Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I raised this last year and it is a continual issue with FM, summed up with the attached screenshot.

In my first season, I have reached 1/11 and have played 17 games, including 5 European games and have won 16 and drawn one- a pretty reasonable performance but no, my board has announced a notable criticism about how upset they were at my one and only draw.  This is completely illogical under the circumstances and I worry that this message will be repeated in future reviews as well.

A notable criticism should be something major and greatly concerning

FrazT- Gers1- screenshot uploaded

FrazT- Gers 1-Screenshot.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI- I am also running a save with the retail version and have encountered the identical issue with the Nov 1 board review where the notable criticism is that they are upset about my only draw.  I am dreading the reaction if and when I actually lose a game.!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I have moved this whole thread from the alpha forum due to getting absolutely no response after 4 months..

 

Final crushing blow to add to this.  Just ended my 2022-3 season and did the quadruple.  Board are delighted and I have a transfer budget of 250m- sold 128m of players and after reviewing my under 18s squad, noted that I didn't have a natural AMC for my default tactic.  Searched and found the top rated local 16 year old and paid 250K for him.

Just received my latest monthly review and the board are delighted with everything - apart of course for their notable concern over the finances in the deal to buy the youngster!  I know that this is minor but frankly it is ludicrous that the code should be written that any board would express any level of criticism at all at a manager who has brought unprecedented success across all the teams and even if criticism was in any way warranted, to bring up such a minor issue as a major concern is laughable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Fraz, 

I'll extend an apology for this not being responded to on the Alpha form but I realise getting this investigated is likely more important to you. 

I can use the save provided above to test the initial issue but if you want to attach the latest examples then feel free to add them here too, just @ me in the post and I'll look into it by the following day at the latest. 

I'll get something logged regardless, genuinely sorry that you haven't had a response as of yet, I'm not quite sure why.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kyle Brown  Thanks for the reply- I have uploaded my save to own cloud under FrazT-Gers2.v02 this is from after the last review, but I have had several monthly reviews that have been an issue.  

I am aware that I am probably irrationally irritated by these reviews but I have reported them with saves on previous versions.

I am concerned not just about specific instances but the overall coding logic:

A notable criticism should be of major concern and many of the issues in these monthly reviews are certainly not noteworthy.  When you go a season undefeated, the board should under no circumstances mention your one and only draw as a notable criticism.  ( Imagine Stevie G, having just wont the league, stopped the 10IAR and the board say" well done, great achievement, but we are upset about that 0-0 draw at Livi at the start of the season"!.  I have had the board complain about the first leg result in a two leg tie when we won overall.

If the board are concerned about the finances in any deal, they should bring it up at the time of the deal and not in the review and certainly not for months afterwards.

A criticism should be raised once and once only and not repeated in the following months- imagine you had a monthly performance review with your boss and he mentions some concern and then brings it up again in the following 2 months?

When I have a transfer budget of 240m and have spent it prudently to the stage where the club is rich, why would any board be querying the finances involved in the transfer of a 16 year old that cost 250k?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I've got something in now for the very original issue, more so just questing what should/shouldn't be regarded as 'notable'. 

Given that Hibs result was in September, I do also agree it shouldn't show up in the performance review looking back at October. 

The transfer issue is a bit more of a subjective opinion, completely see your point but I'd also imagine that a board would scrutinise any and all transfer deals, whether for 50k or 50m. At the end of the day they will typically be running the club as a business. Again though, given the history you've got of being profitable, I'll see if it's something that can be factored in.

Full disclosure, come next week I won't be around at SI, so I can't get back to you or provide any sort of updates, but rest assured I've got a bug in motion so that the right people will see it at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kyle Brown

Thanks again for the update and I can see that the report has at least got into the system and will be reviewed.

Sorry to note that you wont be around but all the best anyway for the future.  Lets hope #55 is just the first of many for SG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...