A suggestion from a thread that i had posted earlier.
Manager contracts are very basic at the moment in my opinion. While there were a couple of options in FM 07 (like expanding the stadium or training facilities), the only options available for negotiations in FM 08 are increasing the wages (which is useless) or the time of the contract.
What i would like to suggest is more flexibility while negotiating in terms of the investment and long term ambitions of the club.
If possible, there should be six options available in the contract screen:
1) The type of contract (regular or rolling)
2) Contract commencement (immediate or end of the season)
4) Contract period
5) Investment (low, medium, large, huge)
6) Long term ambitions (options from fighting bravely against relegation to winning the league)
Now the 4 and 6th option should be inter-connected. So if i ask a five year contract then the board should be more ambitious. For example, if i was offered a two year contract by a Wigan Athletic or a Derby County, then the long term ambition should be to stay in the EPL. But if i ask for a five year contract, the the long term ambition should be to finish in a safe midtable position (above 13th-14th) place.
The contract period should also be linked to the type of investment. If the investment option chosen is low, then the transfer budget should be limited to under 5 million every year. Likewise medium means 10 million, large 20 and huge above 20. If the board has agreed to medium/large/huge investment, then it should make sure that it will offer the promised funds even if it has to take a loan (with the obvious exception being if the club's financial condition is very insecure).
The board should be willing negotiate the investment depending on the reputation of the manager in question. So the huge investment option should only be acceptable if the manager's reputation is at least continental and his personality is ambitious (or if the club's financial status is excellent).
Now there should be cases where in the last three options are not always negotiable. For example if you are offered a contract from a top level club (the man utds, real madrids or the milans of the league in question) then, depending on their performances in the league in the last three years, the long term ambition should be set to winning the title. More ambitious boards should also demand the ECC title by the end of the period but it should not be set in stone with the league performance being more important. The investment option too will be negotiable depending on the financial status of the club. So the board should have an option of going back on their word if the financial condition worsens a couple of years down the line.
The advantages of such a feature will be many. The manager will have some say in the long term ambitions of the club (needed especially for midtable clubs), assurance of funds being available during the period of the contract (i have often accepted bids from clubs offering a good transfer budget when i was offered a contract only to see that the club is already in the red or just a couple of million above).
The feature will also offer a realistic time frame for the managers to achieve the long term ambitions. For example, though Aston Villa/Newcastle United offer large amount of transfer budget in the first season, its not possible to achieve their long term ambition of challenging for the league title (especially in the former's case) if the manager in question is not tactically that brilliant