I'm sorry, but this is the most appalling BS!

[Freakiie]

Well, it's irrational we can say that for sure.

But... isn't that the case for a lot of owners? Iirc it was the Fullham owner that put up a MJ statue at their stadium when he died cuz because he was a big fan off him and told the fans that didn't like to f* off basically. Isn't there also some lower league club where the fans have been trying to get the owner out for ages and he basically bans anyone that isn't entirely on his side from the stadium?

Or look at Neuchatel Xamax that is close to complete ruin thanks to their owner.

We don't know the attributes off the new owner. Perhaps he has 20 interference and wants to control pretty much everything including the manager? Perhaps he doesn't like your philosophy for whatever reason, perhaps the club is just a toy to him and he wants his brother to manage it. You can think off enough crap that from a football view would be insane, but when you consider that not every owner is at their club for football it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

[Guest]

You forgot Hearts of Lithuania, utter basket case of a club.

[Motherlover]

Well, it's irrational we can say that for sure.

But... isn't that the case for a lot of owners? Iirc it was the Fullham owner that put up a MJ statue at their stadium when he died cuz because he was a big fan off him and told the fans that didn't like to f* off basically. Isn't there also some lower league club where the fans have been trying to get the owner out for ages and he basically bans anyone that isn't entirely on his side from the stadium?

Or look at Neuchatel Xamax that is close to complete ruin thanks to their owner.

We don't know the attributes off the new owner. Perhaps he has 20 interference and wants to control pretty much everything including the manager? Perhaps he doesn't like your philosophy for whatever reason, perhaps the club is just a toy to him and he wants his brother to manage it. You can think off enough crap that from a football view would be insane, but when you consider that not every owner is at their club for football it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

I know what you're saying, but the problem is that this stuff is apparent in real life, where in FM it simply fires you. No explanations, no speculation, no insider knowledge.

[BiggusD]

There are some things that are included in the game which are so rare that I don't understand why they are there, clearly at the cost of things that happens much more often but which aren't included. The incident in the OP is one of them. Players choosing to buy a corner off the feet of an opponent rather than scoring is another. The same could be said about players trying to buy a throw-in off the feet of an opponent half-way into the middle of the field... and failing!

The most aggravating one in FM12 is the widespread complaining about too high training workload. All but the most ultra-professional of the players are complaining about training as a whole! This is highly unrealistic. When your job is to show up for training sessions twice or more every day and follow a training schedule set up by your superiors you do as you're told. If you can't take the level of intensity you have no future in the game, so nobody complain about training too hard. If the training methods cause injuries or exhaustion for some players, new ones are of course set up to fix the issue - but the player will of course not complain about it... is he even asked about it?

This is not something the manager is involved in at all. That is the job of the head coach/assistant, the coaches and the physios... you know, the ones who are qualified to do so. That is why they are there. In future versions I hope that SI just let us choose between physicals, defensive and attacking skills and leave the rest to the coaching team.

[x42bn6]

x42--

I'm not quite sure what we're arguing about. We both agree that it's an unreasonable decision. Perhaps you're arguing that it's a really, really unreasonable decision. Even so, I think they should -- indeed, must -- be in the game to some extent; you apparently don't. And that's where Poisson comes in. Because of the sheer volume of games played in FM versus real life, if you recode the game to eliminate unreasonable events, you will inevitably and inescapably reduce the game to pablum. Still, I support some sort of "Never Sack Me" option for those so inclined. That would keep everybody happy.

You fall in the camp where people say that "Oh, it's unlikely, but it's possible, so we shouldn't complain if it happens." Sadly, you could apply this to even more unlikely things such as an amateur side beating Manchester United 50-0 when both sides are AI-controlled. If this happened, someone is bound to argue: "Freak results happen! Not a bug!" - when the very existence of something that is unrealistic can be a cause for concern.

I don't buy the assertion that "if you recode the game to eliminate unreasonable events, you will inevitably and inescapably reduce the game to pablum". Given these events are rare, they almost never happen, so I highly doubt that these extremely rare events not happening are going to turn the game extremely boring.

I cannot think of any remotely-sensible reason why the OP would be fired. I cannot see how such a manager would be fired in real-life. I believe the game and reality should have a 1:1 correspondence - if something is unlikely to happen in reality, it should be unlikely to happen in the game.

Unusual events may still happen in the game - however, the fact that the OP is a successful manager who has built his squad organically and is on the verge of showing results makes sacking him a very, very unreasonable consequence. And it certainly doesn't enhance the gameplay experience, especially since it's not really communicated to the user. But then again, what would that email say if it were communicated? "There was no reason to fire you, but we're firing you anyway." No board would ever do such a thing, as you risk losing a good manager and all his long-term work - for another risky manager who has to get used to the team, and vice-versa.

Well, it's irrational we can say that for sure.

But... isn't that the case for a lot of owners? Iirc it was the Fullham owner that put up a MJ statue at their stadium when he died cuz because he was a big fan off him and told the fans that didn't like to f* off basically. Isn't there also some lower league club where the fans have been trying to get the owner out for ages and he basically bans anyone that isn't entirely on his side from the stadium?

These are the exceptions to the rule. However, when it comes to hiring and firing managers, Al-Fayed hardly does badly with Fulham.

Or look at Neuchatel Xamax that is close to complete ruin thanks to their owner.

That was the result of criminal activity. We are talking about footballing activity here.

We don't know the attributes off the new owner. Perhaps he has 20 interference and wants to control pretty much everything including the manager? Perhaps he doesn't like your philosophy for whatever reason, perhaps the club is just a toy to him and he wants his brother to manage it. You can think off enough crap that from a football view would be insane, but when you consider that not every owner is at their club for football it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Every chairman is in the club to at least make money or enhance their ego. The best way to do both is to maximise the chance of success, and the best way of doing that is to retain good managers.

Even Manchester City's owners are taking it seriously.

It costs a lot of money to takeover a Premier League side - few people can throw away several hundred million pounds. If they are in this position, they are likely extremely street-smart and know how to make money. Al-Fayed has supported Fulham financially for ages, but even he can't suddenly decide to put someone useless in charge, as it means all his money will go down the drain for nothing, hurting his bank accounts and ego.

Either way, this sort of suicidal uncaring chairman is a feature I would rather not see in the game, and it is one of the few that I think should not be included for the sake of realism, as it is a game, not a simulation.

But from past experiences and reading this forum, I don't think the OP will see such a silly scenario arise. What will likely happen is that he will be fired and replaced by a rather average manager who will proceed to undo all the good work.

[Coop]

Have you actually been sacked?

I've been threatened with this in the past but when the takeover actually happens they decide to keep me. So there is a chance you ill stay.

[Freakiie]

I know what you're saying, but the problem is that this stuff is apparent in real life, where in FM it simply fires you. No explanations, no speculation, no insider knowledge.

While this is indeed a weakness off FM, does it mean that because of this the highely unlikely events should be removed? Also if a reason was mentioned you'd most likely still get the same result with people saying they think the reason is completely unreasonable.

I cannot think of any remotely-sensible reason why the OP would be fired. I cannot see how such a manager would be fired in real-life. I believe the game and reality should have a 1:1 correspondence - if something is unlikely to happen in reality, it should be unlikely to happen in the game.

The problem is, the game and reality have a 1000000:1 correspondence. There's only one reality, while there are countless FM "realities" running. Therefore we'll always keep seeing way more freak accidents in game than in real life.

These are the exceptions to the rule. However, when it comes to hiring and firing managers, Al-Fayed hardly does badly with Fulham.

And why should these exceptions not be in the game? Also Fullham was just the first example I could think off. I'm quite sure you could find far more extreme examples if you bothered looking for them.

That was the result of criminal activity. We are talking about footballing activity here.

True, but what you think is more likely; him having interest in the well being of the club or him owning the club for his own, perhaps shady, interests?

Every chairman is in the club to at least make money or enhance their ego. The best way to do both is to maximise the chance of success, and the best way of doing that is to retain good managers.

There are enough owners that see clubs simply as toys, where they fire trainers because they won't field their son that can't play soccer etc. True, those aren't the owners we see in the PL, but I wouldn't be surprised if some rich sjeikh (spelling? o.O) goes and buys a club in the PL as a birthday present for his son...

[AytchMan]

x42--

I believe the game and reality should have a 1:1 correspondence - if something is unlikely to happen in reality, it should be unlikely to happen in the game.

I agree but this goes to the heart of our disagreement(!). The game cannot satisfy both of these clauses. What I think you're overlooking is the scale of the FM simulation. Looking across the spectrum of leagues and teams in the real world, perhaps a particular unusual event will occur once every ten thousand games. That means that it will occur maybe once a year in real life. Because the FM universe simulates a million(?) times as many games and seasons and careers in a real calendar year, this event will occur thousands of times among the couple of million FM players. And this results in the high incidence of posters complaining about it. Thus, your 1-1 correspondence between the FM world and the real world is impossible at either one end of the scale or the other. SI cannot reduce the large number of these weird events across the greater FM community without essentially eliminating them from the career of an individual player. Conversely, you cannot simulate the real world for the individual player without generating a much larger number of outliers for all players combined; so pick your poison. This is as clear as I can make it so, if you still don't buy the argument, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Peace.

[AytchMan]

And, for what it's worth, my preference on this issue is for the current system. Which is not to say it's perfect and couldn't use some tweaks. But I'd much rather have the game offer a closer parallel to reality in my individual game and err on the side of presenting the overall community with a few too many wacky headsmackers. Sorry Cycstorm.

[telV7]

I think in part some of it may have to do with what the season expectations were during Cystorm's tenure. So if for example each season the board expected "challenge for the title", then clearly that expectation has not been met.

I have always figured that the domestic competition is what the board favours the most. So even Cup success, whilst it is well received, the board has a greater emphasis on domestic success and is where the priority lies, more-so I would expect if you are one the the big four.

With then the takeover, the new board looks at the manager and says yes, you have done well in Europe, but you have failed domestically.

On the surface with cup successes it all seems unreasonable, but maybe not so after all.

edit

I think it is important to remember that in real life no team is expected win the Champions league every year, rather do well, and each board would have a their own definition of what well is. I think the game also reflects this. Domestic competitions are a different matter.

I doubt whether it would be too far fetched to say, that if Pep, or SAF won Champions League but lost domestically, the press conference or post season wrap would go along the lines of, "Yes it was a fantastic achievement to win the Champions League......... But we have to be disappointed not to win the domestic competition"

[cragswfc]

just look at psg in france this season

[Zinn]

I call BS on the highly theoretical and unusual situation argument. If the game was indeed a simulation, it would certainly reference the history of the club, especially the most recent part, and compare with the alternatives. It's especially bad because it was Arsenal, a club that has won bugger all in (relative) ages and now has a solid future ahead of it, with plenty of prize money from Europe, a great academy with youngsters, a solid team, coaches and so on: This is the exact moment in time where you never change a central figure such as the manager, no matter the situation. All faith in what the new leadership is doing would be gone before they even started. In fact, what would have been realistic was if he got a message detailing that if he didn't win the league, he'd get the boot next year (in other words, he'd only be able to choose "Winner" in expectations). There's random things to throw you out of balance and then complete gamebreakers, where this clearly falls in the second category.

Don't make excuses for the decision process that happened here, as it both breaks the simulation aspect and game immersion. It would have been less random if OP had gotten a message that said "Sorry, you have died due to being hit by a meteorite: Game Over".

@telV7:

I find it highly unlikely that SAF will get booted out of United if City wins the league this year. There is a massive difference with simply being dissapointed and failing the terms of your agreement with the board, and this is why "Title Challenge" and "Winner" is two different categories each year. Title Challenge simply refers to trying to win but possibly falling short of doing so (eg. 2nd or 3rd within a reasonable distance of 1st), whereas Winner is rather obvious. I never ever pick Winner if I can avoid it, even though it usually means larger budgets, for the simple reason that FM already has several ways to throw you off in ways that range from common and obvious (eg. complacency or lack of tactical variety) to completely ridiculous (eg. opponents start scoring from 40 yards out in quite a few games, even with no long shot talent and an entire team and a properly positioned keeper between him and the goal). In all of the 3 championships I've won in my latest save, all but the first were decided on the final day.

[cruyff14]

Then they're idiots, because it's harder to win the Champions League. It's where the best teams all compete towards the closing stages.

There's no reason to fire this manager. Before anyone mentions Del Bosque: Del Bosque at Real Madrid is the exception, not the rule. No board is going to repeat what Real Madrid back then did, because they can see the consequences.

Juup Heynckes was also sacked a day after winning the European cup.

[telV7]

I call BS on the highly theoretical and unusual situation argument. If the game was indeed a simulation, it would certainly reference the history of the club, especially the most recent part, and compare with the alternatives. It's especially bad because it was Arsenal, a club that has won bugger all in (relative) ages and now has a solid future ahead of it, with plenty of prize money from Europe, a great academy with youngsters, a solid team, coaches and so on: This is the exact moment in time where you never change a central figure such as the manager, no matter the situation. All faith in what the new leadership is doing would be gone before they even started. In fact, what would have been realistic was if he got a message detailing that if he didn't win the league, he'd get the boot next year (in other words, he'd only be able to choose "Winner" in expectations). There's random things to throw you out of balance and then complete gamebreakers, where this clearly falls in the second category.

Don't make excuses for the decision process that happened here, as it both breaks the simulation aspect and game immersion. It would have been less random if OP had gotten a message that said "Sorry, you have died due to being hit by a meteorite: Game Over".

@telV7:

I find it highly unlikely that SAF will get booted out of United if City wins the league this year. There is a massive difference with simply being dissapointed and failing the terms of your agreement with the board, and this is why "Title Challenge" and "Winner" is two different categories each year. Title Challenge simply refers to trying to win but possibly falling short of doing so (eg. 2nd or 3rd within a reasonable distance of 1st), whereas Winner is rather obvious. I never ever pick Winner if I can avoid it, even though it usually means larger budgets, for the simple reason that FM already has several ways to throw you off in ways that range from common and obvious (eg. complacency or lack of tactical variety) to completely ridiculous (eg. opponents start scoring from 40 yards out in quite a few games, even with no long shot talent and an entire team and a properly positioned keeper between him and the goal). In all of the 3 championships I've won in my latest save, all but the first were decided on the final day.

Please, hardly making excuses......

I am just looking at the game side of things, as the domestic finishes have not been mentioned I said that it "may" have had an impact. Possibly he claimed the last champions league spot each year, maybe he went gung-ho in the second or third year and went for winner, I can't say as I don't know. Again which is why I said "may"

Having not one in Europe myself in this game I can't comment on board reaction, however league cup and FA cup I can and the board are rather non-plussed saying things along the lines, great achievement felt we always could etc. This again highlights my point of "in the game" the board don't rate cup success overly high and place greater emphasis on domestic competition.

Yes it is not great for Cycstorm, trying to build a legacy and all, and whilst in real life it would be ludicrous to sack a manager who is building something special.

"The game" with a board weighting on domestic success is an entirely different matter, so even though it might seem unfair, it is not altogether unreasonable to think that lack of domestic success "may" have been the cause.

[AytchMan]

Zinn--

You need to do better. First, you call BS on the "highly theoretical" part of the argument and then fail to provide any counter-argument. Then, you call BS on the "unusual situation" argument and the rest of your post addresses that. Unfortunately, no one here has argued that the sacking was NOT unreasonable, even irrational. So, we're left with this: the game either allows "unreasonable" events or it does not. If it does not, I think we lose more than we gain. If it does, we will inevitably see a significant number of such events across the entire community. If you do not agree with this, please explain how to prevent the following highly non-theoretical case: let us assume that a single player can expect to experience five "unreasonable" events per game year (lopsided scores, all four left-wingers injured, ridiculous sackings, undervalued transfers and the like). It then follows that the community of three million(?) FM players can expect about fifteen million such events per game year. If everyone plays five game years per real year, we are looking at seventy-five million unreasonable events per real year across the community. How would you avoid this problem? And remember, the average player will still see a reasonable number of unreasonable events (five); it's just the community at large that sees the avalanche (and posts about it).

[x42bn6]

The problem is, the game and reality have a 1000000:1 correspondence. There's only one reality, while there are countless FM "realities" running. Therefore we'll always keep seeing way more freak accidents in game than in real life.

You misunderstand me. If reality's outcomes have a probability distribution X, then each game's outcomes should also follow probability distribution X.

I'm not talking about many different saved games running at the same time. I'm just talking about the OP's saved game.

And why should these exceptions not be in the game? Also Fullham was just the first example I could think off. I'm quite sure you could find far more extreme examples if you bothered looking for them.

For one thing, statue building of pop stars and criminal activity is not possible in the game, for good reason.

True, but what you think is more likely; him having interest in the well being of the club or him owning the club for his own, perhaps shady, interests?

The latter, but it is in his interests for the club to be successful. Just like any other company.

It is in his interests to make the club strong and do what is best for the club, to massage his ego and/or grow his investment.

There are enough owners that see clubs simply as toys, where they fire trainers because they won't field their son that can't play soccer etc. True, those aren't the owners we see in the PL, but I wouldn't be surprised if some rich sjeikh (spelling? o.O) goes and buys a club in the PL as a birthday present for his son...

FFP will prevent a lot of that fun.

x42--

I believe the game and reality should have a 1:1 correspondence - if something is unlikely to happen in reality, it should be unlikely to happen in the game.

I agree but this goes to the heart of our disagreement(!). The game cannot satisfy both of these clauses. What I think you're overlooking is the scale of the FM simulation. Looking across the spectrum of leagues and teams in the real world, perhaps a particular unusual event will occur once every ten thousand games. That means that it will occur maybe once a year in real life. Because the FM universe simulates a million(?) times as many games and seasons and careers in a real calendar year, this event will occur thousands of times among the couple of million FM players. And this results in the high incidence of posters complaining about it. Thus, your 1-1 correspondence between the FM world and the real world is impossible at either one end of the scale or the other.

So your argument is basically "it could happen in reality, therefore you should not complain if it does happen in-game".

Which is a shame, because you mentioned Poisson but didn't go on to hypothesis testing which can throw that argument out of the water, since the case where n=1 can be a statistically significant scenario in certain hypothesis tests. i.e. the mere existence of such an event can be questioned. Not hiding behind that excuse. Otherwise you could pretty much dismiss every single gameplay bug out there, because there is an extremely small probability of it happening.

SI cannot reduce the large number of these weird events across the greater FM community without essentially eliminating them from the career of an individual player. Conversely, you cannot simulate the real world for the individual player without generating a much larger number of outliers for all players combined; so pick your poison. This is as clear as I can make it so, if you still don't buy the argument, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Peace.

Probability is not additive. If reality declares that event X happens with probability p, then in-game, event X should happen with probability p. The number of people who may play the game never factors into the equation.

I'm not talking about making unusual events more or less likely to suit the overall populace. You don't know what proportion of users experience this (let's not pretend that the OP is the only person who has experienced this issue). This nonsense about increasing the number of outliers to ensure that each game has a sensible proportion of outliers makes no sense - the number of people who experience the outlier is less important than the proportion of people who experience the outlier.

Otherwise, you'd have nonsense like SI adjusting injury times because more people are buying their game, or BGS reducing the number of injuries in Championship Manager because nobody buys CM any more. Or a new game, with no customers, having no unusual events whatsoever. It's all silly and a huge misunderstanding of probability in general, hidden behind excuses.

Accrington Stanley 50-0 Manchester United (AI vs/ AI) is possible in FM12 - would you say, "Oh, it's not a bug. It could happen. It's an unusual event."? No sensible person would agree - because this just stinks of a bug.

[Guest]

After finding myself on the FMH page I am once again thinking that it would be a very good idea for SI to do a PC port of that game which can be distributed as a lower cost digital download.

FMH offers a much less detailed FM experience which may well be more to the liking of people who are not happy with the current direction FM is taking & it also has an unsackable option.

@x42 - I'm not sure I follow your argument that by accepting random events in the game you can dismiss any bug, the event the OP came across is a known possible outcome of a boardroom takeover as per the code used in FM, granted the probability of him getting sacked should have been extremely low but a low probability factor does not mean that the event should not have happened.

On the other hand a bug is an unexpected event that has not been intentionally coded which quite clearly rules out the OP's removal from office as a bug unless of course it happened every time a new board takes over a successful club & to date there is zero evidence of that being the case.

[AytchMan]

x42--

With respect, I think you've misinterpreted some of my reasoning but, overall, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'll post a closing summary and give you the last word.

a. I agree that the sacking is unreasonable.

b. I reject the idea that it's a bug. I believe the game is working as designed, that is, there is AI logic that performed as designed and triggered the sack.

c. On the other hand, I think a slight adjustment in said AI logic may be warranted to reduce the degree of unreasonableness of this specific type.

d. But, on your other other hand, I fully support the concept of unreasonable events (of various kinds). That is, that each human player should be exposed to some random (but reasonable) number of oddball events. And, if one accepts that point, then one must accept that the community at large will experience a large number of these events in aggregate. It then inevitably follows that some players will receive a larger share than others and many of these players will contribute to the steady stream of "Five Injuries In One Match = Game Broken" threads over which the rest of us love to wrangle. If everybody understood this point, we might have fewer of those threads. That's all I'm saying.

e. Finally, If SI tries to (somehow) eliminate all of these unreasonable events, the game will be worse off.

Cheers.

[Äktsjon Männ]

What it all boils down to is this: the OP was enjoying his game, having some good success with his selected team, building well for the future and generally doing well. Suddenly he's robbed of this enjoyment and the hours he's put into the game only because of an arbitrary dice roll by the random number generator. It's just about as realistic as someone having a heart attack, but would people still be defending the game if their long term save was ruined by a message saying 'you're dead, game over' randomly popping up?

[turnip]

I agree with Aytchman. Stupid things happen in football. Even things as stupid as this happen, albeit very rarely.

The OP was unlucky that it happened to him. If he's so enormously angry that it happened to him and it shouldn't because it's a game, then treat it like a game; reload from before the takeover and hope the board don't sack you this time around.

[Guest]

What it all boils down to is this: the OP was enjoying his game' date=' having some good success with his selected team, building well for the future and generally doing well. Suddenly he's robbed of this enjoyment and the hours he's put into the game only because of an arbitrary dice roll by the random number generator. It's just about as realistic as someone having a heart attack, but would people still be defending the game if their long term save was ruined by a message saying 'you're dead, game over' randomly popping up?[/quote']

That's a ridiculous example, you cannot control your managers health in the game so adding health problems would be unfair, in the real world (this is a simulation after all) you have no control over a new board not liking you so this scenario being in the game is fair, damn annoying but that isn't point.

As turnip said the OP always has the option of going back to an earlier date, assuming he was sensible enough to use rolling autosave & see if the RNG plays out differently, if SI removed every feature that some people had issues with there'd be nothing left.

[AytchMan]

Suddenly he's robbed of this enjoyment and the hours he's put into the game only because of an arbitrary dice roll...

That's not a strong argument. The entire game is arbitrary dice rolls. Every tackle, pass, shot, injury and goal against is an arbitrary die roll that may rob you of enjoyment of the game. Plus, I've said that I favor some of the Training Wheels options (like "Never Sack Me") for the more faint-hearted among us.

but would people still be defending the game if their long term save was ruined by a message saying 'you're dead, game over' randomly popping up?

Dying and being sacked are hardly equivalent. Even so, there are career games in which the player reaches the end of the line (Pirates, for example) and, handled intelligently, it's not necessarily a bad idea. If my random events feature was added, I could certainly see a Health Emergency event in which you're sidelined for a short period of time.

[Sussex Hammer]

I have a lot of sympathy for the OP here because it has happened to me. I took over at West Ham got them promoted. First season in Prem I finished 7th and the next I was sitting 6th when mid season a takeover happened and I was sacked. I never can see the "realism" argument because apart from a very small percentage of pros' who may play the game for the rest of us if you pick a reputation at the start of the game as an ex professional or an ex International player realism goes out of the window straight off anyway because you aren't an ex pro or ex international!!

The whole point is that it is a game and whilst we all like a degree of realism it shouldn't be forgotten that it is a game and after hours and hours of building up a squad etc and then getting sacked in this manner is IMO wrong. I can understand it if you aren't performing or you get a Club relegated but the takeover sackings are bizarre at times. A better option is for a new board to offer you a new set of targets that you think you can achieve in the next 6 months or so and if you don't reach those targets they then may decide to let you go. With a bit of a warning I think people would fully accept that.

Another point and just thinking out aloud as for the poster who said that it is unrealistic that if you start a game with a new Club like Arsenal and Wenger gets sacked he is correct and I think it would be better if Wenger for example decides to retire or look for a new challenge

[dfa120374]

Long thread so forgive if it's already been mentioned but Mourinho got sacked because he never won the Champions League but he was a huge success in every other aspect of the job at Chelsea. I know in the game the OP said that he won the Champions League twice with Arsenal but even with all the success Mourinho had with Chelsea he still got dumped.

Ancelotti won the double in his first season with Chelsea as well I think but he got sacked after the following season.

AND both of these happened without a takeover happening.

New guys can come in and bring in their new staff or manager or anything and as unrealistic as it seems it does happen.

[TSH]

I sympathize with Cycstorm. He got a bad deal and, if I ever got that high in the game (which, as a llama, I won't), I'd be bummed out about it as well. But, here's the problem with threads such as this: the OP always seems to think that "unreasonable behavior" equates to "Game Broken" and, thus, it should never happen. While I support the addition of a couple of sandbox options such as "Never Get Fired" and the like, I will never tire of pointing to the Poisson Distribution and how it absolutely ensures (and quite reasonably so) that the flow of oddball events in FM will never stop. If the EPL (somehow) played sixty million games a season irl, we'd see some very unusual happenings. If SI ever heeds the continuous flow of Unusual Event = Game Broken threads, FM will quickly be reduced to a boring snoozefest of 0-0 draws.

The real problem is posts like the above. Sacking such a successful manager is clearly illogical and should never happened. If it did happen though, SI should give enough justification so the player doesn't feel cheated.

There is no excuse for this and no NEW owner in the world would fire such a successful manager, unless there was good reason. They haven't even fired Mancini from City all these years and he hasn't won anything and that's why there is no real life examples.

And don't let me start on "Why on earth does a club so successful being taken over?" It's not like another president was selected. But taken over? Why? It should be in a pretty great financial position.

So, no. Any justification about the OP's post is ridiculous. If SI wants to simulate some crazy happenings in the game they should do it properly.

This is just another gameplay mechanic that is implemented without fine tuning.

Unless SI can back it up with something we as players can't see?

[Guest]

There is no excuse for this and no NEW owner in the world would fire such a successful manager, unless there was good reason. They haven't even fired Mancini from City all these years and he hasn't won anything and that's why there is no real life examples.

Right, because Mancini has been at Manchester City for years & is not the current owners choice of manager, not sure where you get your facts from but you need to sack your researcher.

He guided them to the champions league in his first full season plus an FA cup win & is looking good for a title challenge in his second.

And don't let me start on "Why on earth does a club so successful being taken over?" It's not like another president was selected. But taken over? Why? It should be in a pretty great financial position.

Manchester United weren't exactly a ramshackle bunch in a dire financial position when the Glazer's took over & I could mention that Arsenal have gone through slower & less dramatic change of ownership

So, no. Any justification about the OP's post is ridiculous. If SI wants to simulate some crazy happenings in the game they should do it properly.

This is just another gameplay mechanic that is implemented without fine tuning.

How many times since boardroom changes were introduced have you been sacked despite being a success at the club? In all the seasons I've played & we're problem talking in the region of 300+ since FM07 (generally 50+ season career saves) I have not once been removed by a new board unless I was underachieving or the cause of the clubs financial problems.

[milnerpoint]

Its unfortunate for the OP but its part of the game. I've survived countless take overs including two in one save this year so far, the chances of you being sacked are minimal, but with the infinite number of FM saves its bound to come up from time to time. As usual in these threads x42bn6 will go round and round and round and round and round and round without really getting anywhere.

Its a feature of the game, not a bug.

[Reccy]

The real problem is posts like the above. Sacking such a successful manager is clearly illogical and should never happened. If it did happen though, SI should give enough justification so the player doesn't feel cheated.

There is no excuse for this and no NEW owner in the world would fire such a successful manager, unless there was good reason. They haven't even fired Mancini from City all these years and he hasn't won anything and that's why there is no real life examples.

And don't let me start on "Why on earth does a club so successful being taken over?" It's not like another president was selected. But taken over? Why? It should be in a pretty great financial position.

Blackburn Rovers - Venkys sacked Sam Allardyce (may not have been instantly, but was a couple of weeks) - in the 09/10 Season he led the team to a tenth place finish and a League up semi-final, very successful i'd say for a BBR fan like myself.

Queens Park Rangers - Neil Warnock (similar to above, may have been also "results" based also) - Got them promoted by winning the championship and also saving them from relegation to League 1.

Chelsea - Jose Mourinho - Won the Premier League twice, in 2004–05, 2005–06, an FA Cup 2006–07, the League Cup twice, 2004–05, 2006–07 and the FA Community Shield 2005. Very successful i'd say.

Chelseas - Carlo Ancelotti - Won the Premier League and FA Cup 2009/2010 and Community Shield in 2009. (First yeat in charge)

Real Madrid - Del Bosque - Winning many of cups and leagues in the late 90's early 00's.. Was sacked for no reason what so ever.

These are just some examples of the OP's scenario. Maybe only based on similar event's, but still similar to the OP's problem. I wouldn't class it as a bug, but just a very unfortunate circumstance. It can and does happen.

[swisso]

I would agree with the OP.

Push the "realism" angle as much as you want, but if you've gone far in the game and put a lot of time into it, only to see that come to end for reasons out of your control, then it's unfair.

If he's not met the boards targets of a League win, then fair enough, he's underachieved and the sack is looming. However if he's met the Boards expectations only for a new Board to remove him asap, thats simply unfair and has no place in FM.

[x42bn6]

@x42 - I'm not sure I follow your argument that by accepting random events in the game you can dismiss any bug, the event the OP came across is a known possible outcome of a boardroom takeover as per the code used in FM, granted the probability of him getting sacked should have been extremely low but a low probability factor does not mean that the event should not have happened.

On the other hand a bug is an unexpected event that has not been intentionally coded which quite clearly rules out the OP's removal from office as a bug unless of course it happened every time a new board takes over a successful club & to date there is zero evidence of that being the case.

Do you think it is healthy or entertaining for this sort of functionality to exist in-game? Where a board makes arguably a lose-lose decision "for the lulz"?

Blackburn Rovers - Venkys sacked Sam Allardyce (may not have been instantly, but was a couple of weeks) - in the 09/10 Season he led the team to a tenth place finish and a League up semi-final, very successful i'd say for a BBR fan like myself.

The OP has proven success and has built for the future - things can only get better. Big Sam was never going to take Blackburn to dizzy heights.

In addition, there are many better managers than Big Sam, but not the OP (who has won the Champions League twice).

Queens Park Rangers - Neil Warnock (similar to above, may have been also "results" based also) - Got them promoted by winning the championship and also saving them from relegation to League 1.

QPR have been very poor this season. The OP has been successful at the top for longer. And like Big Sam, it wouldn't be hard to replace Warnock.

Chelsea - Jose Mourinho - Won the Premier League twice, in 2004–05, 2005–06, an FA Cup 2006–07, the League Cup twice, 2004–05, 2006–07 and the FA Community Shield 2005. Very successful i'd say.

And personally fell out with the owner and the club's hierarchy. Not comparable to the OP.

Chelseas - Carlo Ancelotti - Won the Premier League and FA Cup 2009/2010 and Community Shield in 2009. (First yeat in charge)

His expectations were explicitly to win the Champions League. Didn't, and failed in subsequent league challenges.

Real Madrid - Del Bosque - Winning many of cups and leagues in the late 90's early 00's.. Was sacked for no reason what so ever.

The only modern-day bizarre sacking - and Real Madrid are unlikely to pull such a stunt again, as the Galactico policy didn't work.

----

Still, I think this is a rather unhealthy feature. The OP cannot even interact with the board, so they can't fall out with them in a lot of ways. So I'd argue these features should not be included. Especially "for no reason" features.

[milnerpoint]

you argue with your own shadow if you had half the chance

[Stampler]

you can turn the takeovers off via altering the dbc-files or whatever they are called.

case solved.

(well, tbh not for the OP (who got all my sympathy) in this case, but a reminder for the future )

[Reccy]

The OP has proven success and has built for the future - things can only get better. Big Sam was never going to take Blackburn to dizzy heights.

But Blackburn were never going to get to the dizzy heights, and who did Venkys recruit? Steve Kean! A man with NO experiance in mangement. Getting above 15th is "dizzy heights" for Blackburn which = success!

QPR have been very poor this season. The OP has been successful at the top for longer. And like Big Sam, it wouldn't be hard to replace Warnock.

QPR were always going to be challenging from relegation, and anything above 17th is a massive bonus for them = success by maintaining EPL status.

And personally fell out with the owner and the club's hierarchy. Not comparable to the OP.

Never said it was exactly the same, but its a similar scenario. One of the most successful managers of Chelsea of the modern era and was sacked. SIMILAR scenario

His expectations were explicitly to win the Champions League. Didn't, and failed in subsequent league challenges.

Again, the same above. Was successful in his first year. SIMILAR scenario to the OP.

What you've done is actually rather than read comments, you pick faults no matter the context or intention. Not once have i ever said these are exactly the same to the OP frustrations. But in a similar light can be compared. Esp the Chelsea examples. Both managers were very successfull but got the boot in the end.

The only modern-day bizarre sacking - and Real Madrid are unlikely to pull such a stunt again, as the Galactico policy didn't work.

Now this is the VERY example i am most proud of, as it actually is very similar to the OP's event. He won pretty much everything, one of the most successful managers for Real Madrid! It may be an expection to the rule, but it has happened, and in the case of FM, can happen hense the OP's frustrations.

Its a feature, not a fault. It happens, so deal with it.

Take Care!

[Guest]

Do you think it is healthy or entertaining for this sort of functionality to exist in-game? Where a board makes arguably a lose-lose decision "for the lulz"?

In a word, yes. In the instances where I've been removed by a new board I have taken great pleasure in instigating a feud with their new manager & any replacements, sometimes I'm made to look stupid & other times I make them look stupid for firing me when I go on to bring success to my new club.

I'm surprised that the OP has not posted about this in the bugs forum & offered up his save for SI to look at, I guess it's not that much of a problem so we'll just place it the this game is broken but I'm not willing to help SI look at my game tray.

Edit: We also still do not know who replaced the OP as manager, as far as we know it might be someone with an equally impressive record in South America with the new owners being of South American origin.

[bolulu]

Originally Posted by Reccy

Real Madrid - Del Bosque - Winning many of cups and leagues in the late 90's early 00's.. Was sacked for no reason what so ever.

The only modern-day bizarre sacking - and Real Madrid are unlikely to pull such a stunt again, as the Galactico policy didn't work.

Not so methinks! Didn't they follow up Del Basque with Capello, Then sack Capello just after he'd won La Liga for them. Real Madrid will always do what the hell they want, whether it makes sense or not.

BYW, I think the OP has a point & that the new manager should be given a chance by the new board, especially if he has had some spectacular results with the club. Very least would be to give the manager a chance to state his disappointment to the fans, not just to have to walk quietly away.

[Freakiie]

@x42

I'm not gonna talk to you anymore. It feels as if I'm Michael Palin trying to

with John Cleese. You're simply denying stuff for the sake of denying it.

@It's a game

Well indeed it is. And it's the game claiming to be the most realistic football manager out there and unfortunately in real life **** happens. So to be realistic it must also happen in game. In the end because this is a game you can always get around the whole thing though. If you really don't want to take on a new challenge you can add a new manager and take over Arsenal again.

[CityAndColour]

Why are people still arguing in favour of a "feature" that has sacked a user after he's won the Champions League TWICE, plus an FA Cup and a League Cup?

It's still a game. Even if people can find some vaguely similar real life examples, why should a user be denied a desired career for anything other than not being successful? He's just randomly been sacked and likely had his save ruined, with little explanation, and this is despite him being successful.

[Guest]

@x42I'm not gonna talk to you anymore. It feels as if I'm Michael Palin trying to

with John Cleese. You're simply denying stuff for the sake of denying it.

Never get tired of watching this, thank-you.

[Freakiie]

It's still a game. Even if people can find some vaguely similar real life examples, why should a user be denied a desired career for anything other than not being successful? He's just randomly been sacked and likely had his save ruined, with little explanation, and this is despite him being successful.

It's still an attempt at simulating real life. Therefore these kinds off events must happen. Like I said, if he wants to stick with Arsenal he can just create a new manager.

[CityAndColour]

Why should an event like a double Champions League winner being sacked need to happen? When was the last time a new board took over and immediately sacked a club legend manager?

[x42bn6]

But Blackburn were never going to get to the dizzy heights, and who did Venkys recruit? Steve Kean! A man with NO experiance in mangement. Getting above 15th is "dizzy heights" for Blackburn which = success!

It's still comparatively easy to replace Big Sam. The number of managers better than Wenger are much less than those who are better than Big Sam.

Steve Kean wasn't great but did enough to secure them safety and Venky's clearly saw something that would suggest he could do better. Personally, I wasn't convinced he was any good but giving him the benefit of the doubt was not a terrible decision, as long as they backed him in the transfer window. They didn't.

QPR were always going to be challenging from relegation, and anything above 17th is a massive bonus for them = success by maintaining EPL status.

QPR have been nothing but naive this season, and like Big Sam, replacing Neil Warnock is comparatively easy compared with someone who appears to be better than Wenger. Mark Hughes, I'd argue, is an upgrade on Warnock.

Warnock never had such success - he didn't even get that far, fired before the end of the season! There were no suggestions things would get better, either - not the case for the OP.

Never said it was exactly the same, but its a similar scenario. One of the most successful managers of Chelsea of the modern era and was sacked. SIMILAR scenario

Similar, but with a very key difference that Mourinho fell out with the owner - arguably a lot more important than success.

So yes, you can compare the two, but Mourinho's situation is always going to be a "weaker" situation in that IF Mourinho were not fired, then it would be evidence for the OP not getting fired (as the OP's situation is not as serious). However, this says nothing about it IF Mourinho were fired - it holds little evidence for or against the OP getting fired, which is why it is not a good comparison.

Again, the same above. Was successful in his first year. SIMILAR scenario to the OP.

But possibly not the same, as the club won the Champions League - harder to win than the Premier League, as it is the best of the best - twice. For a club that had a barren trophy streak under Wenger. Versus a club that has been successful before he joined.

What you've done is actually rather than read comments, you pick faults no matter the context or intention. Not once have i ever said these are exactly the same to the OP frustrations. But in a similar light can be compared. Esp the Chelsea examples. Both managers were very successfull but got the boot in the end.

I'm arguing neither is comparable. In Mourinho's case, he fell out with the owner, which is a bad idea when that owner is a sugar daddy - you don't bruise his ego. This is like saying that person A and person B should receive the same punishment because they assaulted someone - neglecting to mention that person A ended up killing that person, while person B didn't. It's quite a big deal that the person died in person A's case - just as it is quite a big deal that Mourinho fell out with the owners.

In Ancelotti's case, the club was successful before he joined - unlike Arsenal, who haven't won a trophy in ages. The OP has made Arsenal better - Ancelotti made it worse when he lost the title and the Champions League in his final season, and Chelsea are now forced to rebuild, as we see this season.

Now this is the VERY example i am most proud of, as it actually is very similar to the OP's event. He won pretty much everything, one of the most successful managers for Real Madrid! It may be an expection to the rule, but it has happened, and in the case of FM, can happen hense the OP's frustrations.

Its a feature, not a fault. It happens, so deal with it.

Take Care!

The only scenario comparable is Del Bosque, which was rumoured to be highly political in itself (especially as Valdano was involved). In FM, there's no such drama - no feedback, even. Until then, I'd argue there's more evidence to suggest that there is just unrealistic randomness rather than comparable to the one truly ridiculous sacking out of several thousand in recent years. If anything, THAT is selective reading and cherry-picking, to pick one unusual circumstance without doing any sort of sampling and testing.

@x42

I'm not gonna talk to you anymore. It feels as if I'm Michael Palin trying to

with John Cleese. You're simply denying stuff for the sake of denying it.

@It's a game

Well indeed it is. And it's the game claiming to be the most realistic football manager out there and unfortunately in real life **** happens. So to be realistic it must also happen in game. In the end because this is a game you can always get around the whole thing though. If you really don't want to take on a new challenge you can add a new manager and take over Arsenal again.

You have to go to the bathroom in real-life. I suppose you have to go to the bathroom in-game, too.

There does not need to be a 1:1 correspondence when it comes to the mundane or upsetting of scenarios. Personally, I think fired for no reason falls into this category, and it is for that reason it should not exist. Or, it should exist, if we are able to perform political things with the board (which I'd argue wouldn't be fun at all).

[Reccy]

Why should an event like a double Champions League winner being sacked need to happen? When was the last time a new board took over and immediately sacked a club legend manager?

Del Bosque is a SIMILAR example, was a club legend, brough super stars and global icons to the club and won loads with Real Madrid to then be sacked. Its a Similar scenario, but is still as frustrating as the OP's events.

[CityAndColour]

So because of one outrageously ridiculous real life sacking that could only happen at Real Madrid and will likely never happen again, the user can't feel 100% secure in his job no matter how many trophies are won?

Woo, real life!

[Reccy]

So because of one outrageously ridiculous real life sacking that could only happen at Real Madrid and will likely never happen again, the user can't feel 100% secure in his job no matter how many trophies are won?

Woo, real life!

Contridction highway here, So your saying becuase one ridiculous sackign happened in real life that it shouldn't happen in a Football Simulation?? So what should happen then?

[Guest]

You have to go to the bathroom in real-life. I suppose you have to go to the bathroom in-game, too.

There does not need to be a 1:1 correspondence when it comes to the mundane or upsetting of scenarios. Personally, I think fired for no reason falls into this category, and it is for that reason it should not exist. Or, it should exist, if we are able to perform political things with the board (which I'd argue wouldn't be fun at all).

Now you're just being ridiculous for the sake of it.

What if the owners sacked the OP but rather than just getting a 'your'e fired' message he was told he was being removed from his position because they had promised to give the job to Manager Y & they felt confident he would offer a better long term working relationship? Based on what you have been saying this would satisfy the need for an explanation yet would still result in the incumbent losing his job.

[CityAndColour]

Contridction highway here, So your saying becuase one ridiculous sackign happened in real life that it shouldn't happen in a Football Simulation?? So what should happen then?

Absolutely, I'm 100% saying that random sackings that don't take into account success should not be in the game. Sure, it's a game that simulates real life, but that doesn't mean every single thing that's ever happened in real life should be coded in.

At worst, after a takeover, the new board should outline its criteria for you keeping your job. In the OP's case, a message saying "if you don't win the league this season, then your job is on the line." At least this way the user knows where he stands and what he needs to do. The only two reasons a manager should be sacked after a takeover are:

1) They already have an agreement with a higher profile manager (unlikely given he's won two CLs in four seasons)

2) You have underachieved (see above)

Not "Hey, we're sacking you because Real did it to Del Bosque, sorry!"

[Ackter]

At the end of the day, it's a game. You should always be allowed to prove yourself to the new owners.

If you have a saved game before it happens I'd recommend posting it in the bugs forum.

[Lawlore]

Two points that I haven't yet seen discussed in this thread:

1. Success aside, from the OP it can't be ruled out that the decision was not purely financial. "Solidly in the black" doesn't suggest the club were bringing in the riches, even with a sensible wage structure- to me that suggests more like a balancing-the-books approach. And then there's the manager's own contract which, after such success, would likely be somewhat large- more than the new board want to pay?

2. It happens to the AI managers too- there have been other threads showing odd managerial changes, and takeovers in game generally do see a regime change.

I'm not wading into the realistic/unrealistic debate, but purely from an in-game perspective, it may not be as shocking a decision as it may appear to us judging purely on the OP's say-so.

[Reccy]

Absolutely, I'm 100% saying that random sackings that don't take into account success should not be in the game. Sure, it's a game that simulates real life, but that doesn't mean every single thing that's ever happened in real life should be coded in.

At worst, after a takeover, the new board should outline its criteria for you keeping your job. In the OP's case, a message saying "if you don't win the league this season, then your job is on the line." At least this way the user knows where he stands and what he needs to do. The only two reasons a manager should be sacked after a takeover are:

1) They already have an agreement with a higher profile manager (unlikely given he's won two CLs in four seasons)

2) You have underachieved (see above)

Not "Hey, we're sacking you because Real did it to Del Bosque, sorry!"

I completely agree that it could either be "worded better" or given a target to hit to keep your job. But i still argue that its a good feature and has no faults. Nothing its actually done is not something which hasn't happened in real life, which is a shock moment, like the Del Bosque example.

If he moved on and went to Man Utd and it happened again within a reasonable amount of time (eg 5 years, 10 years xxx amount, add your own) then something needs to be looked into.

[CityAndColour]

I completely agree that it could either be "worded better" or given a target to hit to keep your job. But i still argue that its a good feature and has no faults. Nothing its actually done is not something which hasn't happened in real life, which is a shock moment, like the Del Bosque example.

If he moved on and went to Man Utd and it happened again within a reasonable amount of time (eg 5 years, 10 years xxx amount, add your own) then something needs to be looked into.

But for all the realism, it is still a game. Why should a player not have any control over keeping his job in game?