Jump to content

"Too many staff"


Recommended Posts

Posting here as requested by @Kyle Brownfrom my original bug report post. Content is largely copied/pasted from that post and lightly edited for clarity, as per his suggestion.

This has been a problem in FM for many years now, and it doesn't make sense. It never has.

Different clubs start with different numbers of staff already employed. This mirrors real life as close as possible, and so when Liverpool have 20 scouts in the game, that's because they've hired 20 scouts in real life - there might be more, but the point is, the data saved against this real-life club is that when you start the game there are X number of scouts. Or coaches. Or Physios. Whatever.

However, pretty much whenever I pick a team and play, these "real-life" staff numbers are always too much for the board. For example, my Dorking Wanderers save - I start with 5 coaches (including Ass. Manager, GK Coach and Fitness coaches) but the board - who are the ones that would have hired this number of coaches in the first place - now suddenly has decided that the club should only have 2 coaches in total, and so now because there are 5 coaches, if I want to replace one of the coaches with a better one, I can't - I'd have to fire 3 coaches and only then can I replace the one I wanted to replace.

This is so so stupid. I understand the board wanting to minimise the number of staff appointments for a club that is insecure (or worse) financially - but when one starts the game with the majority of clubs then the board should be content with the staff numbers. After all, why did they hire or retain them if they were unhappy with the number? And where is this number that they would be happy with coming from?

Surely, at the start of the game, the board should be content with the staff numbers, whatever they are. An exception can be made here for clubs that are already in administration, or are in trouble financially. This would mirror real life a bit more as the desire to cut down on staff and creating redundancies. In this case, perhaps this could be a part of the club vision/manager expectations - to trim down the size of the backroom staff (and/or playing staff too, perhaps?) - with varying degrees of importance to the board. For a secure club the reduction could be favourable. For a club on the rocks, it can be required.

Perhaps as the season progresses, the board can then assess the benefits of the numbers of staff you have in the role and doesn't necessarily lower the limit, but perhaps adjust the expectations for manager performance accordingly so that if you're going to want to keep that larger-than-desired backroom staff, you'd better have the success to back it up. Perhaps a manager with a higher reputation or job security can benefit from more "leeway" from the board on this, as can success for the club.

I suggest the above fully aware that it may not be the best solution - I'm not 100% sure what is - but I know for certain that it freakin' sucks having to gut your entire coaching setup just to improve one guy... it seems wrong.

You can see this in action with Dorking Wanderers, or Liverpool, or I assume numerous other clubs.

Happy to hear thoughts on this! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...