriktous]

If I want realism I go out and play football with friends. ?

To be honest, they got the realism bang on in that respect. The way my players in FM are playing, looks a lot like I do myself on the pitch: technically inept, always fighting with the ball, continuously being outpaced by opponents, and most of all, having no clue about tactics.

[Neil Brock]

So how many times have you seen this happen in your game? How often has it personally happened to you? If we can find it's happening too much then it's something we can perhaps lower the frequency of.

[eriktous]

But I would like the board to be more willing to let the manager get more control the higher his rep is. And when he's hired, he should be granted more control with the growing of his reputation and status, finally getting a say in most things concerning the club, e.g. a Ferguson/Wenger kind of status.

Sure, that's what contract renegotiations are for.

[thomit]

To be honest is weird to speak about realism: it's just a game, realism is to leave the PC and to start to manage a real team. It's a game which has to represent football and the job of a manager, however it should give to the player the ability to shape the gaming experience. Many of us would like to be chairman, director of football and manager at the same time, they couldn't care less if it's not "realistic". If I want realism I go out and play football with friends.

Ok, we know what you want a game to be now. We don't all agree with you. Ok? For your sake, I hope someone one day makes "Football Club Chairman/Director/Manager" (FCCDM). I really do. I probably won't be playing it, but I don't mind if you do.

[thomit]

So how many times have you seen this happen in your game? How often has it personally happened to you? If we can find it's happening too much then it's something we can perhaps lower the frequency of.

What, takeovers? Or getting sacked as a result of one? I've had many takeovers in my (many) saves, but never been sacked. I'm too good

[Delvi]

Ok, we know what you want a game to be now. We don't all agree with you. Ok? For your sake, I hope someone one day makes "Football Club Chairman/Director/Manager" (FCCDM). I really do. I probably won't be playing it, but I don't mind if you do.

I just don't understand which is the problem if they give the option to everyone to play as he likes better. It's something they are already doing in a way, with duties of manager etc.

[thomit]

I just don't understand which is the problem if they give the option to everyone to play as he likes better. It's something they are already doing in a way, with duties of manager etc.

The problem is probably partly that it is difficult to do, as different areas of the game are not always independent of each other. The other problem is credibility. I think SI is afraid that if they let the game have too many such opting out mechanisms, they'll end up with a game that is looked upon by many as a joke of football management game. And I think they are right in having that fear. You seem to not have a great understanding of the fact that the uniquely high standing this game has with many of it's users, is very much based in it's attention to and respect for realism. If they mess about with that too much, they would probably lose many of their customers.

[Delvi]

You seem to not have a great understanding of the fact that the uniquely high standing this game has with many of it's users, is very much based in it's attention to and respect for realism. If they mess about with that too much, they would probably lose many of their customers.

I hope for them you're not right, otherwise they would go bankrupt. ?

[PeeDub]

No press conferences

Oh myyyy, I would pay extra for this!